Minutus

Thank you very much Shannon, Luise, Rick, Piet, and others for
discussing this issue.

I was suffering from serious jet lag when I wrote this message--not
sure what got into me

BUT, for many of those individuals beginning or even looking into
furthering their knowledge, skills, and 'tools'--- the popularity of
Scholten/Sankarans methods are alluring.

WHY are these methods so popular? Are they exotic, sexy, so to speak?
Are they short-cuts?? Are they methods that require tremendous
intuition and art?? (Isn't intuition best acquired from experience
coupled with an always questioning/learning open mind...to mistakes
and successes?)

Luise mentions Andre Saines
article,(http://www.homeopathy.ca/articles/specu ... icine.html;
and Mr. Saine does a seemingly excellent job as to why speculative
theories are not good for homeopathy or for the patient.

BUT, if one does not fully adhere to these speculative methods, can
homeopaths learn anything of value from these methods? And if so, can
homeopaths not learn this from other present or past homeopaths?

With the patient always in mind, I believe that everything possible
should be done to help them--open mindedness is essential. Yet,
several prominent homeopaths for and against such speculative theories
abound.

I wonder though; if many of the best homeopaths in history never used
such speculative theories, why would they be such a vital part of many
homeopaths today?

I'm very open minded and these questions may be premature, yet, as I
read the above authors' books on P. Table and Sensations, etc...I find
them fascinating. Discussions from homeopaths on online groups such
as Minutus, and with homeopaths from both camps -- it almost seems
that due to these theories not being proven or at very least following
the methods outline for homeopathy by Hahnemann and the other Masters,
that many of these questions can not be answered? I hope this is not
the case - patients of homeopathy, esp. ones with chronic illness,
deserve the absolute best that homeopathy offers--

Thank you for your comments,

Kimberly
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "kimberlyanderson7654"
wrote:

( This is for students of homeopathy who have similar questions
about homeopathy and its practice, Probably this is too basic for
experts – Jump to conclusions if you prefer)

Still the bulwark of careful practice remains the Organon. The
organon gives us the philosophical background and a methodology to
practice according to the philosophy. It provides us a carefully
planned systematic format to follow.

Now the new ideas that are coming up can be classified as:

1) Changes to philosophy – Adding more miasms for example and
changing the
redefining of miasms, theorizing that Chakras, Tridoshas,
Five elements,
Nutritional deficiencies ( biochemics), infections, core
delusions etc. are the
cause of disease

2) Changes to case taking - using predefined questionnaire without
using
spontaneity, trying to study the patient from a predefined point
of view ( prejudiced view) – to try to bring out core delusions,
dreams etc.

3) Changes to knowledge of medicinal action– How do you know about
medicines – instead of on provings, based on kingdoms, periodic
tables, combinations, law of signatures, symbolic analogies etc.

4) Changes to provings – dream, meditation and conference provings,
Jung's synchronicity causing symptoms without even taking the
medicine, from a distance etc.

5) Changes to selecting the remedy – Taking just the mental
symptoms or pathological symptoms ( for combinations), or affected
tissue ( sarcodes, isodes etc), "vital sensations", "themes",
sequential therapy, radionics, chakras, numerology, sun signs, moon
signs, facial diagnosis, iris diagnosis , and all that jazz…

6) Other sundries- Like the PS 1 or 2 for AIDS that is gets
discussed on and off and nobody knows what it is…

We cannot throw out many of these – these can be used by anyone who
really thinks they are useful. But at the same time none of these
can be admitted into strict and careful homeopathic practice ( my
definition of this is time tested way of practicing – single remedy,
minimum necessary dose ( it can be even mother tincture if that is
what the patient needs), law of similars)

Discussing the points mentioned above:

1) Hahnemann suggested that less theory there is the better it
is- we are not to theorize about the ultimate cause of disease… and
this is unknowable because in our view the symptoms and signs are
not of the patient, not of the disease agent or whatever, but of the
interaction between an individual and a causative agent ( internal
or external). That is why not all people get the same symptoms- we
need individualization etc. For a strict homeopathic practice none
of these theories are necessary.

2) and 5) and 6) Even at the present time Hahnemann's advice
on case taking and selecting the remedy cannot be bettered.
Careful, unprejudiced observation and using the exact words of the
patient to work out the case is the best method.
Homeopathic practice is closely tied to the methodology of proving,
Since we are comparing 2 sets of symptoms ( disease and artificial
disease) the other parameters should be kept a minimum ( something
even a 6th grader would know). Homeopathic case taking should
recreate the same conditions of a proving for a proper comparison.

If we want to use the core delusions method for example- new
provings of the old medicines need to be made. ( Question: In
healthy provers would there be a core delusion or not???)

In these, the past lives of the patients – history needs to be
thoroughly analyzed in a way to expose existing core delusions. Then
the proving started and then if analyzed to see if there is any
change in the core delusion….or if there are any new delusions…(
this assumes that core delusions are really collected correctly and
there is a standardized way to do it). This would verify if the
theory really holds good… .Pending these the core delusion is still
a theory, attractive, appealing but still a theory even if the
approach is based on existing mental symptoms in the material
medica. ( because it tosses out valuable physical symptoms).

3) And 4) Hahnemann is very careful about the material medica

" If we have thus tested on the healthy individual a considerable
number of simple medicines and carefully and faithfully registered
all the disease elements and symptoms they are capable of developing
as artificial disease-producers, then only have we a true materia
medica - a collection of real, pure, reliable1 modes of action of
simple medicinal substances.... which, in a word, contain artificial
morbid states, that furnish for the similar natural morbid states
the only true, homoeopathic, that is to say, specific, therapeutic
instruments for effecting their certain and permanent cure."

So the provings need to have the artificial morbid states produced
in the prover…

In aphorism 144 he says
From such a materia medica everything that is conjectural, all that
is mere assertion or imaginary should be strictly excluded;
everything should be the pure language of nature carefully and
honestly interrogated.

So this takes out most of the items from Point 3 above. The
argument for supporting these is that we need many medicines now and
we need them to combat the newer diseases-
Aphorism 145 is noteworthy-

"Of a truth, it is only by a very considerable store of medicines
accurately known in respect of these their pure modes of action in
altering the health of man, that we can be placed in a position to
discover a homoeopathic remedy, a suitable artificial (curative)
morbific analogue for each of the infinitely numerous morbid states
in nature, for every malady in the world.1 In the meantime, even
now - thanks to the truthful character of the symptoms, and to the
abundance of disease elements which every one of the powerful
medicinal substances has already shown in its action on the healthy
body – but ** few disease remain, for which a tolerably suitable
homoeopathic remedy may not be met with among those now proved as to
their pure action**2 which, without much disturbance, restores
health in a gentle, sure and permanent manner - infinitely more
surely and safely than can be effected by all the general and
special therapeutics of the old allopathic medical art with its
unknown composite remedies, which do but alter and aggravate but
cannot cure chronic diseases, and rather retard than promote
recovery from acute diseases.

In essence he says that even with the 100 + medicines he had enough
to go by. OK we are a very complex world now and we need more- but
then do we not have enough even with the medicines in Boericke? And
if we can have good provings of these–

We do not need so many dream-proven, synthesized medicines…

Alright, like it or not, we have these new medicines- but even then
much more careful case taking and noting down ALL the the bodily
and mental symptoms that these medicines get rid of must be noted
and added to the material medica, Sadly that work is not being done
well or thoroughly and so we would forever be dependent on using the
peculiar case taking method advocated by the latest guru to get to
that medicine; ie there is no way to add these to the regular
materia medica – it is like mixing water and oil…

Conclusions:
1) For any decent homeopathic practice none of the new
unproven / half-proven remedies / theories/ approaches are really
needed.
2) They might cure a case here and there and personally I think
by more careful case taking and case follow-up even these cases can
be handled the regular way. Read aphorism 145 once again.
3) Even if effective these may add a surface attraction to the
practice but not to the depth of science of homeopathy- science
needs some verification, methodology, reproducibility and rationale…
4) The newer medicines should be considered experimental till
that time when they are in some way proven using the classical
proving methods.
5) They may be useful for the discerning and experienced
practitioner, who would / should know the risks he/she is taking in
using such half-baked theories and medicines. It is a judgmental
call and probably one would need experience to make that call. Even
in allopathy medicines still being researched are sometimes used if
thought to be life-saving or new drug for a condition without
treatment till now.
6) When starting out in homeopathic practice better stick to
methods that have stood the test of time (in decades) , keep an open
mind but take an extra pinch of salt when attending conferences and
seminars.
All that glitters in not gold ( most of the time it is not)

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "hahnemannian2002"
wrote:
is- we are not to theorize about the ultimate cause of disease… and
this is unknowable because in our view the symptoms and signs are
not of the patient, not of the disease agent or whatever, but of the
interaction between an individual and a causative agent ( internal
or external). That is why not all people get the same symptoms- we
need individualization etc. For a strict homeopathic practice none
of these theories are necessary.<
I agree that theorizing can lead to all kind of constructions that
keep getting further from the truth. And indeed it is all about the
interaction between individual and causative agent.

But I think there is a difference between the internal and
the external cause.

When someone comes with a disease that had an external cause (and
that might be years ago) it is in general very well possible to use
the well known remedies. Then after that, the internal cause needs to
be taken care of (constitution), where also a well known remedy might
be needed (antipsoric).

But also there are these cases that do not fit.
An option then would be to give several remedies in time that follow
each other well.

Another option would be to look at 'neighbours' or other
compounds, and to do that it is very helpful, in my opinion, to have
a theory about the 'elements'.

Annemieke