Digest Number 599
Posted: Fri Jul 05, 2002 9:11 am
New remedies
Obviously the materia medica cannot be frozen in time.
Equally apparent is that many remedies in common use by the likes of
Farrington, Jahr and Burnett are hardly used at all now.Does this reflect a
change in patients' requirements or in perceptions of practitioners of what
needs to be cured? Either way we see an evolution in materia medica.
Looking at Boericke we can see loads of remedies that must have once looked
very promising but which never made the grade, either through inadequate
provings or just because they didn't. If you had to kiss a lot of frogs to
find a prince in those days it is hardly surprising that the plethora of new
remedies includes so many that are five day wonders. If we find a couple in
a year that stand the test of time it will be a reasonable result.
In spite of this, my instinctive reaction was to agree with Joy's comments.
I think it is because so many of these new remedies come with personality
'sketches' that read like Sunday paper astrology and include broad
statements that say too much about where the writer is coming from and not
enough about the observed action of the remedy. Added to this is the
tendency to speculate in great depth on the 'signature' implications and
then to present these speculations as some kind of 'truth'. ( I would not
even exempt Jeremy Sher from this criticism, shocking though that may be).
Final comment is that perhaps remedies need to be in clinical use for a set
number of years before they make their way into materia medica and
repertories, no matter who does the provings or how they are done.
Theresa
Obviously the materia medica cannot be frozen in time.
Equally apparent is that many remedies in common use by the likes of
Farrington, Jahr and Burnett are hardly used at all now.Does this reflect a
change in patients' requirements or in perceptions of practitioners of what
needs to be cured? Either way we see an evolution in materia medica.
Looking at Boericke we can see loads of remedies that must have once looked
very promising but which never made the grade, either through inadequate
provings or just because they didn't. If you had to kiss a lot of frogs to
find a prince in those days it is hardly surprising that the plethora of new
remedies includes so many that are five day wonders. If we find a couple in
a year that stand the test of time it will be a reasonable result.
In spite of this, my instinctive reaction was to agree with Joy's comments.
I think it is because so many of these new remedies come with personality
'sketches' that read like Sunday paper astrology and include broad
statements that say too much about where the writer is coming from and not
enough about the observed action of the remedy. Added to this is the
tendency to speculate in great depth on the 'signature' implications and
then to present these speculations as some kind of 'truth'. ( I would not
even exempt Jeremy Sher from this criticism, shocking though that may be).
Final comment is that perhaps remedies need to be in clinical use for a set
number of years before they make their way into materia medica and
repertories, no matter who does the provings or how they are done.
Theresa