Minutus

I can see it now, a futuristic television drama series, entitled
"Desperate Homeopaths" - I wonder who would get the starring roles.

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/

I've been musing over this...
So Joy, you're saying that even *if* this technology is shown to
"work", meaning, even if it's shown to speed the process of finding a
remedy that will deeply cure (according to our criteria, of course),
and even if it shows capacity to solve cases that have gone unsolved
for years (and I trust no one here is unaware or could deny that this
happens, *even* with best efforts and best-experienced prescribers),
and even if a prescriber feels that s/he really cannot identify or
recognize the remedy that a patient needs--

Even under those conditions, you still feel it would be in some way
more honorable for the homeopath to either give up, or refer the
patient on (and some have been referred on multiple times already), or
continue flailing, rather than use or refer the patient to that
technology, if it were available? I find this extremely interesting!
And if that's not what you mean, then please clarify.

Of course there are other options, and those certainly won't fall by
the wayside: more seminars, provings, learning and experimenting with
analysis methods--Scholten, Sankaran, meditative provings--all sorts of
ways of trying to find a remedy for someone whose need falls outside
the familiar. These approaches do yield payoffs, tho of course those
methods have exactly the same objections leveled at them--the "is it
homeopathy", and "what about provings" questions. So which would you
find less objectionable--"bioluminesence" or similar, or "speculative"
methods such as Sankaran and Scholten, or meditative provings?

Why is "embarrassment" more threatening than failure--and which *is*
less of a stigma in a patient's eyes--repeated failure, or being
referred for an alternate evaluation? What do you think?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well the hanky-panky will increase the interest if nothing else will

))))))

Rgds
Soroush

I should add--It's not that I think this should *replace* our usual
methods--that I certainly do NOT think! One of the beauties of
homeopathy, which I appreciate so deeply, is how much can be achieved,
with so little "technology". But for certain patients...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joy Lucas wrote:

I'd rather see a spinoff from "Cold Case".
Carol

If some one can come up with a better more sure way of finding the similimum for the patient, I am for it.

We went around on bare foot and then on animals' backs and then carts, motor vehicle and the planes and space vehicle.

Things are ALLOWED to develop but principle criteria need always to be maintained.

---------

Provings are the key tools of our profession - and I really resent attempts which are made to dilute these tools by non-Hahnemannian and perhaps biased methods. The Hn method has its own problems without adding other variables to it. Do we really need these other 'methods'?

Why can they not be done using the standard methods used by Jeremy et al?

After all, we should be able to re-prove a remedy and obtain the same sort of symptoms - can this be generated by dreaming, meditating and conferencing etc?
Rgds
Soroush

Dear Shannon, I can't get beyond thinking that basic and fundamental
homeopathy is all the technology we need - this has been proven now for
so long. But we do need to examine why we fail with a client (this
happens to every homeopath and we certainly shouldn't keep a client
hanging on, they should be referred if we can't shift a case). I am
forever dumbfounded by some methods of case taking and not surprised at
the failure rates but I honestly can't say where the core of the
problem lies regarding difficult cases and yet there can be many
reasons. But I think we need a context for this apparent failure - to
what extent are homeopaths failing? It isn't enough for me to hear from
so called top homeopaths that their success rate is so low, especially
when I wonder how much time they actually spend practising instead of
teaching, travelling, doing conferences, provings, writing books,
getting stuck up there on the pedestal etc. Perhaps it is east versus
west - go to India and you will be amazed at the high success rates of
cure I am sure.

Personally, I work from the point of view that no-one 'falls outside of
the familiar' and we need to stop trying so hard at fringe methods and
try harder at the basics which are good enough, then and only then can
we be in a position to try other methods although what would be the
point if we have fined tuned our own and get good results. I think too
many homeopaths rush out and try to clone other's methods without
finding their own way based on the fundamental principles - this is
flailing in my opinion.

The public image of homeopathy is one thing, hence my use of the word
embarrassment in regard to fringe methods but this doesn't compare with
our own failures - we have to work at it. There will always be a
technology on offer that makes promises - even the highly priced
computer software for homeopathy has a huge tinge of hope attached to
them. I would encourage folks to select one good repertory, one good
materia medica and work at it

Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Joy,
Some thoughts interspersed:
For most acutes, and many chronic cases. But not so for those who have
already seen a string of homeopaths and are still waiting for deep or
lasting change! That was a big part of my point--it is for *those*
patients (and I have inherited a couple of them, as they're family)
that I feel this could be such a Godsend.
And if they've already *been* referred without result...
Sure, many reasons, many possible "cores".
Looking one of my long-term trouble cases (my daughter, for FWIW is now
doing very well [pat-pat]), I see that one possible reason is:
"miracle remedy" (as many here will have heard me say before, sheepish
smile) came after four years of severe struggle (birth to age 4), when
our homeopath went to a conference in which he heard the Lyssin picture
described for the first time--Bingo!

We then had year after year when she was WAAAY ready for that "next
remedy", but he could not work out what she needed. Eventually (when
she was 10) I found that "next step" by a simple, happy accident--she
threw out a nice, peculiar symptom during an (?)acute, which suggested
sepia, which shifted things quite dramatically, and lastingly. Why
wasn't good ol' sepia tried before? Because of another possible block:
to the prescriber; or, similar yet different, prescriber may be
distracted by aspects of the case that are not truly central to "what
needs to be cured".

Those are two possibilities among a number.

But the *reasons* for the problems are to my mind somewhat secondary.
The point I am "poking at" is whether we should refuse to use an
"improvement" simply because it doesn't fit with our philosophy.
I don't know. To some extent that is comparing apples and oranges...
Some of what we've heard about the awesomely fast and efficient and
successful practices are simply not aimed at the same sorts of
conditions or situations. But unless someone can offer statistics,
there's not much point in debating it.

But actually, I don't want to debate statistics anyway. Because again,
I am not arguing to *replace* our usual methods, but rather to be
willing to enhance them.
What do you mean? Are you saying that no one needs any remedy that's
not already in our mainstream mat.med? Certainly some *do* fall
outside of what's familiar *to their homeopath(s)*--we're not holding
out on these patients just for fun! If we knew what to give, we would
give it. We *don't* give it, because those patients "fall outside of
the familiar"--for us, at least. And in some cases, fall outside of
the familiar for numerous and well-trained homeopaths, as in a child
who needed Lyssin, before the Lyssin works had been published.

E.g. someone whose needed remedy was Germanium, but it hadn't been
proved yet. Or wasn't known to the prescriber... Hm, I think you
simply misunderstood what I said, and I don't know what you *think* I
said...
Jeremy Sherr (for one among many possible examples) might be amused at
your assumption that his "basics" are not good enough, and that's why
he's had to prove new remedies in order to cure certain patients...
And while I admit that my "basics" are not perfect--so many remedies to
learn, and so little time!--and no doubt your "basics" too are
continually evolving (I've always heard, and have come to deeply
believe, that homeopathy *is* a process of lifelong learning!), at some
point the "reasons" and finger-pointing are all irrelevant--if we have
stopped looking for ways to help our yet-uncured patients. Or, if we
are persisting at searching only "here where the light is better" (i.e.
at method we already understand) rather than taking an honest look at
other possibilities.

No one can know everything. I would never fault someone for simply
*not knowing* about another way to help a patient. But to say that
*even if* the patient could be more effectively helped by a different
method that we wouldn't tell them about it because it doesn't fit
within our philosophical comfort zone... Hm.
I agree that's a problem. I share your belief that homeopathic
training should begin with "the basics". But mainly I am interesting
in this point about why we wouldn't support a "technology" if it is
found to work--within our own definition? Why deny a patient help,
simply to support one's personal philosophy?

Most of these work with multiple remedies, and I (and I assume you
also) actually have no basis whatever for judging them--tho my own
limited experience was not favorable. I have not seen anything
written, or heard anyone's experience, that makes me feel it's an
improvement over what we do--the reverse, in fact.

The situation with the bioluminescence technology *seems* to be
different.
But actually I'm not even trying to defend that particular technology,
I'm more just kind of poking at your reasons for saying that we
shouldn't use / investigate / support it, *even* with patients we've
been unable to help, and *no matter* how good the results might be.
That quite an extreme position, and that is what I find odd--to say
that we shouldn't use it *even if* it will enable us to get solid,
homeopathic cures that we otherwise can't. I still don't understand
that!
Wow, you mean I only needed one of each!?!?! LOL!

Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joy Lucas wrote:
What is a good enough result or stat?

Is there no possibility for the best to improve?

Where are all the wealthy patients who can afford the
unfortunate "luxury" of being referred out several times?
"Fringe" has such a derogatory connotation, it implies no one
should want whatever is being referred to - regardless of content,
quality, or usefulness. "Fringe" is a word of broadbrush dismissal,
to get others to dismiss without own examination.

The fact that an innovative adjunct technology comes up in
conversation, an invitation for others to consider the
possibilities, doesn't mean the technology is necessarily
going to be misused. Well ok, it probably will be misused by
someone, but that's true of any technology or approach. The
potential for misuse should not detract from ethical and
constructive applications.

There seems to be the implication that if someone seriously
considered the possibilities for remarkable statistical
improvement in case resolution via confirmatory and quality control
from "coherence imaging", that one hasn't studied enough,
they're not working hard enough, they're not using a quality MM
and Rep, they're not something enough, that's why they're failing
or not doing as well as they themselves want to do.
While that may be true in some cases, it's not true in all cases,
so the implication amounts of an unfair accusation,
i.e. an injustice.

That's why I referred earlier to "the best homeopaths", and
the possibility of advancing their case resolution stats,
even significantly and remarkably advancing them.
We can presume, and I did presume, they're already doing what you
suggest *by definition* -- that's part of what MAKES them "the best
homeopaths" up to this point in history. Not fame necessarily,
though some of the "best" could also be "famous." Highest
rates of cure (divided into acutes and chronic) would be part
of my definition of "best." If they did all the Hair Shirt
rigor but didn't have some of the best stats, we couldn't
say they were among the "best." Likewise if they have
high stats but are not rigorous in the Hair Shirt
tradition, we couldn't say they were among the "best" either.
Rigor and stats are both part of defining "best" homeopaths.

It's only rational to allow for improvement and breakthrough
to come about in ways we might not have suspected. Indeed,
if we suspected or knew it beforehand, it wouldn't be an
improvement or a breakthrough.

Maintaining a healthy skepticism and ethics are par for the course.
As an old philosophy teacher, I expect that.

Carol Willis
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/willis_protocols
Article archive in Files, blog, Links, not a discussion group.

Dear Shannon, I still say we have to carefully examine WHY we fail with
cases and I think much of it is down to teaching, studying, clinic
work, case taking skills, etc, we just don't study enough and teaching
isn't rigorous enough. Almost anyone can prescribe a homeopathic rx and
without a great deal of learning. I personally feel that potential
homeopaths should only be licensed after considerable case successes
and most of those should be supervised. Something must be terribly
wrong if a client is referred time and time again without success and I
am curious as to what is the cause of that and rectifying it (as it can
be if we try hard enough). It shouldn't come down to a coincidental
lecture about a rx - although this tends to happen a lot, you get a
concentration on a particular remedy and many people say, ah yes,
that's the one. But the full picture is already there so how come it
wasn't found? Our remedies should not be unfamiliar to us - underline
that 10 times! We have to devote more study time to our remedies, they
being so fundamental to our practice. And likewise with learning how to
take a case - if we do not centre on what needs to be cured then how
can we cure - no magic black box is going to do that for us, although I
take it you will be purchasing one and letting us know how you get on
)

It isn't just a question of whether an 'improvement' fits with our
philosophy or not, certainly not until we can fix the basics and then
no improvement will be needed - this IS the only improvement we need.
As I said, no-one falls outside of the familiar (your words actually,
which as you say I might have misunderstood), and by this I mean that I
believe that no client can be out of reach with homeopathy.

I don't know where you are getting the finger pointing issue from or
that we/I might have stopped looking for ways to cure clients and I
certainly don't support anything to do with denying a client help due
to personal philosophy. Philosophy of Homeopathy is all that is needed.
We just have to try harder and anyway I've said that enough times. The
basics are good enough but it takes intensive study and practice. To go
outward looking for technology to replace that is poor choice and
appears to be a huge proclamation that homeopathy isn't good enough
without it, either that or people are just not confident enough of
their own abilities. Best wishes, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]