To warn anyone, i'm one of those dwellers from Randiland, so i'm a close-minded idiot. If you cannot stand my kind, please stop reading.

Reason i'm posting here is that i have a question about homeopathy and i first posted it there, but of course not many homeopaths answered and got busied in discussions with some sceptics over there, so maybe i will have my answer quicker here.

One of the basics of homeopathy is, that out of the substance, which undiluted produces the very exact symptons the patient has in healthy persons, one can create the perfect remedy for this patient, except one still has to choose the best dilution.

I hope this statement is correct, if not please tell so and ignore the rest of my thoughts.

Of course the problem arises in finding and weighing all symptons a patient has and then select a fiiting substance, out of which to prepare a good remedy.

Except for the case that popped in my mind some time ago: Poison.

Consider a healthy(certified by both homeopaths and allopaths) individual ingesting a toxic substance, that shows effects fast.

As the individual was healthy prior the taking of the poison and nothing else can happen in a short time, it is absolutely certain, that the substance causes exactly the symptons he is suffering in a healthy individual(we just observed that). Therefore it is certain, that out of this poison a homoepathic remedy can be created, that helps the individual.

Is there a mistake in this thought process?

The only one i can think off, is that maybe homeopathy does not work well in case of poisoning, but certainly someone can address this weakness.

Also be aware that in case you're certain that poisoning can be treted efficiently with homeopathy in the way i describe above, that i will come up with some ideas how to conduct scientific tests, which could prove or disprove the usefulness of homeopathy in the case of poisoning.

Carn

Misunderstanding here.
One of the great resources of homeopathy is the complete symptoms of the many and various poisons . These have been used to create volumes of the Materia Medica.
BUT one cannot use the homeopathic remedy derived from the poison UNLESS a mojority of the symptoms match the proving.
An interesting study is the original proving of Lachesis by Hering . It is remedy that can be used for varicose ulcers - if other symptoms are present.
But it would be ridiculous to use the Lachesis to try to antidote a Lachesis snakebite.

Thanks for your reply.

If i understand you correctly i made the mistake, that i assumed that the symptons that a healthy individual gets, when taking a poison, will be identical to those symptons you get by proving with the posion.

That makes me think that i misunderstand the term "proving". What is a "proving" and how is it done/conducted?

My current idea is, that you need a substance you think might be usefull as basis for a homeopathic remedy and one or more healthy individuals (maybe of the same species you want the remedy to use on). You then give the substance to the individual and carefully note any symptons that develop.
Then, if you come across a ill individual with exactly(not more or less, not stronger or weaker) these symptons, you can be nearly certain, that from this substance you can create the remedy, that will help.

What is wrong with my idea of "proving"?

Carn

Suggest you study the proving of X-Ray carried out in the USA , by DR J B Campbell p 527 of H C Allen's Materia Medica of Nososdes . Other provings are mentioned but this is one of the most complete .

Sorry, i'm either to blind or to stupid i googled for Materia Medica "Campbell proving X Ray", got 14 hits, but as far as i saw none was the study you suggested i should look at.

But i think, it might be possible, that you could post where the mistake(s) in my description of "proving" is.

I see that it might be, that i wrote one gives the substance, meaning undiluted substance, and maybe one uses the diluted substance for the proving, so effectively something that is not very much different from the remedy, that is later used to treat patients. Was that one of the mistakes?

Thanks for any answer,

Carn

1) Provings are done with potentized substances. These often have different effects than the material dose of the substance, although they are sometimes similar. Chamomille has a similar effect in it's material form as it does in potency. However, St. John's Wort aka Hypericum has a very different effect once it's potentized, as do most of the remedies.

2) There was a test done with rats given arsenic and then dosed with potentized Ars-a. This was very similar to the test you propose. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/3/7 However, this type of treatment is actually isopathy rather than homeopathy.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Thanks,
i see now, i made the mistake to think, that for proving one takes non-potentized substances.
But if diluted substances are used for proving, then my idea about poison will not work.

Just 2 more questions about proving:

Is always a potentized substance taken for proving or are there situations, where a unpotentized will be as good or even better and if so why?
I ask, because i read somewhere, that Hahnemann did his first provings with unpotentized or lowly potentized substances.

As proving is done with more than one person, how is it evaluated in the end, which symptons indicate(if they are the only symptons), that the remedy is to be used, if the provers report several different symptons? And how it is avoided to use statistics in that process(homeopaths do not seem to like that)?
As simplified example, if 100 people take part in a proving and 30 report headache, 20 fever, 10 identical stomach problems, 20 fever+stomach problems, 10 dizziness and 10 nothing(makes 100 of course), what sympton picture would call for this remedy?

Carn

Carn,

You can read following links or google homeopathy provings.

http://www.homeopathy-ecch.org/provings.html

http://www.vithoulkas.com/library_EN...article07.html

Hope this will help.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Thanks for the links, i try to answer my own questions to see, where there are still gaps
The second article is mainly about this point, procedure is give undiluted substance in non-poisonous dosis, select those provers, which react fastest/strongest and give them potencies for the real proving, so the proving is done with potentized substances.
Unfortunately the first article states shorly below the "Safety and Ethics":
An organised experiment involving the admitting of any potentised agent or crude material implies important ethical and safety issues.
The "or" implies that not always the undiluted substances is used in a proving as described in the other article and also, that some provings are done just with the undiluted substance.
Is there a difference in opinion about with what provings are done, is one wrong or did i misunderstand one or both?

Second article has nothing about this question and i do not realy understand first article on this:

"the aim of the collating stage is to synthesise the proving from many separate accounts into an "as if one person" composition.
all prover's separate sheets (as if accounts from different parts of one body) are put together."

I understand this, as every sypton that any prover experienced(and cannot be explained otherwise) is added to the "proving picture" of the remedy.

This would mean that the remedy of my example above, would be optimal, if a patient suffered headache and fever and dizziness and stomach problem(identical to the one in the proving). Or would it be weighted in some way, e.g. it should be a strong fever and only light/seldom dizziness?

Carn

I'm still hoping someone can help me finding answers to my questions.
Thanks,
Carn