Prostatitis: Follow-Up to “A Ball of Fire”

 In Homeopathy, Men's Health, Pain Medicine

Joseph Kellerstein, DC, ND

First follow-up (2 Weeks Later)

The patient complains of stomachaches. The pain is described as pulling with sensations of bubbling and gurgling.

The coccygeal pain is still present and perhaps reduced, but is now more described as a pressure (the discomfort is less sharply defined).

With an erection there is still a pain in the penis that seems to go backward into the abdomen. There is as well a new pain and severe pain at the root of the penis after ejaculation. This pain seems to radiate everywhere. This radiation is also a new feature and quite striking indeed.

The urinary flow is still restricted.

Stools seem soft. This is an artifact of the last antibiotic.

The fiery tennis ball sensation has much improved but is still there (I had to specifically inquire about it – he had forgotten).


There have been some improvements and some new symptoms appearing. The key symptom, which led me to the remedy, has not really improved dramatically. The pain extending backward is perhaps better but not satisfyingly so. There is a new wrinkle to it, in fact most strikingly, the radiation aspect.

I feel the remedy has been a simile and not a simillimum. I need a new remedy that has the old symptom and the new wrinkle, ideally.

The radiating aspect was quite striking. I know that Berberis is clinically very important for that idea of radiating pain. There really is nothing in the way of mental or general substantiation for the Argentum.


Berberis 200, one dose. Repeat if necessary for the pain.

Second Follow-up (One Month Later)

“The prostatic issue is gone! No pulling, no burning and I sleep the entire night.

“My stomach is not nearly as acidic.

“I do however have some intense allergic symptoms right now. They seem worse than usual. Burning eyes and nasal obstruction. Phlegm in the chest and for 3 weeks a cough. The cough is worse at night and after exertion outdoors.”

The patient has been tired and what is peculiar is that he has been getting hot flushes!


Burning sensation. Hot flushes with weakness. Patient has been clearing a large portion of a chronic case.


Sulphur 200. Repeat if it acts and the hot flushes or other symptoms return.

Third Follow-up (2 Months Later)

“No stomach issues. No prostate issues or sleep problems. No allergy, cough or hot flushes. No headaches and my functioning seems improved. Not only is it all gone, I seem to be steadily improving in health.

“I cannot recall a time when I have been healthier. My skin is radiant. This was my last chance to get well.”

Screen Shot 2015-12-03 at 1.55.03 PM


So let’s look back at this process. I chose a remedy based solely on the most characteristic presentation and verifying it with reliable old literature.

I then complemented the remedy based on newly presenting characteristic symptoms and remaining old (as Hering recommended).

I was able with some degree of precision to proceed because of some good proving information recorded a long time ago.

I used a strictly scientific process. No speculations. Just the Law of Similars.

There are so-called schools of naturopathy out there whose students this article will be inaccessible to because their fragmented homeopathic programs are almost entirely inclined towards “newer authors.”

These students, so disadvantaged, have no significant knowledge of the older literature or the use of homeopathic resources. They are “cut off” from the source.

They take trips to India but they have never acquired the needed basic skills to practice even reasonable first aid homeopathy. In fact, they do not really know what the subject actually is. This should concern us all.

These students can pass board exams, thanks to specific preparation, but are in fact homeopathically illiterate. They have no idea regarding the most holistic of their “modalities.”

The teachers who stand steadfastly behind this new approach call it “advanced thinking” or refer to Hahnemannian studies as “inferior.” They claim, but they offer no proof. Why have our schools become an outlet mall for whoever is “hot” on the seminar circuit when the vital basics of a discipline are not at all mastered?

I have no problem with this new approach being taught, but please do not call it homeopathy. It is not inductive. It has nothing to do with the Organon. It seems like a rebranded return to the doctrine of signatures and so is more alchemical than homeopathic. Its admixture to a homeopathic curriculum seems to only confuse students.

Ultimately conscientious doctors might abandon their most useful treatment option. Is this what we want for the future of our profession? I believe our students and the public deserve better.

Kellerstein headshotJoseph Kellerstein, DC, ND graduated as a chiropractor in 1980 and as an ND in 1984. He graduated with a specialty in homeopathy from the Canadian Academy for Homeopathy, and subsequently lectured there for two years. He also lectured in homeopathy for several years at CCNM; for eight years at the Toronto School of Homeopathic Medicine; and for two years at the British Institute for Homeopathy. Dr. Kellerstein’s mission is the exploration of natural medicine in a holistic context, especially homeopathy and facilitating the experience of healing in clients. Dr. Kellerstein is presently teaching a post-grad course in Hahnemannian prescribing with Dr. Andre Saine. Its mission is to promote excellence in the basics of homeopathic prescribing; case taking; repertory; Organon as applied to real-life practice; and case analysis skills via modeling the masters.

Recommended Posts

Start typing and press Enter to search