Minutus

this is an interesting thread. today we have the means to identify
raw energy frequencies (laser, electromagnetic, etc). we also have
the means to identify the energy from nature such as lunar, sol, etc.
and we have the technology to duplicate these energy frequencies
with different tools such as rife machines or high tech lab equipment.
since what we really do in homeopathy is match energy frequencies of
a dis-ease state with a source of similar energy, what is to say that
what peter does is antithetical to hahneman?
i can understand that there is a discomfort in working with such
esoteric sources. but that is exactly what many find disconcerting
with homeopathy itself: it is too esoteric for them. now within our
own boundaries, we have the same discomfort based on something
that seems to 'far out.' i am with soroush. if it is producing healing
and works on matching the energy of the dis-ease, then we should
be looking at it.
didi reports not long lasting results with pc remedies. that is a real
concern. but others seem to have beneficial results. i think the door
needs to remain open on this and we should be looking with an open
mind trying to understand the different experiences.
tanya
________________________________
________________________________

You can purchase the potentised?? substances anywhere but who would even bother wasting their time proving an un-named or unknown substance - complete folly. We don't even know that they are even potentised.

But in his so called 'design' of these pills/resonances the provings are not necessary because each one includes the whole MM for the diseased state being targeted (that is his thinking, not mine).

Joy

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

________________________________

Hi Chris,

The factors you mention would apply to *any* proving, as you know.
Consistency is important in making remedies, so that as much variability as possible is removed from the process--yet much can be done even with less-than-perfect consistency (we've all heard various examples). That does *not* negate the value of consistency, tho.

In the case of proving one of Peter's remedies, we're just relying on his consistency (similarly, when using a remedy from a pharmacy, we are relying on theirs).

When double-blind provings are done, no one knows what they are taking, but that does not prevent the proving from happening. I don't know why a proving of one of Peter's remedies should be different.

Shannon
________________________________

Well, think about it objectively. If you don't know the source of the substance and the manufacturing process, what *variable* do you think you are actually testing? There are always going to be "symptoms" reported in any proving because we're living, breathing human beings interacting with our environment. Somehow you have to separate background "noise" from the true primary effects of the drug being tested. If you simply attribute all symptoms during a period when the proving is supposedly undertaken, you will have a materia medica containing a percentage of totally irrelevant symptoms. Even placebo doses produce symptoms in some testers.
Lacking basic scientific objectivity makes a mockery of all our serious provings, and there's been enough of that done in the past decade...
See Paul Herscu's 2 volume work called "Provings" if you're interested in finer detail.
Chris
________________________________

Are you saying we need to have some idea as to what symptoms are likely to be produced, in order to decide which symptoms *are* produced are meaningful? I have never heard this claimed before. How is the problem overcome in *any* blinded proving--how is it decided which symptoms are meaningful and which are not?

Shannon
________________________________

________________________________