Medicinal Solutions

[Jon van Hoffen]

Dear Robyn/Natascha,

The LM potencies start with a 3C trituration, which is diluted 1 in 500 (1
grain in 500 drops), one drop of this into 100 drops which is succussed.
This produces LM0/1. So the first LM is 1 in 100x100x100x500x100 = 1 in
50,000,000,000 (1 in 5x 10.10) .
This is taken in dilution by the patient (1 drop on 500 pellets, one pellet
dilute in water. So the final dilution the patient receives is LM01 x 1 in
500 (pellet) x 1 in 1575(1 drop in 105 mL) divided by 5(1 teaspoon of 105
mL).
So the final dilution the patient receives is 1 in 5 x 10.10 x 500 x1575 / 5
is appr. 8 x 10.15, whichis still considerably below Avogadro's 9 about 1 x
10.24.
I am open to improvements in this calculation.

Jon van Hoffen

[Dave Hartley]

Hi Natasha,

Avogadro's # is 6.022 x 10^23 (appoximately 6 followed by 23 zeroes)
LM starts with 3c which is 10^6, then multiplies by 5 x 10^5, resulting in
5 X 10^11
-somewhere around the square root of Avogadro's number if I've done the math
right.

Still, this seems like dilution way beyond what would be needed to insure no
biochemical toxicity... in the lower ranges of parts-per-billion.. where I'd
be OK with trying a proving of Botulin, thought mebbe not Plutonium..

Liquid posology is my preference, whether using C potency or LM.
Then again, I am not seeing people other than those who are at least
somewhat committed to (and in need of) chronic treatment .. I'd have no
qualms about 'dry' dose in emergency, or in some sort of bush-medicine
setting, where communication/compliance might be at issue, or where some
sort of small container with a lid (anything!) is not available.

Aggravations are caused by TOO MUCH medicinal impact on VF; either thru too
high a potency or too large a dose. (this will hold true to some extent
regardless of whether similar (homeopathic) aggravation (simillimum or
near-simillimum) or dis-similar aggravation (wrong remedy)

We may roughly form an equation, where [potency x (size of dose)] may be
successfully adjusted within the domain of sensitivity by varying (size of
dose) .. using the medicinal solution, where (size of dose) is *infinitely*
variable.

Set against a background of individual sensitivity, which varies more or
less along a 1:1000 scale from least to most sensitive, LM's in my
experience and according to what I've otherwise heard/read/etc have only
the slightest propensity to aggravate beyond what a 30c might.

The nearer your simillimum, the greater is the importance of posology; with
sensitivity impacting this 'equation' as an exponential factor (1:1000)

Translated into plain English, this means that a good Rx wtih ill considered
posology *WILL* aggravate a certain percentage of cases -turning this
thought inside out gives my rule of practice (do no harm) -consider posology
carefully, in order that you may practically eliminate aggravation.

The 1st dose could be thought of a little like pregnancy, a magical time
when the raw forces of creation work unseen, with outcomes/side-effects yet
unknowable ... and this is the time for us to respect the creative force
(VF) by exercising, observing, drawing-out 'pregnant pause' in our
consideration of the effects of this 1st dose.

If we follow the "wait & watch" admonition carefully here, we will be able
to observe some leading-symptom-reactions which will be indicative of our
case.. such that these indications may be very reliably used to manage the
case properly, redosing *as needed* to maintain curative momentum required
to "speed the cure" (H suggests 1/3 or 1/4 of the time required by 'proper
dry dose' wait-til-relapse case management).

We need to be able to maintain the optimal medicinal dosing to ensure
highest level of healing reaction which may be supported without
aggravation.
This is truly application of artfulness in homeopathy.

regards,

Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

[Dave Hartley]

Hi Robyn,

LM is 1:50,000 dilution ratio, yes, BUT

LM01 is 1:50,000 dilution of 3c triturate...
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

[Robyn]

>LM is 1:50,000 dilution ratio, yes, BUT
my post
and

Hi Dave
The resource from which my post was taken is HOMOEOPATHIC PHARMACY by Dr.
D.D. Banerjee, page 49.

So, is what he has written in his text incorrect?

Robyn

The ignorance of yesterday is the knowledge of today
which in turn becomes the ignorance of tomorrow

[Dave Hartley]

Hi Robyn,

this part of your post
is dead wrong; as stated:
LM01 is 1:50,000 dilution of 3c triturate

math:
3C is 10^6
4C is 10^8 (5c is 10^10, and so on)
LM01 is 5x10^10 [(10^6)x(5x10^4)]

So, yes, according to my math (not my strongest suit, admittedly.. I think I
erroneously mentioned LM01 in a previous post as 5x10^11)
-it appear that your quote
is also QUITE far off.

.. and, it should be always remembered (and never forgot
that potency is developed by dilution AND succussion, in ways we know naught
the all of; so it is not only the number of naughts which is significant in
this knotty question..
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

[Peter Quenter]

Hello Natasha - and all -

seems to be under
saying ----- "One thing
not diluted beyond
toxicity issues,
that I gave that

never done the math myself on this ...
for two reasons, I guess :
- I quite assume that walking across the rush-hour
intersection down-town even just once
will have me inhale more molecules of Arsenic and Mercury
and all than I would take from a dozen doses of either LM 01
or LM 02 or 5c or 6c or there-or-where-abouts ....

- it just so happened that Hahnemanns's little poppy-seed
size pellets had exactly that, a certain size -
his one drop of remedy-tincture H2O-alc would just so happen
to wet a certain number of those tiny pellets -

A properly-Hahnemannian made LM potency would have been
triturated to 3c (1: 1.000.000), then diluted by 1 :: 500
drops, then then further 1 : 100 to make LM 01 -
and then on from there
(# 270)

certainly, Avogadro's number is reached a little *sooner*
than in c scale dilution - no ... ?!?
correct me if I have a left-brain glitch here ...

Also, I kind of strongly doubt that the number 50.000 has
any mystical/magical/symbolic/philosophical/theoretical/or
even principal or practical significance or qualities -

Sure, we can always argue that *everything* has
significance -
yet, in actual practice would you really care whether the
remedy was made as a 48.847 scale dilution, or a 50.000
dilution scale or
50.030 scale .... ?!?!
and how subtle perceptive observers would we have to be in
order to actually be able to reliably notice a difference
even it were only 40.000 or 35.000 .... ?

I may feel assured that somewhere there may be a border
between more or less or differently effective
dilution-numbers ;
still, more likely than not will it be a rather vague and
broad border, with lots of room for the old
"depends-on-the-individual-case' kind of variables -

Anyone up to starting their own system of dilution-scales
and recording cases for future generations of homoeopaths
....

best
peter

[Shannon Nelson]

LM 2 is equivalent to 4C *only* in the area of dilution, *not* (apparently)
in the area of effect. "Molecules per liter" is not the proper measure of
"potency"!

on 11/23/02 6:08 PM, Robyn at folco@tpg.com.au wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

I too have seen the worst aggravations of all with LM doses.
All that was needed to stop it happening, tho, was to follow David Little's
much more conservative dosing (cut his size of dose by 2/3, and frequency by
3/4!).

Which strongly reinforces my impression that LMs are *much* more
dose-sensitive than Cs are. (This same patient has had Cs in all sorts of
dosage sizes, with never any significant aggravation, but those too-large LM
doses, wow, had him just about climbing the walls!)

Shannon
on 11/23/02 10:35 PM, Peter Quenter at bihcdn@superaje.com wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Rosemary,

One of my school lecturers years back said that in her experience, LMs were
more prone to "false positives" than high potencies. I.e., where you get
initial good response, but it does not carry all the way thru, and you
sooner or later have to find a better fit. I wonder whether this could have
anything to do with what you meant by not finishing a case?

She compared them in *this* respect (only) to low potencies, where you can
use a "sorta close" remedy to palliate for a while, whereas a high potency
of the same remedy would do nothing. (And this fits well with my
experience!)
Shannon
on 11/23/02 6:49 PM, Rosemary Hyde at rosemaryhyde@mindspring.com wrote:

[Jon van Hoffen]

Thanks to everyone taking the trouble trying to enlighten me.
Jan K. wrote

only

This was my first thought too, but it seems contradictory to the theory that
the stirring of the medical solution brings it into a slightly higher
potency. The fact that the potency is changed slightly is one of the
cornerstones of the medicinal solution, so it is more than merely a
dilution. Before giving the next dose from a medicinal solution the bottle
is succussed a few times, which certainly would give the same potentising
effect succussing would achieve with a non medicinal solution.
is
gentle
The last two sentences seem to contradict what your are saying in the
previous sentence: In the first sentence you say that the LMs don’t loose
their healing power and in the second that increase in dilution would cause
a decrease in healing power.
Isali wrote

reflect
we go higher
the
terrain and a

I fail to see WHY the LM’s work on a deeper level than the other potency
scales. LM’s are said to be higher energy medicines, but my question was how
that is possible, why the greater dilution rate has such a big influence.
My intention
terrain of the
(SNIP)
intention is
automatic life

Thank you for going to the trouble to give these examples, but, again,
examples only give an indication of the more practical side. I have no doubt
that you, and others find that LM’s work well on the mental level (as many
other practitioners find with using high C- potency) , but my question is
why?

(Thanks BTW Isali, for writing in a more readable way. Normally I either don
’t understand at all what you are saying, or only after a number of
readings, but this time I (think I) understood your mail after reading it
only twice! )

Dave H. wrote:
Well

Please enlighten us Dave. It is exactly the theoretical side I’m interested
in. I’m aware of the practical application of the liquid posology (or most
of it, as some other reactions seem to indicate some problems with possible
aggravations), but I am struggling with the theoretical side of it.
6

Yes, thanks Dave. It is indeed useful, but I would still like to be able to
understand why things work as they work. I have read most of what David
Little put on the web, but it failed to answer the questions I raised in my
original mail. I still hope that you or somebody else on the list will be
able to answer these questions.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg wrote:
Interesting thoughts. But in what way does “watering down” differ from
potentising, especially when you succuss or stir a number of times after
dilution.
Even if the effect only lasts for a short time, as Dave suggests, there
still is this slightly higher potency, of which you ingest more than a few
drops if you take a spoonful. To be honest, the analogy with whiskey does
not make much sense to me: For a material dose of self medication this
theory might hold true, but for a homoeopathic medicine, diluted and
succussed a few times this analogy does not hold (or do you take your
whiskey in homoeopathic doses? )

Kind regards to all.

Jon van Hoffen