Minutus

Who needs provings? They are not relevant to prescribing. We don't have time for them. They are too tedious. We can now guess about the combining of elements and their subsequent rx pictures/states. And yes these are Scholtens words and no the success rate of his theoretical work and that of his students is not high enough yet to be called medicine.
Secondly how does anyone come to terms with giving a substance to someone with no clinical trial. An allopath would be burned at the stake...no? Is it not unethical to give a rx with no proving to a patient unless they know its an experiment. Why are the standards of care different for us? How does one buy into the idea that a group of rxs shares something in common because of their atomic weights.
How can someone throw out the very premise in which our science was born?

Best regards, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:

What's the source of that quote? I'd like to see it in full, and in
context.
Thanks.
The two situations aren't comparable; chemical drugs are potentially
dangerous, but homeopathic remedies are not.
Can you by any chance supply any of that list, of remedies in common
usage for decades that have not had a proving done? I trust you are
aware of the issue?

If you're speaking of the "new" remedies, tho, i doubt there are any of
those patients who think it's a "sure thing;" as that is not the way
most homeopaths work; and most especially, those homeopaths who work
with "new" remedies.
Actually, our standard is much higher. But it also depends on
different factors.
? (a) if you are speaking of homeopathic remedies, that is not so much
the basis of commonality. But I won't try to explain the theory.

(b) If you're speaking of the elements, it is again not a matter of
"something in common because of their atomic weights," but rather a
matter of certain specific properties going thru a fairly regular
variation, based upon increasing weight, valence, and other properties.

As to how one might "buy into it," I guess you should ask a physicist
about that, or perhaps a high school science teacher. My answer would
not be credible anyway.

The sources for the statements are Scholtens seminars/conferences over the last 5 yrs. (I do not have a copy of the minutes from those seminars sorry. He edited out the same statements from his blog on mimimum prices site.) Along with the prologues/epilogues in his Lanthanide book.

Homeopathic rx's aren't dangerous? But conventional drugs are? I will refer you back to chronic disease the first 100 pgs and the Organon to perhaps enlighten that belief. I see you skipped the part of the ethics thing altogether.

Yes I am aware of the issue of giving unproven rxs. And no I do not use them.

How is our standard higher?

I am curious though Shannon, what is your experience with Scholtens idea? Have you studied and then applied his theory. Do you know his and his students cure rates?

And yes I have spoken ad nauseaum with physicists about both Homeopathy in general and Scholtens ideas. You?

Best regards, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:

Okay, then I have no comment.

No comment!

That's not the issue I was asking about, tho. I referred to the issue
of the goodly number of unproven remedies that are in common use, for
decades. If you are aware of that issue, and certain that you don't
use unproven remedies, then you will easily know which the unproven but
common ones are, and be able to mention a few of them for us?

Because of goal and definition of cure are higher.

I'm working on it.
No, but I know several people using them successfully, in some cases to
achieve breakthrough on cases that were stalled or not responding.

Then you know that remedies do not share commonality based on their
atomic weight, but rather based on *patterns of change* of their atomic
weight *and other factors.* I wondered, because of the way you phrased
your remark, but am glad to have that cleared up.

I have not been fortunate enough to discuss homeopathy with any
physicists--that must be great! But I was (briefly and long ago) a
physics major in college (special interest in quantum and sub-atomic
physics; couldn't pursue it due to health troubles), and also loved
chemistry. Also I've been re-reading some of that, trying to get
better understanding of Scholten's framework, so the whole thing about
the periodic table is rather fresh in my mind. Quite fascinating!

Shannon

In Interhomeopathy Volume 2009 - J U L Y / A U G U S T - the last article is relevant to Scholten's work. Jean

Rik,

I just pulled out my copy of Lanthanides and read the chapter on provings, nowhere does he say they are tedious or that we don't need them. I must have missed that when I re read the chapter. I have actually given a Lanthanide with great success, so I am grateful to Jan. When I have given more and had whatever results, I will let you know since I consider myself a student of both Lou Klein and Jan Scholten. I have done provings 3 of them and they are not always a walk in the park for the prover and they take a lot of time both for the prover and everyone else involved, which is why the Lanthanides were meditative provings which he said were not complete pictures. Homeopathic "drugs" aren't "dangerous" when you give one dose one time, lordy if I was able to always get the correct remedy right away each and every time (I will be studying and learning until my last breath and I bet I still won't have 100% success rate).

Sue

How can someone throw out the very premise in which our science was born?
The same way test tube babies are born after the stork got a stroke

Hahnemannian2002! I didn't realise you were back. Welcome back.

John
2009/7/2 hahnemannian2002 >

At 10:54 PM 7/1/2009, you wrote:
Homeopathic remedies certainly can be dangerous - , too high dose, too high potency, repeated too frequently and on and on.
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start July 29 & 30

Thanks John - Yes I am back - have been hopping in and out and mostly confining myself to suggesting remedies for problem cases ( which is what I like to do mostly) and some fairly innocuous philosophy in practice type of questions-
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote: