Dear Soroush,
Helios lists LM nosodes and antipsorics upto LM49 on their new website and I think they will make them higher, I'm sure on their previous website I saw LM100 on some.
During your class it would be illuminating if you would ask does she know that higher than LM32 is available and if she would consider using them vs.restarting the scale? Maybe she already did.
I'm not familiar with her work yet, though by tackling cases where she restarted after LM32, she is treating patients long term with chronic illness. She sounds wonderful!
Best,
Susan
Post 4
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Post 4
I will try – if I remember! 
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of healthyinfo6@aol.com
Sent: 01 March 2014 16:09
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Post 4
Dear Soroush,
Helios lists LM nosodes and antipsorics upto LM49 on their new website and I think they will make them higher, I'm sure on their previous website I saw LM100 on some.
During your class it would be illuminating if you would ask does she know that higher than LM32 is available and if she would consider using them vs.restarting the scale? Maybe she already did.
I'm not familiar with her work yet, though by tackling cases where she restarted after LM32, she is treating patients long term with chronic illness. She sounds wonderful!
Best,
Susan
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of healthyinfo6@aol.com
Sent: 01 March 2014 16:09
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Post 4
Dear Soroush,
Helios lists LM nosodes and antipsorics upto LM49 on their new website and I think they will make them higher, I'm sure on their previous website I saw LM100 on some.
During your class it would be illuminating if you would ask does she know that higher than LM32 is available and if she would consider using them vs.restarting the scale? Maybe she already did.
I'm not familiar with her work yet, though by tackling cases where she restarted after LM32, she is treating patients long term with chronic illness. She sounds wonderful!
Best,
Susan
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Post 4
Ellen's question here is the key to understanding what Ardavan has said here. Shannon's reference to a "well-developed prescribing picture" may be taken to mean a picture emerging from provings (i.e. the medicine's homoeopathic indications) or a picture emerging from clinical use: the medicine's allopathic indications.
Let me preempt the challenges to this latter contention otherwise sure to arise. Any medicine prescribed on the basis of its capacity to cause symptoms in the healthy similar to those in the prescribee has been prescribed more-or-less (how similar?) homoeopathically. Any medicine prescribed on any other basis has been prescribed in a manner than cannot be described as homoeopathic. In particular, if the relationship between the prescribee's symptoms and the medicine's pathogenetic capability are unknown, then the manner of prescription can't be described as being homoeopathic (since that description requires knowledge of two sets of symptoms) and can't be described as enantiopathic (for the same reason), but falls into the category of having some other basis: it is an allopathic prescription.
To prescribe Psorinum or Medorrhinum on the basis of the similarity of the symptoms it causes to symptoms in the patient is to prescribe homoeopathically. To prescribe it entirely on a basis, for instance, that the patient has some relevant family history or that another remedy stopped working before it should have is to prescribe using a method that is not homoeopathy but merely educated (possibly very well-educated) guesswork. Of course, we commonly find reasoning from several directions to support the prescription of a particular medicine, of which one may be the medicine's known (not assumed) pathogenesis; in such a case, we are of course admittedly mixing homoeopathy with guesswork, but, in an imperfect world, that seems a perfectly sane, rational, and justifiable thing to do and may even result in fixing upon successful new methods of treatment.
Cheers --
John
Let me preempt the challenges to this latter contention otherwise sure to arise. Any medicine prescribed on the basis of its capacity to cause symptoms in the healthy similar to those in the prescribee has been prescribed more-or-less (how similar?) homoeopathically. Any medicine prescribed on any other basis has been prescribed in a manner than cannot be described as homoeopathic. In particular, if the relationship between the prescribee's symptoms and the medicine's pathogenetic capability are unknown, then the manner of prescription can't be described as being homoeopathic (since that description requires knowledge of two sets of symptoms) and can't be described as enantiopathic (for the same reason), but falls into the category of having some other basis: it is an allopathic prescription.
To prescribe Psorinum or Medorrhinum on the basis of the similarity of the symptoms it causes to symptoms in the patient is to prescribe homoeopathically. To prescribe it entirely on a basis, for instance, that the patient has some relevant family history or that another remedy stopped working before it should have is to prescribe using a method that is not homoeopathy but merely educated (possibly very well-educated) guesswork. Of course, we commonly find reasoning from several directions to support the prescription of a particular medicine, of which one may be the medicine's known (not assumed) pathogenesis; in such a case, we are of course admittedly mixing homoeopathy with guesswork, but, in an imperfect world, that seems a perfectly sane, rational, and justifiable thing to do and may even result in fixing upon successful new methods of treatment.
Cheers --
John