combos?

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Have you taken my meaning to be other than what was intended?

I am simply suggesting that the homeopathic community operate from a
less divisive perspective to a more mutually cooperative one. Is your
response in that spirit?
The drum I am prone to oft beat is that of cooperation, education comes
second.

My definition of terms are not at variance with Hahnemanns.

I was not volunteering to write a dictionary or encyclopaedia for
homeopaths ( David Little has already done most of that!:-)) and I'm
sure you are perfectly capable of answering the rest of your questions
yourself. I was suggesting that instead of the very aggressive stance
taken by those that object to methods that fall outside their modus
operandii they might achieve more than they currently do from head on
confrontation, by discussing rather than simply objecting to methods
employed that are different to their own.
Simon

[Chris_Gillen]

Chris wrote:

"The day of the true knowledge of medicines and of the true healing art will
dawn when physicians shall trust the cure of complete cases of disease to a
single medicinal substance, and when, regardless of traditional systems,
they will employ for the extinction and cure of a case of disease, whose
symptoms they have investigated, one single medicinal substance whose
positive effects they have ascertained, which can show among these effects a
group of symptoms very similar to those presented by the case of disease."
- Materia Medica Pura. Vol 1, B.Jain p.2

"In no case of cure is it necessary to employ more than a SINGLE SIMPLE
medicinal substance at one time with a patient. FOR THIS REASON ALONE, IT IS
INADMISSIBLE TO DO SO. It is inconceivable that there could be the slightest
doubt about whether it is more in accordance with nature and more reasonable
to prescribe only a SINGLE, SIMPLE **, well-known medicinal substance at one
time in a disease or a mixture of several different ones. In homeopathy -
the only true and simple, the only natural medical art - it is absolutely
prohibited to administer to the patient, AT ONE TIME, two different
medicinal substances."

**Footnote:
The following may be accepted by homeopathic physicians as SIMPLE medicinal
substances and used with patients:
1. Neutral [i.e., non-acidic] and middle [i.e., low acidity] salts which are
compounded from two substances that are opposed to one another and combine
through chemical relationship in unchangeable proportions.
2. Sulphuretted metals that have originated in the womb of the earth, as
well as those that are artificially compounded combinations of sulphur with
alkaline salts and earths, and that are always in constant proportions
(e.g., natrum sulphuricum and calcarea sulphurica).
3. Those kinds of ethers formed by the linking of wine spirit [alcohol] and
acids through distillation.
4. Phosphorus.
On the contrary, extracts of the so-called alkaloids of plants (e.g.,
quinine, strychnine and morphine) are subject to great diversity in their
preparation, in which acids are used to extract the alkaloid [from the whole
plant]. Therefore, these cannot be accepted by the homeopathic physician as
simple, unvarying medicines, especially since he possesses in the plants
themselves as they are naturally constututed (e.g., cinchona, nux vomica,
opium) everything he needs from them for cure. Moreover, the alkaloids are
not the only medicinal constitutents of plants.
- Aphorism 273 and footnote, 6th edition Organon, O'Reilly, p247

Any comments welcome of course:
Hahnemann's clear intention is to produce the safest and most effective
medical discipline through homoeopathy.
This requires adherence to the following principles...
*Use of only the single remedy which is comprised of a simple substance,
i.e. one which is chemically stable in nature.
*Use of a remedy whose effects are known apriori, and which can therefore be
applied to a group of similar symptoms in a case of disease.

Where does that leave the use of unproven periodic table remedies which are
in fact not possible to make because of the volatility of the compounds? Can
we afford to ignore the instability of such volatile compounds in nature
because a pharmacy can claim to make the remedies in potency radionically?
Are we in keeping with nature's designs, or going against her?

Chris

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

>>

There is this huge rift , isn't there, between what is defined by H ,
and host of remedies currently in use - not just the Periodic Table
Rxs but also those I posted previously, obviously all the Flower Rxs,
( goodbye to Dr Bach ), not to mention combos (--shhhh I said don't
mention them!) - the alkaloids, etc.

Perhaps it would be easier to make a list of Rxs that DO fit H's
criteria than those that don't?

This raises two other questions: if practitioners ( inc Scholten
himself) have treated patients with any of these non Hahnemannian Rxs -
which obviously they have in their thousands:
- were they practicing Homeopathy and if not what were they
practicing?
-- did they in fact cure and if so, HOW?

BTW - I think we should keep to Hahnemann's designs not nature's, as
nature does some pretty weird and unpleasant things

Simon

[Joy Lucas]

The criteria should be that all remedies are proved, surely. There are
hundreds of our remedies that haven't been proved properly and they
should be, imo.

In stanza 52 Hahnemann says, "there are but 2 principle methods of
cure: the one based only on accurate observation of nature, on careful
experimentation and pure experience, the homeopathic and a second which
does not do this, the heteropathic or allopathic" etc.

The emphasis has to be on 'careful' and should always be followed up
with provings for our materia medicas and reps. The allopaths
experiment with their drugs - we don't want to be like that.

Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
edited
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Joy

Are provings anything other than experimentation?

A colleague was advising that the main characteristic symptoms of Lil-t with
which we are all familiar came from just one prover.

Had she not been part of the proving, Lil-t would have become an unused and
forgotten remedy. So like all things, a bit of luck is needed also.

Provings are the corner stones of our prescriptions and as such they are
expensive and time consuming to conduct if it was not for the volunteers.
God bless them all.

Soroush

[Joy Lucas]

I was trying to lay emphasis on irresponsible experimentation, i.e.
prescribing remedies to 'sick' people when there is no reliable sx
picture attached to that rx, i.e. outside of the proving arena. I view
provings as being more formalistic, scientific, even the accidental
ones. But I think you knew what I meant.

Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

So - before we proceed any further down the definitions route don't we
need to agree what Hahnemann's definitions are, and then decide whether
we're going to be bound by them or not????
Simon

[Joy Lucas]

This is what I was trying to do, just a small contribution to that. I
personally can't get beyond the idea of rx having the need to be proved
- this is what Hahnemann did. Hahenmann said we need to know our
medicines and without provings we can't really do that reliably. Best,
Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Sure - It just seemed there were some discrepancies between your
parameters and Chris's, could be wrong?
Simon