Organon 6 - 24

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

§ 24

There remains, therefore, no other mode of employing medicines in diseases that promises to be of service besides the homœopathic, by means of which we seek, for the totality of the symptoms of the case of disease, a medicine which among all medicines (whose pathogenetic effects are known from having been tested in healthy individuals) has the power and the tendency to produce an artificial morbid state most similar to that of the case of disease in question.

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Homoeopathy is based on matching the symptoms of patient with the symptoms
the remedy is able to generate in the healthy.

If something is unproven, then we do not know what symptoms it is able to
generate.

Therefore by definition, the use of such materials is not Homoeopathy.

Regards

Soroush

[Michael]

when we use unproved medicines from the periodic
table, it is not homeopathic?

--- Finrod wrote:
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

[Richard Nash- Shannon]

May I second and third your motion Soroush? I could not agree more.

Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Finrod" wrote:

[Irene de Villiers]

Finrod wrote:

That's jumping to a greap leap of conclusion for which there is no basis
in the Organon 6-24.
Nowhere there does Hahnemann say that ONLY if the remedy is proved, do
we know it is homeopathic.

After all much of the original work in homeopathy involved clients
healing with remedy - cowpox for smallpox etc. So by no means doe THIS
aphorism exclude the homeopathicity of remedies known by clinical
expereince as opposed to formal provings.

It does imply by the comment in parenthesis, that remedies known from
provings are the norm - but does not say this is the only approach to
find true homeopathicity. In the quote here, you can leave out what's
in brackets, and still get the intention and principle.

It also depends how you define a proving.
For example my spider case yesterday proved Ruta works for spiderbite.
Yet no provers specifically said Ruta feels like spiderbite or it would
be under spiderbite in the repertory.
To me, what I did proved ruta approprioate fopr spiderbite at least
as well or better than if I had proved Ruta and "felt" as if I'd had a
spider bite.
To say Ruta was not homeopathic would not make sense:-))
It fits the below Organon definition, without the aspect in brackets.

Are you saying it was NOT homeopathy?
Surely we can do better than that?

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Rosemary C Hyde PhD]

Good point, Irene -- and of course we have many remedies in our pharmacopeia
which have never been fully proven, but which we nevertheless use currently
based primarily on how they have resolved clinical symptoms. I believe this
was the fact that Joy was addressing initially in launching her provings
project.

Roger van Zandwoort made an interesting point in a presentation in Berkeley
CA a few years ago, in examining the actual proving information on many of
our most prescribed polychrests, taken from Hahnemann's writings. His
point: that the majority of H's provings didn't even come close to
satisfying modern proving criteria -- they used only one or two people, for
instance, or were based only on his own experience taking a few doses and
recording the results. Many of his provings involved the same few people
over and over. Yet, despite this, we know that those remedies suceed
brilliantly, and they're extensively documented, based mainly either on
poisonings or on clinical symptoms cured. H of course was brilliant in
deriving his Materia Medica Pura so accurately from ultimately scanty
information. But we would not accept his methods or his results today.

Rosemary

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Let me give you an example of why this is a very restrictive point of view that will eventually prevent us to know remedies better, and use more of them. Sketchy as I do not have permission for full case.
I was treating a 23 y/o woman for many physical and emotional problems, mainly linked to workplace bullying.
Silica was the main, obvious and clear remedy, every way I looked at it, every way I repertorized, from every MM I looked up.
Yet, although there was some amelioration, there was none of the "breakthrough" we expect when we have the real simillimum; a few trials with other, less well indicated remedies failed.
I had to look at it differently.
She obviously needed structure, I reasoned, which Silica would provide, a backbone to fight back and stand her ground. Yet she reacted very emotionally, like a plant, according to the kingdom theory and Sankaran.
What remedy combines both, a plant full of Silica? Equisetum of course, but after going through all the MM in Reference Works and all my French MM, not many Mind or mental symptoms to confirm that reasoning.
I decided to proceed with one dose of Equisetum LM1.
Her attitude changed radically, even to the point she went to confront all her bullies face to face before slamming her resignation and getting a better job.
Physically she had diarrhea for a few days and used the interesting description "I feel as if something was scouring my bowels", which correspond very well with the traditional use of the herb "for scouring pots and pans" we find in the MMs.
So here you have the use of an unproved remedy (at least on the M/E level), based on a reasoning using models many classical homeopaths do not recognize as "real" homeopathy, or at best put on the fringe of the art.
Not only did it give me a fantastic result, but it increased the depth of knowledge about a small remedy, same as Irene's use of Ruta did.
Yet I contend that this is still very pure, classical, Hahnemaniann homeopathy. I challenge anyone to disagree.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Go to www.lulu.com/content/1103716 for my new book "The Handbook of Gemmotherapy"

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Irene, Joe and Rosemary

Thank you for your responses on this issue.

I feel specifically Irene took my remark in the wrong context.

May I take you back to the original question by Michael: "when we use
unproved medicines from the periodic table, it is not homeopathic?"

That got the answer to which you have reacted. Obviously if a potentised
substance is suddenly presented to me on someone's THEORETICAL ideas, I
would not use it until it was proved.

In Aph 3 we clearly read
" if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in
each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers)"

The key statement is " if he clearly perceives what is curative". Logic
dictates that by what ever valid and sound method / technique this knowledge
of perception is gained, it can be used to cure people.

Also a substance is proved 'homoeopathic' only after its administration. So
Joe's prescription was proved to be homoeopathic as was Irene's Ruta. There
is no argument. I trust you will send this information forward to Archibel
for inclusion in RADAR.

This covers all the views expressed by yourselves.

Regards

Soroush

[Michael]

I meant exactly this, Soroush answered my question as
I meant it and as he understood it.
Hahnemann did not have many remedies and 19th century
homeopaths did not have so many remedies as we have
now, and they were curing many people with different
diseases. We have many more remedies which were
proved. What is the use of inventing the wheel and
taking some obscure potentized substances from the
periodic table? Why not dig deeper when studying a
case? Maybe it will be possible to solve the problem
in some other way, for example, as Dr. Roz did in his
case (by the way, I also noticed this relation of
Silica and Equisetum several days ago, it deserves
further studying)? It is interesting to study
different approaches, like Sankaran, Scholten, etc,
and use them in your work. It is good if it helps to
cure people, but what if it doesn't? Whose fault is
it, your fault or the fault of the method? Maybe it is
better to try first the methods which were used
successfully in practice by thousands of homeopaths
during the last 200 years?
I do not have much experience in homeopathy, but i
want to express my own personal opinion.

Michael

--- Finrod wrote:
___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry

[Richard Shannon]

Maybe this is too off the beaten path but what if an
MD gave a patient an unproven medication. A med that
had as of yet not seen any trials of anykind and gave
it on a very hopeful whim? The answer is he would be
in violation of a majority of the ethical code of his
particular science. And if he were practicing like
this in general his modality would switch from seeking
to cure, to pure research, if indeed that was his
intention. We have seen examples where a rx has hardly
any MM from provings and we flesh it out later
clinically. We also have many early remedies fleshed
out from overdoses/poisonings. Would anyone venture to
say that their "hunch" concerning a rx's effect should
be solely based on a moderately educated guess? I
question whether this is fair to the patient. Of
course only successful examples are brought forward.
What of the "failed" hunches/whims?

Just my two cents, Rik
____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting