Meditative provings - was Emerald

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

I have a major problem with Meditative provings.
One of the corner stones of homeopathy is the Hahnemannian proving technique. This is the part that gives a good feel for the properties of substance and therefore how to apply it. Please see Aph 3 of Organon 6.
The enemies of homeopathy (like Dr Ben Goldacre) constantly attack our system of medicine. Just imagine what a bonus we would give them if they found out that the properties of homeopathic remedies are decided up on by one or a group of people going into a state of meditation. They would have a field day. I can already see the headline in the Guardian or the Lancet!
Any comments please.
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sue Smith
Sent: 24 November 2008 11:56
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: Emerald?
Hi Shannon
I've used the Meditative Proving. MPs have a reputation of
affiliating more specifically to the emotional spheres, although I
guess this would depend upon potency & the pt concerned and is
possibly a bit subjective! As far as Emerald is concerned I've found
it to have a deeper yet more gentle action than Nat Mur when
indicated. An example was for a Fibromyalagia case to address
aetiological emotional issues and the patient's cure was a wonderful
journey.
Hope this helps.
Best wishes
Sue
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com , Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
and
all.

[Shannon Nelson]

"Would"? Soroush, we've already found out that some of them read these
lists, and at least a couple have "mined" us for lampoon material to
republish elsewhere. So presumably they know already, and if not, they
do now!
Shannon

[Hennie Duits]

Do you think they approve the Hahnemannian way of proving? Or anything
whatsoever about homeopathy?
So why would we mind anything they say? We know what is valid and what
is not, they are just demonstrating ignorance.

Hennie

finrod@finrod.co.uk schreef:

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

You have misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
You make the logical stand for the Hn system of proving. It makes common sense. It is repeatable etc. By standards of today's Science, it is scientific.
How do you explain Meditative proving? Any one can do the Hn Proving. Can any one do the Med Proving?
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Hennie Duits
Sent: 24 November 2008 14:05
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Meditative provings - was Emerald
Do you think they approve the Hahnemannian way of proving? Or anything
whatsoever about homeopathy?
So why would we mind anything they say? We know what is valid and what
is not, they are just demonstrating ignorance.

Hennie

finrod@finrod.co.uk schreef:

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Correction

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: 24 November 2008 17:55
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] Meditative provings - was Emerald
You have misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
You can make a logical stand for the Hn system of proving. It makes common sense. It is repeatable etc. By standards of today's Science, it is scientific.
How do you explain Meditative proving? Any one can do the Hn Proving. Can any one do the Med Proving?
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Hennie Duits
Sent: 24 November 2008 14:05
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Meditative provings - was Emerald
Do you think they approve the Hahnemannian way of proving? Or anything
whatsoever about homeopathy?
So why would we mind anything they say? We know what is valid and what
is not, they are just demonstrating ignorance.

Hennie

finrod@finrod.co.uk schreef:

[Sue Boyle]

Soroush,

Don't you think that if Hahnemann were still alive he would have done meditative provings ? After all he was always experimenting and improving homeopathy. Just because today's science and it's closed minds can't "prove" homeopathy ( or for that matter Allopathy !) doesn't mean it doesn't work. Scholten's Lanthanides were done as meditative provings and he has a lot of success with them ,where before he will tell you some patients had years of remedies with only some success til the Lanthanides. I have used them once on a boy labeled ADD and had wonderful results.

Sue
________________________________

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

You are correct as far as the public image goes.
But for curiosity's sake, just compare a regular and a meditative proving.........it is amazing; and I did that with a very abundant dose of skepticism, the resemblances kept creeping up to such a point that I cannot dismiss them any more.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Visit http://drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for some articles and comments.

[Tanya Marquette]

well that opens the door to accomodate soroush's concerns.
doing a comparison between a number of remedies proven with
meditation as well as the standard proving technique would certainly
demonstrate the validity of the meditative provings.
tanya
You are correct as far as the public image goes.
But for curiosity's sake, just compare a regular and a meditative proving.........it is amazing; and I did that with a very abundant dose of skepticism, the resemblances kept creeping up to such a point that I cannot dismiss them any more.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Visit http://drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for some articles and comments.

[Shannon Nelson]

I assume the meditative provers know what they are proving--I suppose
they'd have to?
And were they completely unfamiliar with any of the other provings? (I
suppose some meditative provers and provings must be "better" than
others, just as is the case with "regular" ones?)
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

At least if carefully blinded!