These reports of specific drugs for specific diseases and conditions are endless from low-potency pseudo homeopaths (LPHs) and are certainly always interesting, but what do we do with them? When you look in the repertories (symptom indexes – e.g., Kent J.T. Repertory of the Hom. M.M. - Médi-T) for particular diseases, you find vast lists of drugs that Hahnemannians and quasi homeopaths have used to cure them. Mark this well: They never, ever enter the repertory from supposed cures like this by LPHs because those people are wholly unreliable as allopathic homeopaths with absolutely no conception of what they’re doing. Why’d they choose that drug? We don’t know, and neither do they (that's crazy, isn't it?), but it certainly has nothing to do with homeopathic rationales. If you use the moronic logic of LPHs, which of the hundreds of drugs listed for any of the named diseases do you pick? More precisely, we know that only one will cure,* so which one do you pick? You might as well throw a dart at such a list if you attempt to use these drugs in an allopathic way of a drug FOR a disease. It’s hogwash! and it will never work, and that's just one of many reasons allopaths can't cure.

Most of those drugs are what we call polychrests ("many useful purposes"). The more we know about a drug's pathogenic powers in drug trials we call provings (prufung is German for “test or trial"), the more we can prescribe it, but we prescribe it for people regardless of their named disease because they all have a few strange, rare and peculiar symptoms (characteristic, uncommon, differential symptoms and about 15 other synonyms for them) that lead to their unambiguous choice when properly applying the Law of Similars. You have absolutely no uncommon symptoms in named diseases, so it’s pointless to use them as a basis for a homeopathic prescription. Only a remedy diagnosis will work, never a disease diagnosis, so forget that hogwash!

More fascinating – and I mean that this is off the scale – those vast lists of drugs that have cured the various named diseases leads to the inescapable conclusion that every drug will eventually cure every disease when prescribed on the basis of the totality of uncommon symptoms (the Law of Similars). Moreover, every substance we’ve tested against the Law of Similars has proven to be a drug when potentized – even foods. That means we’ll eventually find that every single substance in the entire universe is a homeopathic drug and will probably eventually cure every disease when properly used. Did you get that? It’s mind-boggling but true, and we’ll never get such results using them in allopathic ways.

Sir, you’re concerned with what we think of you. From the grave, Hahnemann dismisses you as a “beginner, bungler and aggravator/despoiler of diseases.” I’d worry about that rather than what anyone else thinks of you. He repeatedly called you a mongrel and part of the new mongrel sect. That’s quite kind in my view. After dismissing high-potency pseudo homeopaths in the second of the three following paragraphs, he dismissed you and your kind in the third, so why haven’t you read this? No matter, be amazed:

“As to the second chief error in the cure of chronic diseases (the unhomoeopathic choice of the medicine)[,] the homoeopathic beginner (many, I am sorry to say, remain such beginners their life long) sins chiefly through inexactness, lack of earnestness and through love of ease.

“With the great conscientiousness which [that] should be shown in the restoration of a human life endangered by sickness more than in anything else, the homoeopath, if he would act in a manner worthy of his calling, should investigate first the whole state of the patient, the internal cause as far as it is remembered [UCD = unnecessary comma deleted] and the cause of the continuance of the ailment, his mode of life, his quality as to mind, soul and body [UCD] together with all his symptoms (see directions in Organon), and then he should [and he should then] carefully find out in the work on Chronic Diseases as well as in the work on Materia Medica Pura a remedy covering in similarity, as far as possible, all the moments [factors], or at least the most striking and peculiar ones, with its own peculiar symptoms; and for this purpose he should not be satisfied with any of the existing repertories [large symptom indexes] -- a carelessness only too frequent; for these books are only intended to give light hints as to one or another remedy [medicine] that might be selected, but they can never dispense him from making the research at the first fountain heads [i.e., the materia medica or “materials of medicine” from the provings]. He who does not take the trouble of treading this path in all critical and complicated diseases, and, indeed, with all patience and intelligence [UCD] but contents himself with the vague hints of the repertories in the choice of a remedy, and who thus quickly dispatches one patient after the other, does not deserve the honorable title of a genuine homoeopath [UCD] but is rather to be called a bungler, who on that account has continually to change his remedies until the patient loses patience; and as his [the patient’s] ailments have[,] of course[,] only been aggravated[,] he must leave this aggravator of diseases, whereby the art itself suffers discredit instead of the unworthy disciple of art.

“This disgraceful love of ease (in the calling which demands the most conscientious care) often induces such would-be homoeopaths to give their medicines merely from the (often problematic) statement of their use (ab usu in morbis) [“according to the names of the diseases”] which are enumerated in the introductions to the medicines, a method which is altogether faulty and strongly savors of allopathy, as these statements usually only give a few symptoms. They [These statements of their previously effective clinical effectiveness or curative effects in specific diseases] should only serve as a confirmation of a choice made according to the pure actions of the medicines [per our time-tested indications of similarity or homeopathicity as proved by the match of uncommon or characteristic symptoms of the case with the proving reports in the various materia medica]; but [they should] never [be solely used] to determine the selection of a remedy [medicine] which can cure [that will become the person’s remedy] only when used according to the exact similitude of its homoeopathic symptoms. There are, we are sorry to say, even authors who advise following this empiric pathway of error!” (THE CHRONIC DISEASES, pp. 121-22)

----------

*Edited additions (September 9th 2008):

I said that "only one [drug] will cure." Most people have great difficulty with that fact because we’re so used to many allopathic drugs doing the same things, so I'll most easily quote Hahnemann on it since he explained it so well in the Way Back Machine. They all involve the Law of Similars and are thus index entries or personal additions to the ORGANON OF MEDICINE, but I'll only quote four of them. To whit:

Article 119:

"Just as certainly as every kind of plant is different from every other family and species of plant in its outer form, in the particular way in which it lives and grows [UCD = unnecessary comma deleted] [and] in its taste and smell;[, and] just as certainly as every mineral and every salt is different from every other in its external as well as its inner physical and chemical properties (which in itself should have prevented all confusion among them), so also it is certain that these plants and minerals are all different and distinct from each other in their pathogenetic [pathogenic] and therefore curative effects [footnote a].

"Each of these substances acts in it[s] own distinct, appointed way to produce modifications in human health and feelings [UCD] so that it is impossible to mistake one for another [footnote b].

"a. Anybody who completely understands how remarkably distinct the effects of every individual substance on the human economy are from the effects of any other and realizes the importance of this easily sees that[,] medically speaking[,] no one of them can ever be equivalent to any other -- there can be no surrogates. . . ."

That goes on, but that's the point, and I think it's the best statement to this effect in the book. "Surrogates" is the only word italicized in those passages, so it seems Hahnemann also liked the way it came out of his brain.

Article 258:

“. . . the only medicinal disease agent [drug] meriting attention and preference in any case of disease is always the one that is most similar to the totality of the characteristic symptoms . . .”

There are lots of statements like that.

Article 11, extract from footnote a:

“Thus[,] any particular medicine will change the condition of a person’s health . . . in its own specific way and not in the way some other medicine would act . . .”

Article 266, the opening paragraph of footnote a:

“a. All crude animal and vegetable substances have more or less medicinal virtue and can alter the state of human health, each in its own way.”

Perhaps the easiest way to state this truth of medicine is that only one drug can be most similar, so only one will actually cure. What happens when we find drugs with lesser similarity is that we have to zig-zag cases to cure with two or more drugs, usually three and over a much longer period of time than occurs with the simillimum (“thing most similar”). Hahnemann discussed zig-zagging cases to cure in Articles 162 through 184 of the ORGANON [http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/.../organon.html].

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Dear members

Kumar told us, that there were some symptoms not reported any more when reproving a remedy. How did o, a Julian prove, who were his co-provers, was it done in adouble blind manner?
I found, that Julian does not tell us how he proved, does not tell us the names of his co-provers, and does not line out the exact proving mode. (blind or double blind) -- are results of such efforts to be taken serious??
Not in my clinic, as i don't belief in medical experiments on sick people specifically without asking them.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

you have said that o.a julian provings are not authentic.please refer to the dictionary of homeopathic materia medica by o.a. julian. for example study on cimicifuga which was done by mazger between 1951 and 1953.(page 82).you only know whether it is performed systametically or not.new symptoms have been seen.
you are saying whether it is a double blind trial.how can we believe whether provings done in early 19 th century are double blind trials to have weightage in our prescriptions.you know pathology has not developed fully at that time and how can we think all provers are hale and healthy.pathology has to be given right place in homeopathy.pathology is important as it is a part of medicine.otherwise for example we cannot know whether urination with cough in causticum is a pathological or rare symptom,enuresis in sepia is mostly due to bearing down sensation in uterus rather than bladder.
how can one doctor prove several medicines in his life time.there are long term effects of the proving that may come after years.there maybe juggling of symptoms of one remedy to other.we should appreciate the efforts of recent doctors.you know no man is a complete man either mentally and physically that is valid for provers.
dr.m.vidyut kumar
MD(hom)
hyderabad

In my case ( Anal Fissure)Joe s famous therapy of Arnica/Nat Phos/Silicea worked, and worked very well.I came out of a nightmare of sorts,and life returned to normalcy.
I have now become very interested in Homeopathy. I visit many forums of homeopathy regularly, read a lot of books,and keep basic homeopathic medicines at home
Surely and naturally the credit must go to joe

Okie dokie, how do you suggest we duplicate his results when there are no justifications for it but long-established ones for other single medicines? Why did he pick them? Even he doesn't know. Is there science there I don't understand? I'm sure it's raz-mataz of some sort.

Speak, oh wise one, Joe De Livera. I'm sure we're all waiting with baited breath for why you chose them. That combination of drugs -- which is at total variance to the Law of the Single Remedy as well as the Law of Similars and was also probably prescribed contrary to the Law of the Minimum Dose and the Law of the Single Dose as well because low-potency pseudo homeopaths don't follow any of the protocols God put into the very fabric of space at Creation in the form of unknown fundamental forces of nature so that we're not helpless in diseases but could eventually discern them as natural laws -- must have rational reasons as a prescription. You played pin the tail on the donkey, right? That's my humor when it struggles.

To the patient, sir, I'll wager your case will get much worse in a year. Thank Joe then, and keep studying homeopathy, but read Hahnemann first or you'll be mislead by the hundreds of thousands of low-potency pseudo homeopaths polluting the thought waves of this planet. It's something like that at least, and it sounded good for a moment. Yeah, it still does. Keep studying. It's not so difficult to understand, and it makes perfect sense once you do.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

hahnemannian

Your inbox is FULL so no one can send you messages

Hans Weitbrecht has said that o.a julian provings are not authentic.please refer to the dictionary of homeopathic materia medica by o.a. julian. for example study on cimicifuga which was done by mazger between 1951 and 1953.(page 82).you only know whether it is performed systametically or not.new symptoms have been seen.
you are saying whether it is a double blind trial.how can we believe whether provings done in early 19 th century are double blind trials to have weightage in our prescriptions.you know pathology has not developed fully at that time and how can we think all provers are hale and healthy.pathology has to be given right place in homeopathy.pathology is important as it is a part of medicine.otherwise for example we cannot know whether urination with cough in causticum is a pathological or rare symptom,enuresis in sepia is mostly due to bearing down sensation in uterus rather than bladder.
how can one doctor prove several medicines in his life time.there are long term effects of the proving that may come after years.there maybe juggling of symptoms of one remedy to other.we should appreciate the efforts of recent doctors.you know no man is a complete man either mentally and physically that is valid for provers.
dr.m.vidyut kumar
MD(hom)
hyderabad