Minutus

Extend
The first hesitations are over, they know that they can do it
basicly. There has to be a lot of working, developing and extending.
They want to develop their knowledge and skills.

Practising Learning
To do their job very well, they need a lot of practising. They have
to learn al lot and refine their skills.

Doubt Insecure
Also in this stage there is a sort of doubt, less serieus then in
stage 3 and 5, but clearly present.
The doubt is especialy focused on how they have to do it, there is no
doubt about if and what they will do.

Teaching Learning
They want to teach themselves a lot, like to learn. They also want to
teach others, help them learning new tasks and thinking. They like to
be a teacher and are good at it because they are very patient. They
need space to learn and give that space also to others. Their critic
is not heavy, but meant to show how it can be done better.

Refining Feedback
For the refining they need a lot of feedback. They need a teacher, a
guru, who tells them what they do right and what they do wrong. They
want to improve and refine there work, let there possibilitys grow
and mature. They do not mind critics as long as they can learn from
it.
They hate critics that breaks off, they can do nothing with that.

Compliments
Ofcourse they like positive feedback the most, compliments. They like
to hear that they are succesfull and learned something. But if you
show them a mistake they are happy they have learned something again.

Cooperate Helping
The theme of learning makes that they like to work with others. They
like to do things together so that they can learn from others. And
they can learn others, help them in their development.
Manganum

Stage 7
Teach – train – study – improve – extend – stimulate – feedback –
compliment – help – assist – aid – cooperate – together – to – ad

Ironserie
Task – work – duty – craft – use – ability – perfectionism – routine –
order – rules – controle – observed – exam – criticised – failure –
guilt – crime – persecuted

Improving their work
To do a good job they need a lot of skills. To improve it they need a
lot of feedback .

Learning from the work: helping
An important characteristic about Manganum is their helping others.
They have a great need to help others. They are friendly and try to
please others. They adapt easily.
In this helping there is a sort of obligation. They have to do it. If
they would not do it they get very restless.
They want to please everyone, want to take care of people.
They are sensitive to everything, music and other artistic
expressions. Their depression can improve and get bet better by sad
music.
But especialy they feel people in their environment, to know what
they have to do for them. They are full of worries for everything and
everyone. They mature early, to take over the worries of their
parents. The sensitivity can olso express in being clearvoyend.

Need of compliments
Sensitive people, who do their very best for other people, and hope
to get appreciation.
They want others to see that they are doing their very best for them.
They want that to be said also. They need compliments, then they come
to peace. Then they have the feeling they done enough.
They also want to be appreciated for what they do. If someone offends
or hurts them they get very mad. They keep hoping for getting better
again, have dreams about that. Their facial expression gets bitter as
a reflection of their inside. They want to withdraw and get to hate
company and conversations. They feel easily done wrong.

Learning from critics
They can bear critics especialy when it is stimulating. If you ask
them what they think of critic they say they don't mind, if they can
learn of it. If there is only critic than they get embitterd. They
did their best so well and still it is not enough. They have tried to
please everyone. And instead of thanks they only get reproaches and
get offended.
Technetium

Stage 7
Teach – train – study – improve – extend – stimulate – feedback –
compliment – help – assist – aid – cooperate – together – to – ad

Silverserie
Creation – inspiration – ideas – culture – unique – admiration –
aesthetics – beautiful – ugly – art – science – mysticism – show –
performance – ambition – hurt – humiliation

Learning in performing their art
They want to learn their art. They have to learn a lot before they
are capable enough. They have the feeling that they have to
experiment a lot before their research is finished. They have to
improve their methodes of presentation, their speakingtechnics.

Need of lessons in creativity
They need a lot of feedback. They have the feeling that they can
create, but they want comments of people who are more experienced in
their profession. They want to improve their rough talents, let find
their inspirations a better form. With experiments they want to
sharpen there theories. They need a great teacher, a guru. They
search for a topartist or scientist who teaches them to go on.

