Minutus

E.g. "theory of Hahnemann" vs. e.g. "theory of Scholten" are the ones I am referring to; not the whole wide world.
? Where did I say that?
? No... I simply asked for a definition.
That does not seem consistent with what he *said*... Does not seem to have anything to do with the question of whether or not this group is "sufficient" such that the "new" ones are unnecessary.
Well, if you are familiar with the remedies I mentioned, i.e. Androctonos, Germanium (and I think Xenon as well), those are among Jeremy Sherr's "new" remedies.

Are you familiar with his method of proving?
He is quite rigorous. Nothing to do with meditation etc.
I'm not sure why you are arguing here...
Are you not familiar with Jeremy Sherr's work, and the nature of his provings? I assume that you are.
And if you are, then I don't think you can disagree that they are far more comprehensive than nearly all of the provings done prior to his work.

Or do you?
In fact, yes, I do not make such a claim.
I am saying that many of the "new" remedies are very fully proved, and in fact much more fully proved than the older (and "classical") ones.

Shannon
'

Hi, Shannon --

Thanks for your clarification. To sum up:

(1) Ed posted an comment unmistakeably expressing disappointment that prescribing Lanthanides and other medicines upon the basis of mere conjecture should be mistaken as equivalent to prescribing them on the basis of known pathogenesis -- i.e., as prescribing homoeopathically.

(2) You deprecated that position by referring to it as "duellling theories", having once again set aside that homoeopathy is a practice based squarely upon knowledge of pathogenesis rather than knowledge of clinical "successes".

Now you have responded to this question --

(3) "For the moment, you appear to be asserting that the conjectures that Ed rightly pointed out cannot substitute for pathogenetic trials are more rigorous than the work of establishing a pathogenesis. Surely you would not make such a claim?"

-- by stating:

(4) "In fact, yes, I do not make such a claim".

Leaving aside the completely irrelevant question of whether Sherr knows how to conduct a proving -- a question I haven't looked into and can't very well help answer and that does not relate to the conjectural bases for prescribing the Lanthanides -- and any other non sequiturs you'd like to introduce, your answer (4) seems to be a denial of your previous relevant response to Ed, the one that inherently claimed that any conjecture is as relevant to homoeopathy as pathogenesis. (If that's not what you meant by "duelling theories", then do clarify, won't you.)

So perhaps we've made progress -- until the next occasion on which you suggest that conjecture is as relevant a prescription basis in homoeopathy as pathogenesis is.

Kind regards and a happy new year to all.

John
--
"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments, guided by such ideas, would be very different places."
—Paul Ginsborg, Democracy: Crisis and Renewal, London: Profile, 2008.