Truly Homeopathic - definition

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Hello Simon and Joy

Although Joy responded to the post below, I do not think Simon has been
answered in full.

As in all things, the Proof of the pudding is in the EATING!!

A remedy is only shown to be truly 'homoeopathic' (or Similimum) after the
patient has taken it and it has proved to be CURATIVE.

I think where Joy was coming from was that it was selected on the basis of
symptom similarity.
Yes if you do the job correctly and there is a 'perfect' match, then we
should be there, but how many times have we selected the remedy on that
basis and it has done nothing, because it was not homoeopathic. We had
missed an important factor and therefore selected the wrong remedy.

Perhaps what was meant that a homoeopath can only select a remedy based on
symptom similarity only after it has been proved. Otherwise there is not
justification for its selection.

Regards
Soroush
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:43:18 +0100
From: Simon King
Subject: Truly Homeopathic - definition. was: Re: Vitamin C

Hi Joy,

I don't agree with your definition here of what constitutes a 'truly
homeopathic' remedy

You state that unless a remedy ' has had a homeopathic proving it
cannot be said to be truly homeopathic.'
From this I understand you to mean that only the (pure) proving
symptoms define the remedy's ability to be truly homeopathic.

If I have understood you correctly then, I have several problems with
that assertion.

The full proving picture only tells us what a remedy 'should' cure.
Irrespective of how exactly or 'truly' it appears from its proving to
be homeopathic, it cannot be said that it will therefore invariably
and infallibly cure, which would mean that a truly homeopathic remedy
might not cure but that one which was not truly homeopathic might.
Surely this doesn't make sense?
Remedies are frequently prescribed that cure without having had a full
proving, the choice of remedy having been arrived at by other means
than matching to the full proving.

Of course a proving is not identical to the content of the Matera
Medica's which rarely contain purely proving symptoms, often having
remedy 'pictures' included and and contain symptoms that are not in
provings at all ( e.g. from herbal indications, from clinical
experience etc.)

Does your definition encompass the repertorisation process? The
repertories are far from complete, which would mean that the
prescriptions made through repertorising or even followed with study
of matera medica would not be not truly homeopathic according to your
definition.

These points would surely make it difficult to assess the true
homeopathicity of any remedy for the majority of homeopaths, who
prescribe on other than the pure proving symptoms, were your definition
accurate.

In fact I don't think I know any homeopath personally who has memorised
the proving symptoms of any single remedy let alone a whole matera
medica - which is surely what one would have to do to prescribe
according to your definition of what constitutes the 'truly
homeopathic' ?

If I have not understood you correctly please could you expand on your
definition?

Did you perhaps mean instead that a remedy must have an established
Matera Medica to be truly homeopathic? I would still contend that.

My criterion for whether something is truly homeopathic or not is
whether it actually cures or not in practice, rather than whether it
'should' cure as defined by its full poving.

regards
Simon King LCPH MARH
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Hi Soroush,

I still contend that remedies are sometimes chosen from other than
proving symptoms and do still cure

regards
Simon King LCPH MARH

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Julian Winston]

At 7:05 AM +0200 9/21/04, Gaby Rottler wrote:
Hope he had some female provers!!

JW

[vcrepair]

--- Simon King wrote:

***************************************
vcrepair@yahoo.com
What is true homeopathy?

Is it possible to determine what a homeopathic
medicine is if it was not labeled?

Standard prescription drugs have color coding, shape
and size and markings to identify the drug. If the
drug is not marked it's possible to identify with
laboratory tests.

Can different homeopathic remedies be tested and
identified?

Can anyone tell the difference between a homeopathic
medicine and water?

What about regular water that has been in contact with
so many elements, why doesn't it have homeopathic
effect?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[Shannon Nelson]

on 9/21/04 3:26 PM, vcrepair@yahoo.com at vcrepair@yahoo.com wrote:
Presumably by doing a proving with it (or at least you could make a very
"educated guess").

Not by any lab tests we currently have. But probably by doing a proving.
Yes, it's called "proving", and is the basis for homeopathy.
Yes, by giving/taking it. (If you know what the remedy *is*, or will be if
it's not water, you can give it in a case that needs that remedy and see
whether it works. While placebo effect *could* be an initial confusion, it
doesn't take long to sort that out from true remedy effect.)
Apparently some waters do, and that is why they have gained reputation and
usefulness as "medicinal". Some (but only a few) of these medicinal waters
have been made into remedies.

Shannon