Dear list members
In studying the Medicinal Solutions (Water Potencies) lately I have run into
a theoretical problem I can’t solve. I wondered if there is anybody out
there who might be able to help me.
One of the principles behind the workings of the Water Potencies is that
this method of prescribing is more gentle for the patient. By diluting the
dose the patient, especially the more sensitive patient, is better able to
tolerate the energy contained in the remedy, and will have less chance of an
aggravation.
To me this seems to be in direct contradiction to the fact that in general a
higher potency has more chance of aggravation. By stirring the water
solution the potency is raised slightly, according to the theory, so this
means that we will have a higher potency, not just a further dilution.
So in short my question is as follows:
Why is it that in some cases diluting and stirring is making a weaker
medicine (= a more gentle medicine), and in other cases diluting and
succussing is making a stronger medicine (=less gentle with more chance of
aggravation)
David Little says:” With the medicinal solution he felt he now had the means
to control the power of the ultra high potencies” So how is this supposed to
work?
He also mentions that diluting the remedy further is adjusting the potency
in a downward direction.
What is the big difference between stirring or succussing a few times,
versus succussing more times so that in the first case the potency goes in a
downward direction and in the second in an upward direction.
I really do want to understand this, and it frustrates me that I don’t seem
to be able to get my head around it. In David Little’s article “HAHNEMANN'S
ADVANCED METHODS” there is an excellent description of the medicinal
solutions, but I don’t think it answers the above questions.
In the quotes from Hahnemann in the above article there is mention of the
number of nerves touched by a dry globule on the one hand and the medicinal
solution on the other hand. In my understanding of homoeopathy as a subtle
energy medicine, this does not seem to be a valid description of the
(energetic) working of a remedy. Anybody got any ideas on that?
Another, related question is:
Why does the increase of the dilution rate in LM potencies have such an
enormous influence on the strength of the remedy (i.e. a deeper effect than
the equivalent remedy in C potency) and why is it gentler? Is there a
theoretical link between the rate of dilution and the depth of working of
the remedy, and if answered confirmative, has anybody ever tried higher
dilution rates (1:1000; 1: 100,000; 1:1,000,000 etc.) and with what sort of
results?
Kind regards,
Jon van Hoffen
Medicinal Solutions
-
Jan Klüssendorf
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Medicinal Solutions
Hi John,
Some *very* interesting questions indeed, which I have to admit have
confused me as well for a long time and I don't know if the answers I have
given myself indeed satisfy.
About the first question:
I think there is indeed a huge difference between succussing and stirring.
The former *potensializes* the added water molecules and transforms them
into new even stronger medicine, the latter merely dilutes the original
medication with the added water molecules. That's how I understand this
difference. I don't know if that's a fact but that indeed could be the only
explanation how this functions rational understandable within the
H-paradigm.
With regard to your second question:
With the increase of the dilution rate in LM potencies as opposed to the
increase in dilution rate in C and even more in D (or X)-potencies, there is
(with the former) more 'dilution' so to speak (more added water) and less
succussing, which might be the explanation why LM's are so much more gentle
in their action without losing their healing power and which dosing can
easier and quicker be repeated..
I would guess that if instead of using a 1/50.000 scale (= LM), as you ask
yourself, one would use a 1/100.000 scale or even a 1/1.000.000 scale
(always followed by proper succussing of course) they all still would
contain/keep their 'healing' power, but it would become lesser and lesser
with each higher scale. And I wouldn't be surprised if at a certain scale
(maybe already at 1/1.000.000, or higher) the healing power wouldn't be
there anymore because of a too high dilution IN ONE STEP.
And I'm convinced that it was exactly that what Hahnemann has been
experimenting with for years when, before arriving and concluding at his
ML-scale as the OPTIMUM, between healing power and 'tenderness'.
Just my 2 cents.
Jan
Some *very* interesting questions indeed, which I have to admit have
confused me as well for a long time and I don't know if the answers I have
given myself indeed satisfy.
About the first question:
I think there is indeed a huge difference between succussing and stirring.
The former *potensializes* the added water molecules and transforms them
into new even stronger medicine, the latter merely dilutes the original
medication with the added water molecules. That's how I understand this
difference. I don't know if that's a fact but that indeed could be the only
explanation how this functions rational understandable within the
H-paradigm.
With regard to your second question:
With the increase of the dilution rate in LM potencies as opposed to the
increase in dilution rate in C and even more in D (or X)-potencies, there is
(with the former) more 'dilution' so to speak (more added water) and less
succussing, which might be the explanation why LM's are so much more gentle
in their action without losing their healing power and which dosing can
easier and quicker be repeated..
I would guess that if instead of using a 1/50.000 scale (= LM), as you ask
yourself, one would use a 1/100.000 scale or even a 1/1.000.000 scale
(always followed by proper succussing of course) they all still would
contain/keep their 'healing' power, but it would become lesser and lesser
with each higher scale. And I wouldn't be surprised if at a certain scale
(maybe already at 1/1.000.000, or higher) the healing power wouldn't be
there anymore because of a too high dilution IN ONE STEP.
And I'm convinced that it was exactly that what Hahnemann has been
experimenting with for years when, before arriving and concluding at his
ML-scale as the OPTIMUM, between healing power and 'tenderness'.
Just my 2 cents.
Jan
-
Arlene Kellman, DO
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Medicinal Solutions
Jon,
I am glad you brought up this topic as it is something I have been
reflecting on for a long time. I don't have any answers but would like
to share some personal experiences with water potencies.
The majority of my formal homeopathic training has been through two
schools in the United States. In both programs, the only mention I
recall of using liquid dilutions was in reference to LMs, which were
presented as a very small part of the curriculum, as most of the
instructors rarely used them. Over the past year, I began using LMs as a
trial to see if they would be more effective and more manageable in
treating patients with multiple serious diagnoses and especially those
maintained on allopathic medications that could not be stopped. I have
had a few good responses to LMs, but several severe aggravations with
the first dose.
One thing that has always bothered me about LMs is that they are not
diluted beyond Avogadro's number and therefore, in my mind, could
present toxicity issues, especially if given repeatedly. In fact, the LM
remedy that I gave that caused the worse aggravation with one dose was
Heloderma, which is made from the venom of the Gila Monster. Conversely,
I have periodically given C potencies in liquid dilution, and I can't
think of any case where this approach caused a significant aggravation.
Recently, I prepared a 12C remedy in water in a dropper bottle and
instructed the patient to succuss and dilute it according to the same
protocol as an LM. So far so good. The patient has had no aggravation of
her asthma or skin symptoms, and she is already responding positively to
the remedy despite continuing on numerous allopathic medications. From a
safety standpoint, I like the fact that a 12C solution is already
diluted beyond Avogadro's number and that the potency is low enough to
repeat frequently, if necessary, with low risk of aggravation.
I am interested to hear other practitioners' experiences with C
potencies in solution.
Sincerely,
Arlene
I am glad you brought up this topic as it is something I have been
reflecting on for a long time. I don't have any answers but would like
to share some personal experiences with water potencies.
The majority of my formal homeopathic training has been through two
schools in the United States. In both programs, the only mention I
recall of using liquid dilutions was in reference to LMs, which were
presented as a very small part of the curriculum, as most of the
instructors rarely used them. Over the past year, I began using LMs as a
trial to see if they would be more effective and more manageable in
treating patients with multiple serious diagnoses and especially those
maintained on allopathic medications that could not be stopped. I have
had a few good responses to LMs, but several severe aggravations with
the first dose.
One thing that has always bothered me about LMs is that they are not
diluted beyond Avogadro's number and therefore, in my mind, could
present toxicity issues, especially if given repeatedly. In fact, the LM
remedy that I gave that caused the worse aggravation with one dose was
Heloderma, which is made from the venom of the Gila Monster. Conversely,
I have periodically given C potencies in liquid dilution, and I can't
think of any case where this approach caused a significant aggravation.
Recently, I prepared a 12C remedy in water in a dropper bottle and
instructed the patient to succuss and dilute it according to the same
protocol as an LM. So far so good. The patient has had no aggravation of
her asthma or skin symptoms, and she is already responding positively to
the remedy despite continuing on numerous allopathic medications. From a
safety standpoint, I like the fact that a 12C solution is already
diluted beyond Avogadro's number and that the potency is low enough to
repeat frequently, if necessary, with low risk of aggravation.
I am interested to hear other practitioners' experiences with C
potencies in solution.
Sincerely,
Arlene
-
Rosemary Hyde
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:00 pm
Re: Medicinal Solutions
Hi, Arlene and others.
I've also used C potencies in aqueous solution quite a few times (as well as
often using LMs). I agree that there seems to be more risk of aggravation
with LMs, although the accepted wisdom is that they reduce the danger of
aggravation. I've had more patients react negatively (yes, very quickly,
like yours) to LMs. So I rarely start a case with an LM now. I'd rather
start with an aqueous 6c or 12 c, and gauge their reaction and their
sensitivity.
. My other gathering feeling about LMs is that they don't actually "finish"
chronic cases very well -- they leave the patient in limbo 90+% better than
they started, but not exactly cured. Has anyone else noticed this?
On the other hand, aqueous solutions of C potencies also act differently
than dry doses. For instance I just had a patient switch from what started
as an acute use of Acon pellets, for extreme anxiety, to an aqueous solution
of the same potency, since she continued to need the remedy. It's not her
constitutional treatment, and I didn't want to raise the potency
dramatically enough to interfere with the constitutional treatment. It was
fascinating to observe the effect. The aqueous solution of the remedy
continued to work effectively, but the patient experienced it very
differently. Where the action of the pellets was dramatic and immediate,
and a bit harsh, the action of the aqueous solution was about as rapid but
imperceptible -- gradual -- sort of sneaked up on the patient. So she said
that the anxiety had gone away but she hadn't felt it going, and therefore
she felt unsure about the remedy acting, even though it obviously had.
I know this sounds a bit confused. But that was exactly the reaction of the
patient. I found it fascinating.
It fascinated me as a possible insight into the confusion patients often
seem to feel about whether they're better or not after having been treated
with water potencies, even when they are much better, clearly and
dramatically. I think that the gentle action of the water potencies may well
lead to a sense of confusion about what happened because there was no
noticeable event when the remedy acted. In the big picture, I'm not so sure
this is a good thing, because it makes it very hard for patients to believe
that the remedy did anything and they are much more likely to conclude it
didn't and go on to try other modalities before the remedy has finished its
work.
Like Arlene, I'll be fascinated to learn others' experiences with these
different posologies.
Rosemary Hyde
I've also used C potencies in aqueous solution quite a few times (as well as
often using LMs). I agree that there seems to be more risk of aggravation
with LMs, although the accepted wisdom is that they reduce the danger of
aggravation. I've had more patients react negatively (yes, very quickly,
like yours) to LMs. So I rarely start a case with an LM now. I'd rather
start with an aqueous 6c or 12 c, and gauge their reaction and their
sensitivity.
. My other gathering feeling about LMs is that they don't actually "finish"
chronic cases very well -- they leave the patient in limbo 90+% better than
they started, but not exactly cured. Has anyone else noticed this?
On the other hand, aqueous solutions of C potencies also act differently
than dry doses. For instance I just had a patient switch from what started
as an acute use of Acon pellets, for extreme anxiety, to an aqueous solution
of the same potency, since she continued to need the remedy. It's not her
constitutional treatment, and I didn't want to raise the potency
dramatically enough to interfere with the constitutional treatment. It was
fascinating to observe the effect. The aqueous solution of the remedy
continued to work effectively, but the patient experienced it very
differently. Where the action of the pellets was dramatic and immediate,
and a bit harsh, the action of the aqueous solution was about as rapid but
imperceptible -- gradual -- sort of sneaked up on the patient. So she said
that the anxiety had gone away but she hadn't felt it going, and therefore
she felt unsure about the remedy acting, even though it obviously had.
I know this sounds a bit confused. But that was exactly the reaction of the
patient. I found it fascinating.
It fascinated me as a possible insight into the confusion patients often
seem to feel about whether they're better or not after having been treated
with water potencies, even when they are much better, clearly and
dramatically. I think that the gentle action of the water potencies may well
lead to a sense of confusion about what happened because there was no
noticeable event when the remedy acted. In the big picture, I'm not so sure
this is a good thing, because it makes it very hard for patients to believe
that the remedy did anything and they are much more likely to conclude it
didn't and go on to try other modalities before the remedy has finished its
work.
Like Arlene, I'll be fascinated to learn others' experiences with these
different posologies.
Rosemary Hyde
-
Dave Hartley
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:47 pm
Re: Medicinal Solutions
Hi Jan, John, list-
Diluting as in "liquid posology" is a different thing from
dilute-&-succuss-to-potentize.
The homeo-pharmaco-physics of the situation is going to be kinda
theoretical, but the *practical* application of liquid posology is Very Well
tested & documented.
Briefly, in theory borne out by practice; the succussion of the bottle of
remedy solution prior to each use is said to raise the dynamism .. very much
akin to *slight* raising of potency -for the reason of course, that as
Hahenemann observed and wrote, it is not as safe or effective to give the
remedy in the exact same degree of dynamization when repeating remedy *if &
as needed* to speed the cure, per Aphorism 246.
Stirring is gentler, but will still have a minute but similar effect, and is
used in cases of extreme sensitivity instead of succussion.
If you're taking a remedy in a potency that you have a definite positive
response from (susceptibility) & are using liquid posology, try succussing
real hard a dozen or more times prior to using. This should give you some
personal experience with the dynamization of the medicinal solution.
One practical difference between such dynamization & actual potentization,
is that the dynamization will be reduced within a short period of time - say
an hour or so --if you were to try this experiment once and use the remedy
solution immediately.. you are likely to experience minor aggravation
(similar aggravation - symptoms of the remedy) .. if you try the next time
and let the remedy solution sit for an hour after (excessive) succussion,
likely you will notice no negative effect.
There *is* a cumulative effect of such dynamizations which I think *must* be
thought of as a small incremental raising of potency. For this reason, if
we choose to give the LM01 in medicinal solution a second time after the
first remedy bottle has been depleted -- it is necessary to succuss the new
remedy bottle with the approximate cumulative total of succussions the
depleted one had received, and then *let it sit* for a few hours before
using... and then use normally, succussing or stirring before each use...
thus we assure that we are always giving a slightly different dynamization
of the remedy.
Hope these thoughts are useful to you - it is good to see discussion on
liquid posology / "water potency" / Hahnemann's "Advanced Methods" .. 5 -
6 years ago an early edition of David Little's H.A.M. was a much requested 6
part email series.. this actually was a part of the early impetus for his
website, to make the material accessible without needing to post & repost;
send & resend emails.
regards,
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240
Diluting as in "liquid posology" is a different thing from
dilute-&-succuss-to-potentize.
The homeo-pharmaco-physics of the situation is going to be kinda
theoretical, but the *practical* application of liquid posology is Very Well
tested & documented.
Briefly, in theory borne out by practice; the succussion of the bottle of
remedy solution prior to each use is said to raise the dynamism .. very much
akin to *slight* raising of potency -for the reason of course, that as
Hahenemann observed and wrote, it is not as safe or effective to give the
remedy in the exact same degree of dynamization when repeating remedy *if &
as needed* to speed the cure, per Aphorism 246.
Stirring is gentler, but will still have a minute but similar effect, and is
used in cases of extreme sensitivity instead of succussion.
If you're taking a remedy in a potency that you have a definite positive
response from (susceptibility) & are using liquid posology, try succussing
real hard a dozen or more times prior to using. This should give you some
personal experience with the dynamization of the medicinal solution.
One practical difference between such dynamization & actual potentization,
is that the dynamization will be reduced within a short period of time - say
an hour or so --if you were to try this experiment once and use the remedy
solution immediately.. you are likely to experience minor aggravation
(similar aggravation - symptoms of the remedy) .. if you try the next time
and let the remedy solution sit for an hour after (excessive) succussion,
likely you will notice no negative effect.
There *is* a cumulative effect of such dynamizations which I think *must* be
thought of as a small incremental raising of potency. For this reason, if
we choose to give the LM01 in medicinal solution a second time after the
first remedy bottle has been depleted -- it is necessary to succuss the new
remedy bottle with the approximate cumulative total of succussions the
depleted one had received, and then *let it sit* for a few hours before
using... and then use normally, succussing or stirring before each use...
thus we assure that we are always giving a slightly different dynamization
of the remedy.
Hope these thoughts are useful to you - it is good to see discussion on
liquid posology / "water potency" / Hahnemann's "Advanced Methods" .. 5 -
6 years ago an early edition of David Little's H.A.M. was a much requested 6
part email series.. this actually was a part of the early impetus for his
website, to make the material accessible without needing to post & repost;
send & resend emails.
regards,
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240
-
Natasha Pelech
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Medicinal Solutions
Dear all,
I am confused, by Arlene's comment about the LM's not being diluted beyond
Avogadro. As the LM is 1:50,000 I thought it would be well beyond (ie: less
than) a full molecule of the original substance. Therefore there would be no
chance of a problem with toxicity and the only potential problem would be
irresponsible usage of highly effective potentized remedies.
As for wet vs. dry potencies, in my education I have been taught both. I
use wet or dry potencies depending on the case and the number of repeat
"doses" that seem to be indicated by the particular case.
Am I wrong about the LM's?
Sincerely,
Natasha
I am confused, by Arlene's comment about the LM's not being diluted beyond
Avogadro. As the LM is 1:50,000 I thought it would be well beyond (ie: less
than) a full molecule of the original substance. Therefore there would be no
chance of a problem with toxicity and the only potential problem would be
irresponsible usage of highly effective potentized remedies.
As for wet vs. dry potencies, in my education I have been taught both. I
use wet or dry potencies depending on the case and the number of repeat
"doses" that seem to be indicated by the particular case.
Am I wrong about the LM's?
Sincerely,
Natasha
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Medicinal Solutions
I'd like to share the way I see it; it is an image, a conception, a way
to explain almost logically what I am doing...........
My conception of the action of remedies is one of information. The
remedy in itself does not do anything, it acts upon the physiology by
giving a template, an explanation, an example to our physiology as to
how it should act/react. In other words, a remedy is nothing more than a
computer program that has to be selected appropriately and activated
timely.
Now the potentisation process acts as expanding the information already
contained in the substance, but making it more easily available, like
opening files in Windows: they are there, but if you do not open them,
they will not work properly or at all, depending at what level in the
original Windows they are contained.
Same with a remedy: Silica has no action whatsoever in its pure form,
has a physiological action when ingested in food or herbal form through
plants like Equisetum, and a deeper action we all know when potentised.
A higher potency (i.e. diluted and succussed) would have more intensity,
penetrating deeper in our physiology (by physiology I include the
physical, mental emotional, spiritual levels).
The same intensity, diluted in water, would be "watered down" so its
application less "traumatic", same as when you drink whisky neat or with
water: the total amount is the same, you might collapse when it is neat
but be able to drink the whole amount when diluted and taken over time.
Stirring "modulates" the intensity very slightly, allowing the remedy to
keep the range of action intended at that level of potency but giving it
the opportunity to work through different angles of approach.
The way I see it........
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
to explain almost logically what I am doing...........
My conception of the action of remedies is one of information. The
remedy in itself does not do anything, it acts upon the physiology by
giving a template, an explanation, an example to our physiology as to
how it should act/react. In other words, a remedy is nothing more than a
computer program that has to be selected appropriately and activated
timely.
Now the potentisation process acts as expanding the information already
contained in the substance, but making it more easily available, like
opening files in Windows: they are there, but if you do not open them,
they will not work properly or at all, depending at what level in the
original Windows they are contained.
Same with a remedy: Silica has no action whatsoever in its pure form,
has a physiological action when ingested in food or herbal form through
plants like Equisetum, and a deeper action we all know when potentised.
A higher potency (i.e. diluted and succussed) would have more intensity,
penetrating deeper in our physiology (by physiology I include the
physical, mental emotional, spiritual levels).
The same intensity, diluted in water, would be "watered down" so its
application less "traumatic", same as when you drink whisky neat or with
water: the total amount is the same, you might collapse when it is neat
but be able to drink the whole amount when diluted and taken over time.
Stirring "modulates" the intensity very slightly, allowing the remedy to
keep the range of action intended at that level of potency but giving it
the opportunity to work through different angles of approach.
The way I see it........
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Re: Medicinal Solutions
Hi Natasha
From my resources it pans out as follows:
The 50 Millesimal Scale (LM)
LM1 = 1/50,000th part of the original drug
LM2 = 1/50,000th part of the 1st potency and so on.
Potency in this scale is denoted by 1,11,V,X, etc. or 0/1, 0/2, 0/5, 0/10
etc.
In this scale potency 0/2 is equivalent to 4C=8X (approx), 0/4 = 8c=16X and
so on.
Regards
Robyn
The ignorance of yesterday is the knowledge of today
which in turn becomes the ignorance of tomorrow
From my resources it pans out as follows:
The 50 Millesimal Scale (LM)
LM1 = 1/50,000th part of the original drug
LM2 = 1/50,000th part of the 1st potency and so on.
Potency in this scale is denoted by 1,11,V,X, etc. or 0/1, 0/2, 0/5, 0/10
etc.
In this scale potency 0/2 is equivalent to 4C=8X (approx), 0/4 = 8c=16X and
so on.
Regards
Robyn
The ignorance of yesterday is the knowledge of today
which in turn becomes the ignorance of tomorrow
-
Natasha Pelech
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Medicinal Solutions
Dear Robyn,
Hi! Thanks for the scale but I am familiar with it. However "comparable"
the LM's are to the C remedies, there is still a huge difference as the LM's
are diluted to 1:50,000 and the C's are 1:100.
C and X remedies that are potentized to above 12c/24x no longer have a full
molecule of the original substance left. Whereas remedies under the
12c/24x, while non-toxic, can contain a molecule.
But, where does this leave the LM's? The earlier poster seems to be under
the impression that LM's are not as diluted...(?) saying ----- "One thing
that has always bothered me about LM's is that they are not diluted beyond
Avogadro's number and therefore, in my mind, could present toxicity issues,
especially if given repeatedly. In fact, the LM remedy that I gave that
caused the worse aggravation with one dose " -----
I see this as a problem of a potentially incorrect remedy or just a strong
reaction and not an issue of "toxicity", for LM's are 1:50,000.... as in
very very diluted.
Comments?
Sincerely,
Natasha
PS: My colleague uses the LM's often and finds them to be very gentle.
Hi! Thanks for the scale but I am familiar with it. However "comparable"
the LM's are to the C remedies, there is still a huge difference as the LM's
are diluted to 1:50,000 and the C's are 1:100.
C and X remedies that are potentized to above 12c/24x no longer have a full
molecule of the original substance left. Whereas remedies under the
12c/24x, while non-toxic, can contain a molecule.
But, where does this leave the LM's? The earlier poster seems to be under
the impression that LM's are not as diluted...(?) saying ----- "One thing
that has always bothered me about LM's is that they are not diluted beyond
Avogadro's number and therefore, in my mind, could present toxicity issues,
especially if given repeatedly. In fact, the LM remedy that I gave that
caused the worse aggravation with one dose " -----
I see this as a problem of a potentially incorrect remedy or just a strong
reaction and not an issue of "toxicity", for LM's are 1:50,000.... as in
very very diluted.
Comments?
Sincerely,
Natasha
PS: My colleague uses the LM's often and finds them to be very gentle.
Re: Medicinal Solutions
Natasha, did you miss this part of my post?
and
I think this tells you what you want to know!
Robyn
The ignorance of yesterday is the knowledge of today
which in turn becomes the ignorance of tomorrow
and
I think this tells you what you want to know!
Robyn
The ignorance of yesterday is the knowledge of today
which in turn becomes the ignorance of tomorrow