Minutus

Finrod wrote:

Really?
You wrote based on 6-24 that one could not call it homeopathy if the
remedy was not in a proving. I disagreed. It IS in context as we are
discussing interpretation off 6-24 per YOUR subject line choice.

Your words were:
More importantly than whether something is in context - I'm glad to hear
you explained you have a different view now, based on Aph 3:

as was Irene's Ruta. There is no argument. >>

Glad we are in accord.
Namaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Richard Shannon wrote:

I agree Rik, but there are situations where pure research is warranted.
In addition pure research in homeopathy does no carry the risks of pure
research with an allopathic drug.
You might argue that what I did with Ruta was pure research. But it
was more than a whim as the herbal form is known to help clear spider
toxins - and there were several documented matching rubrics. The main
point is that I needed to stop the fast advance of poison and the
traditional remedies had all failed.
So I had two choices - let the poison continue to make me more ill -
or try something VERY low risk like Ruta. To me that was no contest
which to do - one ALWAYS does what is in the best interests of the
individual. To me that is the number one ethic to hold - to do what is
in the best interests of the individual. It supercedes all other ethics
codes in my view.
Modern life often adopts rigid codes that can not foresee special
circumezstances of which the code writer did not conceive. It is thus in
m view, always beter to have principles rather than rules to abide by.
The principle of "do no harm" was supposed to be in that vein - but as
usual a negative principle has problems - and a "do what's best"
positive one will always provide better options.

effect should

Informed consent is appropriate in all cases.
I have obtained this for example in my FIP cases when trying something
new in order to improve the chances where they looked terribly bleak.
With all individuals involved doing the best they know how,and with
informed consent for unproven approaches, the failed cases are failed
attempts to improve life. We are not perfect, and never will be. But we
can do our best. And it IS the successes that lead us on to better
future cases. Without them we would always be where we always were -
with no progress possible:-)

Namaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

I think Michael answered you!

Regards

Soroush

Hello Irene,
We agree fully with regards to the intent of the practitioner needing to try to "improve
life". But my concern was generally regarding the wealth of ill-educated, albeit well
meaning "not really ready to practice" practitioners who are trying to utilize any number of
different Homeopathic models i.e. Sankaran, Scholten, and continue trying/experimenting
until some remedy does something. "Intent" no matter how well meaning, can never
replace the ineptitude we all see w/regards to sound Homeopathic principles and skill
which is born from mostly lots of very hard work. In my opinion we should be leary of
giving unproven rx's and reporting it only when it succeeds. I am also concerned that
when such a rx. is given as in Dr. Roz's example, if the patient should be made very aware
that something largely unproven is being given. My concern was not specific to your use of
Ruta which I found to be very well founded. Not too mention it was you giving permission
to you to give a rx. on a well educated whim.

Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers wrote:

Hi all,

I agree with the point that we can get a lot of valid remedy information - and still be "homeopathic"- by knowing the historical & clinical uses. After all that's where H& his homeopaths started their provings from - the known herbals and allopathic chemicals of the day.

However, I think the original question was inferring something a bit different -
Micheal asked

What I think he was implying without mentioning (famous) names- is that the information from some interpretations & analyses of the periodic table are highly conjectural (ie not proved before use), the uses are inferred from certain indirect observations or theories.

So let me try to rephrase in this sense - Are such remedies "homeopathic" if they are without any basis in fact (provings), clinical or historical use?

AND........In turn, let's not forget that historically many herbals became known to the herbalists thru the intuitive Doctrine of Signatures- and other intuitive means. We shouldn't ignore these roots of our own homeopathy. Even Ed. Bach used intuition to point his way to the particular Flower Rx's he discovered.

So my devils-advocate challenge is: Are we to denigrate as unhomeopathic rx arrived at by intuitive,signature or extra-logical means (eg the periodic table remedies)?
Sincerely,
Didi Ananda Ruchira
Director, Abha Light
visit: www.abhalight.org
tel: +254 20 445-0181 / cells: +254 733-895466 / +254 723-869133
skype: anandarucira
----------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------
"easy access to the world"

When a patient comes to a practitioner of whatever technique, it is with the implicit trust that the practitioner knows what he/she is doing.
Only in cases where the therapy or the way to apply it is highly hypothetical, dangerous and totally unexplored, not resting upon sound bases, would I ever dream informing the patient about it; this is actually what I do now with a different approach to potencies I am experimenting with.
As for the Equisetum case, it did rest upon well explored and known bases (IMO) although the combination of those bases is rarely if ever used; nevertheless even so, I DID tell her that I could not promise any clear cut results as this was the first time the remedy was used for this indication.
Then we are back with speculations about Sanakran and Scholten's methods: they BOTH stress in each and every class, course or conference I went to that their method is not not for the beginners, that you need a sound professional knowledge of homeopathy before even thinking about learning and applying their approaches. Learn to walk before running. Learn weapon safety before going hunting. Learn to swim before scuba diving........you get my drift.
I have seen practitioners of ALL methods (and I mean all, including surgeons........) do things they did not have a clue about. The method is not to blame, the user is and his/her teacher, if he/she had one at all.
Although I do not use Sankaran and Scholten's methods per se, studying them has vastly improved my knowledge and my understanding as well as my ability to better prescribe; as has done the study of Heilkunst, of the French approaches and of all the different therapeutic techniques, eventually arriving at the stage where I can see the intimate relations that exist between all the different methods, including allopathy if practiced sanely.
I would be a sloppy prescriber if I did not use that information.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Go to www.lulu.com/content/1103716 for my new book "The Handbook of Gemmotherapy"

When a patient comes to a practitioner of whatever technique, it is with the implicit trust that the practitioner knows what he/she is doing.
Only in cases where the therapy or the way to apply it is highly hypothetical, dangerous and totally unexplored, not resting upon sound bases, would I ever dream informing the patient about it; this is actually what I do now with a different approach to potencies I am experimenting with.
As for the Equisetum case, it did rest upon well explored and known bases (IMO) although the combination of those bases is rarely if ever used; nevertheless even so, I DID tell her that I could not promise any clear cut results as this was the first time the remedy was used for this indication.
Then we are back with speculations about Sanakran and Scholten's methods: they BOTH stress in each and every class, course or conference I went to that their method is not not for the beginners, that you need a sound professional knowledge of homeopathy before even thinking about learning and applying their approaches. Learn to walk before running. Learn weapon safety before going hunting. Learn to swim before scuba diving........you get my drift.
I have seen practitioners of ALL methods (and I mean all, including surgeons........) do things they did not have a clue about. The method is not to blame, the user is and his/her teacher, if he/she had one at all.
Although I do not use Sankaran and Scholten's methods per se, studying them has vastly improved my knowledge and my understanding as well as my ability to better prescribe; as has done the study of Heilkunst, of the French approaches and of all the different therapeutic techniques, eventually arriving at the stage where I can see the intimate relations that exist between all the different methods, including allopathy if practiced sanely.
I would be a sloppy prescriber if I did not use that information.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Go to www.lulu.com/content/1103716 for my new book "The Handbook of Gemmotherapy"

Hi Irene,

While I agree with all you said, one remark:
cut

This can get confusing, since the English work for "proving" also
means "demonstrate a proof".

This is not so in the German word Hahnemann used. It is
"Arzneimittelprfüung", which means translated "test of remedies". The
reason why the first translator translated this with "proving" will
always remain a mystery:-)

However - you did test the remedy -- so you are right after all!

Regards

Luise

not make sense:-))

--
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 <==========

Dear Dr. Rozencwajg,
I wish all of the well meaning "not ready to practice yet" folks were applying your
common sensical approach. But alas they are not. Nor are they informing their clients. I
practice a number of methodologies myself including Scholten+Sankaran, especially when
faced with a tough case that has eluded me. And although in their writings and seminars
they are huge proponents of mastering the early classical approach, many do not and they
are the ones that scare me. I recently overheard in Vancouver where Sankaran lectured for
a week, that a "proving" was to take place among a number of novices in which they
sought to prove the reflection of the moon on the water. It was to be an "energetic" rx. an
imponderable if you will. These people are practicing. They consider themselves to be
Homeopaths. They are growing in numbers especially on the west coast of the US. They
are full of well meaning intent but they are dragging Homepathy and their patients health
through the mud. These people are not informing their patients of what it is they are
giving them or of their own credentials or level of skill. It is this excuse for incompetence
that I think we can ill afford to let happen on our watch. I feel that it is our duty to police
our own backyard concerning the growing number of grossly inept prescribers.
Your basis for your Equisetum case is well thought out and you made your patient fully
aware of what to expect or not expect. Your "intentions" were bundled nicely with a
tremendous amount of skill. You are and exception to the growing number of folks who,
well beyond prescribing combos, are doing irepairable damage to the art and science we
all love and cherish.

Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD,NMD." wrote:

Ah yes - SO well said Dr Roz!
Thanks,
Irene.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD,NMD. wrote:
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."