proving standards/was reliablity

[USAHomeopath@aol.com]

Well, I was hoping to not hop into this fray, but here goes...

There are standards for proving.
They are well known.
Years ago, the ECCH (European Council) spent a great deal of time studying
provings and compiling standards, for exactly the reasons that are being
expressed here.
Provings are research. Proving are the baseline of our medicines and of our
science.
I worked on editing the second edition of Dyn and Methodology of Hom
Provings (Sherr) and edited and published Dyn Provings Vol 1, containing the
first 10 of his proving. He has set a very attainable bar. It is not hard to
produce good provings. But it takes a great deal of time, of understanding of
homoepathy, and a desire to do it right.
There are shoddily conducted provings sitting in boxes that will never be
edited, because the information in them is too poorly extracted. There are
published proving that contain made up information, by homeopathic lecturers
too lazy and too egotistical to spend the time. A proving is a cheap ticket
to lecture. You can poison people in a seminar and charge them for it. You
don't have to prepare cases, lectures. It's a cheap trick to entertain.
There are standards. These standards are published. They should be used.
It is not easy. It is time consuming to do it right. That is all.
Melanie Grimes R.S. Hom (NA) CCH

[Natasha]

Dear Melanie,

As a student who is still fairly new to homeopathy (second year student), I really appreciate you posting this information. I can't imagine giving someone a remedy without having full confidence in the MM/Repertory information. It may not be popular to have rules and guidelines but it really is essential to the survival of homeopathy.

So, thank you and please continue!

Sincerely,
Natasha
Homeopathic Student, Canada