Minutus

Hi Irene,

I have only seen one of Frie's videos. Malcome is not Frie???

Anyway, it is common thinking in homeopathy to see the group of provers as if they were one remedy. And to equate remedy symptoms with proving symptoms. Finally, we match individual cases to remedies. That does not mean that individuals are actually one person.

For example, Boeninghausen sees a similar reaction made by multiple patients on different parts of the body with different diseases that might be seen as contributing causes. He lumps those similar reactions together as a generality. The assessment of the symptom has nothing to do with individualization. He is abstracting as is Frie. Statistical analysis is just a current way to express that process of abstraction. Indeed the individual is lost, but we use that abstracted data when we justify our remedy choice, so I am not complaining.

No doubt Frie is a clever technician out to sell a computer program and Malcome may dream of turn key patient flow. Each to his own delusion. It's not my problem. I take stimulation where I can get it. So their motive do not change my interest in polar symptoms.

I know this is stretching it, and not exactly what Frie is saying, but I want to compare polar to the notion of "apparent contraction" (Will Taylor's words). If in an individual you have an apparent contradiction, those symptoms stand out as more characteristic of the individual. Sometimes it leads to a deeper theme that helps you to understand the case. For example, puls. loves to eat fatty food, but feels worse from it. S/he also loves intimacy (fatty emotion) but feels worse from it. Something is going on there that tells us about Puls.
I was mentioning before Paul Herscu's segments (cycles and segments). Among several patterns, there is the change from polar opposite symptoms. A less ill segment moves to the next more ill segment when hyper extreme of the less ill segments becomes more ill in a hypo extreme. So Puls pigs out on fat/intimacy and then feels worse. Verat. become hyper active and spurts diarrhea and then becomes exhausted and withdraws. Within a single individual pattern of becoming ill, there is an ebb and flow between two polar extremes. This is interesting, but as Frie is pointing out, it is not limited to the individual.
My example is broader than the specificity that Frei is after, but it is very common in well developed cases. Patient (that is individual) = remedy=proving symptoms is a theme that Herscu discusses in his book Provings. You will find the same patterns in each setting, thus we are able to find remedies. It that were not true, matching of patterns would be impossible. This is a bit abstract, but if you don't understand this, you just can't understand the logic of homeopathic analysis. Obviously you understand this.

As I said before, The Complete highlights polar rubrics. That is, the polar opposite of that rubric exists, it is highlighted. If you are trying to decide which rubric to use, you might consider this plus alpha factor. Not that you need a computer program based on Boeninghausen's magic repertory, but I am still open to thinking about the possibility that a rubric that could swing between two opposites especially for the remedies that I am considering might have some added strength. I am open, not fanatical, just open.

I am sure that is my downfall. Still I tend to be open to interesting ideas.

Best,
Ellen Madono

Hi Dana,

If you had the pleasure of communicating with Irene in private, why don't you keep your communication private? As a practicing homeopath, I am sure you have heard of privacy. Respect that you show her is part of belonging to a community that has supported you in the past.

Since you are in opposition to her (or you appear to place yourself in that position), are you in a good position to evaluate her affairs? I personally have little faith in your statements concerning Irene. Without knowing much, you really should not be making public judgements. In my admittedly naive eyes, such mean statements do not raise my appreciation of you or your accomplishments.

Irene has plenty on her mind and does not need you to be another person to oppose. We are talking about ideas not personalities. If you are going to post, please discuss ideas.

If I were Irene, I would ignore your post. It is just too low to deserve a response.

Blessings,
Ellen Madono

I second this.

Hennie

Ellen Madono schreef op 3-2-2014 20:19:

To my simple mind, it is a lot simpler: if the patient has a strong issue with a substance/remedy then it is a valid symptom, period.
It might be craving for salt, disgust for salt or aggravation from salt....the issue is salt.

I must admit that when at times there is for example a strong craving but this is not to be found in the repertories, I use the rubric "Desire for..." and it has worked very well for me.

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com

uninvited and very rudely.
You said nothing about my attitude to what I consider to be inappropriate use of a homepopathic repertory, based on very well informed views AND experience.
(Where are your homeopathy credentials to be in a position to criticize?)

