Minutus

Sure we can go on saying that for all our failures that the remedy has
not been proven yet...

In your specific case Lyssin has been in MM for a while and one need
attend a conference to understand it...

Let us imagine that Lyssin had never been proved and not available in
homoepathy... what do you think would happen? Your daughter would
never have been cured? I do not believe that... You still would have
had a cure but a zig zag path and not a straight path to the
simillimum...hitting the simillimum is just the shortest and the
sweetest path to cure not the only one...

I agree that we may not have everything we need - but we need to
follow some due process to add more things - the best way we could
serve our science is to aid reproving the remedies in a Hahnemannian
way so that current attitudes of provers can get into the Materia
medica and whatever "time corruption" has occurred can be taken care
of...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
hair

So why do you think MRI is accepted and CI is not - vested interests?
Not enough advertising dollars? Proprietary technology so third party
verification is not present? No controlled trials? Difficult to use?
Limitations? Too advanced so scientists with IQ 70 cannot understand?
Too ahead of time?

Point taken about the remedy not appearing in the repertory.

Sheilagh Creasy has added remedies based on Kent's MM to Kent's repertory!!
So this is not a new problem.

Rgds
Soroush

Just to pick a couple of nits:

Chris wrote:

The Doctrine of

I don't *think* many trained homeopaths will use doctrine of signatures
or "essences" as a *primary* prescribing tool. DOS is a useful
mnemonic device (memory jog), and essence information can help to guide
a choice, when other information agrees. But is there anyone here who
actually uses either of these for *primary* guidance? I don't think
that's how either has been intended... Am I mistaken?
Shannon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi H2002,
I wasn't saying that at all.
I have just been questioning (objecting to) the idea that if
"technology" can provide true, deep, homeopathic cure, where true,
deeply trained and conscientious homeopaths have been unable to, then
we should know about it. The possible reasons, of course, are many, as
as been said before.

Yes, but this was 12 years ago. In any case it's irrelevant, because
he *didn't* know the remedy until then.

Well, my sad hunch is that she or I or both would have wound up
institutionalized and/or drugged, and I am 100% serious about that.
During those four years we had some respites, and a few remedies did
give her peace, one even for some weeks at a time, but each relapse was
more severe than the one before, as happens in the case of chronic
disease that is not being appropriately addressed.
Sure, no argument.
My point was to argue the point that something like bioluminesence
should not be used by homeopaths, no matter how well it works, even by
our own standards.
Regards,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What's your theory?
Why do you think homeopathy is not accepted?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Shannon, I think what you have shared with us about your
daughter's case just shows how we need to know our remedies, to be
familiar, that is just so important and no other confirmation needed.
Thanks for sharing, Joy. Have a nice weekend, it's a long one for me


http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/

Dear Shannon,

For my school work I privately (didn't tell my tutor what I was doing) took on the disproving of the doctrine of signatures by looking as hard as I could at those interpretations. (this is not a good way to quickly plow through your school work.) I looked at things like the bio-chemistry use of elements, animated the periodic tables (in my head along with Jan Sholten), drug and herbal magic and studied the life of various animals. I was astounded. I may be just a little too imaginative. But small discoveried do more than jog the memory.

I found for example that Tarantula has all its pain on the surface of the body where reports of the molting process for the spider suggest pain because of the tension from the cracking there. Learn how the spider breaths and you can more easily imagine the breathing problems. Molting symptoms are not in the books that I have, but I found a long list of these molting skin pain symptoms.

I found my cousin's son's autism remedy because he has a mother who literally eats him up whenever he visits her, but he can't stay away from her like his other sibling do. They refuse to see her. Mangilavori says the male talent is in the spider case is eaten by the hungry female after copulation, but in the human case the male is done in psychologically by a female (his wife or mother). The female patients dominate a male (relative). There were so few physical symptoms in my cousin's son's case so it was very difficult. Without Mangilavori's observation of his clinical cases, I would not have found the remedy. We are only a year into this boy's case and the working remedy has only been used for 5 months, but I am very hopeful.

It's not so easy to do this with minerals and plants, but I have not had as many leads from people like Mangiavori either. There is a different way for working with each family. You need to know about the pre-historical development, ways of defense and reproduction, chemical composition of plants... It takes a lot of imagination. All of that has to be better organized than it is for me. The assumption that every entity in the universe has its own identity and way of preserving that ID. I certainly think that more than a mnemonic device is working. Each little discovery increases my awe for the universe.

Blessings,
Ellen

cbwillis wrote:
"hahnemannian2002" wrote:
Why is MRI accepted? Significant improvement in diagnostic
imaging ability over CT scan (but without the radiation of CT scan
is an additional plus).
Now there are "open" MRIs, less clostrophobic than earlier models.
Doctors win, patients win, medical equipment designers and
manufacturers win. A win-win situation. What's not to like?
MRI equipment is owned by laboratories who use it as a cash cow.
Scheduling is often tight and it takes a long time to get in.
Resources are stretched thin. I have often wondered why more
labs didn't have MRI especially in larger areas where demand is
great.
So why is "coherence imaging" different? It's relatively unknown,
few homeopaths have been able to experiment with it personally.
Demonstrations, rentals, and leasing arrangements could change that.

CI a large investment for most individual homeopaths.

It's the labs that own MRIs, not individual practicing
doctors. Some individual doctors invest in ultrasound
dx equipment for their office, but those are rare.
They usually send patients to the lab for ultrasound instead,
and the waits can be long.
MRI tech is so expensive to build that even if someone knows the
principles of how it works, they probably wouldn't compete.

Technically, CI might be an easy knock-off, which is different
from MRI.
If a practice was financially successful, and the homeopath had
enough experience with the equipment to satisfy himself that
it would be a good investment for quality control and
significantly improved cure rates, for significantly faster cure
rates - improvement beyond worldclass conscientious
study and application of self over the decades that yields
continuous improvement in its own way (Hair Shirt Lifetime
Competence Optimization) - then it might be worth the investment.
They can amortize it as a business expense and recoup some
investment that way. Better and faster cure rates would likely
translate to more patients and better income.
There could be regional/city CI labs where homeopaths bring their
clients and candidate remedies for imaging, or a client could
go by himself with an order to image various remedies that would
already be on hand at the lab.
There would have to be a way for the lab to make a reasonable
profit in this pay-as-you-go approach vs. doctor owned equipment.
Homeopaths may get so tired schlepping to the lab that
they decide to invest in their own equipment for convenience.
The CI gives them a professional advantage. More public are
intrigued. The homeopath's practice increases.
Homeopaths need to "get reality" on the equipment. Use it,
see it in action, have unresolved cases turn around. There are
various ways this could be done: rentals, leasing, pricing,
sales, special offers, etc. - the usual suspects.

Some early adopters might rent the equipment and room it's in
by the hour to other homeopaths bringing patients for CI,
on a limited basis. Lots of win-win potential in this one.
The more competent the homeopath is already, so much the better.
Let them see their #1 remedy candidates proven over and over
and over again, by coherence and by cure. With a few surprises
and dark horse winners thrown in every year, just to keep them
humble.
Get product out there, get people trained and using it,
how is it going, share results here and in professional journals,
blogs, websites. Such a product would stand or fall on its own
merits in the free market. There would likely be improvements on it,
prices would come down. Remember the original IBM-PC? Compare
that to today's PCs.
Carol Willis
in the heart of Silicon Valley CA since 1956
Feb 2, 2006
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/willis_protocols
Article archive in Files, blog, Links, pics, not a discussion group.

Yes, the team effort cases are what I meant.
I was really only trying to pursue one thread--that our "basics" are
not adequate to every case, and for the sake of those patients if there
is a "technology" which can guide us more quickly to a truly curative
remedy--which in some cases will be a remedy that we might otherwise
have had no way at all of arriving at, and which in some cases
"zig-zagging" might not be able to stand in for, then IMO we ought to
be open to it.
Below:
If it has proved to be a reliable technology, then yes indeed, I am.
More so than, say, Autonomic Reflex Testing? More so than, having
exhausted the "easy choices" (the apparently "indicated remedies"),
moving on to try others, on slimmer and slimmer indications? There are
times when we *don't* know for sure what to do--either our materials or
our understanding are limited, and different prescribers / temperaments
will of course make different choices about what to do then.

I'm recalling the beautiful example on David Little's website, in the
article about ART (Autonomic Reflex Testing)--I trust you remember it?
Was that homeopathy? No, it was an "auxiliary testing method" used to
*augment* existing tools of homeopathy. Same would be said of any
"technology"--not homeopathy in itself, but perhaps useful to augment.
Each of us will have to decide at what point "usefulness" might
overcome philosophical objections.

Yes indeed I do think that clinical experience--*wherever* it comes
from, be it happy accident, "cheating" by using technology, accidental
poisonings, whatever--clinical evidence is an acceptable auxiliary.
When it's done in appropriate circumstances, e.g. with all due care as
to the outcome, and long-term follow-up, it can also add enormously to
our understanding.
I guess we're both running out of steam here, because we're really
repeating ourselves a lot! What about when the needed remedy
is not in the repertory, perhaps has not been proved, perhaps has never
even been made? And, um, are you saying that every remedy in the
repertory is "familiar" to you, or even that info in the repertory
would enable you to use *any* remedy therein? If so, I'm intrigued!

I am thinking for instance (one of many) of the case he cites in his
Germanium presentation, of a patient he'd apparently given up on, until
he did the Germanium proving. If Jeremy is unable to cure certain
cases without his "new" remedies, then how can you assume that the
*rest* of us should be able to do it all on the basis of what's already
been done?
Joy, that is really beside the point.
For one thing this was 12 years ago. My understanding is that *some*
people had already learned about it at that point--after all, it was
developed enough to give a seminar on--but it was not common knowledge,
it was not in the repertories, and my (very well trained thank you)
prescriber had not yet learned about it. Which is relevant *only* in
that it illustrates an occasion where a specific remedy was needed, and
was not known to the prescriber. In that case we did not need a "black
box", we only needed four years worth of very painful waiting, and that
magic seminar. In fairness I should add that there were respites;
there were other remedies that worked *for a time", which surely is
part of the reason we continued, but each relapse was worse than the
one before it--as is the nature of the progression of unchecked chronic
disease. Had I had a "black box" available prior to that time, would I
have swallowed my pride and used it? Well golly gee yes, I would have!
Yes yes, and that's absolutely irrelevant to my point. Of course we
need to study, and learn our materials.
But I am not interested in talking about "limitless remedies". I am
pursuing the point that if a "black box" can offer *genuine* help when
it's needed, then that's worth knowing about. I guess we all have to
make our own decisions about what to do, when the tried-and-true isn't
working. You and I seem to have different "philosophical" and
practical slants on the issue, and I suppose it's time to just leave it
at that!
Best wishes,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]