Proving

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Colleagues

Hn was a scientist.

With limited resources he did well to establish a scientific basis for his
work in MM and pharmacy.

This is why although some of its concepts are difficult to demonstrate
scientifically, nonetheless Homoeopathy is Scientific with Laws and
principles (as apposed to allopathy).

While realising that there are forces in the Creation about which we know
nothing and that there are people around who become sensitive to these
forces from time-to-time and can use them effectively, we must make progress
on what we know well, and know that it works well. [I would use the fact
that Radio waves have been in existence since the beginning of the Universe,
but we have only got to know about them for just over 100 years and are now
making fantastic use of them.]

A homoeopath MUST know the tools of his trade.
An important tool of a homoeopath is his knowledge of MM. This must be based
on rock based evidence which will stand up to scrutiny and is repeatable.
Look at Hn's proving of Sepia - How is it that no one has managed to come up
with an additional symptom? Because he did this proving VERY thoroughly.

Hn has detailed exactly how a proving should be done and has even dictated
the diet the prover should have so as not to influence the reaction of the
vital force to the action of the remedy.

Just assume that you are in a court of Law and the prosecution asks:
Assuming Homoeopathy works according to its principles established by Hn,
what was the basis of your choice of remedy X for this patient?
If the answer comes out, Oh I based my choice on the dream proving of X, my
money would be on the fact that the prosecution would win and Homoeopathy
(not the homoeopath being prosecuted) would lose. Therefore we should do
nothing to harm homoeopathy's standing.

Also such non-homoeopathic provings can only be established if any one can
demonstrate that the results can be reproduced from one dreamer/conference
to another.

How will we get the reproducible proving point of 'Least slightest movement'
of Bryonia in a dream proving when it is easy demonstrated in a physical
proving?

With the dictate of Cause No Harm, I would not wish to base my prescription
on someone's dream not knowing what they have been up to previously!

Enjoy the New Year and HEAL WELL.
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Without disagreeing with Soroush, I want to note that dolphin *has* had a
"real" proving, not just the dream one. Does anyone have a conmparison of
the two?

Shannon
on 1/5/03 5:51 AM, Finrod at finrod@webstar.co.uk wrote:

[Rochelle]

I only know of the Nancy herrick 1995 conventional proving and that is what
I based my prescription on!!
Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Joy

If they are proved, then how can I prescribe them. What happens to the
essential concept of symptom similarity?

If they are partial proved (and how many remedies are proved 100% ?) then
there is some basis of prescription.

In fact if you look at Clarke's Dictionary of MM, you will see with some
remedies there just a few symptoms listed!

If it matches the patient's presenting symptoms and you can satisfy the
element of homoeopathy that you have learnt and studied, then it is OK to
use it.
I guess you will then be able to well defend your decision in the imaginary
'Court'.

Rgds
Soroush

Message: 14
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 16:14:01 +0000
From: Joy Lucas
Subject: proving

Dear Soroush, thank you for your thoughts on provings. I would like to ask
you pretty much the same question as I asked George - do you choose not to
use unproved or partially proved remedies then, even though, with the
information available to us about these remedies, they might still be well
indicated, i.e. you choose a less well indicated remedy?

Joy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Joy Lucas]

Dear Soroush, putting aside a confusing typo error, I would say there are a
number of unproved remedies which appear in our MM's with substantial
symptom pictures - the information being derived from how that remedy has
been used outside of Homeopathy. So there is symptom similiarity.

I think it is pertinent that we should be asking whether we chuck out many
old remedies, unproved remedies, partially proved remedies, and those that
we just don't like as it would seem to be the case with some practitioners!

Joy
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Shannon Nelson]

Some homeopaths won't use any remedy except according to specific proving
indications (I believe Sheilagh Creasey is one). But I agree with you, Joy,
that does leave out some very valuable choices.

Perhaps this is another area where each of us simply has to choose the
"boundaries" that seem consistent with their own understanding, comfort,
skill, beliefs, etc. I think that any homeopath who knows the basics *well*
can do good work. But there will certainly be cases where an unproved or
unknown remedy is needed, so I for one *applaud* those who are willing and
able to "explore"! I only hope that they do so with enough rigor,
precision, truthfulness, documentation, that the truly solid information
doesn't become diluted by imagination or wishful thinking... I think that
is certainly a danger with some of these highly subjective methods!!! We
may choose to try them out anyway, but I do think we should be well informed
as to *what* we are trying (e.g. *know* that a given remedy picture is based
on e.g. only dream proving, or only one individual, or only clinical), and
be willing to learn from there. Basing your remedy choice solely on
provings is unfortunately no guarantee of accuracy, either...

Shannon
on 1/6/03 6:50 AM, Joy Lucas at joylucas_speaktv@hotmail.com wrote:

[RAVALARD]

Do you know if there are provings in the litterature of Hoang-nan and
Sanguisuga?

Thanks
Jean-Claude Ravalard

[Glenda Wilks]

Hello,

Would anyone have kept a copy these proving from the Welsh School of Homeopathy back in May 2003. - PLACENTA HUMANUM (WELSH). and PTERIDIUM AQUILINUM (BRACKEN)
Thanks

Glenda

[Leilanae]

http://www.welshschoolofhomoeopathy.org.uk/provings.php
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
Hello,

Would anyone have kept a copy these proving from the Welsh School of Homeopathy back in May 2003. - PLACENTA HUMANUM (WELSH). and PTERIDIUM AQUILINUM (BRACKEN)
Thanks

Glenda