You criticized ME, not my homeopathy views. You do not get to use my personal email for that.

Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Hi Ellen,
That is so, but he is talking about Frei's method for an hour to explain it, along with quotes and photos of Frei.
He gave very detailed examples, so I doubt he got it completely back to front.
I did not find a video by Frei himself, but will look if I do find a free one - I am not inclined to spend money after the hour I viewed last night.
Unfortunately yes. In my opinioin it is a fault to assume that is valid, even though we had no better option.
The problem is that it takes a certain type of person to want to take part in a proving, b oth as to principle and as to time involved, so it skews provers to a liminted number of innate constitutional types. And that gives a good picture of the remedies for THOSE constitutional types doing the proving, but not for the ones who would not do experiments on themselves or for other reasons not be in a proving, and who very likely would have had DIFFERENT responses.....those sadly go unrecorded. SO provings are never a conplete picture.
Just the fact that different provers regularly have different responses, proves that it is a matter of innate constitutional type, asa to who responds how.

So I actually agree with putting all the responses togetehr in one remedy that was proved, but it is important to see that result as STILL INCOMPLETE.
As Joe says, if there is a strong response to a feature (in any way or diredtion, he used salt as example) then that feature is very relevant. If the remedy has NO rubric related to that feature (eg no rubric to do with salt), I'd be questioning it, but even if available rubrics look opposite to patient's perception of them (eg remedy has "hate salt" only.... and patient "loves salt") that for me would be a fit.
By the description of Frei's method he would not even look at that remedy. ALso if the remedy had both, he'd only use it if the number of "love salt" responses far exceeded the number of "hate salt" responses in a proving.

Did you red Frei himself and find him saying otherwise?
In fact if I remember rightly, it is Boeninghausen who has developed the downloadable database of rubric opposites to use in Frei's method.
My problem with that is the 20% of individuals excluded from consideration by the abstraction and generalization, who need not be excluded.
It is a bit like what happened at a swimming pool I used to use. They bought a huge bin full of size medium swimming fins for folks to use. On average - in general - they fitted everyone - a generalization as the average foot size is "medium". And indeed they fitted 80% of swimmers. THAT is what Frei's method is foing, going for a fast easy average result that is a "high enough percentage to look good in public" as homeopathy effectiveness measure.

Does that make it okay to manufacture ONLY the size medium fins?
Or treat ONLY the patients who fit within the generalization?
(The 20% is from the numbers in the video last night - a number obtained in actual use of the system of Frei)

If provings are used as general descriptions of as remedy, that is not an excuse to generalize still more (as Frei's method does) and lose still more capability of a match.
Far better to go the OPPOSITE way and expand the remedy to cover those not in the proving, by "seeing" the places where a rubric is not there but is relevant anyway - such as "loving salt" when the proving only has "hating salt".
The opposite of what homeopathy is about ...homeopathy is all about the individual and about individualizing to fit them best into a remedy.
NO we do not use abstracted data.
Frei does.
We use actual data, all of it. The repertory does contain all the proving data, even if only 1% of provers have the feature. That is a much more complete data set, than any reduction by methods such as Frei.
We need to expand the data set (never to reduce it) with logical use of it as in the salt ecxample.
We should NOT reduce the data set beyond the limitations already set by provers' constitutional type differences.
That's what Frei is doing - they REDUCE the options and LOSE much of the information gained in provings - throw it out - claiming to keep only what applies to the majority of people.

To me that corrupts the provings data, rather than improving it.
They want a system of saying, if a,b,c,d, is present then use Y remedy.... mecahnized and fast, so they can charge for five minute consults as they do in allopathy, and get a statistically okay looking result that throws away 20% of the patients as irrelevant.
(That is literally the stated goal by the way).
Polar symptoms matter. But they ALL matter. Not just the few left after Frei's manipulations!
I agree.
(Frei's system does not.)
Agree.
(Frei's system does not look for this, much less use it.)

