Minutus

Perhaps you'd like to
elaborate?

Just that as science progresses so should Homeopathy.
Hahneman had no incling of molecular science, but we do
and we should let Homeopathy progress with scientific knowledge
behind it.
Jeff

and he wrote 3 other editions after that and you are not Hahnemann, nor am I, sorry to say.
Sheri
What are you trying to convey, Sheri, other than being dogmatic.
The majority of Homeopathic remedies were introduced by doctors
other than Hahnemann. Should we reject these as they too were not by
Hahn ? And when today we have better knowledge of the workings of
Homeopathic meds, should we not use this knowledge? Should we grope
in the darkness of 250 years ago, when there is light and knowledge available?
Coming from you, Sheri, this is surprising.
Jeff

Hi, Jeff --

There's nothing to stop us from conducting provings -- and some have
done it -- so as to include measures of the invisible: blood counts
and so forth. In including such measures, we'd be making way for the
eventuality of being able to make such measures of relevance to
prescribing. Strictly speaking, not being signs or symptoms
observable by anybody, they'd still not fall within the homoeopathic
method; but they'd still be most useful in that way.

But it's easy to imagine that we know more than we in fact do know.
The body functioning as a whole of immense (and so far uncomprehended,
not to say incompehensible) complexity, our view of any particular
bodily function is likely to be somewhat circumscribed: ignorant. Our
understanding of the significance of such things as blood measures
remains fairly pitiful. And our hubris in imagining that we have
sufficient judgement to know which functions should be altered for the
better and how remains our achilles heel.

One of homoeopathy's chief beauties is that it does not rely on the
pitiful understanding by any physician of any part of the organism but
instead relies upon recognition of deviations from health and the
ability to discern both similarities and differences between
functional changes induced by nature and those induced by medicine.

The foolish temptation that we fall into when we imagine that we
understand how the organism works is to replace the philosophy
underlying the homoeopathic principle -- a philosophy or using
medicine merely to stimulate the organism to heal itself -- with a
delusion of healing that sets out to use the primary deranging power
of a substance to "correct" dysfunction.

Homoeopathy never sets out to correct any particular function but sets
out merely to mimic and replace the entire dysfunction and thus to
stimulate the reactive healing of the original entire dysfunction as a
whole -- without ever presuming to understand it or have control of
it.

Cheers --

John
--
"There is no exercise better for the heart than reaching down and lifting
people up."
— John Andrew Holmes, Jr.

all you have said, Jeff, is not anything that makes any sense about molecular science
Sheri

At 07:20 PM 2/24/2013, you wrote:

I am not groping in the darkness. I practice homeopathy as Hahnemann developed it through the 6th edition and it works just fine.
Do you use remedies in water according to the 5th and 6th edition of the organon, Jeff?
Sheri

At 07:45 PM 2/24/2013, you wrote:

excellent
Aphorism 1
Sheri

At 07:53 PM 2/24/2013, you wrote:

Yes, Sheri, I use remedies in water and dry pillules as well.
I use remedies, repertorize, and use the MMed. just as
any Homeopath should and does.
It's just that with scientific knowledge I know how a molecule
behaves and how succussions beyond Avogadro's limit make
remedies work. This does not change the way I prescribe Rems.
I follow Hn's way, but now know what the remedies are doing. I have
no intentions of suggesting any change in the method, only science
gives us a deeper insight into what we are doing. That's all.
Jeff.

I don't agree Jeff.
And 'any' homeopath does not follow how to use remedies in water as in 5th and 6th edition.
You are stuck on figuring out how and it doesn't matter
Sheri
At 08:47 PM 2/24/2013, you wrote:

Knowing physiology, mechanism of disease and diagnostics are absolutely essential to the good practice of homeopathy and finding the proper rubrics leading to the proper remedy.

A few examples?

1. remember the recent discussion about fever where I presented the meningitis case of Comptom Burnett? repertorisation of the symptoms led to relief of the symptoms but the eventual demise of the patient.

2. a few months ago I described this case partially, but her it comes again: I treated a colleague for the sudden onset of cardiac failure, at first using potentised herbal mixes (note that I did not write homeopathic mixes, hehehe) and managed to stabilise him; the origin of the CHF was in a mitral valve prolapse that existed since birth, unbeknownst to the patient but explaining his poor physical abilities; this prolapse suddenly worsened leading to CHF. In order to progress, I needed a more precise remedy, so I searched for "mitral valve prolapse" in Reference Works; only a handful of remedies but the one that caught my attention was Cereus Bonplandi (NOT Cactus grandifolium, NOT Cereus grandifolium, but precisely that one): this one not only covered CHF, MVP but also the emotional aspect at the origin of the sudden worsening: a fight (intellectual!) with another "professional". Using an F series, he went back to his previous state of health and we are now dealing with the deeper emotional impact and his sensitivity with a polychrest.
Should I not have searched precisely for that small remedy through pathology, I would have peddled in the mud, as the "usual" repertorisation using only the symptoms and signs led to the usual polychrests but none was covering all the PATHOLOGY that was life threatening at that time.

3. a few days ago, I saw a patient with symptoms and signs resembling hyperthyroidism, although some distinctive features were missing. Usual repertorisation, nothing really flamboyant or convincing. So despite the doubts about Grave's disease or Hashimoto, I decided to search for hyperthyroidism, Graves and Hashimoto in RefWorks. About 7 remedies, but one struck me: Strophantus Scoparius: not only did it cover ALL the physical complaints, but also the tiredness, the sleep pattern, the sexual drive (that was not easy to have a talk about....) and others, even though this remedy has about 1 or 2 pages at best (Vermeulen). Returning to the "usual", it showed only in a very few rubrics, far far away......the remerkable thing here is that by using PATHOLOGY and DIAGNOSTICS, I was able to ask more questions and delve a lot deeper as none of the extra symptoms were volunteered by the patient despite an extensive consultation. Ask me in a few weeks how the remedy acted...

The remedies have not been proved to CREATE those pathologies (fortunately) but have been shown historically to have been used successfully. It is only through an inversion of the usual process, by first looking at a few remedies, then asking more elaborate and detailed questions that a choice could be made. Indeed every time we consider a remedy we should ask more questions and delve deeper, but in those circumstances, and many others, it is the presenting pathology, the label, that led to the remedy and not the symptoms and signs.

To neglect this approach is a big disservice to our patients!

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

I agree to a certain extent, but Jeff is caught up in his molecules and trying to understand why it works and that is what I am saying is not necessary nor does he understand
Sheri

At 02:00 PM 2/25/2013, you wrote: