Julian, Je m’excuse je ne comprends pas. There was only one question for which, I started this thread, rest of were supporting and that question still need your attentio! n. Kindly give your comments on.

quote:

If Hahnemann can introduce 28 polychrest and 61 frequent medicines in his life (O.K. from 10 to 30 years.I will not disagree with you on this point, as it is not important. Although you said “first proving was done by 1811, the last was done in 1821.Then you said “first proving was published in Frangmentia in 1805. Then u said “first proving was done in 1790 in the same answer).

*** The first proving was his simple Cinchona experiment in 1790. By 1805, he published the Fragmentaria-- which contained 27 provings. The first volume of the Materia Medica Pura was published in 1811.

two hundred years ago then why we are failed to introduce any single polychrest or frequent remedy? When you said yourself that it is so simple to prove any remedy and you only need a prover, an observer, and a paper and pencil. If you claim that proving process is carrying on all over the world then, how many remedies were proved during the last century. If proved, then in which category you will place those remedies, in ! polychrest, in frequent or in rare.

*** During the last century (1900-2000) not a lot of remedies were proven. The majority of the new provings were started in the late 1980s. In order to find a "polychrest" you need two things:
1. A good proving
2. A supply of patients to use remedies upon.

Hahnemann was very fortunate to prove a number of substances that seem to have a very deep affinity for the human physiology. AND... with these few substances, he found he could treat a large number of people who came to him.
By the time Hahnemann died in 1843, he (and his followers) had been using the remedies for almost 40 years.
Using THAT as a time scale, I would expect that we will not know if any of the remedies we have seen recently proven ARE polychrests for another 30 years or so.
There are two small "quirks" in this process...
1. Some of the cases that Hahnemann (or his followers) saw that were helped by "polychrests" MIGHT have been helped by other remedies that were not discovered at the time. Hahnemann did *not* have Apis in his kit, although Hering did. How many cases are zig-zagged though because the exact simillimum is yet unknown?
2. You might have a remedy that is very useable in your kit, and *never* use it, because you have never seen a case that matched the symptomology of the remedy.

You only find out which remedies are polychrest through USE and over TIME. The question you asked is premature. Ask it in 30 years!

quote:
A patient comes with a broken arm. Asks for a remedy. He gives them a remedy to prove. Tells them nothing. They come back in two weeks and he says, "what happened since last time?" And they tell him. Hey! It might not be all that ethical by current standards, but it gave a lot of good proving symptoms.

Do you want to say that we can prove new medicine on visiting patients? Is it possible to prove new medicine on unhealthy (patien! ts) persons?

*** In a word, YES. Who among is is truly healthy? One of the BEST of Hahnemann's provers, W. Gross, suffered from a liver ailment-- which eventually killed him. Hahnemann said he was not ill with a "known disease" and therefore was OK to do provings.
We are talking about not proving on people who are in the grip of a acute illness. *Everyone* is in the grip of a chronic illness-- it is the human condition. Such people CAN do provings-- and their health might improve.

quote:

Someone who calls themself "Mr. Organon" should know a lot more about the history of homeopathy than you do. Come out from under that false title.

**I fully agree with you.

good. Who are you? Who *I* am is no secret.

JW

hello,
Julian answered all about proving and publishing dates.In collegiate curriculum all this dates are to be studied in preliminary years(life history of Hahnemann).About polycrest remedies-you know that Hahnemann was an allopathic doctor,chemist,scholar,botanist etc,etc.By vast knowledge in different subjects his selection of drugs for proving also unique.As an allopath doctor he knows the common drugs used that days .Many of ancient drugs are from allpathic MM.(eg;belladonna,sulphur etc).The proving details are given in organon aphorisms 108 onwards.Hahnemann proved drugs on healthy indiviuals (aph-121-qualities of prover)and you can see names in introduction of every drug in MM pura.His son Franz Hahanemann also aided in his proving.

__________________
<a href="http://www.pannakkal.com" target="_blank">www.pannakkal.com</a>

a strange topic to read. what is the actual discussion?

a very strange topic to discuss.what is the actual point of discussion?

I read that post earlier but could not understand. Mr. Organon send me a private message to comment on some questions.

I read this post with keen interest today. I agree with Julian Winston. But I disagree with the way of proving he explained on above mentioned paragraph.

Dr. Pannaklal elaborated my point well for the first time. He really picked up my words.

I was in islamabad in connection with organizing a seminar. I want to write in detail on this topic on the request of Mr. Organon. But after 21st April 2002. As I am involved in organizing a seminar at Lahore. Where the Governor of the Punjab (Pakistan) is likely to attend as chief guest.

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

today is 23rd april

I was not here. Today, I find time to see my mails.

I am completely satisfied with JW answer on this topic and not interested in taking this title further

Hi nicole82,

This article was appeared just under your reply. I think you read all three pages of this thread. You will find lot answers of your queries. Hahnemann did not prove all medicine on himself or on wife.

best regards

__________________
Imran Achkzai of marala