Minutus

Dear all,

back to the original root of this message....
I also think that cured cases symptoms/rubrics are at least as relevant (for use in practice) as the proving symptoms and try to keep track of them when adding information into the repertory (I keep track of proving/clinical/cured/constitutional/phyto/toxicology, and the amount of those when encountered) Might be used later on even in improving analysis.
Throughout time you see that a maximum of about 32 % of the proving symptoms get clinically confirmed through cures, no more. That leaves a lot of information unconfirmed. Garbage? No, often helping giving some good idea about the general picture of the remedy. Some garbage? Sure.
Imagine a group of provers, they want to produce symptoms and therefore some part of what is produced is not proving related but prover related. (Good examples can already be found in Hahnemanns students who participated in his provings)
Imagine a patient: they come to you with symptoms they do not want to produce, but they want to get rid of them. The opposite takes place. These symptoms are disease related and what can be cured with a certain remedy is important to be noted

be well,

Roger
Roger van Zandvoort
Gruttosingel 36
2496HW Den Haag
The Netherlands
e-fax: (0031)(0)84 751 9915

rogervanzandvoort@mac.com

Complete repertory info: http://www.morphologica.com
CompleteDynamics info: http://www.completedynamics.com

Roger is the author of the Complete Repertory and Repertorium Universale, published in several languages. He lectures and continues writing/developing for the benefit of homeopathy.
His work is used by all important homeopathic programs worldwide:
Cara (TM) Complete Dynamics (TM) Complete Synopsis (TM) Comrep (TM) Isis (TM) Homeoquest (TM) MacRepertory (TM) Mercurius (TM) ReferenceWorks (TM) Remedy (TM) Ruby (TM) Sesam (TM) Stimulare (TM) Similimum expert (TM)

After four years of studying with him, I can say I'm truly impressed by Massimo's results. Particularly in cases where he's had ten years' follow-up or more, you really see how the Px has evolved, not only growing toward better physical health but gaining in insight into himself/herself. (And, Irene, the "five year figure" is NOT borrowed from allopathy. We often joke that results that would thrill most of us just aren't good enough for him. That's why the long follow-ups: he wants to see how the remedy really plays out.)
That's not to say that all of his cases become disease-free, which would be an unrealistic goal for anyone dealing with very severe problems. Read his book on Cactaceae to see how he uses cactus remedies for end-of-life issues. It's an eye-opener.
Does he ever change remedies? Only if he thinks he didn't get it right the first time, which is increasingly rare. At the last seminar a month or so ago, we saw a live case of a young boy born with severe hypospadias. A sweet, likable, and very strange child whose energy seemed totally alien, to me at least. We were all scratching our heads as to what the right remedy was. Massimo recognized it at once as Proteus -- which floored the class. I'm looking forward to seeing the results in October.
As for using a single remedy for everything, it does work, provided you have the remedy nailed. I presented a case (two years' follow-up) where I was sure I had the remedy right, but it wasn't working as well as I felt it should. The problem was in the posology: for this particular Px, given the extraordinary stresses in her life, she needed to be on LMs. Once I got her on an LM1, her brain fog cleared enough so she could remember to take the remedy when needed.
Peace,
Dale

Hi Ellen,
I had a rather voluminous discussion with a student of his on the
German list. I wish you could read Germany:-)

Actually, in the end we agreed to disagree:-))

Matter of fact, he is one of the (many) homeopaths I mentioned in a
mail to Irene - one whose approach I respect althouth it is different
from Irene's and mine.
Well, in the case of the above: he claims that, of course, he does not
measure up to the "master" yet, but that his results have quite
impoved since he used Mag's method.

Seems like an ambitious standard. He appears to be
Well, I suspect that like all the other authors I have read he bases
his documentation on positive results, splrinking in a negative one
once in a while.

If you want to read non-biased reports on success/failure you'd have
to read the casebooks. It seems, however, that homeoptahs are not
interested in such accounts, since the published Hahnemann's casebooks
have sold very purely even there where people are able to read German
and/or French.

A small section of such accounts you may find on my homepage
www.bar-do.net. Very small for those who cannot read German at all,
useful to a degree to those who can read to understand just a little.

Originally I was going to translate all the German language cases on
my site (and more) into English, but since there was practically no
evidence of any interest in those I did translate, I stopped the
labour.
Exactly.

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 <==========

Hi Irene,
This staement has been disproved many times - most recently in the
discussion between you and Joy and David and Chris:-)

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'm sorry you didn't continue translating into English! The Eichelberger cases are interesting, but I could not access the Boenninghausen material. Is the latter not ready yet?
Peace,
Dale

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Dale Moss wrote:

Rhe Boenninghausen cases should be accessible - 1 to 10 in both
English and German, 1 - 50 in German.

I'll check on my site - once the tunderstorms are over and I back in
the net - whether there may be any hitch in accessing them. I have not
tried for a while.

It seems you can read German? If so, you may find my article "Triduum
homoeopathicum" on hpathy.de also interesting in many respects.

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 <==========

Alas, I cannot speak or read German. Used to do French, Spanish, Japanese, and classical Chinese. But that was a loonnng time ago.
Peace,
Dale

Wow. Very nice site. I could not find the cases, I assume by
Hahnemann. Could you direct me please.
Thanks,
Ellen Madono

I do no think sol.;
What is in the Organon is not argued.
Joy was arguing about things I did not say and claiming I said them -
a separate subject.
Chris made an easy slip in one aph referring to an exception - easy
to re-read the organon and set it right.
That kind of thing is not relevant top choosing the organon as a
"minimum standard"
I do not rememebr an organon issue with David:-)

What's in the organon is not in dispute and if it was- so what.
The fact that it is a finite amount of stuff already written down as
a syllabus - is a great boon - and it can be called the minimjum needed.

If one school or other interprets it differently that is fine however
unlikely as the writing is pretty clear - after all physicists and
other professiionals also interpret a syllabus differently.
Having the syllabus is what we need. Using the Organon means nobody
has argument about what is or is not *written* in the Organon.
It is fixed.

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."

He describes primary and secondary effects ONLY when referring to
allopathic drugs,
and says they do not ocur with homeopathic ones.

So I do not think we misunderstand what the primary and secondary
effects are that he observed, just that (he says) it applies only to
allopatic (suppressive) use of drugs and not to matched remedy, which
he is trying to persuade us to use instead.
This is not about provings (where he discusses the first and second
response), it is about allopathy where he discusses it.
There are no secondary effects in a proving.
It applies only to a case where allopathic drug opposes and
suppresses what is already there. Initially it suppresses (a proving
can't suppress anything there is nothing to suppress) - and after
some time (H says) the body fights back against the suppression....
and THAT is the secondary response he sees with allopathic drugs.

In a proving you are eliciting a response - not suppressing one - a
completely different situation from the one where there is a first
and second response.
I see nowhere H says anything about secondary symptoms for provings
as you claim. Any secondary ones re by H's explanation (in APh 60
onwards to the one referring to narcotics as an exception) is only
pertinent to allopathic suppression being resisted by the life force.
Where in the Organon do you feel he connects a secondary response
with anything other than allopathic suppression being resisted?

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."