Dear Lis Lalor
I agree with Julian Winston.
Every drug prover, as a rule, is ought to feel stronger after proving, provided the prover follows the conditions of proving.
Carcinocin or any other nosode need not and should not be proved ( for safety sake) since, as we already know, it is a product of Cancer and we know why and how a homeopath uses this nosode.
However, if one still wishes to prove it, it MUST be proved in very high potencies, repeated after a long time. Taking this nosode in lower potencies may create an acute condition of the disease. Your friend should take one dose of high potency to antidote the probable harm incurred. Julian's statement is not her personal idea, it is an admitted old fact of proving.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Drug proving
-
M. Irfan Qureshi
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:22 pm
Re: Drug proving
Dear Lis Lalor
I agree with Julian Winston.
Every drug prover, as a rule, is ought to feel stronger after proving, provided the prover follows the conditions of proving.
Carcinocin or any other nosode need not and should not be proved ( for safety sake) since, as we already know, it is a product of Cancer and we know why and how a homeopath uses this nosode.
However, if one still wishes to prove it, it MUST be proved in very high potencies, repeated after a long time. Taking this nosode in lower potencies may create an acute condition of the disease. Your friend should take one dose of high potency to antidote the probable harm incurred. Julian's statement is not her personal idea, it is an admitted old fact of proving.
Regards. Dr.M.Irfan Qureshi.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I agree with Julian Winston.
Every drug prover, as a rule, is ought to feel stronger after proving, provided the prover follows the conditions of proving.
Carcinocin or any other nosode need not and should not be proved ( for safety sake) since, as we already know, it is a product of Cancer and we know why and how a homeopath uses this nosode.
However, if one still wishes to prove it, it MUST be proved in very high potencies, repeated after a long time. Taking this nosode in lower potencies may create an acute condition of the disease. Your friend should take one dose of high potency to antidote the probable harm incurred. Julian's statement is not her personal idea, it is an admitted old fact of proving.
Regards. Dr.M.Irfan Qureshi.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Julian Winston
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Drug proving
At 8:09 AM +0100 10/30/04, M. Irfan Qureshi wrote:
[snip]
names are interesting things and often do not translate well to
another culture.
I am male-- not female. The female form of Julian is Julia.
Best!
JW
[snip]
names are interesting things and often do not translate well to
another culture.
I am male-- not female. The female form of Julian is Julia.
Best!
JW
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Drug proving
But one of the "conditions of proving" is that the prover is *healthy*!!! If
this condition is not followed, the prover may have difficulty throwing off
the effects, as several (including Julian) have noted.
A proving is best conducted either by someone very experienced in observing
and working with actions of remedies, and/or (better), in a formal context,
under supervision.
If someone (even an experienced someone!) does the proving without any
objective observer, much is apt to be lost, because the prover may not
consider his/her changed and unusual behavior to *be* changed or unusual
(trying to be objective about oneself is like trying to look oneself in the
eye, without benefit of a mirror!)
Shannon
on 10/30/04 2:09 AM, M. Irfan Qureshi at mirfanq2000@yahoo.com wrote:
this condition is not followed, the prover may have difficulty throwing off
the effects, as several (including Julian) have noted.
A proving is best conducted either by someone very experienced in observing
and working with actions of remedies, and/or (better), in a formal context,
under supervision.
If someone (even an experienced someone!) does the proving without any
objective observer, much is apt to be lost, because the prover may not
consider his/her changed and unusual behavior to *be* changed or unusual
(trying to be objective about oneself is like trying to look oneself in the
eye, without benefit of a mirror!)
Shannon
on 10/30/04 2:09 AM, M. Irfan Qureshi at mirfanq2000@yahoo.com wrote:
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Drug proving
Dear Irfan Qureshi,
I am only a student so I can easily be misinformed. Is it dangerous to prove all nosodes? I thought that the major ones were all proven and I am not expecting to get the disease when I use a lower dosage of a nosode.
Blessings,
Ellen Madono
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I am only a student so I can easily be misinformed. Is it dangerous to prove all nosodes? I thought that the major ones were all proven and I am not expecting to get the disease when I use a lower dosage of a nosode.
Blessings,
Ellen Madono
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]