Minutus

Ellen Madono wrote:
((( Confirmatories can be produced via
1. homeopathic semiology (observations of CLIENT---COMPARED WITH ---observations of DATABASE (rx pathogenesis and clinical results)
2. physiological testing using instruments or systematic methods (applied kinesiological testing; Autonomic
Pupillary Response after Stearns; other.)

3. Other methods not considered here (including such as instrumented or non-instrumented extrasensory means (dowsing, clairvoyance, clairsentience)

Ellen Madono wrote:
Chinese pulse reading would fall into semiology if you could make a clear connection between the reading results and the homeopathic diagnosis?

((( Presumably. As you imply, since chinese pulse reading not part of our database of rx effects (this was not done during provings nor in very many clinical settings outside of some TCM pracs), in order to use it as part of hom. semiology we would probably have to redo all provings while doing pulse diag. So it falls into category 2 above.

Ellen Madono wrote:
That is the dfficulty more than the reading itself (my comment).

((( The pulse diagnosis contains a lot of information when done by a seasoned user. But it is open to variability (interpretation of human "instrument" that is recording the pulse via the finger, etc, etc). As you point out, it has no relation to the hom database beside what it reveals about organ meridians and thus organs, etc. So it would have to be a "stand alone" system as in category 2 above in order to be useful--have a "yes" or "no" output when remedy introduced to aura of person.

I should point out (NPI) that one or more particularly sore acupuncture points (Points of Weihe OR Degroote system of confirmatory TCM points) HAS been clinically related to specific remedies for use as a confirmatory for that remedy. So what I said in a previous post about them was not accurate. These point systems ARE semiological in the homeopathic sense and while used extensively by practitioners (mostly chiropractors and acupuncturists) they are not yet accepted by the wider community and are not in repertories. To do them systematically to confirm them and include more
medicines would require reproving all medicines while using TCM criteria including comprehensive point palpation.

Probably the best candidate indicators for an objective confirmatory are ones with only one output (photo with certain level of blurriness indicating similitude level; Pupil change or not and degree or speed of change; BP change or not and degree and speed, EKG change..., GSR change... etc). Methods which do not rely on technology per se should be explored and used, and many do and may be able to use them reliably. But they have inherent problems such as lack of reproducibility by large numbers of practitioners due to varying skill set and training requirement; and more
significantly, questionable objectivity.

Thus I consider technological solution would be better especially if it could be affordable by homeopaths with a low volume practice.
Ellen Madono wrote:
((( Better because:
--separate and prior to use in homeopathic setting, the generated biolumanetic field with client standing in it is shown to yield a photograph with blurriness level directly correlated to coherence of biofield or "aura", which is correlatable to level of harmonious and comfortable functioning or health by separate means of comparing photographs of many people with differing levels of health and varying diagnosed maladies
--the experience of ruling out rx candidates chosen via hom. semiological process because of blurry photos AND at the same time positively choosing a remedy favorable both by hom. semiology AND biolumanetic clear photograph (coherence when holding the candidate remedy while standing in the field generated by the biolumanetic device) has shown to be reliable and objective by the 6 or more years experience of the London classical homeopathic clinic using biolumanetic photography

Every confirmatory is going to have error based on uncontrollable variables or unseen factors present which I will not elaborate on here. But maximizing objectivity, reproducibility, convenience, and speed to create a perfectly reliable confirmatory system in category 2 above which was usable by anyone--- seems to require a technology as opposed to manual technique.
I reproduce below a discussion from another post I made which includes excerpts from the Biolumanetics website of Wansbrough and Linnane, the two London classical homeopaths who have shown its efficacy as a confirmatory. It provides is a good example of why we now, and ultimately, NEED other than a homeopathic semiologic kind of confirmatory if homeopathy is to get off the ground as a reliable form of therapeutics for any practitioner, not just exceptionally talented practitioners or those at the end of their career. This is needed to avoid the abysmal failures in reliability in
at least a third of our chronic cases, and probably closer to two-thirds of our chronic cases, which do not receive the chronic bullseye simillimum.

My conversation with Charles Wansbrough some 2 years ago indicated that at that time, overall maximum bullseye rate remained at 60% EVEN USING the biolumanetic confirmatory system (versus Mangialavori's testimony of his own clinic, in which he roughly estimates a bullseye rate of approximately 33%) (quote from an interview with Nick Churchill, which is probably available by searching on net or on Massimo Mangialavori's website)-pay attention in particular to the last two sentences :

Nick Churchill to Massimo Mangialavori, innovative italian homeopath who is known for creative prescribing using taxonomic and group laterality:
Question: How close do you feel to really getting a grip on your practice, on all your
patients, the difficult cases too? How close are you to thinking, yes, I
understand what's going on and I know how to overcome this?

Mangialavori:
'Yes, I understand', I can say very seldom, because the way my work is
arranged, I only see my patients perhaps four or five times a year, if there is not
such an acute problem and it's a more of a chronic case. So even if that is
enough to watch and observe them, it's not as long as the time a
psychotherapist takes, seeing a patient twice a week perhaps for years. So
again, it comes down to what you think it's important to treat, in the sense that
a homeopathic prescription is based on a kind of phenomenological
understanding. We need what we can observe. The reason why you can make a
physical prescription, even if you don't understand so deeply what's going on,
is because you're applying something according to the law of similars. It's what
we can see, it's a superficial model, but it works very well. That's the reason
why homeopathy is such a good medicine.
The understanding of this process is something else. It's not even absolutely
necessary in order to prescribe a remedy. But what is absolutely necessary is to
understand how it works in this person. What could be the mental state, what
could be the real suffering of this person ? so that it can help you to prescribe
this remedy better in the future. I don’t think that increasing your ability as a
doctor after a certain period of time means you can cure more patients.
Otherwise after fifty years of work you could cure something close to 100% of
people. I think that what really increases after you reach a certain level is the
depth of your prescription, the depth of your intention, the depth of the contact
with the person you are treating.
There's a lot of discussion about whether there are patients whom you can help,
and ones that you can't. You can increase this and try to understand that it is not
possible for one person to cure any patient. In my daily practice, I have a lot of
failures. And I have a lot of patients that I cannot help as much as I would like
to. I have been encouraged by my work with these so-called small remedies,
with using the same substance in acute and chronic conditions and with a long
follow-up. It has proved to be true. So I'm encouraged to move in this direction.
But it's not the majority of cases.
good cases, one third aren't good enough,
and in one third there is nothing.
=========================================
Reprint from another earlier post of mine;

"For those who have some idea that Homeopathy in general is already "mature"
as a healing modality, read this from the people using biolumanetics, an
objective confirmatory system whereby a person can be photographed holding
a candidate remedy, and the focus/blurriness of the photo indicates the
coherence the remedy produces in the energetic system of the person, and
this is directly correlated to the level of similitude. This technology
costs $17K, has been used successfully in London for some 6 years in a
classical clinic, and yet no other homeopaths employ it. Alas, homeopaths
are as stuck and inertial as the rest of humanity. I have posted the below
article before.

I post excerpts from it again not to advertise
biolumanetics or to suggest that other confirmatory methods might not be
useful or developed in the future, but because it illustrates how BLIND we
are using homeopathy only on semiologic grounds in determining remedy and
in gauging response. Very intuitive homeopaths who are also masters of
materia medica and who leave no stone unturned can approach an ACTUAL level
of efficacy at present of 60% IF they attracted the whole bell curve
spectrum of clients in a large practice. Some of us think we do better
than this, and some very experienced and highly intuitive people who use
all remedies including the newest ones might well do better than this. All
of us can do better than this on a smaller sample and volume. But we have
no independent means to prove we gave the optimal rx. We rely only on
apparent response and Hering Law phenomena, and as well we all have lots of
obvious failures.

=================================
Discussion of use of biolumanetic photography--excerpt of an article by Kieran Linnane of the London clinic which has pioneered Biolumanetic confirmatory use in a high-volume Classical Homeopathic practice:

By Kieran Linnane

6. The issue of the simillimum

The above leads me on to a discussion of the simillimum. This is a
very complex issue and Charles and I discuss this ad infinitum with no
absolute conclusions. We have read Massimo Mangialavori's beautiful
cases where he finds a perfect remedy for his patients and then this
remedy is repeated on and off over a period of years, with the patient
advised to take the remedy whenever he suffers from an acute.
Unfortunately, this does not reflect our own practice. We have found
that if a very precise remedy is given, the "state" for which the
patient is being treated tends to dissolve rather rapidly. Obviously,
if the state is very engrained this process might take a little
longer, but it usually does not take years and years. If the state
has been dissolved we do not understand why the same remedy should be
given again. It is our experience that once this state has dissolved,
another state (underlying this state) will rise to the surface
requiring another prescription. It is almost as if all the patient's
energy is going into coping with a particular problem. Once this
problem is resolved, another deeper issue will arise to the surface
requiring treatment.

To give an example from our own practice: we took the case of a
woman who had problems with anxiety and guilt around the rearing of
her baby son. We gave her Calcarea bromatum which successfully
reduced both the anxiety and guilt. She was a different woman when
she returned after a month. However, about four months later she
returned to our clinic wishing for more treatment as a sexual issue
which was a problem for her had not been touched by our prescription.
We knew that our patient required another remedy to heal this
particular layer which led us to prescribe another remedy, Natrum
fluoricum. Now, I suppose Massimo would argue that had we been better
homeopaths we would have been able to find a remedy which encompassed
all aspects of this case: the guilt, anxiety and sexual issues. We
are now back with the tyranny of the "constitutional remedy". Whilst
Charles and I attempt to give prescriptions based upon as much of the
totality of the case as we can, this is not always possible. Either
it is because of our lack of knowledge, or perhaps in a lot of cases
it is because there is no one remedy which covers such a totality. It
is perhaps significant that Massimo acknowledges that only a third of
his cases do wonderfully, another third are mediocre and the remaining
third do nothing at all. Perhaps this is more a reflection of my last
point, that in certain cases it is impossible to find a remedy which
covers the totality.

