Minutus

Actually Hahnemann says the opposite - that narcotic drugs are the
exception to the rule that *allopathic* drugs have a prImary
(suppressive) effect and a secondary (body resistance to the
suppression) effect. AsHahnemann explains in this =section such
secondary response does not occur with a Homeopathic medicine. It's
an allopathic effect due to the suppression caused by contraries and
the body's dislike of it.

One has to read the Organon in context to follow his entire
discussion and argument, starting about Aph 60 or so. He is talking
about allopathic drugs in "excessive" amounts, and how THEY cause the
body to respond in an initial primary and later secondary way -
secondary being after an initial suppression,
But by the Aphs that you refer to, he has said that narcotics are
an exception in that the system is so benumbed by the drugs' initial
effect that it can not do this secondary response.

But we were talking about - at least I was - my assertion that
rubrics developed from cured cases are at least as relevant as
proving symptoms if not more so. (Hence the above is a separate
subject, a it is to do with allopathic drugs not homeopathy.]
I do not think I am the first to think cured cases - cured by
homeopathy - are more relevant than provings to give credence to
rubrics. Hahnemannn saw it too, as is shown by the words he uses soon
after he changes to discussing homeopathy benefits in his discussion,
See especially the following:

Aph 177 (quoted below) is about allergic responses though allergies
were not understood till well into the 20th Century, so he did not
call them that; he called them idiosyncrasies. (In fact the Osler
textbook of medicine of 1907, still called allergies "a neurosis of
women",and it was decades before allergies were seen as genuine and
relevant conditions.)

In this Aph, Hahnemann describes peculiarly sensitive individuals
responding to roses, shellfish or certain plants etc.
He points out that although the proving symptoms (the allergic
response when they are exposed) for this occur in only very few
people healthy other than their peculiar constitutional type - he
stresses the relevance of the symptoms for homeopathic remedies is
proved by the cured cases using them, being effective for all and not
just for those with the weird constitutional type.
To me this is Hahnemann giving credence to cured cases as a source to
*know* that otherwise questionable "proving symptoms" (allergic
responses) are valid for a remedy, specifically because they are
proved to be so BY said cured cases.

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."

Hi Irene,

Not in contradiction to anything you are saying below, I still think
it would be *most* desirable to have the symptoms in our MMs that
derive from experience only, i.e. were not brought out in provings,
marked accordingly.

With some it is obvious: notmany people will think that e. g. any
provings showed cancer.

But many homeopaths think that symptoms from poisonings or those that
were added from cures are from provings. Since they often are the most
severe symptoms, they are scared stiff - immobilized for fear of
giving such remedies because they may be "accidentally proved" by
the patients and cause terrible proving symptoms.

To repeat: for some symptoms it is obvious that they do not come from
provings. This is e.g. so for Ledum: I guess homeopaths realize that
its effect on puncture wounds cannot be from provings - but who also
realizes that one of the leading symptoms of the remedy "rheumatism
better from cold" is also not from the provings?

What does it matter?

Realizing that may also make more homeopaths aware of the value of
"experience only" in considering a remedy.

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 do not have a problem with marking them. (I am all for "more
information" as one never knows when some new reason will come about
for knowing it.)

What I am strongly against is the suggestion of teaching or
practicing homeopathy in a way to imply that rubrics from cures are
somehow less useful or valid. How badly THAT would undermine our
profession!
Then with respect they are not homeopaths:-)
I would never wish the marked "cured symptom rubric" to be used for
the wrong purpose. It is always important to use information for the
right purpose. Fear-mongering is not a "right purpose". Such a
homeopath needs to go back to school and learn that there are right
ways to use remedies, that are nothing to do with HOW we know the
remedy has ability in some dire pathologies.
The average polycrest remedy has about 10,000 known rubrics. NO
patient will have 10,000 symptoms needing to be matched.
Ars alb for example includes cancer rubrics.
Does that mean we should not use it when indicated for food poisoning
from meat?
Of course not - whether source of the cancer rubrics is marked or not
- as those are separate issues.
Whichever rubrics the patient does not need are irrelevant. So here
it is irrelevant that Ars can cure cancer. It is as if that rubric is
not in the repertory - we look ONLY at the patient's symptoms, not at
what else is there in the repertory. If a homeopath does not
understand that basic point, they need to go back to school because
marking what is known from a proving versus a cure, is not going to
teach them that basic principle of how to choose a remedy!

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."

Hi Irene,
Also with respect - saying this is just as limiting as saying the many
other restrictive things uttered in the literature and on the lists.

While personally I basically agree with your opinion - that is just
two of us and also just opinions.

I have known many homeopaths on the various lists who work differently
and whom I respect as homeopaths. I also have mmany people whom I
respect as homeopaths heard (read:-) express just that fear of
accidentally causing a proving of the remedy when they give it to a
patient - for whatever reason this may happen. After all, we can never
be sure to give the exactly right remedy all the time or at any given
time. And many of those homeopaths do not realize that the provings in
the potencies have usually only caused relatively light symptoms.

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 <==========

So you feel that homeopaths do not need any proper training to be let
loose on the public?
I have to disagree with that one, even if it is "limiting".
I think we ned to use homeopathy (if we use it) in the way that helps
people to heal - namely per the Law of Similars, and that never
involves fitting a remedy to a patient - it always involves fitting a
patient to a remedy.
If you go to buy a bicycle, it does not matter if the same store
sells Rolls Royce and heart medication. You only look at the bicycles
to choose what to buy. Same basic principle. You go to the
supermarket only for what your client needs, is another way to put
it. Fear of what else in the store is not logical, and if you fail to
use the store that has what your client needs, because of what else
it sells, you do NOT help your client.
So - I do support a *minimum* level of proficiency before someone
calls themselves a homeopath, and this to me would be part of that
basic minimum level.

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."

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Irene de Villiers wrote:
I did not say that and I do not feel it.

Professional homeopaths should of course have proper training.

The question is, what is that proper training.

There we have at least to split between classical and non-classical
homeopaths.

Limiting it to classical homeopaths, the same questions apply as to
the methods used by them: who determines what is the proper method,
who determines what is the proper training?

You have one opinion (which to a large extent I share). But that is
just 2 of us. The difference between us is that you are certain your
opinion is right - I am not sure at all whether mine is.

I can do not better than to repeat what I said before: I have heard
and more so read so many different opinions on the right way or the
best way to use for treatment, for selection of remedies, about
everything concerned with homeopathy - and I cannot just shrug them
off.

This was the point of discussion not training. But of course this
applies to training also.

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 <==========

Hi Luise,

Mangialvorie has a "gold standard" for cured cases to be used evidence
of the use of the remedy outside provings. I recall 5 years later,
the case should remain cured. Also, he claims the use of one remedy
for the entire case suggests the core characteristics of that remedy
better than a case that was zig zagged to cure. Seems somewhat
logical, but don't know about the application. Third, the single
remedy should work for chronic and acute symptoms. Is there more? I
wish someone who knows would speak up.

I am not sure that his students get the results that he claims for
himself. Seems like an ambitious standard. He appears to be
compiling a data base of cases of his students. There is a level of
credibility there. However, the quality of his student's work would
say a lot about the applicability of his standards. He could have
all the credentials in the world, but if you don't believe his or his
student's reporting, for example, his clinical reports are not
credible to you. I assume he is trying to document all of that.

Obviously we already use a lot of clinical symptoms. Some remedies
such as cancinosinum consist mainly of clinical symptoms. Also, you
are not going to get the extreme symptoms of a poison or a nosode in a
proving.

Best,
Ellen

Perhaps he borrowed this from allopathy - where THEY call it cured if
the symptoms are missing or "in remission" for 5 yrs. In cancer for
example that is the test of a cure in allopathy.

....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."

I think we will never get consensus on what is "proper" training. But
we can likely get consensus on what is "minimum" training.
Perhaps that is proper understanding of, and knowledge of how to
use, what is in the Organon of Medicine, Ed 5 and 6..
That would be minimum. And it is well defined.
More would be extra.

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."

Yes, he is very proud of being an MD.
Blessings,
Ellen

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Irene de
Villiers wrote: