Fire not rekindled--- this is a volcano
Not necessarily. Proving a symptom in clinic comes after its presence
in the provings. Times when it goes the other way about, where proving
is done after its clinical use - is where the remedies have been use
in traditonal medical systems, folklore etc. These exceptions should
not make up the rule. This same rule should not be applied where
synthetic remedies are concerned.
usefull a
Proving should not be a good starting point, proving is the *main*
starting point. Other ways of using the remedies or introducing them
should be based on some use in herbalism, toxicological pictures etc.
not based on arm-chair analysis of elements. Are there any serious
efforts afoot to compound the arm-chair materia medica with an
analysis of symptoms caused and cured in the patient???
Agreed- that does not mean we are using them without a solid
foundation- this is like saying - in countries where child labor is
not allowed - even a 40 year old is a child to his /her father, why
are you allowing them to work- just because we still come across new
symptoms of Silica - does not mean they are not well known...
When you have the nuances and peculiar symptoms, the intimate shades
of the symptoms (modalities etc.) are ready. Complete picture is only
an ideal for the mere reason that provings cannot be pushed to the
extent of creating full fledged physical pathological changes. So we
are always working with some blind spots...
Surgically removing a tumor takes about 2 hours, curing it might take
1 year - what would you prefer?
If hahnemann without such a mass participation can prove and document
so many remedies - "these ages to prove" argument sounds not so
convincing.. Give me one well proven medicine to a dozen half baked
ones... this is not only spoiling the reliability of the materia
medica but also setting a dangerous lazy route for future generations
to take...
"he instantly offers more possible remedies" is not such a good thing-
every case we have is a lesson- whether we cure it or not - it is
still a lesson - what kinds of lessons will we learn when we get
instant replacements without bothering to find why it did not act...
Given the global reach of homeopathy, instant knowledge transfer, such
great online and other communication tools - if we cannot do decent
hahnemannian provings - shame on us as a profession... we deserve all
the brick bats we get...
Kudos to Joy- she is doing excellent work organizing provings to
whatever extent she can...
in the
ohterwise
I do not believe that there is a disease that will be cured only when
we use one of these unproven elements... THE Simillimum - that which
cures everything the patient carries- is only an occasional
occurrence.. generally in reality we give a medicine which is probably
similar but not THE simillimum- so this takes care of the condition to
some extent but changes the symptoms or modifies them in such a way
that the next remedy becomes exposed....so on and so forth till the
disease in its fullness is defeated... Just because one medicine did
not work does not mean get the next element in the periodic table,
find out what the crystal ball tells and give it...
Primarily if the INDICATED medicine did not act, it means WE did not
find the exact remedy...or even a near-enough remedy- retake the case-
do not say the existing materia medica is deficient...even if the
remedy is just a similar one it will act- and will pave the way for
the next one... we will go in a round about route to the cure but we
will still reach it...we need not synthesize a whole new materia
medica in a test tube for this...
Homeopathy,
Like what - for example???
white and
Which is always the case- errors occur when things do not go
according to plan-but you do not take a known error and plan based on
that...
Shannon