potency & dosage

[isali]

Dave suggests that in favor of pursuing a generic rule, learned in an academic circumstance should be set aside in favor of "assessing individual sensitivity; then selecting potency appropriate to
sensitivity vs. severity of complaint." And further that, "I think it reasonable to assume that 1M might be gentle in comparison to10M". Ultimately he concludes, "What is important is matching the dynamic of the remedy with what is needed in your individual case."

And Rochelle asserts that "A 200 works faster than a 1M!!"

Robyn shares with us an instruction from,
"Parimal Banerji has found that Arn 3c in repeated doses is the potency that
acts best when the injury is very recent and the symptoms are very acute
and painful. He says that "when the acute symptoms of the injury are not
there, then Arn. 3 is much less effective than Arn. 200" ie., the effects
of an injury sustained long ago...." and robyn continues,...
"without needing to take into consideration the sensitivity or susceptibility of the
patient, then what kind of scholar would I be to stick to what i have been
taught, without trying this approach, and assessing the outcome (as Dave
did mention)?"

There is then the further assertion by Robyn that," Wouldn't it be nice, if the overwhelming clinical evidence of some practitioners led to the easy selection of a remedy and potency without
having to worry about sensitivity and susceptibility?"

She concludes with,
"We should leave the "How does the diluted remedy work" questions to the
physicists and chemists and get on with treating people in a direct and
successful manner."

Finrod expresses the idea that, "There is a need to match the patient with the potency...I think there is a general rule (based on the provings) that the higher one goes in potency the greater the effect on mental and emotional levels."

I asked originally, "Would you think it a fair inquiry to wonder if the higher potency would
attend to find reflection in a different component of functional medicine
and/or tissue reflection than a lower potency?"

The dynamics, the energetic presentation of all Life, renders it an impossibility to render an assessment, a diagnosis, in the absence of the elements of sensitivity & susceptibility. Such application is performed by allopathy and has demonstrated failure.

The question of 'how' things work stands in contrast to the 'why' things work. I would suggest that 'why' is asked by the allopath and 'how' is asked by homeopathy and oriental medicine. Why seeks to obtain through linear analysis an 'answer', while how seeks to obtain an indentified 'response'. An answer is fixed and conveys the feeling of being static, while a response conveys the feeling of a more fluid environment of possibility.

The practice of healthcare is not easy because there is no one path to pursue. There are many many choices and whatever protocol is chosen must be based upon some diagnosis. A diagnostic assessment must be based not merely upon clinical findings, rather, upon rules. These rules find their foundation upon much clinical observation from which some of our colleagues have generated theory and/or principles that allow the rest of us to use as guiding lights along our paths as physicians.

I think that finrod got it right too in saying better than I that potency has some relationship in affecting the terrain between the body and the mind. In TCM we refer to this as the three treasures, the mind, the chi(VF), and the body.

Allopathy has defined functional medicine in a manner that address identifiable terrains of tissue of the body, and I would suggest that this too is a venue that allows for a translucent sifting of homeopathy, as in sensitivity and susceptibility.

Remedies are not stronger or weaker in the absence of assessing sensitivity and susceptibility, and protocol cannot find standing in the absence of a diagnosis which interprets the terrain affected and in what manner.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[isali]

I am a simpleton......... must be, because whenever I need to use
Arnica, I grab the first bottle I can put my hands on, use it and it has
ALWAYS, without a single exception, worked very well; and I happen to
have 6, 30 200, 1M and 10 M potencies lying around the house, the
cars......
So honestly, I do not see the big fuss......... if by chance one potency
does not work, gee, big deal, try another one...........

Dr................, M.D.
The need for the application of a diagnostic method is supported by your own statements. And the intention to merely treat a clinical manifestation, in the absence of assessing the dynamics of the response of the vital force, is the application of the allopathic paradign.

With the assumption from your statement that by establishing the need to apply arnica for all conditions of trauma to the tissue, that then all one need do is keep applying it in varied potencies until one achieves a reaction, is in the first instance using an energetic figurative sledge hammer. And with continued assumption that ultimately the 'right' potency was found which brought 'relief' but not necessarily 'healing', avoids the labor required to refine the initial approach by some methodolgy which would result in an energetic accurate address of the disharmony.....diagnostic methods.

To avoid the path of generating a diagnosis which would in the first instance establish the right remedy, and in the second instance the right potency, is to avoid all principle. Principle requires that there is an interdependent manifestation between 'stress factors' and the 'vital force'. And that we employ the information of signs and symtoms to generate a diagnosis firstly, and secondly with continued address of diagnostic methodology evaluate 'susceptibility and severity', as dave h. pointly out quite well in a recent post on the subject.

But for the application of principle and the diagnostic methodology, harm to the energetic construction of the organism is quite likely to occur, and in the worst circumstance, create a state of energetic chaos that impairs the healing capacity of the vital force.

It is further the application of homeopathic medicine based upon keynote symptomology. I find in addition the very same occurance in the area of oriental medicine; ie, the selection of an herb or herbal formula based upon keynote symptomology. This then is the application of a remedy or medicine based upon its pharmaceutical action. That is not homeopathy nor herbal medicine.

The fact that differing potencies have differentiated affects presumptively asserts differing energetics affecting different aspects of the organism, & in the least tissue depth (energetically). To ignore this is to merely apply pharmacuetical analysis and that is not differentiated diagnostics.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Well I am honoured to read such a long, detailed, philosophical
criticism to a simpleton's attempt to remove the pain he has when he
bangs his hand with a hammer.

I am certainly unable to reach the pinnacle of enlightment and the level
of deep thought I just read, but probably did not understand, so I bow
my head is silence, awe and admiration and retreat to my lair to
ruminate about my tremendous level of homeopathic depravation.

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

[isali]

Pardon me dr. rozencwajg, I intended to respond to an oversimplistic
assertion by you which I thought seemed to miss a fundamental issue, and did
not intend to cause offense. You took as criticism what I intended as a
critique on a matter of substance. I advance my thinking and interaction
herein in support of your signatory quote, 'the greatest enemy of any
science is a closed mind'. And I would add that a conflict in thinking
remains, one that has wide publication with both practitioner and lay
persons, and that not all conflicts necessitate an act of war in the search
for resolution.

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

War????????

Can't you recognise humour???????

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

[isali]

I guess I missed it, regretfully. I do enjoy a bellyfull of grins and will
listen more attentively. I will paste a smiley figure on my forehead for
the remainder of this weekend