"...I had been practising homeopathy since 1986 but had felt increasingly
dispirited
with the mediocrity of my results. I knew that when homeopathy worked
there was no other medicine to equal its power but to find the correct
simillimum for my patients often felt arduous, confusing and downright
impossible at times.

Our protocol was to take an initial photograph of our patients,
followed by a detailed homeopathic case, and then patients would hold
various remedies while we photographed them. We made the assumption
that a remedy which produced a coherent photograph when held by the
patient was likely to be the simillimum or, at the very least, might
constitute a beneficial remedy for that patient. Coherence was our
benchmark for any remedy which we gave in our clinic and we have seen
from our results that this has proved to be a valid and pragmatic
modus operandi.

Below I will discuss our findings.

1. There are no major or minor remedies, only the correct
remedy for the patient.

Charles and I embarked upon our venture with high hopes of finding a
way to make homeopathy simpler and more effective. However, we soon
found ourselves feeling rather dispirited. This was due to the fact
that only very rarely did the polycrest remedies produce coherent
photographs. At this point we turned in desperation to Jan Scholten's
work on the mineral kingdom and without his input I think we might
never have got off the starting block. We discovered that every
patient entering our clinic needed a very precise prescription. There
appeared to be no short-cuts or handy specifics. Following on from
our study of Jan Scholten's material, we also were obliged to scan all
the newly proved remedies and to read all the back issues of
Homeopathic Links to hunt out unusual remedies. In some cases only
these would produce the clarity which we knew would provoke movement
in our patients.

EMPHASIS ADDED: A DEMONSTRATION OF HOW BLIND WE ARE USING SEMIOLOGY ALONE,
AS MUCH AS WE PAT OURSELVES ON THE BACK FOR A *SEEMINGLY* GOOD RX RESPONSE:

++++++++++++++++
We have, of course, given polycrests in our clinic
but these prescriptions do not constitute the majority of our
prescriptions. For instance, we have given Pulsatilla literally twice
over the last 3 years. This is not because we have not tested it. It
is just that the remedy often refuses to yield clarity even in those
cases where one would swear blind that this was a "Pulsatilla case."
I recall one particular case where any rational homeopath would
definitely have given Pulsatilla - indeed you would have been mad not
to - but the prescription which yielded total clarity was not
Pulsatilla but the newly proved remedy Kauri (Agathis australis).
Similarly with Natrum muriaticum. Often the remedy which was
eventually given was another Muriaticum salt, for example Cuprum
muriaticum or Aurum muriaticum This would explain to me how prior to
the technology often I would give Natrum muriaticum in what appeared
to be a classic Natrum muriaticum case, only to be severely
disappointed by the result.
+++++++++++++++++

The precision which is required in homeopathy was also confirmed
when I decided to bring into the clinic some patients of mine whom I
had been treating over a number of years prior to the technology but
for whom I had the sense that I had not yet found the optimum remedy.
(Truthfully, how many of these patients do you find on your books?) I
recall a mother and daughter who came. I had Charles retake their
cases and we spent about four hours struggling to achieve clarity.
The daughter, who suffered from sore throats and dysmennorhea I had
treated mainly with Silica and Tuberculinum over the years with some
improvement but no lasting disappearance of her symptoms. The two
remedies which eventually cleared up the case were Iris Germanica and
Calcarea silicata. The mother had various complaints including
recurrent bronchitis and anxiety. I had lost count of the remedies
which I had tried with her and I never had felt satisfied with the
results. The eventual remedy which was given which was to make a
profound difference to her health was Betula Alba. We found this all
rather alarming but it did explain the difficulties I had encountered
in both these cases.

EMPHASIS ADDED:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem with having to find a highly individual remedy for each
patient who walks into our clinic is that we literally have to scan
thousands of remedies.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We found ourselves sinking under a morass of
information. At this point Charles started to work on a workbook
where the remedies would be categorised according to their kingdom and
also he began to create "webs" of the different kingdoms. In this way
we started to get some kind of handle on things. We now are able to
intuit much more accurately when a patient requires a mineral, plant
or animal remedy. The plant remedies, however, present us with the
greatest difficulty in that there are literally thousands of remedies
about which we know very little.

2. In an unknown case give an unknown remedy

I have borrowed the above aphorism from Jan Scholten and we can
confirm its validity. At first we were tempted to try and fit the
remedies we knew to the particular case. After 3 1/2 years of work we
find ourselves in the unenviable position of completing taking the
case and knowing more often than we enjoy that we haven't got a clue
what remedy the patient requires. So I would say that after 13 years
of practice I now know when I don't know. This may be a step up but
it can often feel terribly daunting.

EMPHASIS ADDED:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem is how do you find a
remedy that you don't know? We do use the repertory (although Charles
and I would confess not be the greatest of repertorisers) and all the
books and computer programmes at our disposal. But we also using
dowsing at times. We use our pendulums to hunt out unknown remedies
when we are at the end of more analytical methods. Despite being
quite "classical" in our approach, we have no sense of shame in this.
We figure that our job is to find the best possible remedy for the
person in front of us and we will use any methods to achieve this
aim. Often, however, I will use my pendulum just to focus my mind
while I scan the remedies in our workbook and open myself up to
inspiration from the gods. I find myself wondering whether classical
giants like Vithoulkas and Mangialavori actually rely on their
intuition much more than they let on. Charles and I both agree that
the practice of homeopathy is the marriage of the analytical and the
intuitive. Some of our best prescriptions have arisen from a sudden
intuitive flash in one or other of us and of course the best
prescription is that which can be analytically validated as well.
This is not always possible if there is very little information about
the remedy or it has only recently been proved.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For more info:
biolum website:

Ellen Madono wrote:
Semiology: analysis based on context thus including homeopathic sx analysis?

((( Semiology is "the study of signs" (websters collegiate). I use the term semiology as a catch-all to include all indicators of the CLIENT. These indicators include symptoms and signs characterizing either morbidity or the pre-morbid state typical of the client of a physical or psychological type. Hahnemann invented homeopathy as an observational system to use these outward indicators to define the effects of "nonphysical" medicines made by imprinting biochemical or other influence onto water or other suitable substrate in order to retain its pattern while removing its ability
to harm the physical organism.

By defining a system of observations of the effects of these "potentized" patterns on ANYONE chosen indiscriminantly, a DATABASE is established. Then, by means of a concept known back into antiquity that a congruent pattern resonance between substance and organism would stimulate organismal return to coherent function, the relation of the signs produced by those ingesting the pattern and exhibiting phenomena become relevant to such manifestations occurring naturally or in illness, because those patterns MATCHED produce a MEDICINE.

ANYONE can be observed according to a methodical set of criteria and their "profile" COMPARED with the profile of patterns stored in the DATABASE. In this way, the external signs that are recorded in the database can be used to determine degree of similitude between the CLIENT and MEDICINE, but only using the criteria that were in force when the database was created, or using indications added by clinical application and careful observation. The MANIFESTATIONS of the NONPHYSICAL organism are thus used inferentially to RESONATE with that spirit-like organism, without having to
see, feel, sense, or know it. Because we ALL ARE nonphysical organisms and because thought itself is a vital "substance"--- the consciousness is not separate from this whole process of assessment.

ON TCM
But a system like Traditional Chinese Medicine, which uses a system of conceptual physiology which DIRECTLY describes the nonphysical according to empirical knowledge developed into a system of metaphysical (invisible) anatomy GOES BEYOND the criteria that Hahnemann used--which did not yet include use of TCM diagnostic methods. Thus TCM diagnostic methods are not in the common DATABASE (repertory) as of yet--though note that Degroote Points and Points of Wiehe, and some other observations are in the materia medica, and these are likely to be TCM indicators which are
cross-referenced with the TCM meridianal system. In order to use such indications more universally, would need to widely incorporate among homeopathic practitioners both TCM nonphysical physiology and its methods of direct observation of it (eg Pulse diagnosis, point palpation, etc) in order utilize these as criteria for comparison of client to medicine.

Hahnemann devised a LANGUAGE of semiology which was NEW--- defining the effect of nonphysical medicines and establishing a database of the corpus of each "pattern medicine" as an influential entity. Then, by this new language, the phenomena of morbidity in humanity could be described. Hahnemann knew that what was morbid was otherwise INVISIBLE, and definable only by clairsentient or clairvoyant means, which were not sufficient to determine what would be the SIMILAR INFLUENCE sufficient to create resonance. He thus created a system based on the curative power of resonance which
avoids the problem of DIRECT assessment of the vital organism which he did not have as a tool, as TCM (as the best extant science of vital physiology) had not yet been introduced to Germany or the West.

Homeopathy ("same as disease") is not a direct system, but an indirect one, which defines a language of semiology, and then uses only a COMPARISON within that language to provide a means to attempt to MATCH a medicinal influence with a client phenomenon. It was found by Hahnemann that the most profound beneficial effect, and most frequently ANY beneficial effect, could occur only when the outward expression of symptoms was a reflection of the entire corpus of the client vitae, or invisible nonphysical anatomy. An exception was when the disease had become so pervasive in the vital
economy as to require specific addressing.

The "totality of symptoms" describing the personality of the vital economy is not a mere laundry list, but a hierarchy of signs which indicates the typical personality of the vital mechanism of an individual. Without measuring the invisible directly, we can match a "nonphysical" medicine to a "nonphysical" vital economy, via a semiological language invented by Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, and others.

Homeopathic semiology thus has, as it is comparative, two main components. Homeopathic semiology would thus be the study of:

A--CLIENT: signs, symptoms, pathology, and psychology of a client and elicited from the client; with knowledge of what is morbific and what is not in the context of the client environment; and what is unusual and characterizes the client as an individual, or his disease as definable in ways other than their common symptoms.

juxtaposed with

B-- DATABASE of generated phenomena; and phenomena removed in accordance with recovery without immunosuppression:
--signs, symptoms, pathology, and psychology observed and elicited in a population of humans given that remedy though it was dissimilar to their pattern of being (Hahnemannian proving experiment result) and/or the before/after information from a population of clients given a specific influence (remedy) that was similar to their pattern of being and having signs, symptoms, pathology disappear and health and function improve without immunosuppression (clinical additions). Clinical experiential information must be carefully evaluated as Hahnemann warned that there are too many
variables to insure that only the effects of the medicine are present:

§ 142. The investigation of the pure effects of medicines in diseases is difficult.

Homeopathic semiology has two components (A=CLIENT AND B=DATABASE) and a third, which is the art of applying the medicine determined by semiological determination of similitude between client and medicine as stated by Hahnemann in particular in Organon 71 and 3:

====
§ 71. The three points necessary for curing:(1) the investigation of the disease; (2) the investigation of the effects of the medicines, and (3) their appropriate employment.

§ 71. Organon (with added emphasis)

The three points necessary for curing:
A--CLIENT--(1) the investigation of the disease;
B--DATABASE--(2) the investigation of the effects of the medicines, and
C--POSOLOGY/CASE MANAGEMENT/ETC (3) their appropriate employment.
====

=====
§ 3 If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of
disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge
of medical powers), and if he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what
he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient, so that the recovery must ensue - to adapt it, as well in respect to the
suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the
medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper
period for repeating the dose; - if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so
that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner
of the healing art .

§ 3 Organon (with added emphasis)

"If the physician

---NOSOLOGY/DIAGNOSTICS---clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of disease, indication),

B=DATABASE---if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge
of medical powers), and if he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to

A=CLIENT---what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient,

so that the recovery must ensue -

---POSOLOGY/CASE MANAGEMENT---to adapt it, as well in respect to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose;

--OBSTACLES/ADJUNCTS- if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so
that the restoration may be permanent,

then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art .
===============
The third component (C=POSOLOGY/CASE MANAGEMENT/ETC) is the art of applying the remedy determined by the comparative analysis of client and database. It further employs the same semiological process according to the knowledge of signs of an organism returning to health --or devolving into illness (i.e. Hering/Vijayakar and other observations). It is employed to remove disorders (ultimately the miasms which underlie them) in the unseen living organism (the conscious spiritual entity clothed in a multidimensional body of which the physical is only the outermost manifestation) by
use of spirit-like medicinal patterns which when correctly applied add no deleterious effect to the organism:

=======
§ 16. It is only by the spiritual influences of morbific noxae that our spirit-like vital force can become ill; and in like manner, only by the spirit-like
(dynamic) operation of medicines that it can be again restored to health.
=======
Immunosuppression as discussed above can be described as being as Hahnemann described in introduction to the Organon, 4th edition (as a dissimilar influence which only hampers the overall health and long term well-being of the organism):
WERE that nature whose self-help in diseases is believed by physicians of the traditional school to be the incomparable healing art, a close imitation of which should he the physician’s highest aim, great Nature herself, i.e. the voice of ineffable wisdom of the great Artificer of the infinite universe, weshould then feel constrained to be guided by this infallible voice, though we might be puzzled to understand why we physicians should, with our artificial interference by medicines, disturb or injuriously aggravate these presumably incomparable operations of nature’s self-help in
diseases (vis medicatrix); but this is far from being the case! That nature, whose self-help was alleged by the traditional school of medicine to be the incomparable healing art and the only thing worth imitating, is merely the individual nature of the organic man, is nothing but the instinctive, irrational, unreasoning vital force subject to the organic laws of our body, which is ordained by the Creator to maintain the functions and sensations of the organism in marvellously perfect condition so long as the man continues in good health, but was not intended nor adapted for the
restoration in the best manner of deranged or lost health. For should our vital force have its integrity impaired by injurious influences from without, then this force strives instinctively and automatically to free itself from the adventitious derangement (disease) by revolutionary processes, but these very efforts are themselves disease; they are a second different malady substituted for the original one. The vital force, I say, produces, in accordance with the laws of the constitution of the organism to which it is subject, a disease of a different sort, intended to expel the
disease by which it was attacked, which it strives to accomplish by pain, metastases and so forth, but mainly by evacuations and the sacrifice of much of the fluid and solid constituents of the body, with difficult, often dubious, injurious, frequently even disastrous results.

Ellen Madono wrote:
These confirmatories are not necessarily based on knowledge of the context from which the sx arise.

((( If referring to TCM pulse diagnosis or other stand-alone measurement of organismal response with remedy in the biofield (but not ingested) then yes, this is a separate system of confirmatory based on physiological or other indicator that is not yet in our database. However, the remedy-specific diagnostic points of Degroote and the "Points of Weihe" ARE semiological because they relate the clinical observation of meridian nonphysical pathology with the observed cure of that pathology according to observations of cure by a specific homeopathic remedy.
((( Thank you.
Andy

========================

Hi Andy,

I think it's important to add that when homeopathic literature speaks about
"confirmatories", it's not likely referring to these methods you're talking
about, but instead to *symptoms* (obtained in casetaking) of the patient
which tend to confirm the selection. While it's true that some prescribers
use means other than symptom picture to confirm their selection (and some
use different means to select the remedy), that's really going outside of
the framework of homeopathy, which specifies *symptom similarity*. That
doesn't mean that nothing else can work, but they're outside the framework
of homeopathy.

So "confirmatory" is one of the numerous words that have a *specific*
meaning within the framework of homeopathy, as well as a somewhat different
meaning in "everyday speech", and it's important that we are aware of both.
(And "confirmatory" no doubt other meanings within other technical
vocabularies.)

Best wishes!
Shannon
on 1/4/05 12:14 AM, andyh@mcn.org at andyh@mcn.org wrote:

Robert&Shannon Nelson wrote:
(( Hi Shann, glad you mentioned this.
(( Well, outside of the framework of one view of homeopathy as a form of medicine which can be practiced with enough reliability to be optimal. The great statistics Gaby provided are of very good homeopaths treating people for mostly ACUTE diseases. Great results, but the discussion of mine was about chronic treatment and its reliability--undertaken while answering Ellen.

Part of what I took the opportunity to say again, for those who read that long post carefully as you did--is that confirmation on semiology alone is, according to Mangialavori, a very good homeopath-----only 33% reliable in his high-volume practice in which he uses the highest standard. He does not settle for zig-zag and call it permanent cure. So, confirmatory by semiology is only that reliable if we shoot for the optimal rx. In the classical homeopathic clinic in London using a non-semiologic confirmatory (biolumanetic photography) as an adjunct, they say they get 60%. The
confirmatory used does not interfere with the process of matching the rx to client---but takes away 30% of the trial and error and waste of client and prac time and money. And solves cases. Non semiologic confirmatories have been used for at least 100 years. Stearns, an IHA homeopath more catholic than the pope as it were, saved his own life with Pupillary response technique (ART as it is called there) as is in the article on David Little's website.

So it is good to define terms, but Ellen is not a beginner, and these ideas IMHO need to be presented. Lots of failed cases around, including an awful lot of practitioners. We are just not too good with reproducing ability to optimally cure chronic cases with a "BULLSEYE" at a rate greater than some 33% by the best practitioners using semiology alone. Why? Because it is very difficult to find a needle in a haystack even using all classical and innovative techniques and the best semiologic materia medica. Non-semiologic confirmatory is simply intelligent, and moreover, a
teacher that---for example--all that seems Pulsatilla or any other rx by straight semiology is NOT, as in the case written up by Kieran Linnane in that post .
((( I have no quarrel. I am done.
((( Always to you the best. Andy

=================

Dear Andy,

I am to a beginner. I'm a second year student with 2 years of clinical classes added.

I still think it is important to note where a "confirmatory" practice outside of conventional classical homeopathy directly supports homeopathy.

In this vein, I am wondering if anybody has heard of this "confirmatory" method and where to get the literature. A German publishing house that has it in many languages was mentioned. Some taped lectures by Guy Kokelenberg (a Belgian MD homeopath) brought up Weihe points. He mentioned a book shop called "homeopden." I don't know the spelling and could not hear clearly. These are points on the body like acupuncture points where if you touch it, temporarily a symptom belonging to the remedy the point refers to gets better. Like sensitive acupressure points, they hurt when you touch them if they are going to be useful. This is how you do pressure point analysis anyway. According to Kokelenberg, it's a little hint that does not always work. You use it while doing all the classical analysis and it is among the evidence that you use to make the case for the remedy of your choice.

Andy, you were talking about the high standards of Mangialavori. He's not god. He zig-zags too. Then when he finds the right remedy, it also cures all the acutes and is good for the next several years. Those are heavenly standards. I love his work. The depth of his case description is intriguing and he is so clear that you feel like you just might be able to steal his brain. I am guessing that you get high cure results when you mind is clear and open. By the way, now do you know when to trust the high cure claims of this or that method? It could be just "show biz."

You are right. We are all looking for support for curing our case. I think something like Chinese medicine diagnostics is a rather indirect diagnostic. Therefore, it is a weak but sometimes useful "confirmatory." Something more to add to your sixth sense.

As a beginner, I would not like to use a confirmatory that "chooses the remedy." Probably does not exist, but the use of Biolumatics or muscle testing sounds like it could be mis-used instead of analysis. I want the deciding knowledge to be in my head and in my sixth sense.

Maybe we are all using the basic same lay person vocabulary. Maly said it is the sx that brings the case together as after the classical insight. From what I am able to gather, in the best case, Biolumatics and these Weihe points are added into the argument for the case analysis but they don't in themselves decide the remedy.

Blessings,
Ellen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Andy,
Actually I completely agree with your points re the value (when feasible) of
"non semiologic confirmatories". I sometimes use muscle testing (not
perfect but often helpful), and have "on my list" to tackle the methods in
David's wonderful article that you mention. My only quibble was that
"confirmatory" does have a standard, specific (at least sort of) meaning
within the framework of homeopathy itself, and I thought that should have
been mentioned. (Or maybe it was and I missed it...)

Cheers to ya!
Shannon
on 1/5/05 6:28 AM, andyh@mcn.org at andyh@mcn.org wrote:

Ellen Madono wrote:
((( You are taking chronic cases, and that is beyond beginner IMO. You are worthy of the whole picture and not just the party line answer.
((( Glad to hear you say that.
((( Confirmatory was not mentioned by Hahnemann, as far as I know. Use of confirmatory by semiology (evidence of comparative similarity) is a clinical add-on concept related to but not equal to a Keynote, as we have all said earlier in discussion. Roger Morrison's Desktop Guide to Keynotes and Confirmatories is one of the most widely used semiologic confirmatory books, and there are others, like George Guess's (Macrep/Referenceworks); Radar Keynotes (which contains confirmatory tidbits) and others etc.. The pharmacy name you mention is "Homeoden".

Stearns used Pupillary response as probably the first successful non-semiological confirmatory circa 1940, I am guessing, to assess over 1200 remedies over a week's time using two assistants in order to find the curative remedy in his own case, which saved his life, and was a remedy which at the time could be found by no semiological technique (maybe today could have been found by Sankaran inferential triangulation between vital sensation/keynote, taxon, and miasm).

Here is a quote from that article by David Little:
"....Life often demonstrates the truth that "what goes around, comes around" as this method ended up saving Dr. Stearn's own
life. He was given up for lost due to a severe heart condition by the best homeopathic prescribers in America. He became so
ill that he could not even walk more than a few steps without suffering great pain. In an attempt to save his own life Dr.
Stearns trained two laymen in the pupils testing methods. For 12 days his assistants tested 100 medicine a day, totalling
1200 remedies. On the 13th day all the remedies that had shown a response on the pupil were retested and compared. At
the end of the day it came out that Morphine Acetate came through as the best remedy. Dr. Stearns took this remedy and
made a slow but steady improvement. This remedy was later followed by two other remedies that showed up during the
testing, Ruta and Rhus tox. On these three remedies Dr. Stearns made a full recovery. Thus Dr. Stearns own vital force
assisted by the two laymen was able to do what the best classical prescribers of the day could not! ..."

((( Of course, but he is wholly dissatisfied by it. Dont worry, my remedy is NOT in the rubric "Veneration" I employed him as an example of a high-standard homeopath who admits an estimate of only 33% bullseyes in chronic cases. Do you not find this interesting and troublesome?

Mangialavori states that he does not consider that a chronic case has received the BULLSEYE unless the case responds to the SAME REMEDY for BOTH ACUTE AND CHRONIC CONDITIONS, and according to him, that is a good criterion to demonstrate optimal success in any case. This is the opposite of zig-zag. Not only does he not like zig-zagging in chronic cases, but he strives for remedy congruence between chronic and acute states in the same patient, and considers that to be his litmus test for optimal chronic rx, as I have stated before in other posts. No zig-zagging even between chronic and acute! Have you heard of this standard being emulated elsewhere? I have not.

Quote from Mangialavori interview with Nick Churchill:

Churchill: This is why you have set clear guidelines for what you consider a cured case?

Mangialavori: Yes. I mean that I only present cases in books or at seminars where I used the
same remedy for a reasonable length of time. Obviously, that can vary
depending on whether the patient has diarrhoea or multiple sclerosis. It's a long
term observation, but according to the pathology, I never usually present a case
with less than two years of observation, even if it's a so called acute disease.
And normally what I do is to use the same remedy on any occasion. I mean that
in a chronic case, a so-called chronic case, if I think that I prescribed the
constitutional remedy and the patient has an acute reaction, even if it's a bruise,
I don't give Arnica. Or if I do give Arnica, I follow after a very short time with
the constitutional remedy. But in 90% of cases, I'm hoping and praying that my
patient will get the flu, a common cold, a burn or something else. Because in
this case, in my experience, if you are very close to the so-called constitutional
remedy, when you repeat this remedy, the reaction is much better than if you
give an acute or a similar remedy instead of the simillimum.
And I think that if this happens it's a very good confirmation that the remedy is
correct. And when I have a good case of that remedy, and I can put it together
with other good cases of the same remedy, this sort of information is one
thousand times better than any materia medica. Because any Belladonna
patient knows what the suffering of Belladonna means, they can teach you this
very clearly, instead of your delusion, instead of the delusion of any other guru
of homeopathy.

