Minutus

"Believe"???????????
Since when should we include beliefs in our practices?????
Someone claims there is a remedy, however produced, able to cure at low cost
a life-threatening health situation that has characteristic common signs,
symptoms and evolution.
That deserves investigation; apparently it is done, clinically, by quite a
few groups.
Any substance capable of curing symptoms in the sick should be able to cause
them in the healthy, right?
What is the problem trying to demonstrate that with a proving, whether the
creator of the substance thinks it is necessary or not???
Seems to be a lot of running after one own's tail here, I just don't get it.
Semantics again???.....
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

Actually Shannon what you say isn't correct. the whole design of the
remedy (hopefully for the last time) is that there is first design,
then materia medica, then remedy - so that the materia medica is
already in the remedy. It isn't a question of whether or not Chappell
knows what would come from a proving, he knows already that the materia
medica is intrinsic - that is why there is no need for the proving. In
this respect he has already said there is no need for provings.

Hahnemannian homeopaths might want to insist on a proving and even if
chappell wanted this he could never guess what sx would come from it,
who could do that anyway? Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That's what people do. Investigate away but it ain't homeopathy. Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We have a basic disagreement, but I'm tired of arguing it.
Best wishes,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

First there are the collected symptoms!!

Rgds
Soroush