Page 13 - Winter 24-25

missing the impulse to kill.
Therapy: Hyoscyamus C200 double dose 3 pills on 2 following days, report again after 1 month
Follow up
4 weeks (November 2024):
“dog is much more relaxed, does not follow me by every step, kept lying on the sofa when there were artificial fireworks in the neighborhood, he did not react at all. Much calmer when visitors came and when we met dogs on the walks. Does not bite or lick his leg anymore. No coughing or sneezing”.
Therapy: nothing, wait! In case of an aggravation give a single dose.
After two and a half months (January 2025):
“dog continues absolutely fine. New Year’s eve without any problems, relaxed with other dogs, no limping any more, wound completely good”.
Conclusion
Sometimes homeopathy works like a miracle and even severe emotional problems can be addressed with single doses of not very high potencies that don’t even need regular repetition.
Thoughts and experiences on
Homeopathic Provings
Stefan Kohlrausch, Spain
Realising there is so much missing information in homeopathic literature, MM and Repertories and experiencing the fact that the so-called polychrests have been wrongly elevated to homeopathic heaven, the proving of old and new remedies is one of the most urgent aims of homeopathic research.
The number of remedies known to date probably represent only a fraction of the simile, and many of the remedies listed in the MM, have not been tested at all, or only to a limited extent. Some are based exclusively on the description of symptoms of poisoning, others of symptoms of a ‘cured’ patient. Many remedies were only tested by a single candidate and found their way into the MM. How reliable and complete can such a trial be?
A question that became more and more prominent with the experience of supervising many provings is: how can polychrests have over 10,000 entries in the repertory, although in a good Proving trail with 30 provers only about 300-600 symptoms can be evaluated? Famous Proving Supervisors like Jeremy Sherr or Frans Vermeulen or Karl Josef Müller have confirmed my experience.
If you control entries into the repertory by looking at the authors, it is evident, that some of the recent ones, add in rubrics not just one remedy but the whole remedy family whose members have not been proven.
Are symptoms from patients included into the repertory just because a remedy has brought about a ‘cure’ (what is that?) or maybe even only a palliation to a patient?
What if the administered remedy was not the correct simillimum but the symptoms of the patient have been added to the list of symptoms of the remedy? The more often a supposedly correct
remedy, often polychrests, is prescribed, the more often incorrect additions will be made.
Deletions of entries hardly ever occur for various reasons. Therefore, Repertorising can be misleading or even dangerous. Every result of the repertorisation has to be evaluated with the Materia Medica.
Blind proving
It does not really need to be mentioned that a proving with a substance known to the prover is forbidden due to the danger of a lack of objectivity. This can be seen in some modern non blind dream or meditation provings when most of the volunteers report symptoms like flying, eggs or feathers when proving a bird remedy.
The only exception from blind proving is self-testing if the ability for very critical self-observation exists.
Painting from 1857 by Alexander Beydeman