Minutus

Joy, I wrote this email yesterday, when the fighting
was at its height, but it was posted only now and by
this time most of the heated discussion is over. The
best way to support the Hahnemannian homeopathy would
be if 5th and 6th edition prescribers presented their
cases, showed their case management to prove that
their systems are better than the 4th edition.
Nobody can prove his superiority by words only.
All methods are good in specific circumstances. I
understand and appreciate the Hahnemannian homeopathy,
I need more information on how different homeopaths
practice, take their cases and prescribe. Then I will
be able to take the best from all of them.
I read the emails and save the most interesting for
future reference. I saved the emails with Dr Lucs'
lessons which Sheri posted, I saved Fran's emails
where she writes about her practical experience. But I
don't like religious wars between the "right" side and
the "wrong" side. The right cause does not need to
defend itself by shouting, it will survive in any case
and develop gradually. Its best defence and support is
when it shows on practice its rightness.
Let us exchange more experience, post your interesting
cases. Some of your emails were very interesting, I am
sure that you had many successful cures which you can
share with people.

Michael

--- Joy Lucas wrote:
___________________________________________________________
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

my call was to support all of hahnemann's work - my objections are towards those who wish to 'develop' homeopathy outside of Hahnemannian methodology and if that needs shouting about then I am all for it. So many people call for unity amongst Homeopaths but there is no way unity is going to happen when the 'developments' go against Hahnemann. I would guess that most people don't have time to write up cases. Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

Joy Lucas wrote:

If you always do what you always did, then you will always get what you
always got....
and nothing more.

..... some of us want more:-)

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."

gobbledegook

if you want more then say why it has to be outside, i.e. against Hahnemann's methods, because this list is supposed to be Hahnemannian

and it is still beyond me why people want to disturb all that is good and in full working order, I guess it is because some want their 15 minutes of fame

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

Joy Lucas wrote:

I don't do anything against Hahnemann's methods. I just add more things
to that, so as to get a better cure rate.

Hahnemann did NOT invent the laws of Nature he used in developing
homeopathy. They were well known long before he came along - recorded by
Hippocrates some hundreds of ywears BC for example.
If I choose to use those same laws in more ways than Hahnemann did, it
is not against what he did - nor is it against the principles he used:-)

It's an "extra" - and in many cases (constitutional-type remedy use for
example) it is a natural result following on from Hahnemann's work.
There would be no constitutional type possible without the rubrics in
the repertories from provings for example.

Adn it's not like Hahnemann persionally proved all out r remedies. He
did the work of PRINCIPLE to use - and the NEED for provings - but all
those millions of rubrics wre not personally discovered by Hahnemann.
Adding more is according to his METHODS. So is the furtherance of the
use of other principles he espoused and explained:-))

And it's not polite to call my opinion gobbledegook.
If that's gobbledegook, my live clients are fond of it and like it
medium-rare

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."

using unproven sarcodes is against hahnemann's methods

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

Joy Lucas wrote:

Where does he say so?

In fact they are nutritious for the relevant organ/part/tissues and he
does support the principle of optimum nutrition and environmental
support of the patient.

I see sarcodes in the support arena not the simillimum remedy arena.
My cases get a LOT of support to increase success. One or more of
sarcodes, maybe a constitutional-type remedy (repertorized), usually a
complete nutrition analysis and overhaul, maybe Bach remedies,
supplements, maybe herbs, maybe a tissue salt, maybe vitamins, maybe
minerals etc etc
All those "extras" support the case, but do not detract from the use
of repertorized homeopathic simillimum remedy at the core of the case.

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."

read your organon etc (stanzas 143 onwards I think) - any unproven rx has no sx to match with - sx similarity being a foundation principle of homeopathy - our materia medicas (or don't you use them)

the point of the business of a true physician relates to the judicious employment of the artificial morbific agents (medicines) that have been proved on healthy individuals to ascertain their pure action in order to effect the homeopathic cure of natural diseases

multiple methods confuse and you cannot say for sure what is doing what although you are likely to claim it cures, you have no way of knowing

we've discussed this already, take 2?

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

On May 15, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Joy Lucas wrote:
Knowing the physiology of a secretory organ is in a way akin to a
proving of the "crude substance".

Joy Lucas wrote:

Based on that idea you would have to starve your patient - as the food
he is eating is not proven?

I believe you (intentionally? as it is not the first go-round) missed
the point. Sarcodes are not part of the simillimum selection, they are
part of the nutritional and environmental support. They do not need
proving any more than a medium-rare steak with artichoke does:-)
Only for the simillimum selection - not for homeopathy as a whole. The
latter requires a LOT more to optimize the individual's environment.
So sx similarity is only relevant in selection of repertorized remedy -
not for other support.
I use them to press flowers.
Sorry - could not resist:-)

However - for nutrition and other support - no I don't use them for
that. I DO use them as I stated before - for constitutional type
repertorizing and simillimum repertorizing. Hahnemann did not intend
them to be used to optimize the patient's environment:-))

I do not expect my patients to survive on remedy alone; they get food
and other supports per Hahnemann to optimize the environment.
Among other things.
It's all in the Organon:-))
Man does not live by simillimum alone:-)

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."