------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Summary: REMEDIES USED IN HOMEOPATHY WITHOUT FULL HAHNEMANNIAN PROVINGS
--All the BOWEL NOSODES
--High percentage of NOSODES
--Virtually all of the hundreds of ISODES (allopathic drugs or
environmental toxins) (Exceptions Cortisone, etc)
--Perhaps 300-400 MINERAL COMPOUNDS, most in daily use
(Scholten/Sankaran indications, etc). About 130 Lanthanides alone
--Some large number of PLANT Rx that have been used potentized without
proving on incidental, taxonomic, intuitive, toxicologic, or herbal
indications and thus are in the database and have solved cases
--almost all of the 100 or more SARCODES (Exceptions—Placenta,
Pituitary posterior and a few others)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of a few widely used rx that are in repertories and used for
many decades or a century with no Hahemannian proving : Tuberculinum
bovinum, Kali sulphuricum, Magnesium fluoratum, Bacillinum (Sankaran
did a short proving only recently), Folliculinum, Influenzinum, all the
Bowel nosodes, Pneumococcinum, Pyrogenium, Sulphurous acid,
Oscillococcinum, etc (just examples as this is a time-consuming
analysis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Examples of mineral remedies in wide use in curing cases by Scholten
indications and made by pharmacies—which as yet no formal Hahnemannian
a priori proving.
Remedia stocklist switzerland www.remedia.com (alphabetical)
update 29.11.2003
Name
D—hand decimal Hahnemann
C—hand centesimal Hahnemann
C3--trituration
LM--LM
Q--Q
FC—machine centesimal Fluxion
K—machine centesimal Korsakovian
Cerium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Cerium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Cerium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Cerium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Cerium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Cerium oxalicum C30 C200 LM1 Q12 10MK
Cerium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Cerium phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Cerium sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Dysprosium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Dysprosium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Dysprosium bromatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Dysprosium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Dysprosium iodatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Dysprosium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Dysprosium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Dysprosium oxalicum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Dysprosium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 FC10M 10MK
Dysprosium phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Dysprosium sulfuricum C200 LM6 Q1 10MK
Erbium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Erbium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Erbium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Erbium iodatum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Erbium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Erbium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Erbium oxalicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Erbium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Erbium phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Erbium sulfuricum C200 LM1 1MK
Europium bromatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Europium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Europium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Europium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Europium metallicum C200 1MK
Europium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Europium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Europium phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Europium sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Gadolinium bromatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Gadolinium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Gadolinium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Gadolinium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Gadolinium iodatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Gadolinium metallicum C200 LM4 Q1 1MK
Gadolinium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Gadolinium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Gadolinium phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Gadolinium sulfuricum C200 LM24 Q1 1MK
Holmium carbonicum C200 LM15 Q1 1MK
Holmium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Holmium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Holmium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Holmium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Holmium oxalicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Holmium oxydatum C30 C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Holmium phosphoricum C30 C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Holmium sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lanthanum bromatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lanthanum carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lanthanum chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lanthanum fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lanthanum iodatum C200 10MK
Lanthnaum metallicum C200 1MK
Lanthanum nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lanthanum oxalicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lanthanum oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lanthanum phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lanthanum sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lutetium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lutetium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lutetium iodatum C200 1MK
Lutetium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lutetium nitricum C200 1MK
Lutetium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lutetium phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Lutetium sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium bromatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium iodatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium oxalicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Neodymium sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Praseodymium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Praseodymium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Praseodymium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Praseodymium iodatum C200 1MK
Praseodymium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Praseodymium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Praseodymium oxalicum C200 LM1 Q1 IMK
Praseodymium oxydatum D30 C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Praseodymium phosphoricum C200 LM5 Q1 FC10M 1MK
Praseodymium sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 10MK
Samarium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Samarium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 FC10M 10MK
Samarium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Samarium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 FC5M 1MK
Samarium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Samarium oxalicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Samarium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Samarium phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Samarium sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium bromatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium jodatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium oxalicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Terbium sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Thulium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Thulium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Thulium fluoratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Thulium iodatum C200 1MK
Thulium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 FC10M 1MK
Thulium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 FC10M 1MK
Thulium phosphoricum C200 LM2 Q1 1MK
Thulium sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Ytterbium carbonicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Ytterbium chloratum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Ytterbium fluoratum C200
Ytterbium metallicum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Ytterbium nitricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Ytterbium oxydatum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Ytterbium phosphoricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
Ytterbium sulfuricum C200 LM1 Q1 1MK
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pharmacy limits - 3
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Pharmacy limits - 3
Simon-
I think NONE OF OUR MEDICINES is FULLY Proven as it is not
possible... all of our medicines are only partially proven or
adequately proven for us to get some indications for prescribing and
it is symptom similarity and other factors that have allowed us to
practice... because none of the medicines have been pushed to the
extent of causing pathological conditions... I am not giving Kali.br
for hemiplegia because someone got hemiplegia while proving... it
might have caused paralysis like weakness ...
If all symptoms were complete Boenninghausen would not have gone
about generalizing symptoms...
It is unnecessary for pharmacies to research if a medicine is well
proven or not for creating potencies...but for us as prescribers that
is important and that is where experience and clinical judgement etc.
come into play...whether such experimentation with no so well proven
remedies is warranted or not
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Simon King wrote:
----
PROVINGS
without
herbal
----
for
Tuberculinum
(Sankaran
the
----
Scholten
Hahnemannian
I think NONE OF OUR MEDICINES is FULLY Proven as it is not
possible... all of our medicines are only partially proven or
adequately proven for us to get some indications for prescribing and
it is symptom similarity and other factors that have allowed us to
practice... because none of the medicines have been pushed to the
extent of causing pathological conditions... I am not giving Kali.br
for hemiplegia because someone got hemiplegia while proving... it
might have caused paralysis like weakness ...
If all symptoms were complete Boenninghausen would not have gone
about generalizing symptoms...
It is unnecessary for pharmacies to research if a medicine is well
proven or not for creating potencies...but for us as prescribers that
is important and that is where experience and clinical judgement etc.
come into play...whether such experimentation with no so well proven
remedies is warranted or not
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Simon King wrote:
----
PROVINGS
without
herbal
----
for
Tuberculinum
(Sankaran
the
----
Scholten
Hahnemannian
-
Simon King LCPH MARH
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Pharmacy limits - 3
Hi H002,
this con verstaion started out from a recommendation that pharmacies
only supply fully proved Rxs, perhaps we can see now why that is not
possible. A question then perhaps that leads on from this is where does
one draw the line, or is one being drawn? Who decides whether a Rx is
sufficiently proved to warrant its general use? Can anyone decide that,
can lines be drawn, if so where, if not do we then all accept that we
have to work with the MM repertories and Rxs that we have whatever
their status?
Simon
this con verstaion started out from a recommendation that pharmacies
only supply fully proved Rxs, perhaps we can see now why that is not
possible. A question then perhaps that leads on from this is where does
one draw the line, or is one being drawn? Who decides whether a Rx is
sufficiently proved to warrant its general use? Can anyone decide that,
can lines be drawn, if so where, if not do we then all accept that we
have to work with the MM repertories and Rxs that we have whatever
their status?
Simon
Re: Pharmacy limits - 3
Good stuff Simon.
The suggestion that pharmacies only sell remedies that have
had a proper proving is one of the more silly ideas Ive heard
lately. I can only think that the proponent didnt think that through
properly. I have helped so many people with remedies from your
list. What troubles me more is the extent to which we are being
swamped with new materia medica more detailed than is
possible for the short time that the new remedies have been
around. I am beginning to think that of you have enough
charisma and are a good enough salesman you can create a
consensus reality by having hundreds of people latching onto
your ideas and taking them as gospel. The energy created by
that can be very powerful. Maybe its an OK way of doing things in
the end. I think its largely what happened with astrology, the I
Ching and other well know methods of divination like The Tarot,
and Im very pro those as I know they 'work'. As Anthony Robbins
said, "there is nothing wrong with belief systems as long as they
are positive ones".
The suggestion that pharmacies only sell remedies that have
had a proper proving is one of the more silly ideas Ive heard
lately. I can only think that the proponent didnt think that through
properly. I have helped so many people with remedies from your
list. What troubles me more is the extent to which we are being
swamped with new materia medica more detailed than is
possible for the short time that the new remedies have been
around. I am beginning to think that of you have enough
charisma and are a good enough salesman you can create a
consensus reality by having hundreds of people latching onto
your ideas and taking them as gospel. The energy created by
that can be very powerful. Maybe its an OK way of doing things in
the end. I think its largely what happened with astrology, the I
Ching and other well know methods of divination like The Tarot,
and Im very pro those as I know they 'work'. As Anthony Robbins
said, "there is nothing wrong with belief systems as long as they
are positive ones".
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Pharmacy limits - 3
Yes-
There can be no strict controls possible... the only possible control
I can see is in producing the medicine itself making sure good
manufacturing practices are followed. That is it... And we can
probably lay down legislation as to what kind of a back ground at
the minimum a practitioner should have... After all we have a wide
spectrum of fringe practice homeopathy - tacitly accepted to openly
admired and most of them questionable from a strict Organon
interpretation point of view and that would include even Rajan
Sankaran's practice. But since we accept that some creativity and
flexibility is needed for any system to survive over a period of time
and such centrifugal forces lots of times give the vitality to any
system to manage change- we accept these. But given the nature of
homeopathy there is no way individual doctor's practice can be
controlled at least as long as we are allowed to dispense. Heck-
I have potentized so many Ayurvedic and Siddha medicines and used
them when I saw fit...
And that is the reason we could not criticize pharmacies when they
create potencies for unproven medicines. All medicines are unproven
to various degrees. I would say that the onus is on the practitioner
rather than on the pharmacy for making sure that the patient gets the
right medicine and is not harmed and is well protected and the
practice follows if not a common ethical standard for the profession
at least each one's personal ethics. Pharmacy's responsibility is to
make sure that the container really has the preparation of what it
says on the label...as we have no way of confirming that whatever is
in there is the expected one...
I love this system Simon - this is one system where we cannot
satisfactorily do double blind research most of the time, cannot
prove that the medicine exists, cannot explain why it acts, cannot
decide about practice standards and with all this - it still works
incredibly...
pharmacies
not
does
is
that,
we
and
Kali.br
that
etc.
proven
---
---
all
---
recommendation
any
the
special,
change
receive a
There can be no strict controls possible... the only possible control
I can see is in producing the medicine itself making sure good
manufacturing practices are followed. That is it... And we can
probably lay down legislation as to what kind of a back ground at
the minimum a practitioner should have... After all we have a wide
spectrum of fringe practice homeopathy - tacitly accepted to openly
admired and most of them questionable from a strict Organon
interpretation point of view and that would include even Rajan
Sankaran's practice. But since we accept that some creativity and
flexibility is needed for any system to survive over a period of time
and such centrifugal forces lots of times give the vitality to any
system to manage change- we accept these. But given the nature of
homeopathy there is no way individual doctor's practice can be
controlled at least as long as we are allowed to dispense. Heck-
I have potentized so many Ayurvedic and Siddha medicines and used
them when I saw fit...
And that is the reason we could not criticize pharmacies when they
create potencies for unproven medicines. All medicines are unproven
to various degrees. I would say that the onus is on the practitioner
rather than on the pharmacy for making sure that the patient gets the
right medicine and is not harmed and is well protected and the
practice follows if not a common ethical standard for the profession
at least each one's personal ethics. Pharmacy's responsibility is to
make sure that the container really has the preparation of what it
says on the label...as we have no way of confirming that whatever is
in there is the expected one...
I love this system Simon - this is one system where we cannot
satisfactorily do double blind research most of the time, cannot
prove that the medicine exists, cannot explain why it acts, cannot
decide about practice standards and with all this - it still works
incredibly...
pharmacies
not
does
is
that,
we
and
Kali.br
that
etc.
proven
---
---
all
---
recommendation
any
the
special,
change
receive a
-
Simon King LCPH MARH
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Pharmacy limits - 3
I remember as lad sitting in a circle with school chums trying to scare
the poo out of ourselves with ouiji (spelling ?) boards and stuff, and
later a group of us went looking for ghosts to 'explore' - The Group
collective thing IS powerful and highly *suggestive* if I can put it
that way. Human interactions and group influences are a complicated
and interesting thing,- whether they are well enough understood to
provide reliable prescribing info for homeopathic Rxs is another
question entirely.
A lot of people who use homeopathy also use Reiki, healing, dowsing and
other forms of **energy** work. I think that this REALLY muddies the
waters. Not saying people shouldn't use those therapies but that
dowsing for a remedy is *radionics* which is a discipline in its own
right. I have no problem with ANY therapy if the practitioner can make
it work, (i.e.actually cure) but even if the individuals using a mish
mashundersytand what theyre doing the public and students will not -
which I think is important for the future, how will our children
understand what is what if we don't make it clear??
The charisma and consensus point you make is right. So I think it is
good that the integrity of remedy's provings are questioned before
being included in the MMs etc and that we continue to question those
already in there. It's just good housekeeping really. That doesn't
mean we should no longer have open minds, just that they have a
turnstile for inspection before entry.
Simon
the poo out of ourselves with ouiji (spelling ?) boards and stuff, and
later a group of us went looking for ghosts to 'explore' - The Group
collective thing IS powerful and highly *suggestive* if I can put it
that way. Human interactions and group influences are a complicated
and interesting thing,- whether they are well enough understood to
provide reliable prescribing info for homeopathic Rxs is another
question entirely.
A lot of people who use homeopathy also use Reiki, healing, dowsing and
other forms of **energy** work. I think that this REALLY muddies the
waters. Not saying people shouldn't use those therapies but that
dowsing for a remedy is *radionics* which is a discipline in its own
right. I have no problem with ANY therapy if the practitioner can make
it work, (i.e.actually cure) but even if the individuals using a mish
mashundersytand what theyre doing the public and students will not -
which I think is important for the future, how will our children
understand what is what if we don't make it clear??
The charisma and consensus point you make is right. So I think it is
good that the integrity of remedy's provings are questioned before
being included in the MMs etc and that we continue to question those
already in there. It's just good housekeeping really. That doesn't
mean we should no longer have open minds, just that they have a
turnstile for inspection before entry.
Simon
-
Simon King LCPH MARH
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 10:00 pm
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Pharmacy limits - 3
But I think it's important that Sankaran and various others are
innovating in a context of *very good understanding* of Hahnemann's
basic framework, and to me that makes a *huge* difference. E.g. it
makes the difference between "expanding upon" Hahnemann's work (adding
material that enhances and illuminates H's work) versus developing an
altogether different system, which may or may not be similar or
compatible in its effects.
Throwing another metaphor out
, could be similar to the
difference between Einstein's "expansions" of Newtonian physics,
compared with, say, Madame Blavatsky's (or any other philosopher or
spiritualist or spiritual teacher). I would not try to say that either
Einstein's or Blavatsky's conclusions are "better", but they are most
decidedly different. One might even say "complementary", as in
"different tools for different tasks."
Thank God!
Mm, intriguing! How do the effects of the potentized medicines differ
from those of the "crude doses"? I would love to hear your
observations!
Thanks.
Shannon
innovating in a context of *very good understanding* of Hahnemann's
basic framework, and to me that makes a *huge* difference. E.g. it
makes the difference between "expanding upon" Hahnemann's work (adding
material that enhances and illuminates H's work) versus developing an
altogether different system, which may or may not be similar or
compatible in its effects.
Throwing another metaphor out
, could be similar to the difference between Einstein's "expansions" of Newtonian physics,
compared with, say, Madame Blavatsky's (or any other philosopher or
spiritualist or spiritual teacher). I would not try to say that either
Einstein's or Blavatsky's conclusions are "better", but they are most
decidedly different. One might even say "complementary", as in
"different tools for different tasks."
Thank God!
Mm, intriguing! How do the effects of the potentized medicines differ
from those of the "crude doses"? I would love to hear your
observations!
Thanks.
Shannon
Re: Pharmacy limits - 3
I HAVE thought about this a lot.
The latest from one pharmacy is that "we want to give the public what
they want" - don't forget that anyone can buy anything from the
homeopathic pharmacies so we are not just dealing with practitioners.
I have a lot of trouble accomodating the idea that we can freely
prescribe rx that have had no proving and yet we need our reps and MM's
for those that have. How can we do both. Why do we need our reps and
MM's at all - why prove any rx?
I am sure it is wonderful to "help" people with homeopathy but it would
be even better if we cured and if we stopped in our tracks and avoided
prescribing unproved remedies (because they are unreliable) then we
might have chosen an even better remedy, i.e. the simillimum - or is
that a silly idea as well to you.
Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The latest from one pharmacy is that "we want to give the public what
they want" - don't forget that anyone can buy anything from the
homeopathic pharmacies so we are not just dealing with practitioners.
I have a lot of trouble accomodating the idea that we can freely
prescribe rx that have had no proving and yet we need our reps and MM's
for those that have. How can we do both. Why do we need our reps and
MM's at all - why prove any rx?
I am sure it is wonderful to "help" people with homeopathy but it would
be even better if we cured and if we stopped in our tracks and avoided
prescribing unproved remedies (because they are unreliable) then we
might have chosen an even better remedy, i.e. the simillimum - or is
that a silly idea as well to you.
Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]