Admiration through compliments
They like compliments because then they know they are on the right
track. Comliments stimulate their ambition. It stimulates them to go
on. But also they like critics if it is constructive. Then they can
improve their experiments to get better results.

Cooperation in science
They like to work with others. Then they can learn from eachother and
get stimulated.
But later they fail because they can not work for themselves. They
are still assistent instead of searching their own inspiration. The
uniquenes of inspiration and creation does not go together with
working in a team.

Failure through techincs
They faile because they get stuck in technics. They are so in to them
that they forget that real inspiration has nothing to do with
technics. Their creations are technical briljant but the spirit is
missing.
Rhenium

Stage 7
Teach – train – study – improve – extend – stimulate – feedback –
compliment – help – assist – aid – cooperate – together – to – ad

Goldserie
Leadership – management – organisation – responsible – serious –
heavy – power – dictorioal – dignified – haughty – wealth – alone –
isolation – failure – hurt

Training in leadership
They started a leading function. They want to very much but they also
need space to practice.
They want to show what they can do and correct if it is not going to
well.

Need of help in management
They like feedback from others, from employees as wel as from
superiours. They hate to do it on their own.

Leadership by working together: coach
Their leadership is characterised by wanting to work together.
They want their employees to cooperate, so that the company runs
better.

Leading by giving compliments: stimulating
They are very stimulating for their employees. With compliments they
try to improve their work.

Failure because of leading to technical
Their leadership is to technical. They do it by the book, like they
learned it from others, the managementcourse. They do not trust their
own intuition and inspiration. They can also fail because the want to
much cooperation and there is nobody who take real responsibility and
takes a decision. They have the risk of being stuck in endless
talking with direction, employees, union and government. In the
compromis is so little power that nothing realy happens.

Dear Annemieke, many thanks for posting Scholten's points of reference.

I am only familiar with his book - homeopathy and minerals - so I am
not up to date with his more recent work, so can anyone say where and
how he has gathered the information regarding Technetium and Rhenium.

Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
edited
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good question, Joy. In "Homeopathy and The Elements," Scholten simply says
that "Rhenium is a new remedy." This generally means there are no provings,
and no homeopathic information is available. So he's combining toxicity,
chemical information, and hypothesizing based on his whole periodic table
schema to posit his picture of Rhenium. Until there is a proving along with
some clinical experience, I'd assume personally that we can't say anything
about it as a remedy, homeopathically.

Likewise, re Technetium, he says it's an "unknown remedy and has not been
potentized." So ditto.

Rosemary

========
Written:
In "Homeopathy and The Elements," Scholten simply says that "Rhenium is a
new remedy." This generally means there are no provings, and no homeopathic
information is available. So he's combining toxicity, chemical information,
and hypothesizing based on his whole periodic table schema to posit his
picture of Rhenium. Until there is a proving along with some clinical
experience, I'd assume personally that we can't say anything about it as a
remedy, homeopathically. Likewise, re Technetium, he says it's an "unknown
remedy and has not been potentized.
=========

((((( Lest it be forgotten, "Homeopathy and The Elements" was published in
1996--a good 8+ years ago. In toto, before and since then via Scholten's
Clinic in Utrecht with several practitioners; Bombay Group; and all those
who use the whole periodic chart by the Scholten and Sankaran systems----
cured cases exist for ALL of the elements except for some of the Actinides;
and those elements which cannot be made and must be emulated because they
are:

--explosive (eg Astatine);
--or decay too fast (eg promethium, and the elements above approx element
100 or so).

Most of the compounds also have cured cases and thus the "puzzle" of the
periodic chart has almost been fully solved using the rx with lots of
information as a starting point and anchor.

