David, I have also the same point.

Shannon, I guess, you will agree with me that for declaring homeopathic medicine one needs a material for start up. If peter has not used any material then he actually deviated from the rule. For declaring homeopathic potency one needs to prove the medicine first either in crude form or clinically by accident. In this case this rule was also overruled. How can you say it is a homeopathic potency? Peter's claim that it is homeopathic potency is not valid. Secondly he wants to keep it in secret for trade. He has the right to do so but in my opinion if reveals something then definitly we will say to him he was trying to make fool :)

See what was in the first stage of discussion when magic in the picture was not revealed and when it was revealed how did the discussion gone turn?

It's not important whether material is used to make a remedy. We do have remedies made from e.g. x-ray, magnetism, and certain other non-material "substances". But you're right, that the homeopathic way of determining a remedy's usage -- regardless of what the remedy is made from -- is to prove" the remedy on healthy people and see what symptom picture develops, then use the remedy to treat similar symptom pictures occurring in ill people.
Since this proving hasn't yet been done, we can only speculate about whether it is strictly "homeopathic" to the disease or not. I'm sure we all hope that this will be done at some point, and in the mean time, I for one will be fascinated to see the unfolding clinical experience.

Shannon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon But you're right, that the homeopathic way of determining a remedy's usage -- regardless of what the remedy is made from -- is to "prove" the remedy on healthy people and see what symptom picture develops, then use the remedy to treat similar symptom pictures occurring in ill people. Since this proving hasn't yet been done, we can only speculate about whether it is strictly "homeopathic" to the disease or not.

I am interested to know how true this is of all homeopathic remedies in the MM.

Certainly many symptoms in the MM come from actual poisonings rather than deliberate provings but there also seems to be quite a bit of information NOT from provings in the MM. It is not always clear which is which. Some of the indications for remedies used herbally are not from provings or poisonings. Many remedies that have not been proven are nonetheless homeopathic. It may have required the homeopath to understand the remedy's homeopathicity without proving Sx in the MM but nonetheless this is done fairly regularily, with for example , some of the nosodes. There are remedies without clear provings used on a daily basis homeopathically.

Proving symptoms , whilst highly desirable, are not the only criterion upon which we can prescribe homeopathically or what determines whether a remedy is homeopathic. I would argue that it is the homeopaths ability to determine a remedy's homeopathicity irrespective of whether it is from proving Sx, which decides whether or not its usage is homeopathic, not whether it has 'proving' symptoms.

This is not to say that the majority of prescriptions are not made from the MM fulll of ( mostly) proving Sx or that proving Sx are not for most practical purposes, essential; only that they are not exclusively the making of a remedy's homeopathic usage

Does anyone ( a pharmacist perhaps?) on the list know if detailed research has been done about what proportion of information in the MMs is actually bona fide proving Sxs ?

regards

Simon King LCPH MARH
http://WWW.HOMEOPATHY-HELP.NET

Dear members,

I want to study detail proving of pc1. symptoms of head, mind, eyes, nose stomach etc. From where I can get that info?

__________________
Imran Achkzai of marala