The answer to the question is toxicology; specifically, natural poisons and side effects from allopathic drugs are examples of where substances produce symptoms they will cure. That is what Hahnemann discovered in his first drug trial: the therapeutic effects of Peruvian bark (from which derives quinine, used in malaria) from ingesting the ghastly stuff produced the symptoms common to malaria. In fact, allopathic drugs and known poisons are the substances Hahnemann and the early homeopaths first tested in potency for more refined medicinal effects in provings. This was because the toxicological symptoms were already known but proved to be insufficiently differential for individualizing prescriptions via uncommon symptoms in order to match symptoms per the Law of Similars, for the toxicological data only contained common symptoms identical to those found in disease diagnostic categories. Indeed, provings are little more than toxicological experiments with the important difference being that we test them in ultramolecular doses for the above reasons as well as to see these results sooner and longer, without the dangerous elements of the primary symptoms and as much as possible without the largely unimportant primary symptoms of the substance/drug. Thus, from high-potency provings we then know the individualizing therapeutic indications for the stuff. But in the natural world, the only real examples of the Law of Similars are toxicological phenomena.

As for application of the Law of Similars, given that I mentioned it, uncommon symptoms are the only way in which we can choose medicines according to the Law of Similars (Art. 153). High-potency and low-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs and LPHs), who are everywhere and apparently have never read pp. 121-22 of Hahnemann's THE CHRONIC DISEASES, always invoke the totality of symptoms without knowing how to identify characteristic/uncommon symptoms. Totality of symptoms is just a meaningless cliché and slogan from such people, who have of course adopted it via hypnosis/brainwashing rather than from logical and experiential understanding. The totality of symptoms means nothing if all of the symptoms are common and thereby call up hundreds of medicines. In fact, pulling out uncommon symptoms from amid heaps of common symptoms is the first level of differentiation in our case analyses. We therefore find identical lists of symptom categories under each one side by side in this hierarchy: 1) three mental generals and seven physical generals, and 2) three kinds of particulars. That is to emphasize that mental symptoms have to be symptoms, first of all, and then have to rank as uncommon symptoms to be worthy of consideration in the choice of the medicine, for they are otherwise either just common symptoms or not even symptoms because the masses of bozos today read them into cases via presumptuous psychobabble and stupid sophistries. Again, this is to emphasize that the psychobabblic presumptions common today in our journals have nothing to do with homeotherapeutics, and the authors are just HPHs according to Hahnemann at pp. 121-22 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES. Hering said it well when he invoked the idea of a three-legged stool, the “triangular test” and the equilateral triangle as an icon for our school representing three uncommon symptoms inside of which he wanted "By This Sign We Conquer." One uncommon symptom brings up a small list of medicines that have produced and cured that symptom for the very reason that it is a strange, rare and peculiar symptom. That one crossed with another uncommon symptom further reduces the list of competing medicines, and the third uncommon symptom will generally bring it down to between one and five medicines. These are then naturally checked for homeopathicity in the legitimate volumes of materia medica since there is no way to prescribe from the repertory if we are to find the simillimum or "thing most similar."

Prescribing from the repertory and failing to be able to identify uncommon symptoms are two of the seven basic mistakes made by high-potency pseudo-homeopaths, who are surfeit hereabouts and elsewhere in our times. Of course, however, they are at least salvageable fools and are quite better off than hopelessly lost low-potency pseudo-homeopaths, who use homeopathics in allopathic ways and thereby make nothing but mistakes.

But you asked two different questions when you asked how we prove the Law of Similars (pluralized, please) to newcomers. Proof of something exists in two possible forms, and one is useless without the other: logical facts and empirical facts. Strictly speaking, nobody can prove anything to another person, nor can we educate them. Hahnemann's father taught the young Samuel this when he instilled in him the general axiom to prove all things and hold true that which is good. The logical part of the proof of the Law of Similars runs throughout our literature in very elegant and profound prose, most esp. in the ORGANON. The empirical proof exists in provings and cures. We cure babies, animals and the unconscious, none of whom could possibly be subject to placebo effects. Call that striking proof or the person a fool who ignores that evidence. But of provings and cures nothing compares to the proof afforded by self-provings and cures of sufferings in oneself. Therefore, if she is sick, fix her; otherwise, have her read Article 141 of the ORGANON and then do a high-potency self-proving. Just one dose, though, for the idea is to convince them, not to scare them.

-----------

Don't expect me back here often, so please do not respond with stuff for me to read that could only require more reactions I cannot manage. But that is the answer to your question.

Go get 'em, kid!

[ 14. June 2003, 20:18: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B