Minutus

Of course.
As with homeopathy itself, every individual is different and their
needs count and should not be trampled:-)
I addressed the accuracy issues:-)
It has often been a problem in my view, that when I ordered a remedy
the pharmacy could not tell me properly about its origin. I think
they need to record and pass on that critical information.
But it is not their place to say who can use what remedy - and thus
who can have what remedy made for them:-)
I completely disagree. Remedies should be available to all.
If I get a remedy made up and it is properly specified what it is
made from and where the starter substance came from, then anyone else
who wants to use it, has a perfect right to buy it and use it too.
For example I recently had a remedy made, from a substance that has
been proved but for which I could not find a remedy source in the
potency I needed. So I had it made. I supplied the original substance
in a pure form and specified where it came from, what it was, its
lack of the usual contaminants etc
I think it would be very silly to say nobody else can use it. In fact
it should be advertised as available.

So should any newly made remedy be listed as available. It is an
excellent way to ensure new remedy availability.

What goes into a Repertory or MM is an entirely different matter, but
rubrics need to be from a specific stated source. FOr example if the
remedy used was the one I had made up, it needs to be documented what
the remedy was made from exactly.
If a few hundred remedies are made that never get into any repertory,
that's fine too. Someone wants them and that's enough reason to make
them.
Ugh.
Let's be real. Your example choice is ugly. My cats have no boils and
if they did it would not be appropriate to use cat boil pus for a
remedy.
Not necessarily.
You can prove "mystery substance number 549" and as long as you then
apply mystery substance 549 in potency to an individual with matching
symptoms, it matters not what the mystery substance 549 originally was.
It is not for any one person to judge why a remedy may be used by
someone.
What qualifies you or anyone to be in charge of who uses what for
which??????

Fortunately you are not in charge of that!
New ideas can occur any day, and need no limits placed on them.
I understand very well that remedy sources do NOT need to be
reproducible
- as in the example of mystery substance 459 above:-)
It can be a perfectly good homeopathic remedy without even knowing
its origin.
I also understand that MOST remedy sources can NOT be reproducible.
Take Pulsatilla for example.
What number of molecules of the remedy came from stems, or leaves or
roots or junk attached to the plant including ragweed pollen for
example, and what food was in the ground for it to eat, and what pH
did the soil and plant have etc etc ? Was any mineral nutrient in
short supply in the plant, was automobile exhaiust or electromagnetic
radiation or sunflare activity a factor? Was some atmosphere also
potentised, how much containing what? Was Mercury in retrograde when
the plant was collected and can we assume that had no effect. Was it
a northern hemisphere plant or a winter season one. Was it late
spring or early, and what direction was the sun at the time (it
affects plant hormones - how does one exactly reproduce the remedy if
the powerful hormones are different?).
I can go on for ever as we are talking energy remedy and LOTS of
energies are relevant. NO plant remedy (and that is an awful lot of
our remedies) can be exactly reproduced, just as a "for example".

It is totally unrealistic to suggest a remedy needs to be reproducible.
But it is realistic to record carefully WHAT was used for a remedy.
And which specific such remedy is used in any proving

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."

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers wrote:
I'm only a student so i can only give a student's perpspective on this one. As part of the 5th year homeopathy syllabus the class does a proving. my teacher has done many provings where he provides the pharmacist with a variety of substances and they are made up and one is given to him without him knowing which remedy so that the proving is double blind.

he's used both proved and unproved remedies. last year we did a reproving of Tub bov but he's also done provings of box jelly fish, white tailed spider, moreton bay fig etc. if new remedies are not made up and then proved and rubrics not then allocated to the consequential symptoms how will a homeopath know in the future that this remedy fits their patient's symptom picture? if new remedies are not made by pharmacists and made available to other homeopaths, how will the understanding and utilisation of homeopathy expand and move forward?

there is, however, a certain amount of responsibility for both the pharmacist making the remedy AS WELL as the CERTIFIED homeopath (ie not just any old person off the street) to document WHAT the remedy is made from, WHERE it came from and if they want (but not overly important) who brought it in to be made. once there is a proving it would be good for records sake to also provide proving details but can you honestly say that every pharmacist who prepares homeopathic remedies has proving records for every remedy they make? i personally think that part is the responsibility of the homeopath proving it (in order for other homeopaths to know about the remedy and its use) and the homeopath who wants to utilise it.

Natalia

It's a good one in response to my post, except the comment here is
not what I suggested:

provide proving details but can you honestly say that every
for every remedy they make?

No I did not suggest that.
It's not the pharmacist's job to keep proving records, only origin of
remedy records.

The person arranging the proving has the responsibility to make that
available to others if they wish. Hopefully they wish, and it would
be nice to get it into a repertory (such as Radar where the
contributor of each item is listed - as I think it should be.)

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."

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers wrote:
yep yep, i agree with the things you said but was also just giving my own ideas. i think what i was saying is also slightly separate or on a bit of a tangent to the main discussion here.
yep, that's what i was trying to say, that it's not their responsibility to keep proving records (but should at least have the name of the practitioner who requested it made) but that it would not be a bad idea if they are potentising a new remedy. not as a responsibility but perhaps as a point of reference/record if a practitioner wants to know who requested it made so they could contact them for more information about the remedy/symptom picture/proving etc. being a new remedy there would be little information aside from proving records and published information so this could hopefully show the validity of the remedy as being something which has been proven and published by a qualified homeopath, which i believe is important for establishing credibility to our practice.

but otherwise, i agree with you

Natalia

But there was a time when they did keep records, or some of them did and this should be part of the holistic and cohesive responsibility to do so.

One pharmacy was trying very hard to find records of Burnetts use of a rx he had made up but because they were in the process of rebuilding they couldn't find them - such wonderful data to have at hand - which you seem to think is useless and unnecessary - let's hope people do not keep your records of experimentation either then!

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

I think this is a good thing yes.

For example, in 1996 I had a remedy made to use for prophylaxis in cats.
Since then, other have had remedies made from similar substances -
and they have been found not to work as well. I then ran out of the
one I had, and wanted more. The same pharmacist by then had three
options listed, but it was not that easy to determine which was
"mine" (I later found out the other two were imports). At the time I
found "mine" by the misspelling of one word in the four lines of
technical words, a word which the pharmacist had misunderstood, which
should have read "calici" but had a letter missing. It triggered my
memory that he had had difficulty with the odd spellings at the time.

I do think it is relevant to know the origin of a remedy as exactly
as possible.
If there is proving info available I do NOt think the pharmacist
should store it. But it would be reasonable to keep info on where to
find it, or whom to contact for it. But I do not think it reasonable
for the pharmacist to set up to keep/maintain proving records. They
go out of date anyway as more info is added. They belong in a
repertory. It's a lot of work to set up a system of storage of such
information and with so many pharmacists around the planet, it is
not at all reasonable. A LINK to where to find it, if available, is
reasonable.

For example if someone contacted me (via the pharmacist who made it
at my request) on the remedy I had made in 1996, as a source of
info, I would now be able to add clinical experience of many cases to
what I knew then.

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."

It's 2009 now
We have electronic repertories to keep records and make them
available worldwide.
Some pharmacist in Timbuctu or Outer Mongolia with proving records on
some obscure remedy is not useful for that any more. The pharmacist
may be useful to point to where the records are universally available.
Your words not mine.
The data is very useful and necessary.
But it needs to be UNIVERSALLY available in a repertory - not hidden
in some pharmacy or other - much less written by a homeopathic
pharmacist without the proper training. They are trained in pharmacy,
not repertory writing.
In Hahnemann's day you would have been the one to say you hope nobody
keeps his records of experimentation either:-)
People will keep or use what they see fit.
Considering I spent my life to get some progress in things like FIP
and actually did, I would hate to think that it would all be lost,
just because you feel Hahnamann is the only person whop could ever
make any progress with anything:-)

For me - Time does not stand still.
It's 2009.
I prefer to be realistic about the changes since 1834.
Principles of homeopathy do not change, but the ways they can be
used, can indeed be increased to good benefit.

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."

Not into history or distant lands then, you have a problem with these or indeed with obscure remedies? - if our dear Julian was alive he'd be appalled at this, as I am but I won't say so.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/