Medicinal Solutions

[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

[Rosemary Hyde]

Hi, Shannon.

Interesting comment about "false positives" with LMs. I was describing,
though, situations where someone has responded very very positively to LM
potencies, going up the scale and really resonating with it, but that last
one or two percent just kind of hangs on indefinitely.It doesn't look or
feel like a "false positive," somehow. The effect is durable, too -- the
improvement doesn't relapse after the individual stops taking the LM remedy.
Interesting.

In fact, thinking about it, I haven't seen any real "false positives" when
I've used LMs -- situations where the person starts to improve and then
stops. Well -- yes, now I remember one. I've had a number of cases, though
where I was clearly using the wrong remedy -- not aggravations except with a
couple of really sensitive individuals -- just no response. The
aggravations were extremely short-lived, the way they say LMs are supposed
to act.

For what it's worth....

Rosemary

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Watering down and stirring:

You dilute the potency and take a lesser amount of it while its
intensity has been changed somewhat by the stirring; for example instead
of taking 1 globule of a 30C, you take 1/20 of a 30.00001 C.
Less quantity, almost same intensity therefore milder action allowing
milder answer and repetition.
........the only whisky I use is to prepare remedies, )

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

[Gaby Rottler]

Hi Jon,
Not exactly.
We have to take into account the different ratios.

Let's take 30C. In early years, Hahnemann had recommended to use only 2
strokes to raise the potency to the next step. In the 2nd ed. of the CD,
however, he recommends 10 succussions again because, by using the
medicinal solution with 7 to 20 table-spoons of water, he was able to
diminish the aggravations which were caused by the strength of the
succussions, simply by splitting the dose.
On December 19, 1838 he writes in the foreword 'Dilutions and
potencies':

"Who prevents the preparer of the medicines (this always ought to be the
homoeopathic physician himself; he himself ought to forge and whet his
weapons against diseases) - who prevents him, in preparing a potency,
from giving 10, 20, 50 and more succussive strokes against a somewhat
hard, elastic body to every vial containing one drop of the lower
potency with 99 drops of alcohol, so as to obtain strong potencies? This
would be vastly more effective than giving only a few nerveless
succussive strokes, which will produce little more than dilution, which
ought not to be the case."
....
"Then we obtain, already in the fiftieth potency, (...) of which every
lower [potency] is dynamized with the same number of succusive strokes,
medicines of the most penetrating efficacy, so that every minute pellet
moistened with it, after being dissolved in much water, can and must be
taken in small parts, if we do not wish to produce too violent an action
with sensitive patients, that such a preparation had developped almost
all the properties latent in the remedial substance, which only thus,
which only then could come into full activity."

[Translation Gaby Rottler; slightly differing from the Jain's edition]

The succussions used for dynamizations - 10 strokes in C-potencies, 100
strokes in LM-potencies - need a ratio of 1:100 of be effective and
raise the potency to the next step. In LM-potencies, the violence of the
strokes is mitigated/softened by using another carrier afterwards, by
adding one drop of this dynamic solution to 500 globs.

When preparing a medicinal solution, you add 1 glob. to a certain amount
of water (not a water/alcohol mixture!).
The ratio might be 1 glob. to 80 ml - 200 ml of water, which could be
roughly calculated a

ratio of 1:258064 !!!! when using 80 ml of water.

(Calculation: 1 Gran is 62 mg; 80 ml = 80g = 1290 Gran; Hahnemann
preferred globules, 200 (300; 100) of which weighed 1 Gran).

So, by giving one glob. of a 30C or LM3 into 80 ml of water you have a
ratio of

1 part remedial substance : 250.000 parts of carrier (=water).

With a few strokes you definitely cannot raise this to another potency,
as the amount of substance will not interact sufficiently with such a
quantity of water.

Anyone who has done dynamizations himself, will see and feel the
difference of giving 100 strokes to a small vial containing 100 or 101
drops, and the process of shaking a large vial which contains 4 to 8 oz.
of fluid, where one drop or 1 globules was added.

The latter is really only a slight change/modification in the
dynamization (as Hahnemann himself says).

Jenichen's potencies demonstrate clearly, that the power witch which the
succussions were made,sttrongly influence the efficacy of the remedies.
Groß writes in 1845 (Stapf'Archiv), that he had found Jenichen's
potencies so strong and effective, that he nearly never needed repeating
them "as one dose did everything, what the remedy was able to do, while
the preparations of others according to my own experiences can be
repeated very well." This statement was confirmed by Stapf.
They regarded other's preparations as weaker as Jenichen's potencies.

Hering wrote several times about the influences of masses and carriers,
talking about the various ratios of 1:10, 1:100, 1:1000 and the effects
on the medicines. He said, the intensity of the effect is indirectly
proportional to the mass of the carrier, i.e. potencies prepared with
1:10 have stronger effects than potencies prepared with 1:1000.
Also this ratio should be seen in the preparation the patient receives:
lower ratio - lower doses of water, higher ratio - larger quantities of
water. ['Einfluss der Massen' (Influence of masses), COR, 1835].

I hope this sheds on light on the matter of potentization and simple
dilution.

All the best,

Gaby

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de

http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Shannon Nelson]

on 11/23/02 11:52 PM, Jon van Hoffen at seamagic@tpg.com.au wrote:
???
On the one hand, when you suadd LM solution from your stock bottle (which
you have just succussed) to the plain water just prior to dosing, you stir
briefly, for purpose of mixing the potentized in with the unpotentized.
This does not (significantly?) raise the potency, as that has already been
done, but succussion to the bottle.

On the other hand, when you have a cup/jar/bottle from which you will be
taking repeated doses, you are supposed to *succuss* that cup/jar/bottle
prior to each dose, *not* merely stir it. At least, this has been my
understanding.

Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks, Rosemary,
I haven't used LMs enough to have an opinion re "false positives", so am
interested in others' experience!

So when you've gotten your pts on LMs to "almost" cured, have you then been
able to complete that with high potencies, or what's happened? (Any
possibility that a different remedy is needed to finish them up? And how
common would you say that's been in your experience??)

Shannon
on 11/24/02 1:11 AM, Rosemary Hyde at rosemaryhyde@mindspring.com wrote:

[Piet Guijt]

Rosemary wrote:

"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?

Hello Rosemary, all,

Yes, I have.
First of all a LM can't really be compared with a certain C potency.
There is more dilution in a LM and this is compensated by more 100 powerful strokes instead of 2 or 10 shakes with the C.
The result is a much faster dynamic development of the remedy. So with an amount of dilutionsteps which can be compared with a low C we have a dynamic developement which can be compared with a high C.
LM are in one way LOW and in the other HIGH compared to C.
Because of the LOW aspect the LM are not confronting to the patient, because of low information level.
With C we can adjust the potency to the intensity of the Central Disturbance, the more clearer the picture and the better the vitality is, the more specific and higher the information of the C potency must be for the optimal reaction.
With the LM's we ignore this and start with the 'lowest potencies'.
(Because of the HIGH dynamic aspects (even it is on low information level) of LM they can aggravate in case a deep remedy is given to a weak, sensitive patient, even the mild potency stirrs up, penetrates dynamicly to much at a time here.)
My experience is that when the vitality is improved, it is better, more effective to give remedies with a 'high information level' that means the higher C's.
After a fading reactie to the LM's, say good reaction with LM1, LM2, LM3 and then LM4 less reaction, LM6 again a good reaction, I jump to C200,......1M, 10M, 50M, CM, and sometimes even DM of the same remedy with good results. In this way the high C's are much deeper acting medicine.
Maybe when we had LM200, LM1000 etc we could finish al cases with LM, but I agree with Rosemary they must be complemented with higher C's.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Maria Bohle]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 13:10:12 -0700
From: "Arlene Kellman, DO"
Subject: Re: Medicinal Solutions
Arlene Wrote:

LMs, which were
presented as a very small part of the curriculum, as most of the
instructors rarely used them.

Maria Writes:
Yes this seems to be the case. I learned to use LMs from David
Little when I first started to practice.
I use them about 80% of the time. A majority of my clients are
overdosed on allo meds, or have a life to attend to, and I find the
ability to lessen the aggravation by using LMs to be convenient and
gentle.

I too, have had some aggravations with this potency level, I have
totally abandoned using Carcinosin in LM potencies because it did
aggravate badly with several cases (and I no longer use that remedy under
a 200C) but with that exception, I use the LM remedies consistantly.

See David Little's website (www.similimum.com) for his ART (automatic
reflex testing) as well as his writings on the LM potency. He is the
most knowledgeable person I know with that potency level. ART eye
technique has saved me many, many times and aided me in potency selection
- and sometimes in remedy selection (don't take this wrong, I do not use
this technique to 'find' the remedy, just to refine a close match, but
mostly to help with the potency).

Also, as time goes on, I further and further dilute my initial Rx, I used
to start with (8 ounce medicinal solution bottle with 6 ounces of water)
10 shakes, 1 tsp of the solution in 4 ounces of water, tsp doses, while
now I am more apt to start with 4 shakes and 1 tsp in 6 ounces of water.
But then again, I now start at higher than LM 1 more frequently and do
much less dose repitition.
Arlene wrote:
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.
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.

I am interested to hear other practitioners' experiences with C
potencies in solution.
Maria writes:

Wonderful! I like the aqueous dilutions and rarely give a dry
dose any more.
There is certainly a place for using C and even X potencies in solution.
Actually I believe it
is more forgiving of overdose also. I encourage my students to consider
using their remedies in water.

It is also very cost effective on your home pharmacy. One little pill
potentises a whole remedy bottle.

Warmly,

Maria

[Jon van Hoffen]

Thank you to all who responded to my query.

I think the whole concept is getting clearer for me.
Gaby writes:
"The succussions used for dynamizations - 10 strokes in C-potencies, 100
strokes in LM-potencies - need a ratio of 1:100 of be effective and
raise the potency to the next step. In LM-potencies, the violence of the
strokes is mitigated/softened by using another carrier afterwards, by
adding one drop of this dynamic solution to 500 globs."

When thinking about this last night I realised that this might also be why
Hahnemann used to refer to the different methods as 'medicaments au globule'
and 'medicament a la goute', because this name reflects the essential
difference between the two methods.

Thanks to all others who contributed. All your efforts are sincerely
appreciated.

Jon van Hoffen

[Shannon Nelson]

on 11/24/02 4:28 PM, Jon van Hoffen at seamagic@tpg.com.au wrote:
It's not that you need the ratio of 1:100 (or 1:99) to be *effective*, but
merely you need that ratio in order to raise in by one *centesesimal*
degree. A remedy can be effective done with any ol' ratio, but in that case
you have no convenient way to *meausre and describe* its potency, which adds
another level of uncertainty to your results.

Shannon