Swollen prostate Argentum nitricum (arg-n.) Case

Copy rights of the content in this article are with the respectable Author.
Swollen prostate
George: It is characteristic of this type of case not to have many symptoms. Also this is a case where you have a deeper condition such as diabetes which is controlled by diet, associated with swelling of the prostate. This is not a malignant case. Who wants to do the analysis?
He is a person with nothing to show in the case regarding his character. Where shall we base our prescription then? The pathology is there and we can go and prescribe for the pathology only. Med. is justified the most. Who prescribed Med.? Why?
Since we do not have any symptomatology to go on, we have to go on the desires and aversions. The desires are for milk products (underlined once), desire for fish (underlined once), desire for sweets (three), desire for wine (three), and desire for salt (once). The thirst is normal.
Response: If we had gone by that picture, we would have chosen Sulph.
George: Sulph. has an aversion to salt. He has three underlines for sweets and only one underline for salt. A Sulph. case will show an aversion to fish, a desire for wine, desire for sweets (three times), and a desire for salt (twice). That would make a Sulph. case.
Question: So it seems to rest on the relationship to salt.
George: And the amount. We will discuss this. Here is perhaps the key to the whole case. Sweets cannot be taken of course because this patient is diabetic.
Now what is the information that we have about this person? This point is important for you to remember before you can prescribe. He controls his diet because of the diabetes, which means that he is strict and cannot give in to his aversions and desires in regard to food. So "used to desire salt" means a strong desire of the organism which is now suppressed because it is not good. The same with sweets. The desires are not given in to. There is a desire, but if he gives in to this, it will affect his diabetes.
Question: I don't see what you are getting at.
George: He says now that he desires sweets. But he is diabetic and the desire for sweets is strong, but of course he does not take it. Otherwise his diet will not be holding his diabetes in check.
Question: Can you trust that symptom since it is something that he avoids?
George: He has the desire and sometimes the desire is not so strong. Here it is very strong. He said that the desire for salt WAS strong also. This is the information he gave and so I had the same information that you now have. So I have to reason out whether this is a Phos. case. Desire sweets is Phos. Desires salt is Phos.
Response: This is the reason why I would never play poker with George. (Laughter)
George: So you are going through the desires and the aversions in that case. Correct?
And you have to couple the aversions and desires with the diabetic diet. He also dislikes warmth.
Question: But you trust the being warm more because he does control his diet, and so he could have cravings just because he avoids a lot of foods.
George: Fish he can take. So does anyone want to change their prescription?
Response: If you go by the cravings, then Nat-m. is a possibility, although in Nat-m. sweets are not so strong. But if you were a diabetic and never ate sweets, you would probably start to crave them after a while.
George: Yes, the fact remains that there are two symptoms in the cravings which are underlined three times. He stressed this to the doctor very strongly - desires salts and desires sweets. Neither of the two he can take at the moment.
Response: Well that is Med. or Nit-ac.
George: If you look in the repertory.
Response: Arg-n., Calc., Carb-v., Chin. (has been added).
Question: Wouldn't you feel like this was a closed person because of the lack of information. (Laughter)
George: I don't think so. He is helping at the levels that he can. I feel that he has controlled his cravings. He says that he desires sweets and salt (three times), desires fish (twice). I feel that I can trust these desires; otherwise I have nothing to go on at all in the case. As I said, Med. is a very good prescription in this. If all of you had written Med., I would not argue with it. I would say yes. The only thing that I would like to have in that case would be that the desire for sweets and salt be underlined twice instead of three times. But he has strongly stressed the desire for both.