Also it is important to note perhaps, that (according to Malcolm) Frie is looking sprcifically for a fast way to handle COMMON acutes, like upper respiratory infections, to process them through the door fast...not looking at chronic cases.
I think they will miuss the ones as you point out, are apparent contradictions involving rubrics that are not opposites. (Frie will use "likes fat" and "hates fat" as polars. Not so sure they use "likes fat" and "feels worse after it" type rubrics as polars. Does he?)
It does matter to use them, in acutes.
I also find the ebb and flow theory faulty.
There is not necessarily alternation. It is often a progression.
SO again any generalizing LOSES the data and leaves some cases automatically unhelped.
These attempts to generalize are a mistake. They lead to "rules" - whereas it is far more relevant and useful (but more work) to use principles that apply to all. (Principles always work; rules only can work for the average case).

We can use a princple that polar symptoms are relevant and also contradictory ones - and if we apply those principles it will cover all patients.
But to develop rules of how to use that, instead of individualizing, only leads to elimination of some patients from the equation as they do not fit the "general rule".

TO me, anything that generalizes instead of applying a principle individually, is wrong and unethically excludes some individuals from treatment options.
Frei et al are not looking at ethics. They want statistical prowess at the expense of 20% of individuals.
Like the all size medium swim fins - wow! they satisfy an entire 80% of the population - isn't that great?
(not to me)
I agree - this is a good PRINCIPLE
But carry on applying it to each case as PART of the case - and do not turn it iinto a mathematical 80% rule!

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Hi Irene,
Maybe this is just a difference in personality, but I don't see why a difference in methodology is immoral. If Frie can claimed to cure 80% percent, for many conditions he's doing better than allopathy. Individualized Homeopathy can do better than 80% and I agree that's what I want to be doing. But everyone doesn't have to be doing the same thing.
You are going to get much better results than Frei. As Dr. Roz says, you will pay attention to what the patient emphasizes. There is nothing automatic about that sort of discrimination. But I do think there is a logical process that is involved. And I personally find it helpful to clarify those logical processes. With your comments, you've already done a lot to help me clarify my thoughts. Thank you.
Your point about provings is well taken. Certainly only a very limited percent of the population will submit to proving procedures. But that's why we use clinical data as well.
Since Frei is relying on the very limited data of Boeninghausen, he is certainly reducing his database. He is a reductionist; no doubt about it. That is the problem, not that he is abstracting.
In general, the need to abstract occurs everywhere. Pretending that you are dealing only with direct clinical data or proving data just doesn't seem to be correct to me. Each of us has a way of organizing data. Automatically we abstract from the data that the patient tells us. If you carefully individualize, as you are suggesting, we should, the procedures for abstractions are more complex and taking into account more factors. But we're going from data to some sort of organizational framework and back to data to check out our abstraction.
I am saying look at what Frei's pointing out, and use your own framework. Frei is saying something that is only useful within your own frame of reference.
In regards to Herscu's cycles and segments, I should not have use the words " ebb and flow". Herscu describes how each remedy becomes ill as a pattern. Is asking students to use pattern recognition skills. A pattern is an abstraction, by the way.
Best,

Ellen Madono

I have no problem in a different method of approach to acieve the same goal - but here it does knowingly and deliberately discriminate against 20% of the poplation, excluding them from the practice.
So if that seems okay to you then maybe it is a personality difference.
To me that exclusion is a moral issue.

Agreed.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Hi Irene,

I rely on many methods that are not appropriate for every case, or that would exclude many remedies (therefore many individuals). I do so knowingly, and I feel fine morally. Every method does not work for every situation, and I cannot cure everyone. Sorry, but I have limits. I used to be very upset about these limits. These days I have become much more able to assess my methodological limits, and I see that assessment ability as an added skill. I just work on limits where I can and try to look squarely at my odds. Bragging rights don't go beyond that.

I suspect Frie or anyone else is in the same position. He is saying 80% for one method. Unless he is very poorly trained, which he does not appear to be, he has other methods and approaches.

Blessings,
Ellen

Irene,

I'm curious why you are assuming that the other 20% are going to be just abandoned? My assumption (and I have not read nor watched anything of his) is that for those other 20% he would use other methods, which are more time-consuming but will pick up hopefully most of the missed cases.

Shannon