Francine,
No. Please explain. What controls? People have idiosyncracies.
If they are screened beforehand for any symptoms like that. If they identify them beforehand, making them valid to use if they appear during the proving. Or, people with idiosyncracies excluded.
I see the need for pilot runs anyway, just by the Homeopaths to test the quality of their procedures and medicines.
They would also identify the provers most useful to the "Real" run.
Once all that sorted out, modify expt for DBPC.
Returning to Aph 117, there is likely to be a problem trying to exclude people with idiosyncracies, as these may be the symptoms most important (peculiar) to the medicine.
No. Please explain. What controls? People have idiosyncracies.
If they are screened beforehand for any symptoms like that. If they identify them beforehand, making them valid to use if they appear during the proving. Or, people with idiosyncracies excluded.
I see the need for pilot runs anyway, just by the Homeopaths to test the quality of their procedures and medicines.
They would also identify the provers most useful to the "Real" run.
Once all that sorted out, modify expt for DBPC.
Returning to Aph 117, there is likely to be a problem trying to exclude people with idiosyncracies, as these may be the symptoms most important (peculiar) to the medicine.
117: Regarding symptoms of the medicine appearing in very few provers; these provers have idiosyncrasies in their physical disposition that reveal the symptom. Although the symptom does not APPEAR in the other provers, it IS exerting an influence - this is shown by the fact that, when the medicine is used on the sick, this symptom can be seen to be active in the total picture.
Last edited: