Thanks, Joy -
It is a very nice list of "watch out for this advice"; I agree with all of these- and yes - "keeping silent oneself" and LISTENING ( to both said and unsaid messages)- is the golden rule...
But in some countries ( like India) where doctors play multiple roles, friend, philospher, guide, financial adviser etc. ( I have even loaned money to patients to buy medicines and food ) I have had my share of problems in maintaining a very objective relationship. When you have someone who has to go to work the next day to support her family of 4 of 5 children and all the children are sitting around you and look up to you like you are God ( in India doctors used to carry a lot of respect) it is very difficult not to get involved with the families...
I remember a case where an old woman came to me with about 10 people ( she rented out apartments in a big house she owned) and told me " I have had to pass urine 20 - 30 times yesterday, make it alright and I shall bring my whole street of people to you" - she did not have any other medical history and has been menopausal for about 20 years...later on after labs were done it turned out that she had Diabetes - but right then and there - I gave Calc.phos 200 and that took care of her condition - and the best thing is she became so attached to my family and we used to call her my wife's foster mother...
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
Sankaran, Scholten and others, was provings???
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was provings???
Lovely story 
But I still see that as objective (doesn't mean cold fish) because you know your medicines.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
But I still see that as objective (doesn't mean cold fish) because you know your medicines.Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
-
Luise Kunkle
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was provings???
Hi Joe,
I do not quite understand your conclusion in the last paragraph, i.e.
.
If the homeopaths treating this patient were teaching at well-known
schools, I guess they had had excellent training in the conventional
homeopathy and also a lot of experience?
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 <==========
I do not quite understand your conclusion in the last paragraph, i.e.
.
If the homeopaths treating this patient were teaching at well-known
schools, I guess they had had excellent training in the conventional
homeopathy and also a lot of experience?
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 <==========
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was provings???
Dear Joe
Thank you for this post. Indeed I have also seen cases being incorrectly prescribed for by someone new to Sankaran's method.
Lat month I had the pleasure to spend time with Ardavan and another colleague Dr Nader Moradi who from time to time posts on Minutus. Both use Ardavan's Repertorium Virosum which is such a break-through. It is this that makes homeopathy the medicine for the 21st century.
Once one reads through Ardavan's writings on miasms, one understands clearly what Hn struggled to explain and later writers made worst by confusing the picture.
TNX & Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
Sent: 02 July 2009 00:19
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was Re: [Minutus] Re: provings???
I sat at quite a few seminars and courses by Sankaran, Scholten and some of their students who now teach. I read their books, watched their DVDs.
So I tried to use what they were teaching.
I need to differentiate between their methods and their Materia Medica.
I was never able to get anywhere with the methods, as clear as it seemed during the classes. Simply too many assumptions, classifications and pigeon-holing for me: I could never be certain in which series or column to put the symptoms and signs, what "level" they were (Sankaran); deciding which miasm is already at times difficult with 5 ones, let alone with all the others, except for the Acute miasm.
I felt that it would be guesswork to try, even though I am fully aware of some of my colleagues being able to practice that way with very much success....but not me.
Yet, when arriving at a remedy the "usual" way and checking it/them in their Materia Medicas, I was and still am amazed at the precision and the "spot-on" description of the patient's situations; at times, I read some paragraphs to the patients, the reaction is often "yes, that is exactly me!!!".
I have also been able to "retro-fit" the cases: once done and the prescription made, I have looked up the case "backwards" and yes, the remedies generally fit well with the classifications of both authors.
Interesting.
But here is a case, which I will have to be vague about as I do not have permission to publish: this patient's ordeal started with a poorly done detoxification, with aggravation of all symptoms and signs. After going from one practitioner to another and receiving many treatments that made the situation even worse, this patient was then treated by 3 different well known homeopaths, some teaching in very well known schools.
One prescription was an animal remedy recently proved, based on the Kingdoms; one was a very bizarre mineral based on total misunderstanding of Scholten and one was a plant (root) based again on misinterpretation of Sankaran. Checking the case with those remedies did not make any sense, at least to me....
Each and every treatment made the situation worse to the extent that now the patient cannot even touch any bottle of any potency of any remedy without reacting; even the apparently best indicated remedies, although ameliorating some symptoms, terribly aggravate others.
Which brings me back to the very first sentences that both Sankaran and Scholten say during their classes: their systems are not to be used without a full understanding and a lot of experience of lets call it "conventional homeopathy"; it is not for the beginners, for the unexperienced and even with lots of experience, should not be used indiscriminately.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for articles and information.
Thank you for this post. Indeed I have also seen cases being incorrectly prescribed for by someone new to Sankaran's method.
Lat month I had the pleasure to spend time with Ardavan and another colleague Dr Nader Moradi who from time to time posts on Minutus. Both use Ardavan's Repertorium Virosum which is such a break-through. It is this that makes homeopathy the medicine for the 21st century.
Once one reads through Ardavan's writings on miasms, one understands clearly what Hn struggled to explain and later writers made worst by confusing the picture.
TNX & Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
Sent: 02 July 2009 00:19
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was Re: [Minutus] Re: provings???
I sat at quite a few seminars and courses by Sankaran, Scholten and some of their students who now teach. I read their books, watched their DVDs.
So I tried to use what they were teaching.
I need to differentiate between their methods and their Materia Medica.
I was never able to get anywhere with the methods, as clear as it seemed during the classes. Simply too many assumptions, classifications and pigeon-holing for me: I could never be certain in which series or column to put the symptoms and signs, what "level" they were (Sankaran); deciding which miasm is already at times difficult with 5 ones, let alone with all the others, except for the Acute miasm.
I felt that it would be guesswork to try, even though I am fully aware of some of my colleagues being able to practice that way with very much success....but not me.
Yet, when arriving at a remedy the "usual" way and checking it/them in their Materia Medicas, I was and still am amazed at the precision and the "spot-on" description of the patient's situations; at times, I read some paragraphs to the patients, the reaction is often "yes, that is exactly me!!!".
I have also been able to "retro-fit" the cases: once done and the prescription made, I have looked up the case "backwards" and yes, the remedies generally fit well with the classifications of both authors.
Interesting.
But here is a case, which I will have to be vague about as I do not have permission to publish: this patient's ordeal started with a poorly done detoxification, with aggravation of all symptoms and signs. After going from one practitioner to another and receiving many treatments that made the situation even worse, this patient was then treated by 3 different well known homeopaths, some teaching in very well known schools.
One prescription was an animal remedy recently proved, based on the Kingdoms; one was a very bizarre mineral based on total misunderstanding of Scholten and one was a plant (root) based again on misinterpretation of Sankaran. Checking the case with those remedies did not make any sense, at least to me....
Each and every treatment made the situation worse to the extent that now the patient cannot even touch any bottle of any potency of any remedy without reacting; even the apparently best indicated remedies, although ameliorating some symptoms, terribly aggravate others.
Which brings me back to the very first sentences that both Sankaran and Scholten say during their classes: their systems are not to be used without a full understanding and a lot of experience of lets call it "conventional homeopathy"; it is not for the beginners, for the unexperienced and even with lots of experience, should not be used indiscriminately.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for articles and information.
Re: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was provings???
Amen to that. I remember some years ago watching a Sankaran method case-taking where the practitioner focused obsessively on one gesture (out of many made by the patient). It struck me that this was just like asking leading questions.
Worse, the practitioner interpreted the gesture as meaning the patient needed a remedy made from hen's blood. Having raised chickens for the last five years, I can tell you that hens make no such gesture. Roosters might.
Peace,
Dale
Worse, the practitioner interpreted the gesture as meaning the patient needed a remedy made from hen's blood. Having raised chickens for the last five years, I can tell you that hens make no such gesture. Roosters might.
Peace,
Dale
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was provings???
But apparently they did not understand correctly or did misuse Sankaran and Scholten's techniques.
I looked up the remedies they used in the books by those authors, and they absolutely did not correlate at all with the patient's case.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for articles and information.
I looked up the remedies they used in the books by those authors, and they absolutely did not correlate at all with the patient's case.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for articles and information.
-
Richard Nash- Shannon
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:51 pm
Re: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was provings???
Hello Dale,
Might I invite you to read the case from Johnathan Shores "Bird" book from Divya Chabra. It wreaks of professional backscratching. On top of being an awful case unto itself, it has no follow-ups! And this is being presented in schools as a textbook for the Sankaran/sensation method when the students study the animal/bird rxs. This is what my biggest point of contention has been with the Homeopathic community as a whole for sometime is the horrible lack of peer review.
And don't even get me started on hand or facial gestures!!!! You should see mine right now!!!
Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Dale Moss" wrote:
Might I invite you to read the case from Johnathan Shores "Bird" book from Divya Chabra. It wreaks of professional backscratching. On top of being an awful case unto itself, it has no follow-ups! And this is being presented in schools as a textbook for the Sankaran/sensation method when the students study the animal/bird rxs. This is what my biggest point of contention has been with the Homeopathic community as a whole for sometime is the horrible lack of peer review.
And don't even get me started on hand or facial gestures!!!! You should see mine right now!!!
Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Dale Moss" wrote:
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was provings???
Lack of follow-up is IMO a HUGE omission. I feel that one can't make
*any* evaluation of a prescription unless there is extended
follow-up--preferably on the order of years, so you get to see at what
point other remedies were needed. I've seen and experienced instances
where a given remedy produced *wonderful* initial result, but it did
not last--some where it was *only* the initial dose that drew any
response (even if the first one was terrific), and others where each
repetition produced less response, and tweaking potency did not solve
the problem, and in the end we were right back where we started.
That's one thing I really apperciate in Scholten's Lanthanides book--he
gives good follow-up, and evaluates the depth, length and strenghth of
the amelioration / cure. I do wish that every publication would insist
on similar, because without decent follow-up, IMO cases are literally
almost worthless. My tangent.
Shannon
*any* evaluation of a prescription unless there is extended
follow-up--preferably on the order of years, so you get to see at what
point other remedies were needed. I've seen and experienced instances
where a given remedy produced *wonderful* initial result, but it did
not last--some where it was *only* the initial dose that drew any
response (even if the first one was terrific), and others where each
repetition produced less response, and tweaking potency did not solve
the problem, and in the end we were right back where we started.
That's one thing I really apperciate in Scholten's Lanthanides book--he
gives good follow-up, and evaluates the depth, length and strenghth of
the amelioration / cure. I do wish that every publication would insist
on similar, because without decent follow-up, IMO cases are literally
almost worthless. My tangent.
Shannon
Re: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was provings???
If the experience would be as excruciating as watching that "Hen" case being taken, I think I'll pass. Besides, IMHO, a case with no follow-up is not a case at all.
Peace,
Dale
Peace,
Dale
-
Richard Nash- Shannon
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:51 pm
Re: Sankaran, Scholten and others, was provings???
Hello Shannon,
Just as an aside, sound, lengthy follow-up is a new thing for Scholten. In his earlier books there was a lot less of it. I was happy to see that he was persuaded to properly write up the cases in a format that should be equal in value to our evil counterparts.....the allopaths!
Best regards, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:
Just as an aside, sound, lengthy follow-up is a new thing for Scholten. In his earlier books there was a lot less of it. I was happy to see that he was persuaded to properly write up the cases in a format that should be equal in value to our evil counterparts.....the allopaths!
Best regards, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote: