potency/time

[Farmstead]

Hello All,

Just wondering how you now what potencies to use and how often your
suppose to take it.
--
Best regards,

Paul on the Farmstead

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Paul,

The answer to all of that depends on what you are taking/giving, to whom,
and for what situation! There are several good books available that will
explain the basics, give you information about possibly useful remedies,
instructions re dosage, and more. Do you have any books available at the
moment, or would you like suggestions?

Shannon
on 7/11/04 5:57 AM, Farmstead at farmstead@2dogs2.com wrote:

[pcovert]

Yes, I am always looking for new books so any suggestions would be
appreciated.

Thanks..

Paul

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Bob&Shannon
wrote:
whom,
that will
remedies,
at the
your

[Shannon Nelson]

Do you have any homeopathy books so far? That will give us a frame of
reference for suggesting others.

Shannon
on 7/11/04 11:01 AM, pcovert at farmstead@2dogs2.com wrote:

[VBLUES]

In einer eMail vom 11.07.04 13:14:01 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
farmstead@2dogs2.com:

<< Hello All,
Just wondering how you now what potencies to use and how often your
suppose to take it.
--
Best regards,
Paul on the Farmstead
14.7.4.
Regarding the potency, the standard approach is C6-C12 in small children,
C12-C30 in teenagers and C200-C1000 in adults. Do not go beyond C1000 unless you
feel really SURE - 120% - of the diagnosis. This will do in the great majority
of cases - if the remedy fits, of course.
Kind regards, Dr.medic. Viorel V. Bucur (www.dr-bucur.com).

[Shannon Nelson]

Just to add some context, the "standard" approach I was trained to is very
different, having to do with a balancing of various factors: *patient's
vitality (less vitality = lower potency); *"pace of the case" (fast pace =
higher potency); *"depth" and nature of the disorder (more complicated to
summarize); *clarity of the symptom picture (clear picture/certain of the
needed remedy = higher potency), and of course factors such as expertise of
the prescriber and availability of potencies. Any age *might* do best with
most any potency, but some patients (of any age, but more likely the
elderly) should not receive high potencies, as it could overtax their
available resources. On the other hand children and teens can also respond
really well to potencies in the 200c - 10M range. (On the other hand low
potencies seem to work great in all ages too, simply need -- in my
experience -- more frequent repetition as a rule.)

I am fascinated by how different your frame of reference is from the one I
am accustomed to. Some I agree with and some I will disagree with, but it
is certainly fascinating to see the different perspective -- I think we will
all learn from sharing these.

Shannon
on 7/14/04 5:07 AM, VBLUES@aol.com at VBLUES@aol.com wrote:

[VBLUES]

In einer eMail vom 15.07.04 05:02:10 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
shannonnelson@tds.net:

<< Just to add some context, the "standard" approach I was trained to is very
different, having to do with a balancing of various factors: *patient's
vitality (less vitality = lower potency); *"pace of the case" (fast pace =
higher potency); *"depth" and nature of the disorder (more complicated to
summarize); *clarity of the symptom picture (clear picture/certain of the
needed remedy = higher potency), and of course factors such as expertise of
the prescriber and availability of potencies. Any age *might* do best with
most any potency, but some patients (of any age, but more likely the
elderly) should not receive high potencies, as it could overtax their
available resources. On the other hand children and teens can also respond
really well to potencies in the 200c - 10M range. (On the other hand low
potencies seem to work great in all ages too, simply need -- in my
experience -- more frequent repetition as a rule.)
I am fascinated by how different your frame of reference is from the one I
am accustomed to. Some I agree with and some I will disagree with, but it
is certainly fascinating to see the different perspective -- I think we will
all learn from sharing these.
Shannon
15.7.4.
Well, I said standard approach, there are deviations, sometimes I also give
C200 to a teen-ager looking grown up like an adult or so.
The rule is however that if one sticks to the potencies I wrote and does find
the right remedy, he will hit succesfully at once or in 2-3 times in a row
and the case will be closed.
The training part is a different story. Training must start with the basics
and they are the ones I am already preaching here all the time and the action
as such goes the same way. THIS is classical homeopathy and there is only one
of it, no more!
So it always goes like I told you - realising what one sees and hears etc,
then what the patients tells you spontaneuosly and than questioning here and
there. Complicated cases must be done twice some times with 4-5 weeks in between.
Sometiems interesting new things come up at the second time.
But the approach is always this one. The rest would be "small kitchen
homeopathy", as we call it here, more or less malignant ...
Besides, I told you already the thing with the teachers one has the luck or
bad luck to meet at the very beginning. Crucial point ...
Kind regards, Dr.medic. Viorel V. Bucur (www.dr-bucur.com)

[Shannon Nelson]

Please take my point:
What you describe as "standard approach" is one that I have never heard
before. Therefore, tho it may be "standard" within certain circles, it is
not "standard" for the worldwide stage upon which you are now speaking.
Neither Hahnemann nor Kent, or any of Hahnemann's pupils so far as I am
aware, have taught any such approach (if I'm wrong in this, I am eager to be
corrected!). In addition, I have read *lots* of books, attended *lots* of
seminars, and have never heard this approach taught, so I balk at calling it
"standard approach" and everything else "deviations".

I am interested to hear this approach and have no doubt that it works fine
*so long as* one is aware of those situations where a patient (of any age)
must *not* be given a high potency. However in my experience low potencies
can often/usually(?) do the work of high potencies, so long as doses are
repeated and if necessary raised, as needed.

Please share your experience about this: In treating younger patients with
these low potencies (esp. 30 and below), do you find this adequate for "all"
situations, including e.g. severe acutes, or severe emotional states (which
can occur in babies and children too!)?

Can you say a bit about how often you typically repeat doses, and is this
frequency the same with babies/low potencies as with adults/high potencies?

Shannon
on 7/15/04 4:40 AM, VBLUES@aol.com at VBLUES@aol.com wrote:

[Julian Winston]

At 5:50 PM -0500 7/15/04, Bob&Shannon wrote:
Most interesting.
Shannon. Have you read "Science of Homeopathy" by Vithoulkas? Most of
the ideas here about potency selection are expressed there-- the
vitality, the pace, the depth, the clarity. And most of that comes
from Kent.
This "standard approach" is what we teach at our school when
discussing potency selection. It was what we taught at the NCH School
when I was there from 1980-1992.

I suggest that your books and seminars might be lacking in some very
basic concepts.

JW

[VBLUES]

In einer eMail vom 16.07.04 00:55:00 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
shannonnelson@tds.net:

<< Please take my point:
What you describe as "standard approach" is one that I have never heard
before. Therefore, tho it may be "standard" within certain circles, it is
not "standard" for the worldwide stage upon which you are now speaking.
Neither Hahnemann nor Kent, or any of Hahnemann's pupils so far as I am
aware, have taught any such approach (if I'm wrong in this, I am eager to be
corrected!). In addition, I have read *lots* of books, attended *lots* of
seminars, and have never heard this approach taught, so I balk at calling it
"standard approach" and everything else "deviations".
I am interested to hear this approach and have no doubt that it works fine
*so long as* one is aware of those situations where a patient (of any age)
must *not* be given a high potency. However in my experience low potencies
can often/usually(?) do the work of high potencies, so long as doses are
repeated and if necessary raised, as needed.
Please share your experience about this: In treating younger patients with
these low potencies (esp. 30 and below), do you find this adequate for "all"
situations, including e.g. severe acutes, or severe emotional states (which
can occur in babies and children too!)?
Can you say a bit about how often you typically repeat doses, and is this
frequency the same with babies/low potencies as with adults/high potencies?
Shannon
16.7.4.
Standard appproach is the one applying, well, in about 80% of the cases. THIS
IS the standard approach in every seriously working homeopathic practice or
whatever.
As I told you before - in the most FRIENDLY possible way, I do hope this is
clear - it is a matter of the people one meets at the very beginning, the
teachers he gets.
So here I do have doubts actually, not necessary in your personal case - you
made several statements which did sound competent, one of the reasons why it
is my pleasure to argue with you, there are several other competent persons
here (my opinion) - but in the case of others in this forum I have doubts, even
strong ones.
I mean, at the beginning, one has to get really good people, really competent
and experienced, people who know what they are talking about and who have the
pedagogical gift to lead the pupil, the beginner, on the right way.
I am not sure this happens all over the place. It would be much to beautiful.
It does not even happen here, and here we are, in a way, "at home", even if
homeopathy actually started somewhere else, but here it is "at home". Even
here, there is so much bogus offered, so many stupidities and unrelated things,
"sick" logic, curved way of thinking and, as such, far away from reality.
Misinterpretations, speculation, etc.
I told you about this "small kitchen homeopathy", in which every mother or
every nurse or every "witch"(!) believes being able to treat her child
homeopathical better than any doctor of course!!! But these mothers do not even know
how to write the word "homeopathy" correct, to put it blunt. They read about it
in some yellow press or saw something on TV and here they go. Let us keep
staying in reality, please!
Actually in Europe, there are maybe 4-5 places today where real good
homeopathy is taught, where real good, competent people are at work, the rest is
speculation, fantasy, wishfull thinking, you name it. As I told you, the very good
homeopaths do not write books because they do not have time or muse to do it
or if, than they write just a few and that's it, in small publishing houses,
500-1000 copies no more, which WE buy first so that lay people do not even hear
that such a book was published, they would not understand it any way (!), not
profit oriented but for love for the stuff as such, out of vice if you want.
There is no money to be made in THIS way with homeopathy. One has to love it,
to sacrifice for the sake of it. The rest is commerce!!!! But commerce has
nothing to do with medicine.
So I stress once again the absolute crucial importance of basic, long,
serious training/learning, good books and good teachers - as I exposed to you few
days ago.
You can safely take that for granted, as a gift with ... kind regards, from
Dr.medic. Viorel V. Bucur (www.dr-bucur.com).