Jonh also quoted in another thread that Hahnemann took many medicine himself for proving them. I think it is not correct information like he provided here about lachesis. Dr. Ch Ansar Mahmood rightly pointed out the proving of lachsis.

I am searching a thread whcih i read in past. I am coming back.

[ 11. December 2002, 04:43: Message edited by: Dr. Aamir Shahzad ]

List of provers for Lachesis mutus:
Trigonocephalus lachesis, L.
Natural order, Ophidia.
Common name, Surukuke or Churukuku.
Preparation, Triturations.
Authorities.(1 to 18 from Hering, Denkschrift der N. Am. Akad. der Hom. Heilk., 1837, B., effects of bite).
[_a1]: C. Hering, effects of 30th dil.;
[a1b]: same, effects of triturating and of 1st and 2d trits.;
[_a2]: Stapf, 30th dil.;
[_a3]: Bute, 30th;
[a4]: Bauer, 30th;
[a5]: Behlert, 30th;
[a6]: Detwiler, 30th;
[a7]: Gross, 30th;
[a8]: Kummer, 30th;
[a9]: Reichhelm, 30th;
[a10]: Roemig, 30th;
[a11]: Wesselhoeft, 30th;
[a12]: Kehr, 30th;
[a13]: Koth, 30th;
[a14]: Matlack, 30th;
[a15]: De Young, 30th;
[a16]: Helffrich, 30th;
[a17]: Schmoele, 30th;
[a18]: Lingen, 30th;
[a19]: Robinson, Br.J. of Hom., 24, 515, of 6th dil., four times a day, in a man;
[a20]: same, 20th dil., in a woman;
[a21]: same, 30th dil., in a woman;
[a22]: Dr.H. B. Fellows, effect of 30th dil.(taken for a cough), Am. Hom. Rev., 5, 411;
[a23]: Dr. Bartlett, effects of 6th dil., in a woman, for spasm of oespophagus, which it cured, but developed as follows, N. Am.J. of Hom., 2, 157;
[a24]: Metcalf, effect of 30th, in a young lady, suffering from chronic headache, N. Am.J. of Hom., 2, 158;
[a25]: Berridge, effect of 60m Fincke, in a patient(?), N.Y. J. of Hom., 2, 312;
[a26]: same, effect of cm Fincke, in a patient, A. J. M. M., 9, 246;
[a27]: same, effect of 6th dil., in self, ibid.;
[a28]: same, effect of 200th dil., in a man, ibid.;
[a29]: M.M. , effects of 6th dil., in a girl, aged twelve, Am.J. M.M. , 4, p. 78.

Quote: <<It still applies. Its pretty obvious that the substance in whatever form can cause a variety of effects to take place in the body. That is why provings are done with potentized and crude forms of the substance when possible.>>Unquote

That makes sense, ChaChaHeels.

To be meaningful/useful, proving must be done both in crude form and in potentised form, if the principle "that which causes can also cure" is not to be meaningless.

[ 11. December 2002, 09:28: Message edited by: jumma ]

A pathogenesis is the group of effects resulting from the administration
of a substance in a living being.
Talking this way, it looks as being a very imprecise thing, but we just
need to revise the Materia Medica Pura to take account that the
pathogenesis just can admit this definition.

The substances may be toxic or not, Venoms, or simply innocuous
substances. They may also be drugs or just energies as is the case of
the moon, X ray, or the Magnetis Poli, etc. They may be potentized or
not, and if they are, they can be either high or low potencies.

The individual who is proving these substances may be a human being, an
animal or even a plant. A human being will be the most appropriated to
do the experience, of course, because he can talk to describe their
perceptions and their sensations, but the animals or the plants also can
show us objective signs, changes of behavior, alterations, disease?s
evolutions, etc.

By their side the prover may be ideally sane or not. Even if the ideal
is that he is a sane person, the lack of health do not avoid a
pathogenesis, which can be voluntary or involuntary as are the cases of
poisoning or just a bite from any animal, or also we can see a
pathogenesis as a consequence of a therapeutic act done by allopathic or
homeopathic practice, as happens when we give a medication to a patient
and he, by an error in the administration, or by sensitiveness gets a
pathogenesis.

Nothing from him is to be disposable, as is not to be disposable when a
patient comes and tells us that he always takes some herb because he
gets amelioration from doing it, or eats some thing because it changes
their mood.

In relation to a supposed question posted, in the case of a patient that
takes too much coffee or tea... I think it is reasonable to do even
though the test, telling the patient to abandon the habit to take coffee
for some days just to empty the picture.

ChaChaHeels: The person who told that poison or medicine was only a
question of quantity was Paracelsus, not exactly a homeopath, but he was
probably a preceding which has influenced Hahnemann very much.

Best regards.

The issue of susceptibility is important. What one man can tolerate easily, causes illness in another. Consider the phenomenon of food allergies and sensitivities. I considerer any excess to be suspect and would certainly try to ascertain whether the complaint presented by the patient happened before or after this habitual use.

I have treated patients who had been taking substances ranging from laxatives, ginseng, to nasal inhalers and have had by the way good results in giving Cham. to patients rendered irritable and overly excited after the administration of asthmatic inhalers.

In the MM there are a number of rubrics that deal with the overdosing or abuse of various substances, often suggesting antidotal remedies for such. In the case of the abuse of Cham. if all of the symptoms are covereed by a particular remedy, this remedy could well serve as antidote and set the vital energy back on track.

I too have speculated on the possible effects of long term ingestion of various substances. In particular I wonder about the changes brought to the north american psyche by the additon of flourine to the water supply. Is there a multitude of unfortunate souls unwittingly undergoing a proving of this substance? What of the increased divorce rate evident in the US which occurs roughly concurrently with this practice?

Quill

It is an interesting question that of the fluorine, also I have appeared with this and other substances of massive, sure use that will exist sensitive persons doing patogenesias. There are many questions in homeopathy opened, like for example, the remedies have preferential places according to his(its) origin, that is to say, it is more coffea tosta or raw(unripe) in Colombia that in Spain? Or it is possible that it is more Canadian cistus in Canada that in Brazil?... If the plants and the substances are in a few places and not in others, why not to think that the persons who are these remedies also are in a few places and not in others? They are questions to think... Regards.