Minutus

Here's what I have:
a bit of a discussion re Scholten's work:

Synthetic materia medica was started by Kent-- combining the materia
medica on one remedy with that of another to get a sense of what the
combo might by-- like Calc silicata-- the combo of Calcarea and Silica.
Kent did a number of these, and was called to task for it by the
homeopathic community. He stopped publishing the stuff.

Today we find the same being done by Jan Scholten.
Some of these synthetics have no provings, and the use is only
established on a theoretical basis. Therefore, by strict definition, it
is NOT homeopathy.

Another problem with some of the synthetics is the physical inability to
make them because of chemical instability.
This led to some of them being made *radionically,* which led to the
closing of the lab which was doing so.
JW
--------------------

With chemically bonded substances. You can mix up some calcium and some
silica and then prove it but this is not the
same as chemically bonding substances to produce a new compound with
it's own unique properties.
-----------------------
Almost ALL the homeopaths I know presently have used a medicine based
upon some kind of internal logic outside of the framework of matching
the symptom to the
Proving of the remedy when they were in dire straits, and often, the
remedy works. IT is from THIS that we can learn more about the remedies
we use. Scholten has given us a "map" to guide us through those sticky
areas.
JW

Sholten had developed a systematic way of investigating the possible
curing properties of materials that we have no or little evidence about
via a proving. The "hard evidence" for Scholten's stuff will come
through the cured cases that use the method. It is easier to use and
verify Scholten's "conjecture" than it is to find out anything about
Bach's practice.
JW

12/4/97, Peter Morrell wrote (RE: Scholten's work):
“ but again, it is 'cart‑before‑horse' homeopathy. Either folks follow
formal provings and put their hand on their
heart and state they are true pure homeopaths (swear allegiance to H and
Kent!) OR they fiddle around with all these other things ‑‑including
Bach essences etc.”

Well it IS cart‑before‑the‑horse‑HOMEOPATHY... and not
cart‑before‑the‑horse‑something else When you don't have the proving
info and you've used up all the remedies ideas, and nothing is
working... why not? Hahnemann did it, Kent did it, Grimmer did it,
Hering did it. Every homeopath I know has had the experience of
rationalizing SOME medicine to give when all else fails.
The interesting thing about Scholten is that it gives the info backwards
from the way you get it in a proving. And he concedes that the ideal way is
with a proving. So when they prove the stuff he's working on, will they
match? Well Tungsten just about did.
So it is a step on the way of opening up the materia medica‑‑ and
through a very rational way‑‑ not based on star‑signs or moon phases.

Peter:
Getting the 'confirmation afterwards' is NOT classical is it?
Do you follow? It might be “a form of” homeopathy but it is not in
accord with the central dogmas.

I follow completely.
JW

----------------------------------------
Christine Gillen wrote:
--
Imagine Peace