Polarity Analysis

[Ellen Madono]

Hi,

I am answering Soroush's request for more detail and Elham's comment on protocols.

Polarity Analysis is not a protocol in Elham's sense because it is boring. It will interest only boring homeopaths who are concerned with accuracy in repertorization because of statistical evaluation of reliable rubrics. The tools developed by Dr. Heinner Frie increase the ease, speed and accuracy of repertorization. They backed up by statistical research which is not completely understood by me. (His course gave me the impression that it is scientifically solid.) But to a homeopath and to even a beginner who knows how difficult homeopathy can be, they both can use it and understand the basic ideas. To me, it is exciting because it is based on the work of the most exciting people in homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann and Clemens Maria Franz von Boeninghausen.

It is a tool for the first sort. What do I mean? When I am sorting a pile of things like clothes, typically, I sort to put all the socks together, then all t-shirts .... until I have everything sorted in a number of piles. Those first piles are the "first sort". Then, I start folding piles for the various people who wear those clothes. That is the next sort. PA is a repertory tool that reduces the piles of the first sort. Unlike my clothes folding techniques, PA seems to be usually good enough on the first sort.

Dr. Heinner Frie has come to the conclusion that we should sort from piles by modalities. Then he has operationalized some insights from Boenninghausen that further reduce the number of piles. (It never works this way when I am folding clothes, but) using his statistical tools (repertorization software) I only have to pay attention to a few piles (socks and t-shirts or remedy 1 and remedy 3). Without the PA, typically my repertorizations bring up too many remedies, so either I know my remedies very well or I have too much research to do before I can choose a remedy. In any case, I use an MM to decide which remedy I will give the patient. So, remedy research and follow-ups must rely on your version of normal classical homeopathy. Basically the number of remedies that I have to choose from after my first sort are drastically reduced so the second sort requires only MM research. Maybe my skills are low, but ordinary repertorization of the PA case leads to the typical too many remedies to choose from scenario. So, I tend to use The Complete Dynamics to research remedies and rubrics in order to compare the PA choices.

Interestingly, because the number of remedies are reduced for very good reasons, the curative remedy is likely to be there in that first sort.

After the first sort, I always need to go back and examine why my remedy came up in the first sort. That description is necessarily technical because you need to understand the details of the PA analysis system. I am working on this description, so tell me if what I am saying is of any interest.

Best,
Ellen Madono

[Sherill]

I am following so far and I am interested in more. I have tried this system just a few times and am not fluid in it at all.

Thanks Ellen for your efforts in explaining this.
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2018 9:09 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Polarity Analysis
Polarity Analysis is not a protocol in Elham's sense because it is boring. It will interest only boring homeopaths who are concerned with accuracy in repertorization because of statistical evaluation of reliable rubrics. The tools developed by Dr. Heinner Frie .....
Dr. Heinner Frie has come to the conclusion that we should sort from piles by modalities. ...... I am working on this description, so tell me if what I am saying is of any interest.
Best,

Ellen Madono

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Me too, tell us more!
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

[Ellen Madono]

Ok, there was some response, so I will try to be more specific. Dr. Frei is a very scientific thinker, so he is much easier to follow than many. You have to give me some feedback concerning where you are in your understanding.

Earlier, I wrote and threw out a response to Soroush's request for a more detailed description of PA and then realized that I was way too detailed and into my own concerns with PA. So, to avoid that pitfall, tell me what interests you? Sherrill it seems that you took the course, signed up for the software or bought the textbook. How much background did you get? Give me some hints so I know where you are. Here are some hints as to where I am.

I found PA does not work well using the software on MacRep Dimitriadis Pocketbook, or the Complete. I mean you can't just use Dimitiratis's excellent editing of the pocketbook along with the polarities in the program and get the same results. The Complete does not work because it is not the Pocketbook and also it is too full of garbage. But, I did some studies comparing results and realized that my PA remedy, as well as the highly rated but contraindicated remedies, were in my The Complete remedy line up. The problem was they were buried behind too many polycrests. I might never recognize them. The Frie contraindications did not come out, but then, the CD is not the Pocketbook.

(Dr. Frie uses the word "symptom" where I think he should be using the word "rubric." But, I find myself just copying him. Symptoms are the patient's language, spoken language, rubrics are our repertory language).

Going back to MacRep, Dimitriadis does not have the statistical studies to weed out the less reliable rubrics. You actually have to use Dr. Frei's software. He is not playing tricks. Actually, he keeps tweaking his questionnaire, his reliable symptoms etc. That appears on his website and his software. Everything is a work in progress. But, he shares it all.

I give patients the questionnaires on their specific problem but rarely find that responses on anything except the reliable symptoms are very useful. I am getting so that I have memorized the 4-page reliable symptoms, but I have not memorized the less reliable symptoms. So, it is prudent to give those questionnaires even if they are not so useful.

Do you understand the general principles? For example, what is a polarity symptom? Note, reliable symptoms could lack a polar opposite. That was hard for me to understand in the beginning. I don't remember him actually saying exactly why polarity is so important. Boenninghausen thought it was, but that is not an explanation from my perspective. I have my own hypotheses, but that is poking in the dark. I am working through his material again. Maybe he is more specific than I remember.

Do you understand that he has been doing statistical studies on subjects like ADHD or respiratory cases? Through these studies, he has refined his tactical priorities.

For example, he does not use many mental rubrics or any skin rubrics. Those are either secondary symptoms or are not objective so cannot be verified. They can be used for confirmation, but not for the "first sort" reliable rubric sort. Confirmation is a free for all of any and all your resources. Errors of perception are the exception to the lack of mental rubrics among Dr. Frie's mental rubrics. I have to read his ADHD book so, I am not up on this aspect.

But, in any case, the basics of using the reliable symptoms and not using contraindicated polarity symptoms remain the same. Do you understand those basic rules?

The list of reliable symptoms keeps changing because I think he is really using the Internet software for his own practice. He loves doing statistical studies of his clinical results, so I suspect that he has a running tally of his successful rubrics. He hires a software engineer to do his work. Naturally, he is trying to increase his percentages of cured cases for any specific problem. That is why even his reliable symptom list changes. Since I began using Dr. Frei's work in the fall of 2017, he almost completely quit using the less reliable symptom list. I also find that the less reliable symptoms lead me astray. If I can get a case to fit the reliable symptom list, I have a winner.

But, that is not always so easy. I just did a MRSA case of scalp ulcer for a cat. It was a telephone case, so I did not see the cat. But the remedy is working. The ulcer is getting smaller. And the logic behind the remedy choice works, so I was very pleased. You know that the repping is working because the logic of remedy choice works. By works, I mean it is convincing to me.
I had a Japanese Sulpher case. I did his case repping him on an iPad as I talked to him. I did some sloppy repping because I was interviewing in Japanese at the same time. Also, I am not that good at PA. I was sure that I had a Lyc case, and went home and worked harder on the logic of the repping. (You need to be very particular about the logic of selecting reliable symptoms. One wrong rubric will lead you astray.) That is when I found Sulphur. It takes a lot for me to believe that I have found a real Sulphur from just repping. But I went back and interviewed the patient and he was Sulphur. The remedy is working.

This stuff is really detailed, but if you guys are interested, I will put it up as a video after I get home from Korea. That is in 2 weeks. Until then, let's just talk so I can see where you are.