Digest Number 1072

[elham]

Hi Shanon,
A brief reply
"Can you tell me more about "some of the best cures I have made have been?"

I use low potencies and high potencies. But it is not quite often that I go
below the thirty, nevertheless every time I have done that I have been
pleasantly surprised. Let me give you some examples. In a case of Anal
fissure Nit-acid 10M failed. To me it seemed pretty well indicated, so I
gave the six and from the first dose improvement set in and he was cured
with that. On three occasions Cantharis 3x cured where the 200 had done
nothing. In another case of hemorrhoids with high blood pressure, and some
Gastro intestinal problems I gave Sulph 200 with improvement, but when I
went higher there was no improvement. I gave him the 6C potency and asked
him to potentise it after every dose (Hahnemann's method). He got cured.
With tuberculinum 30 I cured a very severe pain in the chest. These are of
course just a few examples that come to mind at this late hour of night.

response (single dose or multiple,and what time frame?),

Usually multiple dose, sometimes single. In painful conditions if I give a
low potency, I give the patient lots of saclac (Placebo) to be taken on a
regular basis and the low potency as an SOS whenever needed. Single doses of
low potency can sometimes act for months.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean low potencies are more powerful than
high, because they are not, but at times they work where high potencies
fail. Sometimes in skin affections you may find much better results if you
go low than high and then if needed slowly raise the potency.

If the disease is purely functional I would not advise you to go very low.
High potencies work better here.
But where pathological changes occur low potencies may work better than
high.

Now what I am going to say next is going to make many people angry but
nevertheless this is my experience, take it or leave it, you are free to
disagree. Low potencies have a larger field of action than high so that
even if a medicine is 50% indicated it might cure if given low, but it won't
do anything if given high. High potencies go much deeper but they have to
be absolutely indicated.
I only put this theory to experiment once. In one case where my students
all agreed the patient was lachesis (loquacity, suspicion, hot patient,
intolerance of tight clothing, Agg. during sleep, dreams of snake etc. were
all there). There was no doubt in anyones mind she was lachesis, well I
gave her sulphur 30 repeated twice a day for a week. Almost 11 months have
passed and she did not need another medicine. Her headaches have
disappeared, her blood pressure is normal. In fact she does not look like a
lachesis patient any more.

I did not dare repeat this experiment again.

best regards
elham

[Rochelle]

Elham - did you mean Lachesis 30 or did you really mean Sulphur. If the latter may I ask why?

Regards Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks Elham,

It *seems* that your experiences bear out my understanding -- if there are
tissue changes, then low is apt to work better (e.g. the anal fissure -- to
me 6 seems more appropriate for that disorder than 10M -- at least at first
blush???). I also have come to decide that low potencies have a broader
field of action, and a less-indicated remedy is more apt to work in low
potency, than in high. I would have expected it to be palliative rather
than curative, so am very interested that you apparently cured a lach case
with sulph! Hmm, food for thought...

So perhaps one conclusion to draw from this is simply that use of *full
range* of potencies -- and learning to make "educated guesses" as to which
end is more likely appropriate to a given case -- is better than either
"high" or "low" (or even LM).

Again, thanks for elaborating!
Cheers,
Shannon
on 7/5/03 6:07 PM, elham at elham@zyberwayavadh.com wrote: