Hi Theresa - just a quick comment -
Theresa Partington wrote:
Proving symptoms only arise from a person's isiosyncratic sensitivity or susceptibility to the remedy. If these are not present then symptoms are unlikely to appear unless the remedy is given repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.
It is the same in treatment - the more closely matched the remedy is to the state of the person, the more strongly they willl respond to it. This is mentioned by Hahnemann in the Organon also.
I agree with you about repeating remedies less. Do you think it may be that as we become better homeopaths that we are more likely to prescribe the needed remedy and as a result our patients respond far more promptly and easily than they did in our earlier fumbling years?
I work amongst homeopaths who largely prescribe by protocols where dry doses in high potencies are repeated every second day for long periods.
In looking at the symptoms in the cases they are treating I frequently would have prescribed a different remedy rather than the protocol. I know (and have demonstrated) that if I was to repeat this closer matching remedy every second day in a dry dose that I would very quickly blow their socks off - its dose has to be much more finely adjusted for them.
They also improve FAR more rapidly and deeply than those who are heavily bludgeoned with a vaguely matching remedy.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
Well here's a new one!!!!! More!!
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
-
Theresa Partington
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Well here's a new one!!!!! More!!
I thought the idea of provers as opposed to sick people was that they would not necessarily be sensitive to the remedy being proved and therefore the picture you got would be that of the remedy.
And I do actually repeat more often than I used to! You misread that bit... Maybe I am getting less and less accurate as my brain gets woollier. I had wondered if it ( the repetition bit) was something to do with all the low frequency radiation we are bombarded with - that has the same 20 year timescale.
Theresa
And I do actually repeat more often than I used to! You misread that bit... Maybe I am getting less and less accurate as my brain gets woollier. I had wondered if it ( the repetition bit) was something to do with all the low frequency radiation we are bombarded with - that has the same 20 year timescale.
Theresa
Re: Well here's a new one!!!!! More!!
Mild proving symptoms? Have you read the proving of X-ray? Having participated in the proving of Alcoholus, I’d like to note that some of the symptoms experienced in that were pretty scary. No one died, but there were moments when it sure seemed possible.
Peace,
Dale
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Shannon & Bob Nelson
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 12:37 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Well here's a new one!!!!! More!!
Hi Luise,
[...] in the old provings the effects of provings in the potencies
are usually very mild.
The only exception I have found so far is the proving by Hering of
Lachesis.
I wish I knew the reason why in the modern provings there are such
severe effects from one dose of a high potency.
A few factors are probably at least part of the reasons:
- the nature of the remedies being proved?? I'm only speculating here, and it would be interesting to have a list of those remedies where this occurred. One that comes to my mind is plutonium nitricum--an intense substance, and perhaps not surprising that it produced intense symptoms. Another was from the blood of a wounded eagle, and I wonder if there wasn't an aspect of personal sensitivity to the substance at issue, since that person had done other provings without any mishap--but said after the eagle proving that she intended never to do another.
Do you happen to know what some others were?
- Today's prover population is probably a more sensitive and less robust population than the ones in the old provings?
- Also I think they tend to be *bigger* groups, which would presumably allow greater variety in the intensity...?
And, am I mistaken in thinking that even still, severe and/or lasting effects are uncommon in provings?
Shannon
I also wish I could
get at some of the smptoms of the placebo groups - whether those
effects do not occur there also.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
Peace,
Dale
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Shannon & Bob Nelson
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 12:37 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Well here's a new one!!!!! More!!
Hi Luise,
[...] in the old provings the effects of provings in the potencies
are usually very mild.
The only exception I have found so far is the proving by Hering of
Lachesis.
I wish I knew the reason why in the modern provings there are such
severe effects from one dose of a high potency.
A few factors are probably at least part of the reasons:
- the nature of the remedies being proved?? I'm only speculating here, and it would be interesting to have a list of those remedies where this occurred. One that comes to my mind is plutonium nitricum--an intense substance, and perhaps not surprising that it produced intense symptoms. Another was from the blood of a wounded eagle, and I wonder if there wasn't an aspect of personal sensitivity to the substance at issue, since that person had done other provings without any mishap--but said after the eagle proving that she intended never to do another.
Do you happen to know what some others were? - Today's prover population is probably a more sensitive and less robust population than the ones in the old provings?
- Also I think they tend to be *bigger* groups, which would presumably allow greater variety in the intensity...?
And, am I mistaken in thinking that even still, severe and/or lasting effects are uncommon in provings?
Shannon
I also wish I could
get at some of the smptoms of the placebo groups - whether those
effects do not occur there also.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
-
Chris_Gillen
- Posts: 287
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Well here's a new one!!!!! More!!
Regarding provings: There are ways to filter out "background" symptoms that would have occured anyway in the course of a proving in order to distinguish what are the true effects produced by the substance being tested. Paul Herscu explained very well how to do this in his 2 volume "Provings" books - and used the results from his own prover group which tested Alcoholus to clarify how he did it. That proving took place in 2001.
The best provers tend to be people who have a moderate level of sensitivity. Hypersensitive people don't make good provers because they overreact to almost everything, so it's difficult to know whether they're reacting to the drug or merely 'normal' everyday environmental stimuli. Logically, there should also be a number of people within the group who show little or no constitutional effects to the substance being tested, as this reflects what happens in the broader community when people take remedies. When you filter out the provers in the group who lie on both ends of this spectrum you should be left with a core group of reliable drug symptoms - and these are then further verified in clinical practice. Boeninghausen, for instance, did not automatically include all symptoms from the Materia Medica into his repertories, each symptom had to show their clinical value (compare this to the way modern repertories seem overly keen to include new remedies without any real demonstrable clinical veracity). Unfortunately, the techniques being used in many modern provings leave us with totally useless information, or at least less than satisfactory knowledge of drug substances, and many of these new "remedies" are in common usage amongst practitioners. I wonder whether the problem of repetition really just lies with emf's and low frequency radiation, or whether we're relying more and more on a bunch of remedies that are basically worthless in their information, or manufactured by labs that do not use traditional manufacturing methods??
Some of the original provers in Hahnemann's "provers union" were certainly not in the best of health. For example, Dr. Gross suffered from some kind of liver disease, and Langhammer was depressive and eventually became quite mentally unstable. Nevertheless Hahnemann was able to distinguish amongst the proving symptoms they elicited - and in fact many of their symptoms are found in the lists of our time proven polychrest remedies. Additionally, many of the symptoms contained in the materia medica of 'Chronic Diseases' were gleaned from clinical cases - as per Aphorism 142 (that technique should really be left to the experts!)
Chris Gillen
The best provers tend to be people who have a moderate level of sensitivity. Hypersensitive people don't make good provers because they overreact to almost everything, so it's difficult to know whether they're reacting to the drug or merely 'normal' everyday environmental stimuli. Logically, there should also be a number of people within the group who show little or no constitutional effects to the substance being tested, as this reflects what happens in the broader community when people take remedies. When you filter out the provers in the group who lie on both ends of this spectrum you should be left with a core group of reliable drug symptoms - and these are then further verified in clinical practice. Boeninghausen, for instance, did not automatically include all symptoms from the Materia Medica into his repertories, each symptom had to show their clinical value (compare this to the way modern repertories seem overly keen to include new remedies without any real demonstrable clinical veracity). Unfortunately, the techniques being used in many modern provings leave us with totally useless information, or at least less than satisfactory knowledge of drug substances, and many of these new "remedies" are in common usage amongst practitioners. I wonder whether the problem of repetition really just lies with emf's and low frequency radiation, or whether we're relying more and more on a bunch of remedies that are basically worthless in their information, or manufactured by labs that do not use traditional manufacturing methods??
Some of the original provers in Hahnemann's "provers union" were certainly not in the best of health. For example, Dr. Gross suffered from some kind of liver disease, and Langhammer was depressive and eventually became quite mentally unstable. Nevertheless Hahnemann was able to distinguish amongst the proving symptoms they elicited - and in fact many of their symptoms are found in the lists of our time proven polychrest remedies. Additionally, many of the symptoms contained in the materia medica of 'Chronic Diseases' were gleaned from clinical cases - as per Aphorism 142 (that technique should really be left to the experts!)
Chris Gillen
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: Well here's a new one!!!!! More!!
Theresa Partington wrote:
Ooops - skimming again! Please ignore what I said.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
Ooops - skimming again! Please ignore what I said.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
-
Theresa Partington
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Well here's a new one!!!!! More!!
Yes, I should get hold of the Herscu book - although I believe he does not see eye on the matter with Jeremy Sherr. Would you say Jeremy was one of those producing half baked remedies?
I agree in general about unreliable repertories, though. At Christmas i was looking up christmas remedies for a crossword i was compiling and kept coming up with falco - in RUV and nowhere else. When i went to the proving I really could not see where all those rubrics had come from. Back to the drawing board. As for Murphy, virtually the same rubric occurring in different chapters produce totally different remedy lists.
However, I don't think I can blame my own need to repeat on dodgy pharmacies (I use Helios) or 'new' remedies. I do use them from time to time, from various new remedy stables, but would hardly base a practice on them.
Natrum mur was good enough for my mother, good enough for me and I am making damn sure it's good enough for my daughter
Theresa
Chris wrote:
Regarding provings: There are ways to filter out "background" symptoms that would have occured anyway in the course of a proving in order to distinguish what are the true effects produced by the substance being tested. Paul Herscu explained very well how to do this in his 2 volume "Provings" books - and used the results from his own prover group which tested Alcoholus to clarify how he did it. That proving took place in 2001.
The best provers tend to be people who have a moderate level of sensitivity. Hypersensitive people don't make good provers because they overreact to almost everything, so it's difficult to know whether they're reacting to the drug or merely 'normal' everyday environmental stimuli. Logically, there should also be a number of people within the group who show little or no constitutional effects to the substance being tested, as this reflects what happens in the broader community when people take remedies. When you filter out the provers in the group who lie on both ends of this spectrum you should be left with a core group of reliable drug symptoms - and these are then further verified in clinical practice. Boeninghausen, for instance, did not automatically include all symptoms from the Materia Medica into his repertories, each symptom had to show their clinical value (compare this to the way modern repertories seem overly keen to include new remedies without any real demonstrable clinical veracity). Unfortunately, the techniques being used in many modern provings leave us with totally useless information, or at least less than satisfactory knowledge of drug substances, and many of these new "remedies" are in common usage amongst practitioners. I wonder whether the problem of repetition really just lies with emf's and low frequency radiation, or whether we're relying more and more on a bunch of remedies that are basically worthless in their information, or manufactured by labs that do not use traditional manufacturing methods??
Some of the original provers in Hahnemann's "provers union" were certainly not in the best of health. For example, Dr. Gross suffered from some kind of liver disease, and Langhammer was depressive and eventually became quite mentally unstable. Nevertheless Hahnemann was able to distinguish amongst the proving symptoms they elicited - and in fact many of their symptoms are found in the lists of our time proven polychrest remedies. Additionally, many of the symptoms contained in the materia medica of 'Chronic Diseases' were gleaned from clinical cases - as per Aphorism 142 (that technique should really be left
I agree in general about unreliable repertories, though. At Christmas i was looking up christmas remedies for a crossword i was compiling and kept coming up with falco - in RUV and nowhere else. When i went to the proving I really could not see where all those rubrics had come from. Back to the drawing board. As for Murphy, virtually the same rubric occurring in different chapters produce totally different remedy lists.
However, I don't think I can blame my own need to repeat on dodgy pharmacies (I use Helios) or 'new' remedies. I do use them from time to time, from various new remedy stables, but would hardly base a practice on them.
Natrum mur was good enough for my mother, good enough for me and I am making damn sure it's good enough for my daughter
Theresa
Chris wrote:
Regarding provings: There are ways to filter out "background" symptoms that would have occured anyway in the course of a proving in order to distinguish what are the true effects produced by the substance being tested. Paul Herscu explained very well how to do this in his 2 volume "Provings" books - and used the results from his own prover group which tested Alcoholus to clarify how he did it. That proving took place in 2001.
The best provers tend to be people who have a moderate level of sensitivity. Hypersensitive people don't make good provers because they overreact to almost everything, so it's difficult to know whether they're reacting to the drug or merely 'normal' everyday environmental stimuli. Logically, there should also be a number of people within the group who show little or no constitutional effects to the substance being tested, as this reflects what happens in the broader community when people take remedies. When you filter out the provers in the group who lie on both ends of this spectrum you should be left with a core group of reliable drug symptoms - and these are then further verified in clinical practice. Boeninghausen, for instance, did not automatically include all symptoms from the Materia Medica into his repertories, each symptom had to show their clinical value (compare this to the way modern repertories seem overly keen to include new remedies without any real demonstrable clinical veracity). Unfortunately, the techniques being used in many modern provings leave us with totally useless information, or at least less than satisfactory knowledge of drug substances, and many of these new "remedies" are in common usage amongst practitioners. I wonder whether the problem of repetition really just lies with emf's and low frequency radiation, or whether we're relying more and more on a bunch of remedies that are basically worthless in their information, or manufactured by labs that do not use traditional manufacturing methods??
Some of the original provers in Hahnemann's "provers union" were certainly not in the best of health. For example, Dr. Gross suffered from some kind of liver disease, and Langhammer was depressive and eventually became quite mentally unstable. Nevertheless Hahnemann was able to distinguish amongst the proving symptoms they elicited - and in fact many of their symptoms are found in the lists of our time proven polychrest remedies. Additionally, many of the symptoms contained in the materia medica of 'Chronic Diseases' were gleaned from clinical cases - as per Aphorism 142 (that technique should really be left
-
Luise Kunkle
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Well here's a new one!!!!! More!!
Hi Chris,
Did he sort out the symptoms that also occurred int the placebo
groups?
This assumption may be re-examined in the future.
In The "Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie" 4-2008 there was an
article by me on the methods of v. Bs prescriptions, based on the
manuscripts of his case books.
On the basis of this Dr. Klaus Holzapfel, the editor, wrote in his
introduction that the above assumption may have to be re-examined and
gave reasons for it. I have no idea how valid they are.
Since you have been doing research on v. B. and are also able to read
German you may be interested. If so I can send you one of my
complimentary copies of the ZKH, if you let me have your postal
address.
According to Hughes, at the time Hahnemann did the provings you
mention, i. e. those listed in the MM Pura, he always used the crude
substances. It is only the remedies from the MM of CD that he "proved"
in the potencies. I consider the reasons Hughes gave for his assertion
te be quite valid.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
Did he sort out the symptoms that also occurred int the placebo
groups?
This assumption may be re-examined in the future.
In The "Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie" 4-2008 there was an
article by me on the methods of v. Bs prescriptions, based on the
manuscripts of his case books.
On the basis of this Dr. Klaus Holzapfel, the editor, wrote in his
introduction that the above assumption may have to be re-examined and
gave reasons for it. I have no idea how valid they are.
Since you have been doing research on v. B. and are also able to read
German you may be interested. If so I can send you one of my
complimentary copies of the ZKH, if you let me have your postal
address.
According to Hughes, at the time Hahnemann did the provings you
mention, i. e. those listed in the MM Pura, he always used the crude
substances. It is only the remedies from the MM of CD that he "proved"
in the potencies. I consider the reasons Hughes gave for his assertion
te be quite valid.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========