PC Remedies - Proving

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Joy

Your logic fails me!

Let us work back wards - Any remedy which is said to be curative, must be able to cause symptoms. If so, if given to the 'healthy' it should provide us with proving symptoms. There is no ifs or but in my mind. PC remedies have not been proved as this has been deemed unnecessary. But that does mean that they cannot be proved.

There is no reason that PC remedies cannot be proved - in fact as the provers will not know what is being proved (this info is only for the Master prover) then what ever belief system you may have does not come into.

Rgds
Soroush

[Joy Lucas]

then you are showing a lot of doubt with the rx - chappell says there
is no need for provings - the materia medica already exists in the
design of the rx so my question to you is.......why do a proving if we
already have the materia medica.

I will continue to acknowledge your questions because i don't want andy
pandy accusing me of not doing so but we are going round in cricles
surely you either believe in the rx per se (i.e. no need for the
proving) or you don't. It is against chappells theories if you call for
a proving, it means you are questioning it, which is fine by me Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Joy

With highest respect, your catch 22 logic fails me again.

There was a criticism about PC remedies that they were not proved.

My answer is ok if it concerns 'you' then organise a proving (and I'd help
with it).

You cannot have it both ways.

Rgds
Soroush

[Joy Lucas]

Last try then

If you believe in the Pc rx then you have to believe in the theory
behind them which includes no need for provings.

Is that ok with you?

If you don't believe in the PC rx (and you are truly working from
Hahnemann's principles) then you can do a proving if you can be
bothered - that's fine (although conducting a proving is already
contravening chappell's theories - see above) and if you can't be
bothered to do a proving then so what.

Is that ok with you?

You seem to be acknowledging the need for a proving and means you want
it both ways. I don't want it both ways, I want to stick with the best
designer in the world (Hahnemann) not sit on the fence and have a pair
of pretend Levis that were actually made in Essex (sorry Essex:-))

Joy

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

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

How can a theory be contravened by a mere act verification?
Rgds
Soroush

[Joy Lucas]

Because part of the existing theory says NO PROVING IS NECESSARY

If you do a proving the theory is contravened by the act of doing the
proving.

If I conduct a PC rx proving and a collection of reliable sx come
through or maybe no sx come through, then what have I done - I have
contravened Chappell's theory by conducting a proving that wasn't
necessary - according to his theory.

Why would you need to verify his rx Soroush - you believe in them, the
whole of the materia medica for the specific GE is in the rx,
allegedly. You either believe that or not. Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[muthu kumar]

Soroush-

There are many medical approaches similar to homeopathy but not really
so- from Biochemical tissue salts, Flower remedies, Electro homeopathy
etc.

Just jot this PC1 something like that. The whole argument comes in
only when people want to tie it to Homeopathy and Organon and claim
this is major leap forward in Homoepathy. As long as the name and
formulation of the medicine is a secret there will always be a
question about the "homeopathicity" of the medicine. This is not to
say that the medicine is or is not effective. If you take a moment to
think you yourself will understand that when nothing is known about
what goes into the medicine, how can the claim that it is homeopathy
or allopathy or ayurveda be supported? This is just one person's word
against everyone else's.

Let PC1 remedy be that- PC1. Call it homeopathy when it is known what
medicine goes in and ON WHAT BASIS. Then of course if a proving can be
done and it can be shown to create "ALL SYMPTOMS" of AIDS ( whatever
that means) instead of a partial picture like the poor 'regular'
homeopathic medicines that is the time you can say 'I told you so' but
not until then.
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Finrod" wrote:
Behalf Of
(and I'd
Homoeopathy
arising out
minutus site
a single
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Joy

I cannot see why you have decided to make something convoluted and complex
out of a simple matter.

According to Peter Chappell, PC remedies do not need to be proved because
they have been designed to cure a certain set of symptoms.

It can be said that for example for PC1, the SIMPLE fact that they have
cured numerous people with those sets of symptoms in proving enough.

This does not mean that if they are proved traditionally any theory is
contravened - as I said the mere testing does not contravene a theory.

The results may high light certain facts.
If they work and show symptoms, then I guess people like yourself may be
more warmed towards them and agree to acknowledge them.

If they produce no symptoms along the designed parameters, then some
questions need to be ask to find out why that is.

In any case, now laws are broken and no one has been hurt. It is called
scientific investigation.
Rgds
Soroush

[Shannon Nelson]

"No need for provings" does not mean that "no provings are allowed",
nor that "everyone in the homeopathic community will *believe* there is
no need for provings", or that "I insist that the homeopathic community
take my word for the fact that there is no need for provings"... Peter
feels he knows what will happen if a proving is done--that it would
produce symptoms indicative of AIDS. Presumably it would not *cause*
AIDS, and presumably would not cause the end-stage pathologies that
accompany AIDS. Presumably there would be more mentals, emotionals,
generals, sensations-as-if. Could be interesting, and more relevantly,
could lead to interesting non-AIDS applications of PC1.
Regards,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

"Believe"???????????
Since when should we include beliefs in our practices?????
Someone claims there is a remedy, however produced, able to cure at low cost
a life-threatening health situation that has characteristic common signs,
symptoms and evolution.
That deserves investigation; apparently it is done, clinically, by quite a
few groups.
Any substance capable of curing symptoms in the sick should be able to cause
them in the healthy, right?
What is the problem trying to demonstrate that with a proving, whether the
creator of the substance thinks it is necessary or not???
Seems to be a lot of running after one own's tail here, I just don't get it.
Semantics again???.....
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".