Remedies "not made" is no longer as much the case as it was in 1996.
Remedia Austria, for example (see their website for rx list), has made
virtually all the rx of the periodic chart except the above mentioned that
have difficulties--- and element compounds of the less common elements. The
Lanthanide Series remedies they carry ALONE total 105 or so elements and
compounds. Scholten has not published on the Lanthanides yet, but cured
cases from most of the elements and compounds are found in his seminar
notes. He has described the keys to the Lanthanides very well both
thematically AND pathologically-- and is working on the Actinides. Maybe he
is waiting to publish on both of those in the same book...

The Sankaran/Scholten method of inference of similarity to a case by
groupings of the periodic chart; proof of the accuracy of the overarching
schema by characteristics and cured symptoms of cured cases (eg proving by
similarity); and shorter provings by dissimilarity is--- SUCCESSFUL. Does
not preclude longer provings by dissimilarity. But it has allowed us to
extend the materia medica in timely fashion which anyone who has delved
realizes was absolutely called for. We miss many cases if we do not use
these methods and know what to look for by studying the schema. The life
themes semiology is predominant in this system, though Scholten gives quite
a bit of pathological info, miasmatic affinities, and characteristics in
descriptions of the Series and Stages. Sankaran and Shah use vital
sensation semiology for the periodic chart as well as plants, animals,
fungi, pathogens. Scholten also knows quite a bit about plant, animal, and
other remedies as does Sankaran. Jeremy Sherr, the most prolific modern
proving organizer and author of Dynamic Provings, thinks Scholten is
"great".

Scholten is a true scientist. Posited a hypothesis in circa 1992 and PROVED
IT by cured cases and provings.

See inside the front and back covers of Scholten's repertory published circa
2003 for handy updated keyword info on the Series and Stages and rx. See
also Sankaran's new taxonomic/sensation/periodic chart/casetaking software
for his version of that same type of information but independently
determined-- for the periodic chart.

Best,
A

So how can the homeopathic profession create a reliable pipeline to make sure that important research studies (provings) in new areas are widely available?

In this area we are much less effective than the allopaths seem to be -- although the presence of "Big Pharma" and its vested interest in research outcomes pretty much determines any more what gets studied and published allopathically -- so it's got its own skew.

In any case, for those of us who have attempted to keep up with the most recent information available on remedies, the extent to which it is propagated only through in person seminars which may or may not occur at a time and place accessible to us is a major obstacle to using new remedies and then adding to the store of common clinical knowledge.

I have a client, for instance, who clearly requires a Lanthanide prescription. I've attended the one of Scholten's seminars that was accessible to me, and have all his books. The information available on the different Lanthanides amounts to a paragraph each or a case each -- hardly the breadth of information on which one would like to base a prescription. I have finally given him two doses now of Samar-mur in 3 months (after trying several well known remedies that didn't act and becoming more and more certain that he really needed a Lanthanide), and the response may be going in a healing direction. But unless he just has a miraculously uncomplicated healing reaction, the dearth of clinical or proving information is likely to make it impossible to continue, because I don't have enough information to know if his reactions are proving symptoms of the remedy, and if so, what other remedy in that range seems strongly indicated. I would also prefer, in this situation, to use LM potencies, but I can't find any of the Lanthanides in LMs - not surprising, because it's very hard to use what there's virtually no information about, and why should anyone produce what they're not going to sell? Needing a Lanthanide means this client is also willing to humor me in this wild experiment -- I've told him my reasoning and why we're essentially proceeding in the dark.

If, as Andy implies, there is ample information available on this whole range of remedies since 1996 -- why doesn't anyone have it???? Very frustrating!

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

Dear Rosemary, being a bit of a stick in the mud in refusing to
prescribe a rx that has not had a formal proving and virtually no
clinical evidence because I feel that we are experimenting on our
clients due to this lack of reliable information, I otherwise heartily
agree that a bigger body of people are required in the growing
homeopathic community to conduct these provings and I can't understand
why Scholten hasn't been more formal about this with these new rx that
interest him so much - i.e. conducting the provings and determining
widespread publishing.

However, that aside we can do a lot of deductive research if we are
really really sure that an individual's simillimum lies within a
certain range of rx, relying mainly on the group identity both
laterally and longitudinally and if we are that convinced we just have
to prescribe.

Why don't the pharmacies produce some of these more 'out of reach' rx
when they are nearly all responsible for producing hundreds of other rx
that have not been proved = doubling frustrating for those interested,
albeit some of the primary substances for these rx are almost
impossible to get hold of but the pharmacies are closer to having the
facilities for doing so.

Anyway, case management when using an 'unknown' rx should still follow
the usual route. If you have deduced good reason to prescribe a
lathanide on certain sx it should be the same route used to determine
if, during treatment, any new sx are proving sx and be extremely
diligent about recording them. If your client continues to feel well in
himself, there is a return of old sx and a disappearance of the
presenting complaint, then all is good. If there is an aggravation of
the PC that is short lived that is also good etc etc, so I think you
should be able to continue with confidence. If it is the simillimum it
will always find ways of telling you.

As for LM's, you could always go into the pharmacy business and make
your own in this special circumstance, but for heaven's sake don't blow
yourself up or make yourself radioactive in the process )

Maybe there could be a Minutus proving group?

Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Joy

I have had great concerns on Scholten's work - may be because I need some
one to teach the system to me.
However, Hn advised against theories and encouraged practical experience.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons for my problem with this work.

On provings, as you know the volunteer needs to be reasonably healthy and
also needs to be supervised on a regular basis some three or four times a
day - so how can people on Minutus - spread as we are across the world -
have a go?

Back to Scholten, how does he envisage people do a proving of Fluorine?

Rgds
Soroush

There are enough people in one locale (I would have thought) to conduct
provings - and many of the supervisors are contacted by phone anyway,
so long distance provings shouldn't really be a problem, imo, and in
fact could have some added value for some proven substances.

Fluorine might be difficult to handle but there shouldn't be any
problem with a proving.

best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The direction of cure appears very evident with this client's response to the Samar-mur -- although with rather a larger, more explosive externalization than I would have liked (hence my wish for LMs). And I agree, I felt that I was experimenting on this client, and that did not feel good (which is why I discussed the pros and cons of this with him before we took this route). When it was time to repeat the remedy the first time, I had him plus the 200c and take a very small dose -- to check whether we should stay in that range for a while before going up to 1M.

I am beginning to feel annoyed at the growing time lag between Scholten's presentation of a sketchy overview of this material in seminars and finally publishing the information more in depth in a book, which was promised much earlier than this. When I attended S's seminar, it was already clear to me by the end of it that this client absolutely fell into the range of people for whom Scholten has been prescribing Lanthanide remedies. A few months ago, we had finally run out of other plausible remedy options still with no further information from Scholten on how to choose among the Lanthanides.

This is a rather complex process of figuring out keynotes of the Stages and potential salts, and combining them, although with no good Materia Medica of the actual Lanthanide remedies available, I felt this was a bit like climbing around on a scaffolding with huge empty spaces -- lots of room for error. (and yes, I'm always afraid of falling )

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

on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:

Dear Rosemary,
Note that my post on this topic of current info was not to take away from
what you said about the *problem* of lack of info, but to attempt to clarify
in this instance. These comments are to add to yours, in no way
disagreeing. Just clarifying that the rx info in Scholtens Rep (2003 or
so) is not *just* theory. It is based on grouping theory plus in some cases
short provings and 8+ more years of clinical confirmation (proving by
similarity) than was in the 1996 book. This is somewhat different than full
proving by dissimilarity followed by clinical confirmation. But while
different, it has proved sufficient---and has allowed much faster progress
and a foundation by which cases needing these rx can be cured where before
they could not.
on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:
So how can the homeopathic profession create a reliable pipeline to make
sure that important research studies (provings) in new areas are widely
available?

((( Full provings do get out when published 3 years after outset. Cured
cases *do not* until they show up in repertories, seminar notes, software
and notes. There is not an optimal pipeline. The people in charge of
adding info do the best they can.

A couple of years ago I gave an idea and a schema for its use to repertory
authors, a proving organizer, and a couple of software designers. The
schema provided for the author of each published cured case to always
include at the end of a case report what *new* sx or info about that remedy
was shown by the case. This would make it easier for those who compile
information to see what the new information about the remedy was-- at a
glance. It was designed to allow easy identification of possible new cured
symptoms or information to be considered to add to the repertories. This
specific schema at the end of every report of a cured case published in
periodicals or software databases would decentralize the work. The
judgement of whether a symptom or idea was truly new would be done at first
by the casetaker--who best could judge the client involved. The rep author
or committee's work would then be made easier and faster. The repertory
authors and provers (authorities on the remedies they birthed) could quickly
identify new cured symptoms to later verify and consider for addition to
reps or updates of materia medicas. But while several liked the idea to my
knowledge no one implemented it.
on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:

((( true and an understatement
on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:

((( Agreed. Homeopathy is of course not forwarded by corporate-style
research (which to some extent is made public later after what is desired by
the corporations is patented)---- but by individuals. But most of industry
uses 100 year old science and wipes out new innovations to protect their
interests. Foundations are set up which collect hundreds and millions and
say "the cure is just around the corner" for many decades. This is not
restricted to medicine. For example we drive cars which use the 1880 Otto
cycle engine-- only because it remains profitable--even though new
innovations came about decades ago that would have prevented puerile wars
based on control of oil. Most innovations which threaten the economic
status quo are bought out and put in a dungeon or destroyed by various other
methods by corporate interests. Governments (again read: corporations)--
classify most of the other real innovations for their own use for "national
security" reasons.

Forwarding of knowledge by individuals *primarily*; actually used to happen
in science in general very often. For example, Linus Pauling (30s, 40s,
50s) singlehandedly laid down a myriad of rules in chemistry. J.C. Maxwell
singlehandedly created all the mathematics for quantum mechanics (1880s).
Hahnemann singlehandedly invented a new therapeutic system ( circa 1800).
The former are profitable to those who own most of industry.

There are only clients, individual pracs, and pharmacy companies, that
really benefit from homeopathy. Innovation in homeopathy is initiated by
a few geniuses and then carried on and taught by those who use those new
methods. Movement ahead of the field in toto is only from the pooled work
of individuals working mostly out of dedication by their contribution of
cured cases to journals and supervision of provings. These are not
profitable undertakings.
No one is interested in research in homeopathy except homeopaths
themselves--because it is not patentable. *Even* the large pharmacy
corporations (e.g. Boiron) did not initiate and finance provings of the
uninvestigated periodic chart *long ago*. They did not *think* of it as
part of what is only a business plan. Those companies do contribute a lot in
making the remedies even if they did drop the ball in setting up proving
research. Unfortunately Boiron, for example has *long since* taken itself
out of the loop of professional homeopaths who can in the US not even set up
an account with them without a DEA number. Hence I have not personally
purchased an rx directly from them in some 10-15 years. And Boiron
recently purchased Dolisos which I consider unfortunate.

Much of the innovation in homeopathy occurs via certain individuals. And
those individuals tend to distribute knowledge and to make money
simultaneously via the formula of:
-- seminar circuit until a body of knowledge is fully consolidated
--then only later via publishing.

The lag is probably 3 years at *minimum*. And some of the knowledge does
not get out at all. The internet is a huge improvement to the way it was
before, however. The number of new provings available on the net is
astounding. Wichman's site is one of the best, as someone on Minutus
recently pointed out.

on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:
((( It would be good to be able to confirm rx via an easy-to-use tech that
is not a large investment and save both client and prac this uncertainty.

With the lanthanides we are in the same empirical situation Hering and those
in 19th century medicine in rural america were in--empirical use to flesh
out the sketch and symptoms that come out of even well-done provings by
dissimilarity. Scholten has given the basics based on a systematic attempt
to give specific data for each rx--that sprung from an understanding of the
alchemical cycle of each Series/Period of the chart. Full provings and what
has been pioneered synoptically and clinically will flesh this out
further---but this will be many more years.

Meantime we do have Scholtens Repertory, which includes the
lanthanides--which have a distinct signature as a whole series and his
clinically determined pointers. It is available for software packages and in
book form.

This process Scholten and Sankaran use with the chart is: inference by
grouping; and perhaps a shortened proving followed by trial in the clinic.
Success confirms the inference and makes it more certain in the next
use--because cured symptoms are noted with the usual hallmarks of a curative
response. Sankaran's Vital Sensation aggressive casetaking method adds
another leg to the stool if it is successful in getting that info.

The theoretical research followed by immediate testing in the clinic by
Scholten and Sankaran has moved elucidation of the alchemical periodic chart
ahead with a speed that the traditional method could not have. The
traditional proving by dissimilarity followed by proving by similarity
(clinical use) is not the same as:

-- inference by grouping and crossing of two themes (Series and Stage) then
--clinical proving by similarity,
--then full proving by dissimilarity.

It possible because a theory and groupings has allowed prediction via
inference--and that has allowed introduction of a large quantity of remedies
in 10 years that would have taken 100 if done by the full proving method
alone--for those who undertook it one at a time. Scholten and Sankaran
provided a framework to understand the chart in toto and then zoom in on
details. This turns out to have been the faster method than proving one by
one because the "X-Y" row/column schema itself allowed---for any remedy in
the periodic chart-- two "legs of the stool" which did not before exist.

Scholten has also shortened Vithoulkas' system of finding the first ion of a
mineral prescription then:

-- appending an ion to the element found via thematic info and at least ONE
keynote known about that compound ---

into using only the theme of the "suffix" ion. Less certainty, but usually
*enough*-- because of the pathological and thematic affinities of each that
Scholten has identified e.g. the nitricums versus the phosphoricums etc.

Thematic "essence" semiology is more subtle and less concrete than specific
keynote symptoms of the body and para 153 sx; concomitants, modalities,
delusions; pathologies; and other signposts to the remedy. We have to use
all techniques, and there are many. But Scholtens method *works* in cases
that otherwise would go without the next correct remedy. Eventually we will
have the more concrete gnomonic/confirmatory physical keynotes for each of
the new rx also. Maybe your Samarium mur case will add info if the rx works
on long term and doesnt just zig zag them quickly to something else.

on 7/17/05 9:34 AM, Rosemary C Hyde at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com wrote:

((( *How ample* is a matter of judgement. X-Y cooordinate THEMATIC
semiology using a "map" like the periodic chart with some pathological
pointers is somewhat different than--- first getting clues from exact
symptoms, modalities, etiologies, etc and THEN attempting to flesh out the
picture of a remedy. But there is more certainty and breadth in the 2003
rep than in the '96 book--though it is in rep form. Extractions using
software version of the rep can make a sort of materia medica which can be
useful.

The main point I wished to make in the last post was that Scholten's
Repertory (circa 2003) is based on *more* than just theory for some of the
rx which were in 1996 just that. The 1996 Elements book as you correctly
stated did not have much or any data on many remedies ---or the element had
not even been made into a remedy. That has progressed markedly in 8+ years.
Plenty of clinical experience on most of the chart has come about. Scholtens
rep, and seminar notes and software from Scholten, and Sankaran and the
Bombay Group (Shah, etc) is required to have the "state of the art". In
1850 they did it by homeopathic journals. I would say it is faster now.

There is much more to be done ---and there is unfortunately a delay before
info will filter out into the literature. You yourself Rosemary have been a
big help to (me personally) as a colleague and I always strive to do what I
can in return. The study project initiated by Annemieke is an excellent way
to get familiar with the periodic chart. I suggest Scholtens Rep is a
well-confirmed source of data from the Scholten approach which has been
published and is avail in software form for some programs.

All the best to you always,
Andy