Minutus

Does any one have any detailed info on these - I am looking for the full
report.
Double-blinded "provings" with reasonably large sample sizes have been
carried out. See, for example:

Walach, Köster, Henning and Haag: The effects of homeopathic belladonna
30CH in healthy volunteers -- a randomized, double-blind experiment, J
Psychosom Res. 2001 Mar;50(3):155-60, which concluded that "There is no
indication that belladonna 30CH produces symptoms different from placebo or
from no intervention", or:

Vickers, van Haselen and Heger: Can homeopathically prepared mercury cause
symptoms in healthy volunteers? A randomized, double-blind
placebo-controlled trial, J Altern Complement Med. 2001 Apr;7(2):141-8,
which "failed to find evidence that mercury 12C causes significantly more
symptoms in healthy volunteers than placebo", or:

Brien, Lewith and Bryant: Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable
clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving
trial of Belladonna 30C, Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003 Nov;56(5):562-8, which
concluded, well, it's there in the title...
Regards

Soroush

Soroush-
Did you actually read thru these studies?
Did you find any problems with the studies themselves?
Is it just the number of symptoms that is the same with placebo -
are also the nature and character of the symptoms - like are these
symptoms leaning towards Belladonna or Mercury that were proved?
If these are indeed true - what does this tell us?
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Finrod" wrote:
the full
been
belladonna
experiment, J
is no
placebo or
mercury cause
(2):141-8,
significantly more
observable
proving
8, which

Dear H2002

I could not access the full report - only the abstracts. And as you the
devil is in the detail.

I have seen useless experiments with potentised substances and therefore
unless the experiments are carried out properly, they become useless for
us - eg it becomes a bad proving.

But as you say, if the task was carried out and placebo produced a similar
set of symptoms, we have difficulties.

However, although this is strange, I have seen it reported in other
provings.

Also when we were trying a C4 tritration exercise last year - some people
originally associated with the project were affected by a heavy depression
and reported a lifting off of this depression when we finished the exercise
and within the hour reported it . They were miles away at the time and did
not know that the last session was taking place.

So something happens - how you explain it, I have no idea.

Regards

Soroush

Hi H 2002,
Perhaps that we should look for a genius epidemicus trauma remedy for
the classical homeopaths, when we tumble into chasms because our very
foundation is quaking?:-o

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

I remember similar conclusions about provings in Anthony Campbell's
writings...and anyway potencies did not cause symptoms all the
time...

In Homeopathy Home web site there is a sample chapter -"The years of
hope"...- from his book - it is very good reading and shows that we
need to be careful about provings. That is one of the reasons I am
against conference provings, meditative provings etc.and adding any
of these to our MM.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
these
for
very
have
that "There
(5):562-

Hi H,
Well, I doubt that the studies Soroush cited were done about
conference, meditative, dream etc. provings. If it were that it would
cause not quake but barely a ripple:-)

We have to face it: if they were done correctly we are up against
a serious challenge to our fundamental "scientific" dogma.

I think it would be worth the money spent if homeopaths purchased the
full studies and analysed them for what may - or may not - have been
wrong with them to make them untrustworthy.

For all we know they may have been done strictly in accordance with
Hahnemann's resp. Jeremy Sherr's guidelines;-(

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

That it very well could be-but the absence any symptoms still does not
negate our provings...Just shows that in these studies they have not
been able to find any symptoms...

We need to know the methodology followed...

This is one of the reasons I felt the need of the hour is not to
generate another million remedies using periodic tables and
meditation- the need of the hour is to make sure that we get our
existing materia medica in shape- make good provings of the existing
remedies in modern conditions and make sure that they are above
question - this is not just for the sake of our critics... but because
we have much better infrastructure and technology available now to
validate our fundamentals...and make sure we are following something
that is repeatable and can be checked by anyone if so interested..

instead we jump into too much analogy, synthetic symptoms, archetypes
etc. and lose even more credibility...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:

Hi H.,
One of the quesions is: didn they find any symptoms or did they not
find any difference between the symptoms of verum and placebo.

I empathically agree!!

There I disagree, because this is a parallel thread in homeopathy (or
non-homeopathy). The people doing this would not instead do the things
you talk about in the preceding paragraph. Their approach, their way
of thinking is different. They should work to get their own
respective methods as perfect as possible.

It is the fraction of homeopaths who want to keep working the
traditionalist way also to get THEIR methods as perfect as possible -
the way you have pointed out.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

If it is called non-homeopathy , then there is no problem.
Unfortunately that is not so and the discussions for the past few
months has been about this...and we go back to the question of definition.

If we need to prove something it is necessary to know what we are
proving-
The people doing this would not instead do the things

Answering this would start the old discussion again...beware

Personally I think it is a *good* thing that we have some who are
intent on exploring new areas, and others who are intent on finishing
and coordinating the work that has already been done. You can't
maintain a science with either extreme alone--exploring but not
testing/solidifying/placing in context, nor by endlessly re-cultivating
familiar ground. You have to have both.

While it's a nice and comfortable theory, to assume that we already
have all of the remedies we need, I think it can be nothing *more* than
a theory at this point--and those (growing numbers of) people who've
not found help from the traditional remedies, and then finally been
transformed by one of the "new" remedies will certainly disagree with
that theory!

Best wishes,
Shannon