The whole interview with Churchill is here:


Some other Mangialavori interviews are here:


There is some good mm on that website, BTW.
I have not heard any other homeopath have that kind of standard, so he is a great example of the highest standard (Wansbrough and Linnane at the London clinic using biolumanetic photography as an adjunct to confirm or eliminate rx ideas found by classical homeopathic semiology are additional examples of a high standard which I used to TRY to illustrate how blind the rest of us are using only semiologic techniques, though many of us cannot afford the biolumanetic system, unfortunately, and we need a more affordable, simpler, widely usable technology to do that job). Note that I mentioned in the last post that Mangialavori says that in chronic cases he gets about 33% bullseyes, 33% favorable but not optimal, and 33% no result at all. Wansbrough (personal communication) says they get around 60% optimal result, whether that is to the same standard as Massimo Mangialavori, I do not know.

The point of the whole comparison is that these are homeopaths with high volume practices and have very high standards. Many of us with small practices also have high standards. I have been trying to answer your question about confirmatories. There is a whole class of confirmatories which are not being used by most homeopaths which do not have to do with comparison of semiology between medicinal database and client. This does not make them "taboo"--indeed, Stearns of the IHA, the purest classical homeopathic organization ever to exist on the planet, used such a technique (ART pupillary) to save his OWN life. Mangialavori is not a god, just a high-standard prac who I used as an example.
((( Mangialavori is for real, dont take my word for it, read on his website and elsewhere (eg Referenceworks software). The biolumanetic clinic folk are for real and have some 6 years of data in a high volume practice. See their website:


((( There is a lot of TCM semiologic information which goes into TCM diagnosis. But this is another whole system, and one must know it well in order to use its indications to help with a homeopathic prescrip. Every piece of information could be helpful. But a "yes-no" confirmatory for a remedy is an extremely difficult problem, and the closest answer to a universally usable solution to that problem TO DATE, is biolumanetic photography, IMHO. I doubt many homeopaths will start using it, but at least people on the minutus list know about it by now
((( Of course. Biolum. is a tool to save money and time and cure cases that would be missed quickly instead of after years of trial and error using the client as a "guinea pig", if the client is that persistent, which most of course are not. In high-volume practice it is essential, IMO, yet I know of only one clinic using it. It costs $17K or more including training--this is one reason. But the likely main reason is that homeopaths are inertial and sectarian just like any other set of human beings, despite the fact that more clients might be cured, and practice would become easier and more certain.

Wansbrough and Linnane do not use biolumanetic photography to find a remedy when they have no idea what the rx is. Biolum is not suited to this assessment, unless you tested the whole materia medica like Stearns did to save his own life using pupillary response. Pupillary response technique can be difficult to master, and may not work in all cases or at all for many practitioners, and may require an assistant.

There are systems available which purport to output remedy candidates using a computer algorithm and probe (eg Vega). But I have no idea if they work to output remedies for the totality of symptoms which would give a BULLSEYE response and permanent cure. This is a wide-open area of research.

I would not worry about technology supplanting humans. The main issue being discussed in this post and thread is the one of improving homeopathic ACTUAL (not theoretical) practice to create a system of medicine which is more reliable than 33% in high volume practice in CHRONIC cases. Confirmatories of any type are essential for that task, to the extent they are useful. A confirmatory such as Biolumanetic photography will tell you HOW SIMILAR a remedy is BEFORE YOU ADMINISTER IT and have to wait 5-6weeks and waste the clients time and money and give homeopathy a bad name--from the clarity of a photograph. Why would that ever be objectionable? I would love to have that particular technology myself, and may have it in the future. In the meantime, I am working to develop other methods which might be more affordable.
((( Correct. That is why they are called confirmatory methods. The case is not built on them, they only provide a cushion on the stool that one can sit on with more confidence after the seat and legs have been established by the methods we got from Hahnemann and von Boenninghausen and all those who have added to the materia medica and repertory. The case and remedy must have resonance in meaning according to Hahnemann's semiotic language of effects of potentized rx on ANYONE matched to the symptoms displayed by a client, with optimal resonance and curative response dependent on the level of perfection of similitude with what is morbid, pre-morbid, or characteristic in the case.
((( Thank you.
Andy

Robert&Shannon Nelson wrote:
((( Clarification and context for those who might misunderstand a relatively complex topic is never wasted. Thanks for providing it, Shannon. I support your every effort.

Cheers to you always.
Andy

Dear Andy,

You are a jewel. I went to all the websites. They were sooo good. Especially Mangialavori's site. His case studies are the best.

I don't understand why the biolumatic technology uses Polaroid film. Why not just take digital pictures?

Also, is Pat Richards doing something to the atmosphere of the room to magnetize it? Have you ever used this technology or seen it being used?

After reading David Little's site, I am encouraged to try looking for change in the Chinese pulses. The problem is having some to help me.

Blessings,
Ellen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ellen Madono wrote:
((( It (may be) for the same reason that polaroid is used for kirlian images--the nature of the silver emulsion is suitable for the emanations involved and will capture them accurately.
((( I don't know the nature or character of the emanation of the biolumanetic field.
((( Nope. Would love to have one. I have just seen what is on the website. Have emailed Richards. He has developed his own system of healing using combinations of potentized frequencies and a doctor uses it guided by biolumanetic photography in a clinic in New Jersey. The system is used by classical homeopaths in London as described on their website.

Best,
Andy