Since we are going to just analyze his desires and aversions in order to find out about the urinary symptoms, can we definitely come down to a single remedy and say that it is it by analyzing his urinary symptoms? No, there is not a chance.
Question: But isn't Med. ordinarily chilly. Wouldn't you want to have the "worse with heat" rubric?
George: Exactly. But I would have said okay because his feet seem to be quite warm.
Question: What is that for? Med.?
George: Yes, Med. will have warm feet.
Question: And it would not bother you that Arg-n. does not have the craving for fish or wine or milk?
Question: Do you ever send a case back to the doctor and tell him to get more information?
George: (Laughs) Everything is programmed. He has come there and said that he will come back on a certain date to get his remedy. If not, he is upset. That can happen sometimes, but it changes the whole programme and if I do this in 5-6 cases, then it is difficult. Here you are desperate.
So you go by the key symptoms. I bring it to you to show you how you can think in such cases. The symptom which is accentuated is a symptom on which you can rely. You can disregard it only if the rest of the picture is clear and the remedy has not been shown so far. I shall repeat that. A symptom which is underlined three times you can rely upon, but you can disregard it only if the rest of the case is a strong picture of a remedy. Then you have a symptom like "desires onions" (underlined three times) or "aversion to onions" (underlined three times), but the whole picture goes for say Mag-m. Forget it. But if you DON'T have any symptoms and you have two cravings, you are going to go by that picture.
Question: When you say that the whole picture fits, you don't necessarily mean that all of the data fit and line up perfectly with a remedy, but you mean that the essence picture is there with these other confirmatory symptoms?
George: Yes.
Question: So you are doing keynote prescribing?
George: No, because I took the two main symptoms, the two strong desires, and the general heat of the patient and I also know that Arg-n. can have an enlargement of the prostate. This is not outside its pathology.

Question: But isn't that keynote prescribing? I mean, you are doing it because you have no other choice.
George: No. Keynote data prescribing is where you have "desire for sweets" and you give Sulph. Or you have desire for onions and you give Sabad.
Question: Arg-n. is not listed here for "enlargement of the prostate". Should we add it?
Question: It is a sycotic remedy, isn't it? You might suspect gonorrhoea in this man's history somewhere?
George: This is a good question, because most probably I thought about Med. The desire for sweets is Med. That is a possibility. But what took me away from Med. was the fact that the underlines were not those of Med. The second thing that took me away from it was that this kind of disturbance starts very late. He is 68 years old. I would not think that he had had gonorrhoea, because if he had had it at a young age, we would have had much more stressful symptoms than he has presented us with, as far as his prostate is concerned. There is a sensitivity of the prostate, and if there was a real gonorrhoea which has not gone away and he needs Med., this symptomatology would have been MUCH stronger - MUCH MORE SEVERE. In this case it does not look severe. That is why he responds so well.
Question: So basically you are saying that if somebody has a sycotic miasm, it would be unlikely for them to take on a significant sycosis miasm from an earlier gonorrhoea if they had a strong vital force, which this man has.
George: I did not follow that.
Repeats: He has a strong vital force because he had been well until a late age. The he has a normal problem for that age. So it is unlikely that he had an earlier gonorrhoeal miasm?
George: Exactly. That is why I did not prescribe Med. If I had prescribed it, you would not be able to counteract that. But here the response was so good. The urination became absolutely normal immediately.
Question: On what remedy?
George: On Arg-n. 200.
Question: That is based on the cravings?
George: Yes, and the heat. His sleep is very good. He wakes up refreshed. He is now in the second year that Arg-n. He is 70 years old now and he has no problems. Of course this is a strong man. He has a strong constitution.

Question: So you expect that the symptoms that somebody gives you, should match the intensity in the repertory all the way across?
George: Yes. When you have to differentiate between so little symptomatology you come down to the best possible that you can. Your mind should go automatically and quickly.
Response: So you have to assume that he REALLY wants sweets ... and salt?
George: Yes.
Response: Because I did not make that assumption. (Laughter)
George: That old symptom is still valid for me. I take it and put it into the picture. If I have a present picture now, for example, and I have an old symptom. It will make the picture whole. So I take it and I use it.
Question: I usually avoid doing that because I see a new layer.
George: A new layer, in case that does not fit with this. If I had a remedy here which fits the picture and that old picture symptom does not fit, then I will give that remedy and ignore that old symptom. If I cannot make a picture here and taking this symptom completes the picture for me, then I will use that symptom.
Response: We would have the advantage of going back to the guy and asking, "Do you still really like salt?", and he would say yes or no. If he said no, then you would not use that symptom.
Response: No, not if he controlled it.
George: It is a matter of suppression. For instance, you get ... especially with salt ... a person who is Nat-m. and he needs salt a lot. Then you say, "No, you cannot have it." What is going to happen is that in two or three months time there will be no desire for salt any more, but depending on the possibility of his organism, from a physical element like gastritis to vertigo to depression. That symptom simply ... and this is VERY important because Americans are very conscious of diet and you have to be careful. Don't tell them to take as much salt as they want, but the lack of salt in the bloodstream will produce other symptomatology if he needs it and cannot have it.
You will lose the desire for salt, but if it is a Nat-m. patient, I take this and complete the picture.
Response: But there isn't a picture in this case.
George: Yes. (Laughs)
Question: Are you saying that a suppression of salt could be like a suppression of foot sweat? It could make you sick?
George: Yes, that is what I maintain. But don't turn them loose with their desires. If they desire sweets, then they could control it a bit, but do not scare him to death that if he eats any kind of sweets that is a poison. Take a better kind of sweet, like fruits and honey. Then you will have something to replace. But with salt, there is nothing to replace it. And so there would be a suppression and this symptom will definitely go deeper and it may produce new symptoms at a deeper level. I have seen it many times.
Response: If I may make a comment, I think I can see some confusion here that I could help with. When we have so few symptoms what we do is to fall back on what we think we know. But actually this is very consistent with everything that you have taught us all along. Because if you ask yourself the Question, "As a total being, what is this person's problem?" And you say, "Where is the centre of gravity * of the symptoms?" which we have always talked about. It is not on mental or emotional planes. It is on the metabolic plane - the worse with heat and the cravings are represented as an imbalance on a purely metabolic plane, and the hormonal plane with the prostate and so on. So actually it fits the picture even though we say that he does not have the craving for salt anymore. All he did was to manipulate an imbalance that was already there. So you can take it in this case where you might not in another case where there is a fuller symptomatology on other levels and the centre of the gravity is not the metabolic plane.
George: Say that we were debating what to give in this case - Med. or Arg-n. I would not have been so sure, that I could give that remedy and that it was going to act. But it is also sure that I would have suggested Arg-n. In NO case you will be cent percent sure. Unless I have done a case in the morning and I give you a typical case in the evening of a remedy which I gave in the morning and then immediately you will recognize it. But this is having the remedy in your mind very very fresh and then having a typical case. If you go to repertorize it, it may not come specifically to that remedy. But knowing that remedy will allow you to say, "This is the remedy."
Question: If there was a sycosis strain in this man, wouldn't you give Arg-n.? It is a major sycotic remedy. I am referring to what you said about not thinking that gonorrhoea was involved in this.
George: I don't think that he had gonorrhoea because I thought that if he had had it since his young age, he would not be expected at age 68 only to have this degree of problem.
His problem would be much more severe. Because of the infection that would have gone into his prostate, his prostate would be ... only for the past 8 years had he had prostate troubles and that would look much more severe. With this kind of prostate gland disturbance at age 68, that is an almost normal disease for that age. I would consider him quite healthy. Also his diabetes has been controlled through diet since 1958, he has a good constitution. I believe that his diabetes must have been helped a lot by the remedy. The remedy fits the entire case and I am sure... you see, he did not come since the end of 1979. He did not come anymore to tell us if he had done any research in his diabetes to see the level in the blood and urine, but I am really sure that this would have an effect on his diabetes as well. But if that person had gonorrhoea, we would be justified in giving Med. If he had told us in the history that he had had gonorrhoea, just because of that information, the Arg-n. would be out and the Med. would be in. If it had been "thirst for cold drinks", that same case would have become Phos.
Question: You said that if he had had gonorrhoea at the age of 17, it would not make any difference?
George: No. At any age if you have had gonorrhoea, I would give Med.
Response: Arg-n. has a 2 for gonorrhoeal discharge.
Question: What if his father had had gonorrhoea?
George: That is okay. He will still get Arg-n. If he had the gonorrhoea himself, I would go to Med. This is my way of thinking. I am just giving you how I would think.
Question: But on the basis of what you said yesterday, if he had had gonorrhoea at 17 and we had reason to believe that he was not exposed after that, then the chances are that that was an acute case and he did not graft a miasm on because he did not have any trouble until the age of 68. Correct? So then the "worse by heat" would offset that.
George: (Laughs) I would have given Med. You have a good question, but it is very subtle. You would be discussing a hypothetical case while here we have the facts.
If you liked the article on this blog , please subscribe free via e-mail , so you 'll get every article submission article published in HOMEOPATHIC RESEARCH


Post a Comment

Leave Your Valuable Suggestions and Comments.

Back to top