Stage 7 Scholten

[AH]

on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:

Dear Rosemary,
Note that my post on this topic of current info was not to take away from
what you said about the *problem* of lack of info, but to attempt to clarify
in this instance. These comments are to add to yours, in no way
disagreeing. Just clarifying that the rx info in Scholtens Rep (2003 or
so) is not *just* theory. It is based on grouping theory plus in some cases
short provings and 8+ more years of clinical confirmation (proving by
similarity) than was in the 1996 book. This is somewhat different than full
proving by dissimilarity followed by clinical confirmation. But while
different, it has proved sufficient---and has allowed much faster progress
and a foundation by which cases needing these rx can be cured where before
they could not.
on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:
So how can the homeopathic profession create a reliable pipeline to make
sure that important research studies (provings) in new areas are widely
available?

((( Full provings do get out when published 3 years after outset. Cured
cases *do not* until they show up in repertories, seminar notes, software
and notes. There is not an optimal pipeline. The people in charge of
adding info do the best they can.

A couple of years ago I gave an idea and a schema for its use to repertory
authors, a proving organizer, and a couple of software designers. The
schema provided for the author of each published cured case to always
include at the end of a case report what *new* sx or info about that remedy
was shown by the case. This would make it easier for those who compile
information to see what the new information about the remedy was-- at a
glance. It was designed to allow easy identification of possible new cured
symptoms or information to be considered to add to the repertories. This
specific schema at the end of every report of a cured case published in
periodicals or software databases would decentralize the work. The
judgement of whether a symptom or idea was truly new would be done at first
by the casetaker--who best could judge the client involved. The rep author
or committee's work would then be made easier and faster. The repertory
authors and provers (authorities on the remedies they birthed) could quickly
identify new cured symptoms to later verify and consider for addition to
reps or updates of materia medicas. But while several liked the idea to my
knowledge no one implemented it.
on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:

((( true and an understatement
on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:

((( Agreed. Homeopathy is of course not forwarded by corporate-style
research (which to some extent is made public later after what is desired by
the corporations is patented)---- but by individuals. But most of industry
uses 100 year old science and wipes out new innovations to protect their
interests. Foundations are set up which collect hundreds and millions and
say "the cure is just around the corner" for many decades. This is not
restricted to medicine. For example we drive cars which use the 1880 Otto
cycle engine-- only because it remains profitable--even though new
innovations came about decades ago that would have prevented puerile wars
based on control of oil. Most innovations which threaten the economic
status quo are bought out and put in a dungeon or destroyed by various other
methods by corporate interests. Governments (again read: corporations)--
classify most of the other real innovations for their own use for "national
security" reasons.

Forwarding of knowledge by individuals *primarily*; actually used to happen
in science in general very often. For example, Linus Pauling (30s, 40s,
50s) singlehandedly laid down a myriad of rules in chemistry. J.C. Maxwell
singlehandedly created all the mathematics for quantum mechanics (1880s).
Hahnemann singlehandedly invented a new therapeutic system ( circa 1800).
The former are profitable to those who own most of industry.

There are only clients, individual pracs, and pharmacy companies, that
really benefit from homeopathy. Innovation in homeopathy is initiated by
a few geniuses and then carried on and taught by those who use those new
methods. Movement ahead of the field in toto is only from the pooled work
of individuals working mostly out of dedication by their contribution of
cured cases to journals and supervision of provings. These are not
profitable undertakings.
No one is interested in research in homeopathy except homeopaths
themselves--because it is not patentable. *Even* the large pharmacy
corporations (e.g. Boiron) did not initiate and finance provings of the
uninvestigated periodic chart *long ago*. They did not *think* of it as
part of what is only a business plan. Those companies do contribute a lot in
making the remedies even if they did drop the ball in setting up proving
research. Unfortunately Boiron, for example has *long since* taken itself
out of the loop of professional homeopaths who can in the US not even set up
an account with them without a DEA number. Hence I have not personally
purchased an rx directly from them in some 10-15 years. And Boiron
recently purchased Dolisos which I consider unfortunate.

Much of the innovation in homeopathy occurs via certain individuals. And
those individuals tend to distribute knowledge and to make money
simultaneously via the formula of:
-- seminar circuit until a body of knowledge is fully consolidated
--then only later via publishing.

The lag is probably 3 years at *minimum*. And some of the knowledge does
not get out at all. The internet is a huge improvement to the way it was
before, however. The number of new provings available on the net is
astounding. Wichman's site is one of the best, as someone on Minutus
recently pointed out.

on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:
((( It would be good to be able to confirm rx via an easy-to-use tech that
is not a large investment and save both client and prac this uncertainty.

With the lanthanides we are in the same empirical situation Hering and those
in 19th century medicine in rural america were in--empirical use to flesh
out the sketch and symptoms that come out of even well-done provings by
dissimilarity. Scholten has given the basics based on a systematic attempt
to give specific data for each rx--that sprung from an understanding of the
alchemical cycle of each Series/Period of the chart. Full provings and what
has been pioneered synoptically and clinically will flesh this out
further---but this will be many more years.

Meantime we do have Scholtens Repertory, which includes the
lanthanides--which have a distinct signature as a whole series and his
clinically determined pointers. It is available for software packages and in
book form.

This process Scholten and Sankaran use with the chart is: inference by
grouping; and perhaps a shortened proving followed by trial in the clinic.
Success confirms the inference and makes it more certain in the next
use--because cured symptoms are noted with the usual hallmarks of a curative
response. Sankaran's Vital Sensation aggressive casetaking method adds
another leg to the stool if it is successful in getting that info.

The theoretical research followed by immediate testing in the clinic by
Scholten and Sankaran has moved elucidation of the alchemical periodic chart
ahead with a speed that the traditional method could not have. The
traditional proving by dissimilarity followed by proving by similarity
(clinical use) is not the same as:

-- inference by grouping and crossing of two themes (Series and Stage) then
--clinical proving by similarity,
--then full proving by dissimilarity.

It possible because a theory and groupings has allowed prediction via
inference--and that has allowed introduction of a large quantity of remedies
in 10 years that would have taken 100 if done by the full proving method
alone--for those who undertook it one at a time. Scholten and Sankaran
provided a framework to understand the chart in toto and then zoom in on
details. This turns out to have been the faster method than proving one by
one because the "X-Y" row/column schema itself allowed---for any remedy in
the periodic chart-- two "legs of the stool" which did not before exist.

Scholten has also shortened Vithoulkas' system of finding the first ion of a
mineral prescription then:

-- appending an ion to the element found via thematic info and at least ONE
keynote known about that compound ---

into using only the theme of the "suffix" ion. Less certainty, but usually
*enough*-- because of the pathological and thematic affinities of each that
Scholten has identified e.g. the nitricums versus the phosphoricums etc.

Thematic "essence" semiology is more subtle and less concrete than specific
keynote symptoms of the body and para 153 sx; concomitants, modalities,
delusions; pathologies; and other signposts to the remedy. We have to use
all techniques, and there are many. But Scholtens method *works* in cases
that otherwise would go without the next correct remedy. Eventually we will
have the more concrete gnomonic/confirmatory physical keynotes for each of
the new rx also. Maybe your Samarium mur case will add info if the rx works
on long term and doesnt just zig zag them quickly to something else.

on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:

((( *How ample* is a matter of judgement. X-Y cooordinate THEMATIC
semiology using a "map" like the periodic chart with some pathological
pointers is somewhat different than--- first getting clues from exact
symptoms, modalities, etiologies, etc and THEN attempting to flesh out the
picture of a remedy. But there is more certainty and breadth in the 2003
rep than in the '96 book--though it is in rep form. Extractions using
software version of the rep can make a sort of materia medica which can be
useful.

The main point I wished to make in the last post was that Scholten's
Repertory (circa 2003) is based on *more* than just theory for some of the
rx which were in 1996 just that. The 1996 Elements book as you correctly
stated did not have much or any data on many remedies ---or the element had
not even been made into a remedy. That has progressed markedly in 8+ years.
Plenty of clinical experience on most of the chart has come about. Scholtens
rep, and seminar notes and software from Scholten, and Sankaran and the
Bombay Group (Shah, etc) is required to have the "state of the art". In
1850 they did it by homeopathic journals. I would say it is faster now.

There is much more to be done ---and there is unfortunately a delay before
info will filter out into the literature. You yourself Rosemary have been a
big help to (me personally) as a colleague and I always strive to do what I
can in return. The study project initiated by Annemieke is an excellent way
to get familiar with the periodic chart. I suggest Scholtens Rep is a
well-confirmed source of data from the Scholten approach which has been
published and is avail in software form for some programs.

All the best to you always,
Andy

[AH]

on 7/17/05 1:48 PM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:
((( Agreed. I wanted the lanthanide book when it was promised some 3 years
ago. And not having the info really has been limiting, it turns out.
Finally got some info from seminar notes (with help from some friends ).
I do think the delay has been too long in this case, and that unfortunately
he has responsibility for it--despite the fact that he is our benefactor as
it were.

Best
A

[Rosemary C Hyde]

Hi, Andy,

Sorry if my "rant" on this subject sounded as if I was contradicting you. That definitely wasn't my intention. Your comments were "right on," AND it seems like we've been waiting forever for Scholten's book to come out and fill in the blanks he left in his seminar. The rest of your post was reasonable and very well taken.

Someone said that we shouldn't wish anything that would cause burnout -- I agree with that, too. So, for whatever reason, we know what we know and don't know what we don't yet know, and we'll get the information in its right time.

What I was saying was simply that your comments raised an interesting issue that has a negative impact on the potential effectiveness of homeopathic practitioners, in that information on new research is sometimes hard to come by. I was just wondering if there's some way to remedy this. What you have apparently suggested makes a lot of sense -- but of course, there's no financial motivation for anyone to do anything they're not already doing.

I also think Minutus list is a huge and extremely valuable resource for pooling knowledge from a group of excellent practitioners with many wide-ranging experiences, and for the greater good, not the greater profit to any one individual or company. Thank you! )

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

[AH]

on 7/17/05 7:52 PM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:
(( Hi Rosemary. I took nothing as contradicting. I dont even mind
contradiction-- if it is based on solid reasoning; sincere desire to debate
or discuss a topic fully informed and without prejudice; and for the good of
others and all. In that case if available, the time spent is worthwhile.
But thanks.
(( Yeah, Jan has done a lot of work and made a huge contribution. He had
his reasons to delay the Lanthanides book, no doubt, and when it comes out
it will be better than it would have been. It was his info and everything
happens as it needs to--unfortunately in the context of the current world
situation! I hope he includes the Actinide Series compilation *earlier*
than he would have otherwise--- to compensate for making us wait for his
compilation on the Lanthanides.
(( It is unfortunate that none of the parties I contacted (to my knowledge)
took it up and tried to standardize it into how cured cases are reported.
If anyone is interested in using it for a case they will publish in a
well-read hom. periodical in the near future, if I still have the file they
can use it if they agree to get it started as a trial for standard
procedure. A published case in a periodical using the schema with the
editors blessing will thus test drive it for all readers. Then-- if it is a
good idea, it has some chance of catching on with the editors of periodicals
and those that organize case conferences. If that happens, then software
databases would start reflecting that as well. It would make adding sx that
come out of modern cured cases (many of which are lost) easier for the
Frederick Schroyens and Roger Van Zandvoorts of the world. Also for the
people who originally proved the remedy and want to update 2nd and 3rd
editions of their proving booklets with confirmed clinical info. Also the
compilers of materia medica like Frans Vermuelen. And if people had good
cases and knew that submitting might lead to advance in knowledge because of
that facility--then they might be more spurred to publish. If they knew
facility for potential additions and confirmations were encouraged and
provided for explicitly-- that helps justify the task of writeup, which is
some time and work.

Best,
A

[Ellen Madono]

Dear Andy,

Have you seen Mangialavori's call for case reporting? He is categorizing cases as
1 a good remedy was found but the case did not heal. This is for both chronic and acute cases
2. Single remedy cured cases
3. & 4 Slips my mind.

He has some kind of banking system set up where if you contribute, you get so many cases back.

Seems like an open mind who would be receptive to your idea. He is trying to "bank" this clinical information for the purpose that you are describing.

I have been trying to figure out how you register etc, but have not figured out the avenue of communication.

Blessings,
Ellen