Minutus

What do people think about this interview with George Vithoulkas? He really
disses what he thinks is happening in homepathy today that is destroying homepathy
from within, essentially.

http://hpathy.com/homeopathic-interview ... houlkas-3/
tanya

Hmm, yes, there's lots there to discuss...
My first reaction is that Vithoulkas is definitely a "theory first" kinda guy. He's *marvelous* with the Hahnemannian theory, knows it backward and forward, but has some definite prejudices about anything falling outside those walls...

But this is one point that comes up now and again, and I do find intriguing:

GV: "Golden in his interview with you claimed that after giving repeated doses of several remedies to a population for prevention he observed no proving symptoms developing in anyone of them.

"On the other hand those who are doing the “new” provings of remedies claim that after giving one dose of a remedy in high potency (beyond the Avogadro number) hundreds of symptoms were developing in most of the provers."

That does present a bit of an intellectual dilemma, doesn't it?

My thoughts:

- When you are *looking* for "proving symptoms" you will be noticing different and more subtle things, vs. when you are not. It's possible that some of the homeoprophy patients produce symptoms would might be meaningful in context of a proving, but are not meaningful in context of daily life?? (I think that idea's a bit thin, tho, since some proving sxs are dramatic and would certainly be noted in a patient...)

- The importance of "intention" comes up over and over in homeopathy--much as some of us would rather it didn't. The intention of "being a prover" is vastly different from the intention of being a patient... (And of course the intention of giving a proving dose vs. giving a patient dose.) That explanation is problematic, for putting us firmly into the realm of "woo-woo", but doesn't mean it's not relevant...

- Taking part in a proving involves not only intention, but also preparation, ongoing involvement and participation that is completely lacking when one is simply being a patient! Perhaps the difference in effect (proving sxs vs. no proving sxs) is similar to, say, the difference in effect of a piece of music on someone who is in the process of cleaning and tuning up their car, vs. on someone who is sitting, eyes closed, in a concert hall. Both may enjoy the piece and feel "uplifted" by listening, but have quite different experiences with it.

I'm curious what thoughts others have had on that point?

Shannon

Hm, reading on, he says, "But what is incredible is that the majority of symptoms attributed to the remedy during a “modern” proving are nothing else but the mass hysteria of participants in the proving." Then goes on to different topics, and to say nothing about why he makes such a claim. Vithoulkas or not, this strikes me as EXTREMELY irresponsible!! What does he mean by "modern provings"? Which provings and whose work is he tarring with this brush? And does that group include provings which have produced prescribing pictures that are turning out to be *useful*, and if so, how does he explain that... Vithoulkas is excellent at some things, but definitely not above reproach in others...
Shannon

Prophylactic prescribing is done for people who are at risk for all the usual reasons so there will susceptibilities witnessed and a disease state, i.e. sx to work with and to target - provings are done on healthy people - where is the intellectual dilemma.

I also think the same amount of work and energy that goes into provings is the same, and in fact can be less, than what is and should be given to clients in their follow ups etc, however long their treatment is. Provings are not such hard work they just require diligence the same as case taking and case management.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com

He disses Golden (tick) and also non Hahnemannian proving protocols. Good for him.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com

Prophylactic prescribing covers a range of practices. E.g. Golden's work is broader, and "at risk" does not necessarily (at least today) mean unhealthy... And provings are not done exclusively with healthy people either, tho that is the ideal...
Shannon

Disses Golden without discussing his work at all--including his 20 year studying, during which he follow hundreds (hundreds or more?) of children, and compares three groups, including one treated via his homeoprophylaxis, a second as control, and a third treated via naturapathic methods--excellent diet and ? Sorry, I don't remember the details, but for Vithoulkas to brush Golden's work off in a single sentence without even addressing his *very* comprehensive and long-term study, is IMO extremely irresponsible.

Shannon

But it wasn't exactly an in depth interview and GV has better opportunities to discuss these issues elsewhere and quite rightly gives precedence to Hahnemann - the whole point is that moving away from Hahnemann's methods is watering down Homeopathy. Not at all irresponsible given the circumstances, it was up to the interviewer to make more of it.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com

Was the point of Tanya posting this a means to promote Golden? Hahnemannian prophylactic methods is what George was talking about and how they are not understood and should be but there are too many out there 'messing with them' - very true.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com

I quite disagree, but will leave it at that.