dear david

thanks for your thoughts.

i don't know how scholten's method is at all valid though, for the following reasons -

going back to the same example of salt and its constituents, or even water and its constituents, whoever could guess what elements they are made of by their chemical properties?
i.e table salt is *nothing at all* like sodium or chlorine, water *nothing like hydrogen or oxygen.

having said that, i wonder what is the relation between the chemical properties of a substance and its properties in medicinal potency? if scholten is correct then as i see it, there would be no relation between the chemical properties of a substance and the properties of that same substance in potency.
what happens to lycopodium when potentized might support this idea of a lack of relation between the chemical and the potentized substance, but on the other hand scholten refers to the chemical properties when analysing the properties of the elements and their combinations [in his second book.] in this way i think his theory is inconsistent.
also, if we can just think of chemical compound remedies as equivalent to the sum of their parts, without a proving, they are identical to combination remedies.

regards, anna

Dear Anna,

I would guess, to some degree, that would come out in a proving of the substance - they would be the unique symptoms.

I agree, though, we cannot know all the characteristics of a remedy from this theory. It is just another way at looking at them.

__________________
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
I want to repeat the question you placed:

Hans, then the question I would put to you is, if we choose a remedy based on clinical symptoms (those not reported in the provings but verified by cures in clinic), are we no longer practicing Hahnemannian homoeopathy?

To answer this question I decided to turn to the Organon and see, if there is reference made to this question. One of the important paragraphs concerning this matter is par.: 144 which reads:

From such a materia medica everything that is conjectural, all the mere assertion or imaginary should be strictly excluded; everything should be the pure language of nature carefully and honestly interrogated.

Next I define: ‘’clinical symptom’’.

A clinical symptom is a symptom --attributed to a remedy-- not yet experienced in a proving, but which has improved or disappeared under the remedy-action. I took this definition from the introduction of jahrs material medica.

The third to keep in mind is: That a symptom which has disappeared under the remedy action can only be called cured, if it is a confirmed provingsymptom of the remedy in question.

Putting these three lines together means, that if we place our decision for or against a remedy on clinical experience, we do assume, that this remedy has cured in previous cases. So—we prescribe on assumption. This however supersedes modern science and the provisions made in paragraph 144, creating the only viable data for the application of medicines in homeopathy.

Hahnemann and Jahr, as well as Allen, fully aware of those facts, strictly distinguished in their works pathognomic symptom and clinical symptom.

Hahnemann, when using homeopathy, decided on pathognomic symptoms primarily in his remedy-selection. Compare here the entries into the ‘’symptomencodex’’ to the cases and the remedyselections.

On the other side, clinical experience can speed up the selection of a possible remedy. Take for instance the group of ,,cancer remedies’’
This group has been formed on clinical experience only. Treating cancerous patients, one is inclined to look up the remedies in this group first in the MM, to see, if the extraordinary symptoms of the case at hand can be matched with a remedy having those symptoms as characteristics. Should there be no match close enough to fulfil the simile law, a further search has to be carried out under the non-cancer remedy group, to see if something suitable can be found.

Dear dr. Bhatia
I fully agree to your statement that hahnemann changed his theories, as he went by and also as he got more experienced. This is not so with the principles he discovered. The comparison of the different editions of the Organon reveals this. Unchanged remained: The establishment of a materia medica pura as part of replacing an unscientific medicine with an scientific method, sufficient enough to fulfil the conditions of modern science.—The simile law, the establishing of the data necessary for the remedy selection.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Dear Hans,

I do agree that the 'simile' never changed. But Hahnemann did experiment with the ways to implement this law of simile. He experimented to the extent that many of his own case records go against his writings in organon of medicine.
I do agree that there is a natural evolution of thought process that we see in subsequent versions of organon. But nowhere did Hahnemann write down how he made his biggest discoveries like potentisation etc? Nowhere did he write down what were the influences upon him. We do not know how his affiliation with free-masons affected his understanding of health, disease and vital force. There are so many unanswered questions. And anybody who has tried to follow Hahnemann word-by-word, line-by-line knows that his work is still incomplete. Hahnemann had said that it would not be possible to find out how homeopathy medicines work in the human being. He was right according to his own times. But with physical sciences making such huge progress, do you really think that we will never be able to find the physical basis of Homeopathy?? This is just an example. What Hahnemann wrote 2 centuries back might have been 100% true at that time. But truth is a relative word. It can change in relation to the circumstances. Laws can have sub-rules and exceptions and conditions. 'Simile' is a law and we still are struggling in finding the best ways to implement it. We are still trying to define its sub-rules. We are still trying to figure out the exceptions. We still do not know for sure in what conditions this law becomes an absolute truth and in which it becomes a partial one.

Nobody can deny the efficacy of our primary laws. But if Hahnemann can experiment, fail, learn and improve, why can not the modern homeopaths? I do not say that Scholten is 100% right. Because Sholten himself dosen't say so. Even he says that his medicines need to be proved. So where is the argument. Why discard an idea before testing it? Why throw the baby out with the water?

Theories and hypothesis can fail. But results speak for themselves. Why you (and Anna) are so outrightly against these theories? Have you used them enough to say that they don't work? Or are you creating your own hypothesis against it?

Let's give everyone some space here. Bad things usually filter out with time!

