Dear Colleagues
To those that say we do not need new remedies, I would say ok at what point do we reach a stage where we can say we do not need ANY new remedies? What is the basis of that point.
To those that advocate new remedies, I would say let us have PROPER provings and have these to high standards that even Hahnemann would be proud of it (as an example look at the proving of Sepia by Hn) and then let us quickly get the info into the repertory (and again properly).
[ And please can we avoid big errors like the rubrics "cannot look at blood" and "cannot look at knife" in the case of alum whereas the rubric should be LOOK AT BLOODY KNIFE, CANNOT !]
Another important question for the proving master is how do we find 'HEALTHY' volunteers in this day and age where almost everyone has been tainted with all sorts of diseases and pollution?
Good healing everyone
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
New remedies
Re: New remedies
A very good point Soroush. This is achieved by the full case of each prover
being taken by an experienced homeopath and then the provers keeping a diary
for a week before the proving is started. In this way it can be noted what
symptoms are part of the proving and what part of the prover.
Regards,
Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk
being taken by an experienced homeopath and then the provers keeping a diary
for a week before the proving is started. In this way it can be noted what
symptoms are part of the proving and what part of the prover.
Regards,
Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk