Not to rekindle the fires; but what real value, if any, do Sanka

[Richard Shannon]

Hello Piet,
I agree that a proving is a good starting point. I
also agree that clinical use/verification is what
helps us flesh out the rx. overall picture. What I do
not agree w/is the more than 50% of the rx's. in
Scholtens "Elements" book have no proving at all, and
only speculation on one mans part about what two
elements together may look like. This may be the well
meaning educated guess of a well informed person, but
why not spend some of that time/energy not surmising
and speculating and see if it presents in a proving.
He is doing it backwards. My original point was that
students or those w/o a serious foundation in
Homeopathy should not be trying to "assume" what two
elements will "look' like when they are paired
together.
Here is an example that may help: When you make up
a rx. like Tant. sulph. Why is it that it would be
described as a line 6 rx or a gold series rx.? Why
isn't it in the Silica series? Was the decision to put
it into the Gold series based on something he has not
written about? Or was it just easier to put it there?
Or in fact did the new rx. show more Gold series
traits than Silica series traits because it was so
prevalent in the proving? This example is not a
singular one. Almost all of the mixed rx's that are
brand new w/o a proving would fit the same
description.
Also for me there is too much unknown about many
of the later series elements even w/Scholtens
contribution. I agree he has given us a starting
point. But that is how it needs to be introduced to
those who are new to Homeopathy imho.

Peace and prosperity, Rik
____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

[Piet Guijt]

Hi Rik,
I agree these method should not replace the existing basics, but are meant to expand them.
They are meant as a next step, in cases where the traditional approach/ knowlegde somehow fails.
Student should not start with this advanced homeopathy, but learn the basics first.
Having said this, we also must be glad andg ratefull we have great and smart people like Sankaran en Scholten.
Kind regards, Piet

[muthu kumar]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Piet Guijt" wrote:
meant

Agreed- but before taking this awful next step into blind
prescriptions- the logical next step is finding out why the
traditional approach did not work- I would still fault the
individual's practice than the existing materia medica resources...
the basics

Learn them well...any tool is only worth its value when you intimately
know it- sometimes blaming the existing tool is like using a scimitar
to drive a nail in and finding fault with it

Silica has a symptom - sensation as if she is walking backward when
actually walking forward ( James Ward book on Sensations has it) -
cured a case with it

Pulsatilla has the symptom - headache before and after menses...cured
a case of headache of 10 years with it

Crocus has the sensation that she is looking thru very strong
spectacles...Cured a patient and my friends have cured tons of people
who have problems after wearing eye glasses with it

Tabacum has sleepiness while reading - I have cured so many students
who had this complaint...
Fairly commonly used remedies- but such not so known symptoms... there
are tons and tons of nuggets like these in Materia medica and
repertory- why would any one fault the existing works and look for new
ones with no proving behind it....

beats me

and smart

More than our being glad, Sankaran and Scholten must be really glad
and grateful ( as even I would be if I go laughing to the bank
straight from my seminars) to have such faithful followers...
value,

[Shannon Nelson]

The fact that they're yielding helpful results should suggest that
they're not "blind" prescriptions...
Of course there are numerous possibilities! "Needed remedy not
previously known" is one possibility, and methods such as Scholten and
Sankaran et al. open up heretofore unknown remedies to exploration.
Sure it would be best to "prove everything"...
Well, that's one theory!
Why do you make that assumption? Why not assume that *sometimes* the
pt simply needs a remedy that hasn't been known?

Shannon

[muthu kumar]

Discussing the last point first-
the

It is because assuming that I am wrong - opens up the possibility
that I should be more careful in observing symptoms, look the same
case from different angles, consult my peers who can suggest to look
for something I might have overlooked etc. in essence improve my
prescribing abilities-

Also I feel that still we do not understand our existing materia
medica well and fully- that years of toil by our grand masters lies
unused when we are running after the newest toys- can you
conscientiously say that we have done justice to Hering's and
Allen's and Hughes' or Guernsey's works before calling for a new
remedy?

The change needs to be in improving our skill in using the existing
ones - but it is very difficult for us to admit our faults - if
there is one thing we have to be really really very good at it- it
is case-taking... drop all your prejudices and observe, observe and
observe- that is where the crux of the matter is-

Apart from just getting the symptom ( where possible) touch and
examine the patient, pulse rate, breathing pattern, looks in eyes,
conjunctivae, smell, color...

I still remember my first successful patient- when he spoke to me
from 5 feet away I could not tolerate the smell - which he had for 3
years- he had accompanied his sister with asthma to my clinic- I
could not help the sister much- but he improved with 3 doses of
Mercury so much - 2 days later he comes to my house, knocks and I
open the door, he is standing in the top step and says blowing air
towards me "Dr. Can you smell anything", I say "nothing" and he
says "None of my friends could smell anything, this is marvellous"...
I remember another one where I am trying so many different medicines
for a PID - ovaries involvement- the fever did not abate... extreme
pain, patient already had antibiotics to no avail- I called in
another homeopath - he gave Ars and China - did not work either- and
finally the patient says ( I am visiting) " when I am lying on bed
even if I have a pillow it feels like my head is lying somewhere
low" - Phos has it and cures the patient NEXT DAY with 2 doses 1M.

another one - wife of a homeopath who had hypertension - already
tried Nux vom ( irritable) , Lachesis ( menopausal stage ) and even
Cactus, Cratag, Rauwolfia mother tinctures etc.- improved so much
with Theridion- because she said when she gets this headache due to
hypertension she feels like removing top of head and throwing it
away- ( on questioning she said the headache also becomes worse with
car horns)...Sensations as if has it...

It is all there- as they say - Devil is in the details - and those
details are the ones we lose sight of- and we are compounding this
by giving new fangled medicines which do not have any details at
all...

Even now many of us do not know how to prioritize the symptoms,
value the symptoms, differentiate acute from chronic picture, which
symptoms carry more value from a prescribing point of view etc.
I do not oppose if someone uses and benefits these synthetics- but
be damn sure that you have tried your homeopathy correctly-
Let us say 90% blind then

The same results oriented argument can be made for any number of
things...esp. considering that these are given mostly for chronic
conditions we need to be careful ascribing curative value to things
that may be of questionable value-

There may be some similarity value in these when they are given on
the basis of known 2 things combining - but then we can use any
number of known drugs to do this...
and
exploration.

In my so many years of practice I have still to come to the point
where I am looking for a "needed remedy not previously known "
possibility...

Kent ( Kunzli) , Boger-Boenninghausen, Knerr, Hering's 10 volumes,
Clarke's MM, Boericke, Lilienthal, HARoberts, Ward, Neatby and
Allenare all you need for any kind of case...till now I have had no
reason to look at anything else...

it is possible I may be curing things after 10 different
prescriptions each changing the condition a little so that the next
one would act but I have yet to come to a stage where something
never acted...there is that possibility that it may be so- then for
those rare cases I would still want a well proven medicine than go
for something conjured up...

[Shannon Nelson]

Sure. But what about cases where this has been done, and still nothing?
You might be interested to see Jeremy Sherr's case (in his video, which
I watched on HomeopathicSymposium) on Germanium, where he talks about a
student of his that he had been consistently unable to find "the
remedy" for--until the proving of Germanium.

Or my daughter's case (which I've written of here), where from birth to
age 4.5 our h'th was unable to find her "constitutional" rx--as she
went from bad to worse--until he learned the remedy Lyssinum.

And there are many others. Where a responsible, persistent, fully
trained homeopath used examination, re-examination, consultation, and
all the etc., and unable to find the needed remedy--until learning a
particular one, which unlocked "everything". Do you assume these are
delusional, or that with enough further effort-and passage of further
years--the h'th would have somehow figured out hot to "make do" with
what s/he already knew?

What do you make of Kent's (hm, or was it Kent?) on Lachesis, where he
was asked, How would you have cured this case before we had Lachesis?
And he said, well, you would have had to begin with apis, and then
this, and then this, and that would have had to do, because that would
have been the best you had available. (And note, he is only THEORIZING
that apis and then, and then, and then would have done it; because so
far as I can tell, he also was not one who managed to "cure every
patient".) Surely it's better that we just added Lachesis to the
materia medica? Do you think that was the last "new" remedy that was
needed, and *now* we have everything that we need?

Yes, very true. And these broader "systems" for understanding the
remedies give the potential for understanding our old ones more fully,
and letting them to applied to cases where previously the link would
not have been seen. And yes, I have heard at least several people
talk about doing exactly that--where a "system" led them to
successfully use an old familiar remedy whose connection to the case
was not clear from existing materia medica, and which otherwise they
would not have considered.
Here in the US we have a little children's song that goes, "Make
new friends, But keep the old--One is silver And the other gold."

It's that "individualization" thing again...
Sometimes the details save you, and sometimes they lead nowhere.
Sometimes the "new remedies" have the details needed, and yes,
sometimes they don't until there has been enough clinical experience
accumulated.

Well, I certainly take your point below, about the richness still to be
plumbed. You say you've not yet come to a place with any case where no
remedy "acted". I'm not sure what you mean by "acted"--it's not good
enough unless the action is sustained, and moves the case along in a
direction toward cure. It would also make a difference what types of
cases one is treating (acute/chronic/nature of it), and the patient
population (what sorts of challenges and level of overall health).

I agree with your insistence that we should be very solid in our use of
the basics (and agree with your suggestion that most of us probably
aren't); but as far as whether that's the end of the story, I guess I
will just have to disagree, and look forward to seeing more of the
"new" information get a more thorough "road test", to sort out the best
from the rest.
Best wishes!
Shannon

[muthu kumar]

I am not against introducing new remedies-

but with all the modern technology help if we cannot do good
hahnemannian proving but offer excuses in the form of "oh we cannot do
regular proving because of this and that" we are not improving the
science in anyway; and cannot offer

Scholten's and Sankaran's methods should be still in the research
stage - not in the general use stage as they are now...I am not
against innovation- only against the rate of adaptation...In allopathy
drugs are researched and then go on an extend period of trial- On the
one hand we do not update the organon and on the other bring in all
the new glitters-

and the reason given is we have always used so many unproven remedies
- so why not now? If we have done that in the past - may be this is
the time to right it- not to continue the same and add some more
errors in our turn....

Some of the drugs that we use without provings have had a lot of
toxicological reports, accidnetal provings, and observations prior to
their use- they did not come out of a periodic table...

Even now Ardavan has a virus materia medica... how did he do that? Not
by provings - By noting down the diseases caused by the virus and
observing the symptoms of the patients suffering from it- this is valid-

if you note down the symptoms caused by steroid side effects - that is
valid-

if you note down the symptoms AFTER we give it as a medicine and cured
symptoms that is valid too -

not the best - but definitely good for a start- but in even these it
will be good to have regular provings because regular provings bring
out the delicate shades of the remedies... modalities etc. Cured
symptoms gives these - if the periodic-table-purveyors note down those-

till that time they are generally prescribed based on aetiology and
gross effects-if there is a history of cytomegalovirus give CMV in
potency, for steroid abuse give steroid etc. etc. and not based on an
individualized picture...

if that is what we want to persist and if that is what we want to call
homeopathy go ahead and do it....
Your doctor did not live in pre-Lyssinum period - did he? It goes to
prove that you need to understand the existing ones correctly-
Yes I would figure out- I have seen ( myself included) the more
experienced I become the lesser remedies I use- may be it is because I
have lost my adventurousness- but may be because I am able to discern
the remedy patterns easily in my patients...
That is how was done since Hahnemann- that is why I mentioned aph.
144, 145 etc.
We have most what we need- once again I am not saying we do not need
new remedies. What I am saying is we already have enough for most of
our cases and so we do not have to go into the mad rush of getting the
latest new medicine into our materia medica right from the periodic
table and a botany book- and to add tons of new ones with no face to them

And Lachesis had a proving...

This is one of the reasons people start prescribing like " he smells
like a rat- give him rattus rattus; she is busy bee - give Apis to her-

This is a change in mind set- read Homeopathic Recorder of pre-1950 -
there is not much of this going on - it is this change in mind set
that says it is ok to be prescribing without a basis that looks more
ominous...

this is what would lead more to reading the aura and prescribing on it...

if you want to call this current way of finding medicines an
improvement and advancement - there is no way we are going to agree-

I do not see any reason for this mad rush to get new medicines... I
think the difficulty in finding medicines is more to do with our lack
of good case taking skills than on any deficiency in the existing system
Is that like "Make new friends and go out with them - keep the old
ones locked in basement or frozen in photos?"
Details alone are not enough- we need to arrange the details in a
meaningful way to get a wholistic picture of the current presenting
state- that is why we need to differentiate between the present
picture and chronic state.

We have seen so many cases posted here- how many of them needed the
newer ones? most of them need a different way of looking at the old,
getting more symptoms from the patient, better case taking, putting
the symptoms in their proper context..
By acted - I mean acting positively. It is very rare to find just one
medicine that will do everything, Mostly we need multiple remedies
carefully following each other. It is the mentality to find one single
medicine for every one of your patient that is triggering this jump
into chaos.
I am not saying that is the end- what I am saying is build your
foundations proper, that whatever we are attempting should be on a
good methodology based approach ( because we are living in a much
technologically advanced era than Hahnemanns's) that is full of
scientific rigor, we do not need these stop-gaps now, we have to build
on the science that Hahnemann gave us instead of taking shooting in
the dark in the name of innovation, that we will do more harm to our
cause both by spoiling our heritage and also looking like idiots in
the eyes of the world-

Just because a patient has symptoms of Kali and Sulph does not make
him Kali.sulph - probably he is Pulsatilla

[Piet Guijt]

Samual wrote;
More than our being glad, Sankaran and Scholten must be really glad
and grateful ( as even I would be if I go laughing to the bank
straight from my seminars) to have such faithful followers...

You are a cynical person, maybe the real reason behind this is:
ENVY, qualities of others?
You are defending the zig-zag method: go walking to Paris in stead of taking the TGV.
§ 162: Sometimes happens, owing to the moderate number of medicines yet known with respect to their true, pure action , that but a portion of the symptoms of the disease under treatment are to be met with in the list of symptoms of the most appropriate medicine, consequently this imperfect medicinal morbific agent must be employed for lack of a more perfect one.
Even when there is a more perfect one availble, you refuse this, but this is against Hahnemann:

§ 154: ....the most suitable medicine ........in the greatest similarity, this medicine is the most appropriate homoopathic specific remedy for this morbid state; the disease.....

Kind regards, Piet

[muthu kumar]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Piet Guijt" wrote:
of taking
---------------------------------------

Sure- Piet I really envy you-

I wish God had made me as simple-minded as you-

Well one cannot get everything in life I guess-

What would be the best synthetic medicine for me? I shall take it in
spoonful of doses while I walk my lonely path to Paris-

[Piet Guijt]

Hello Samual,
You're a real master in trying to change the subject !
First you criticized Scholten and Sankaran, because their remedy pictures and methods would be too speculative.
After that you say you don't need their additional remedies anyway (so even if they had proven all their remedies, you still would reject them)
You try to ridicule people, who see the benefits of their information as a additional approach, by calling them faithful followers.
You ignore the positive and well documented results of these methods and doubt the integrity of Scholten and Sankaran.
You don't have any substantial answers to defend your point of view, because you are wrong and you know it.
So that isn't really your issue, when you are content with all the traditional available remedies, it is fine for you and I agree we can do a lot with them.
The patients who need another remedy to cure, will after a while leave your practice, and go to a doctor with a less limited pool of remedies.
But the good news is that you still can say, you don't need the new remedies!
As a last attempt to get away with your mistakes, you change the subject to me as a person.
Do you really expect me to be upset, by someone with such an incoherent behaviour?
Kind regards, Piet