__________________
Dr. B<br /><br /><a href="http://www.doctorbhatia.com" target="_blank">www.DoctorBhatia.com</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hpathy.com" target="_blank">www.Hpathy.com</a><br />Homeopathy for Everyone

Dr. B, you are too polite!

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Herbert Roberts has something interesting to say in his book "Principles and Art of Cure by Homoeopathy":

"Homoeopathy opens up a vista of opportunities for continually seeking new fields for the demonstration of natural laws, for if, as we believe, these laws are fundamental, then their application is universal, and had we the vision to see it we would be convinced not from its application in the field of medicine alone, but in every field of natural science and applied science as well."

[ 04. August 2002, 04:17: Message edited by: DavidJK ]

__________________
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.

Long post there, Hans. Now it's my turn

Firstly, the belief that Hahnemann discovered these new peinicpals during his time in Hermannstadt, is an assumption made by the historians. Hahnemann has hardly anywhere mentioned his experiences of that time or what influences it had on him.

Secondly, science may not be built by having a theory and then trying to prove it. But every science is built by new ideas, ideas that are born out of observation and human imagination. These ideas are then tested to find their accuracy/usefulness. So I am basically not against newer ideas, even if they defy the current understanding of science or logic to begin with.

I do not think that my question regarding finding the physical basis of Homeopathy is an extermely polarised one. Nor do I think that you can compare it with questions about God and sould etc. Reason being, I believe, where there is an effect, there is a cause and there is a mechanism. Now we all believe in the effects that Homeopathy medicines produce. So finding the mechanish behind its action should not be impossible.
And saying that it does not matter is not the right attitude. You do not even know what new dimensions such a discovery may open up for homeopathy and you are just being indifferent to the idea! At least be open to it. Anywhy u can't compare it to questions about God 'coz there is no effect that u can surely attribute to the God. So finding him or his mechanisms is out of question. God is our belief. Homeopathy is more than that!

__________________
Dr. B<br /><br /><a href="http://www.doctorbhatia.com" target="_blank">www.DoctorBhatia.com</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hpathy.com" target="_blank">www.Hpathy.com</a><br />Homeopathy for Everyone

Dr. B,
We're on the same wavelength!

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Hello Dr. Leela,

It sure is nice to know that we are on the same wave-length.

Dear Anna,

Picking up from your NaCl example, I am giving you an analogy which is very similar to your example and yet with a much broader base.

A child inherits half of the genes from the father and half from the mother. Sometimes the child very strongly resembles the father, sometimes the mother. Sometimes the child shows some characters of mother and some of father combined. Plus the child has certain unique characters of his/her own. But sometimes the child does not seem to resemble the parents at all.

The characters of the child depend on which parent is dominant genetically. And in most cases we do see shades of their parents in children.

Sholten is working on the premise that even before the baby is born some of its characters may be outlined based on the genetic dominance of the parents, and the traits of the parents. Now, this method may prove very successful in some cases, partially successful in many, and may fail in some cases. And even Scholten says that the characters of the children may not always match that of their parents. You need to finally study the child after it is born.

But I think what you are doing is that you are focussing solely on the probability that in some cases the child may not have any characters of the parents. You are over looking the fact that in most cases children do have large amount of characters that can be traced to their parents or siblings.

May be this will put things in a new light.

__________________
Dr. B<br /><br /><a href="http://www.doctorbhatia.com" target="_blank">www.DoctorBhatia.com</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hpathy.com" target="_blank">www.Hpathy.com</a><br />Homeopathy for Everyone

Dear Dr. Bhatia

I do not share your view, that it is an assumption by the historians, that hahnemann gained knowledge about trituration and potentisation during his time in Hermannstadt.

Bear in mind, that there are approximately 5400 letters yet unpublished of Correspondences Hahnemann held. There is a catalogue of more than 600 pages in the institute of medicine listing all the items. Only a very small % has been published. Even Hahnemann’s own tool for accessing the material medica the: symptomecodex has not been republished yet.
So—on these facts you might want to reconsider earlier statements like:

&gt;&gt;Hahnemann has hardly anywhere mentioned his experiences of that time or what influences it had on him.&lt;&lt;
&gt;&gt;Nowhere did he write down what were the influences upon him.&lt;&lt;

Until you have accessed and studied all those documents you are not in the position to support statements like above. Furthermore you would need to become a member of the Freemasons to gain access to correspondences held in strict confidence. Even if you were member of this organisation and eventually got access to those documents, you would be held by their code of ethics to NOT publish any internals. All what I am at liberty to say here, is what I said earlier, and leave it up to yourself to confirm or dismiss the given information.

You wrote:
I believe, where there is an effect, there is a cause and there is a mechanism. Now we all believe in the effects that Homeopathy medicines produce. So finding the mechanish behind its action should not be impossible.

I don’t argue believe, but want to draw your attention to the matter, that by approaching the subject in this manner, leads you into pre-Hahnemannian times.
Empirically it can be shown, that x-amount of symptoms can co-exist in the same person, but no machine, tool, method can ever show, the one being the reason of the others existence. This can only be thought, assumed, and remains metaphysical speculation.
I want to conclude this by an example:

Take a patient with a headache who has a braintumor. Empirically it can be shown, that both coincide in time. No matter what machinery you employ, you cannot show, that the braintumor IS the cause of the headache at the same time.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath