Dear Louise,

when you apply a theory and it works, then what does it become? How long does a theory that can be applied remain just a theory?

And you are right, it is not only students and newer homoeopaths who may find it difficult to apply these ideas. But my experience here in Australia is that of those who embrace the ideas, the more experienced homoeopaths have an easier time using them successfully.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

Dear David,

Is anybody doing provings of Scholten's mineral mixes? Why does he rubbish the whole Hahnemannian principle of provings?

In LINKS:

"The whole point about provings is that they will never get reliable
results. The more precisely that you follow the rules of doing
provings, the less precise the results; the more precise the results
you want to have, the less rigidly you must follow the rules."

To me this sounds more like he is afraid he won't get the results that he wants to find.

Hi Felix,

Its important to remember that every symptom or theme need not be obviously present in every patient. But the main thing is that if one has a patient with a strong victimised feeling, and one does not know which remedy to consider, adn it looks a lot like Silica or Silica Salt (with the physicals and PQRS), then you would not doubt giving it. THere is no need to think of HURA or CHINA or LYSSIN or some other remedies that feel they are being tormented!

I did have some patients who I prescribed SIlica or Silica Salts who had this feeling. And yes some Causticum patients did too.

One Calc Sil patinet felt vitimized all her life by her alcoholic husband. But the need for a good social image and appearance was so strong, she rather put up with his nonsense than walk out on him and suffer the shame of it all. HE's been dead 10 years now and she still feels like a victim. OF course I did not prescribe on this symptom, as there were other more obvious symptoms of Calc Sil and Sil. But since you made me think about it... it fits!

Hope this helps,
Doctorleela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Dr Leela and David:
One thing that really intrigued me about Scholten's Silica picture was the "victim" complex, that he relates to the oxygen-containing compounds (Causticum etc). Have you found that side of the remedy in your Silica cases?

While David's cases show there can be some benefits from using the Scholten remedies, Chris' post shows that Scholten therapy is quite distinct from homoeopathy, being without the logical basis of provings.

Like so much of what passes for homoeopathy these days, Scholten therapy is just another way of using potentised remedies. The methods have an effect because potentised remedies are potent forces, but lack the rational bedrock of the principles set out in The Organon.

It would be interesting if Louise would elaborate on the importance of symmetry in provings as opposed to a Scholten picture.

Scholten's work did not arise out of a vacuum. He reprised the work of an earlier homeopath who examined the periodic table of elements in a similar way. Scholten has, of course, done a great deal to "complete" the earlier work, and I might add has contributed greatly to restoring the health of many patients for whom remedies may otherwise have been missed.

Scholten also had 13 years experience as an MD BEFORE studying with Vithoulkas for a number of years to practice homeopathy. He knows his stuff, okay? Same with Sankaran, who was raised in a family famous for their work as homeopaths--practitioners and scholars alike. Don't think for a minute he doesn't know Hahnemann, with a lineage like that. As a child he would have been familiar with concepts we're grappling with as practitioners, simply through the exposure he'd experienced to his father's practice.

In case its slipped anyone's notice, Scholten's remedies are, for the most part, proven substances. Some are not proven--but they do correspond to the data obtained on the elements.
Speculative, sure--but quite educated and observant speculation.

Some of Kent's remedies, about which he wrote a long time ago, remain unproven. Yet Kent wrote about them as if they had been.

But they continue to be utilized widely. One of my faves is Ammonium Carbonicum...never been proven, information solely on clinical use, yet quite substantially described by Kent in his MM.
And it works, when given to match the totality, too!! Funny, that.

Also, some of the MMPura we have so much information about include remedies proven with maybe one or two proving subjects--and some were never given in potency , but merely observed for their effects in crude doses and recorded as clinical data! Yes!! Some of the "tried and true" remedies such as the poisons were never put through a proper proving--but information about the effects of the crude substances on the human body were obtained from hospital documents!

So, what the hell are we trashing Scholten and Sankaran for?

Reducing Scholten and Sankaran's works to "everyone has a mother, everyone has a father" only signifies that the person commenting on the material simply hasn't read the material.

How valuable is an observation made on material never read? How many "sacred cows" are we going to accept unquestioningly?

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Hi Divina,

You make some good points.

"How valuable is an observation made on material never read?

My secondhand observations of these particular authors' works are valuable to me because it saves wasting time on areas of study that I personally consider not useful to me. If at any stage I feel differently, I will access them.

For me, homoeopathy is a vast area of study and I try to keep the complexity out of it by following established guidelines.

Your experience may be different but when I finished my studies, I didn't really know how Kent differed to Hahnemann, in what areas, or if it even mattered. I didn't know the first thing about applying the Concordance chapter in Boenninghausen's Repertory or why it is invaluable. I didn't understand the historical progression of Hahnemann's method or why it is even relevant. I'd never read Chronic Diseases but I'm sure I used some paragraphs in footnotes for assessments. I didn't know how to correctly administer LM potencies and caused some unnecessary aggravations. I didn't know what role innate temperament and constitution played in case-taking. In spite of this, I passed exams quite well and came out with a sound grounding in... Vithoulkian essence prescribing.

My apologies if I appear dour or grouchy, but it is not uncommon for me to receive patients from "experienced" practitioners (one of whom lectured me), and have the task of unravelling a mismanaged case. Yes, I realize every practitioner has their share of these referrals, but the point I have always tried to make is that because the same basic mistakes seem to be such a common occurence, I suspect that homoeopathic education could do well to focus more on the fundamentals. Something, or a lot, is missing.
For you, this something may be Scholten's or Sankaran's new way of looking at remedies.
For me, I find that a case can be lost at any stage from
(a)lack of symmetry, or
(b)poor repertorization, or
(c)incorrect dosing, or
(d)mismanaging a second prescription.
This seems to concur with listening to other homoeopath's stories and reading posts on the Net.

Many advances have been made to our Materia Medica in the area of psychology. However a lot of other information and tools are being disregarded as well. I don't hear of provings being conducted in the context of noting the innate diathetic constitution and temperament of the prover. A tubercular taint in a sanguine person who proves a remedy will evoke different symptoms from a choleric, phlegmatic or nervous constitution proving the same substance. This sort of information was recorded by early homoeopaths up until Kent decided it was unnecessary. Now we apparantly have provings where you don't even get to ingest a substance. You just have to 'BE' in same room with others and your vote counts.

I believe more focus on homoeopathic fundamentals would provide a platform from which anyone could discern the value of EVERY contribution to homoeopathy since Hahnemann. As well, when international homoeopaths stand up and trash Hahnemann at seminars we could question the soundness of their education and understanding of the fundamentals.

"How many "sacred cows" are we going to accept unquestioningly?"

Indeed!

Hi Chris and Divina,
Did you read Ardavan Shahrdan's article, "Constitutional Treatment"?

Very well laid out and I thought it put things into perspective.

Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Divina:

Please refer to Chronic Diseases, vol 1 for the Hahnemannian proving of Amm-C.

Chris:

'Snap!' on the college experience.
I lacked your nouse ref Sankaran and Scholten at that stage, and sought in them the missing something.
I agree that once one begins to perceive the rationale of The Organon, there is a means of assessing the new fads without having to enter into them.

David, Divina, where is it published material, the exact means by which these speculations are verified by homeopathic method?
Is it published by either gentleman exactly what identifies a father/mother 'issue' (which we all have) from a 'BIG' father/mother issue?
Is it (the above)even relevant to homeopathic method, given that Organon & book of Chronic Diseases clearly states that such is not disease, and therefore untreatable by homeopathic method?