Teaching the Organon

[Shannon Nelson]

No worries, it's fine to post bits of "off-topic" material, and many of us receive it with interest.
For those (I think few) who might not, a suggested courtesy is to start the subject line with "OT" -- for "Off-Topic", so that anyone who wants to read only homeopathy here, gets the choice.

Life happens within a broader context, and so does homeopathy.

Shannon

[Sheri Nakken]

it was under Teaching the Organon subject line
didn't know it was about the MRI thread
It just seemed to be out of nowhere on a thread that it wasn't related to

Sheri

At 10:56 PM 7/4/2015, you wrote:
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases

[Angela McGuire]

Using a tuning fork is a very standard test to test of binaural hearing. It is also used for bone conduction vs air conduction it is called the Rinne test.
I learned it in nursing school
Angie
it was under Teaching the Organon subject line
didn't know it was about the MRI thread
It just seemed to be out of nowhere on a thread that it wasn't related to

Sheri

At 10:56 PM 7/4/2015, you wrote:
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases

[bienemancrichard]

I hope I am understanding the structure of this group properly, and therefore using it appropriately, as a brand new member. Given the subject (Topic name: Teaching the Organon), it would appear to be the best place for this question without the need of creating yet another topic. My apology if I'm missing something.

Background: I've only become aware of the 5th and 6th editions of the Organon in the past 10 or 11 months, and only began to seriously study anything beyond 4th edition and Kent starting 2-3 months ago. And I'm realizing that what I thought I knew about homeopathy was in far too many respects, just plain wrong (at least as far as Hahnemann's teachings, particularly his last years). But better now than never.

I became aware of the 6th edition through a "chance" meeting of what appeared to be a very advanced and knowledgeable homeopath practicing at that level. He mentioned that he'd studied under two individuals whose names would likely be recognized here (they both formally teach solid 6th edition homeopathy). My spouse and I eventually agreed to allow this homeopath to begin treating both of us, after very disappointing results from a previous full-time professional homeopath with seemingly solid credentials behind her name (as the above homeopath also has). I've come to realize that the previous homeopath was entirely unfamiliar with the 6th edition or any of Hahnemann's last 15+ years of work. The most recent one SEEMED to be highly familiar with that work, however. For a variety of reasons, we are no longer being treated by anyone, and I am no longer at all comfortable carrying on what was initially highly successful treatment by the most recent homeopath (the claimed 6th edition one). But regardless, I am indebted to him for exposing me TO Hahnemann's final work, to include liquid dosing, LM potencies, etc. That is what I am pursuing for my own understanding, and I have begun to collect a rather substantial library of sources (see below for a major example).

The purpose of this post is not to "bash" the most recent homeopath, nor to seek treatment recommendations. At this point, it is purely for my own education. As I'm studying the 6th edition and other advanced information about that work (David Little's recently released 6-volume Homoeopathic Compendium, for example), I'm finding that the treatment provided to my spouse and me does not SEEM to be supported by anything Hahnemann was teaching before his death. This is mostly a yes/no question, though comments will surely be welcome so I can better understand. I am substituting letters that do not in any way identify the actual remedies below, because that is not the issue. The following are remedies provided by the homeopath over the final several months of our treatment, ending only a month ago (by mutual agreement). The two significant things that stand out to me - which SEEM (given my limited knowledge level at this point) to contradict Hahnemann - are the use of doses ALWAYS measured in drops, not teaspoons (for example), and one or more doses daily without interruption (no placebo - but actual dosing from the same bottle, non-stop, for over six months, with only a change in remedy or number of succussions per dose, drops per dose, or number of doses per day). Here is what happened over a several month period, and my question is: am I missing something in the 6th edition that makes this consistent with Hahnemann's teachings? Or is this well outside of what Hahnemann taught (which is what it appears to me, given not only the size of doses, but particularly the non-stop daily treatment for all this time? It appears to be quite contrary to what Hahnemann was writing at the end of his life, unless I'm missing something important. (The following is chronological, with changes as noted. There was no break at all between changes noted below.)

XYZ remedy LM1, 2 succussions, 4 drops, am & pm (lasted daily for about 2 weeks)
XYZ remedy LM1, 4 succussions, 5 drops, am only (lasted 10 days)
XYZ remedy LM1, 5 succussions, 6 drops, am only (lasted 11 days)
XYZ remedy LM1, 6 succussions, 7 drops, am only (lasted 1 week)
XYZ remedy LM1, 5 succussions, 5 drops, am only (lasted 8 days)
XYZ remedy LM1, 3 succussions, 2 drops, am only (lasted 5 days)

CHANGE:
ABC remedy LM2, 2 succussions, 6 drops, am & pm (lasted 2 weeks)
(this LM2 remedy continued with various combinations of succussions and drops and doses/day similar to the first "XYZ" remedy above for approximately 2 months)

CHANGE:
ABC remedy changed to LM3, with similar combinations as above of succussions, drops, and number per day for two months before treatment was discontinued.

Again, there were doses every single day for the entire roughly 6-month period, generally with 1-week check-ins by phone with the homeopath, and at no time were doses even close to teaspoon-sized doses or larger. Number of drops ranged from 2-7 per dose, succussions between 2-6 per dose, with 1-3 doses per day, every day during a 6-month period.

My spouse was on different remedies, but the protocol was identical with respect to drops not teaspoons, daily doses without any break (no placebo - we had the remedy bottles, so we KNEW what we were taking daily).

As I began to study Hahnemann's later writings in more detail, I began to question where this method of treatment was coming from, because I could not find anything to support it in my admittedly early study of the 6th edition, plus a little bit of study of his case books.

Am I missing something in my vast ignorance, or is the above treatment protocol not supported by Hahnemann's writings? I do have to admit that some remarkable early results were achieved by both my spouse and me, but then progress stopped almost entirely, with both original primary complaints by my spouse being entirely unchanged after all this time. I understand layers at least at a basic level, but something just seemed wrong in a number of ways (outside the scope of this post).

So again, I'm trying to assume that he knew what he was doing and was being honest about following Hahnemann strictly as a 6th edition practitioner, and that the problem is simply with my very beginning lack of knowledge. Am I missing something, or is the above simply out of line with what Samuel Hahnemann would have endorsed up to his death?

Thank you for helping me in my early advancement in knowledge. Prior to these past 8-10 months, I was entirely unaware of LM potencies or the 5th and 6th editions - or even the fundamental need to truly understand just up through the 4th edition at the level I understood until this year. I've got a far longer journey ahead of me than I even knew existed, but want to pursue it.

[Ellen Madono]

Hi,

I am only a student of the Organon with 15 years of very small scale practice. But, using the size of the teaspoon, the number of sucussions etc. (psology) as your standard for evaluating a homeopath seems misguided. For one small point, frequency is much more important than amount. More important, the whole reasoning process for changing remedies, dose etc. is important. If your homeopath was checking in with you every week, I think that's pretty good. Did he/she explain what she was thinking? Regardless of her/his level of orthodoxy, at least an attempt to answer your questions would feel good to me as a patient and even if you disagree with her/him you should advance in you ability to understand the thought process. That's important.

In any case, studying the Organon is a great way to learn about homeopathy. You can't go wrong. If you study Hahnemann's writings, you will discover that he varied in his psology. As he learned more, he changed. I think most homeopaths are like that. I change.

I don't use the Organon as a recipe book. I use it to discover Hahnemann's thought process as he developed. There is so much to discover for me anyway. To nimbly dump it into my everyday practice is not so easy. Re-reading and re-thinking, I discover more and then I have to process Hahnemann's wisdom so it is expressed in my everyday practice.

Hope you can get over your bitterness and get on with your deeper understanding of this science. Your approach otherwise sounds very good.

Best,
Ellen

Ellen Madono

[Sheri Nakken]

most certainly - I teach and practice 5th and 6th edition as further explained by David Little and Dr. Luc
most homeopaths use dry 4th edition method.
I think your post got cut off at the end
Sheri

At 12:55 AM 7/19/2015, you wrote:
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases

[Sheri Nakken]

it is all important - potency, amount (dose), succussions and frequency (and of course the remedy selction)
If people haven't mastered what he taught how can they decide to make changes and go beyond?

Sheri

At 10:48 AM 7/19/2015, you wrote:
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases

[Irene de Villiers]

Dear ????(you forgot to sign your post),
Homeopathy is extremely variable in how it is and should be applied, as it is necessary to suit the specific dosing to the individual.
Some individuals may "aggravate" easily (have adverse intensified responses to more remedy per dose than they need as an individual), makig it appropriate to use a smaller dose, such as a drop dose or even a dilute dose.

My most sensitive case, (a rarity, but homepathy adaps to all) needed ten dilution cups to get a dilute eough dose for her needs, so as to improve her and not aggravate her.
A dilution cup: Take a little, eg a few drops, from the dosing solution, and put it into a cup, stir not succuss, just to mix, and wither dose from t here o make a further diution.
SO the concept of changing the dose size is correct and meets the first aphorism of the Organoin and its most important one- to cure the patient, and that includes adapting the dose size to suit the patient. SO in prtincpe using drops instead of teaspoons is fine, PROVIDED it is to adapt to the needs of the individual so that they improve.

You note that Hahnemann wrote six editions of the Organon before his death. I personally am convinced that iif he lied longer he would have writen a seventh editio - in other words, Homepathy is STILL a work in progress, albeit based on the amazing work of one man in one lifetime.

Notice that Hahnemann never did settle on any specific potency approach, he jumped all over with it, and in his last years his Paris case books show his aqueous use of C potencies and others combined in one case.
My view is that - while the main part of homeopathy is based on a natural law (the Law of Similars) which being a fact of nature is not able to be argued, it just exists - the choice of potency is NOT based on any law of nature, and I consider that this is the reason Hahnemann kept working at trying to find a more perfect system.

In 2009, Dr Rozencwajg, a member of this group, published his work on Potency, using Fibonacci series numbers. This IS INDEED based on an inviolate principe of nature (as is the Law of Similars).
The natural beauty, logic and consequent efficacy of this use of potency selections, has cause me to change completrly to their use. I work with cases of dire illness where others have already said it is not curable or even treatable, and my rate of success is doubled since using Fibonacci potencies.

So what I suggest for you is to know that the PRINCIPLES from Hahnemann are all valid, but that the details of application need to be adjusted to the idividual patient according to their unique situation, whist remaining within the principles.

A dry dose per 4th organon is still able to cure many a case, even if a aqueous dose of Fibonacci series potency does it faster or more often.
The real issue is whether the dose was properly suited to the patient.

It is rare in my work that a longterm use of a same potency is useful, (the kind fo repetition you describe) but I have had a rare case needing it. Example: A cat with Feline Infectious Peritonitis (usually fatal in a hurry) and severe kidney damage who was 17 years old, did not quite recover full health - or at least she seemed to do so but needed remedy to maintan it - on Fibonacci potency... she needed a small weekly dose to maintain her health for several more years.
That is the kind of situatio were I can see a longterm use of remedy in a small dose.

However every case is unique. Also a longterm problem that took years to creae, can also take longer to remove.

Always - it is a matter of individually adapting to the individual. It is more appropriate to note the response to a specific dose or potency, and then adjust the dosing to be more optimal.

Bottom line of course is how well the remedy heped the health of the individual....back to aphorism one:-)

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[bienemancrichard]

Ellen, thank you for your thoughtful response. I do need to clarify a couple of things, obviously. First, I'm not sure where you picked up "bitterness," when I said that I was grateful for two significant things this recent homeopath did for me/us. First, I was entirely unaware of anything past 4th edition practice and dry doses (totally unaware of LM potencies and the 6th edition until last year) - and this homeopath is entirely responsible for introducing me to that material. Second, I clearly stated that "some remarkable early results were achieved by both my spouse and me" as a result of earlier treatment with this homeopath prior to hitting brick walls. I also said that treatment had been discontinued by mutual agreement, and that there were separate issues that were not pertinent to this discussion. If that somehow signaled "bitterness," I'm sorry. As I thought I clearly stated, I am pursuing one honest question for my own development here - an apparent difference between how treatment was being administered vs. how I'm understanding Hahnemann thus far. He represented what he was doing as essentially pure Hahnemann, and what I'm seeing in Hahnemann doesn't seem to involve at least one or two elements of how this homeopath does treatment.

Be aware that because of my own professional background, I have zero problem with learning some of the "masters" in a field, and then later developing one's own style or technique. I see Fibonacci numbers coming into recent play with homeopathy, for example. There may be some great promise there, as well as other attempts at advancement with what Hahnemann was doing up to his own death. And if what our most recent homeopath was doing works for him in many/most cases, great! I have no problem with that. That's not my question here. In my own initial quest for understanding, my intent is to understand Hahnemann as well as I can, BEFORE considering any enhancements, changes, or whatever. How can I adequately understand the "enhancements" (so to speak) if I don't understand the underlying fundamentals FIRST. So all I'm attempting to do is be able to discern between that which Hahnemann was practicing at the time of his death, vs. newer or different forms of what Hahnemann was doing. I'll worry about post-Hahnemann methods once I understand "pure" Hahnemann first. So...

Everything I've read thus far (from Hahnemann) has actual amounts of ingested liquid dosing at single teaspoon quantities or greater. Yes, in my reading I certainly see the use of 1, 2, or 3 drops OF a preparation being put into a larger amount of water or water/alcohol in a cup or bottle, for example, but eventually the patient is given a teaspoon or more of whatever is administered. I have yet to see (again in my limited study) the use of just a few drops of liquid going into a patient's mouth (which equals only a small fraction of a teaspoon). Perhaps that is insignificant, and I'm also missing other situations where the amount of liquid actually administered by Hahnemann to a patient was consistently or at least frequently measured in 2-6 drops. Whether others are using these quantities or not is not my question at this point - again, I just want to FIRST truly understand what Hahnemann was doing in his last years, before considering others' later experiments or improvements on Hahnemann's methods. I just so far don't see where Hahnemann gave patients only 2-6 drops of remedies at a time - it seems to always be measured in teaspoons or more.

The other more apparent (and perhaps more important) difference is the non-stop dosing for the better part of a year. This seems quite different from Hahnemann's frequent "wait and watch" approach at times during treatment. Indeed, David Little has stated, "I have not found one case in the Paris casebooks where Hahnemann gave a daily dose for months on end without interspersing placebos." Little clearly dispels any idea that Hahnemann gave non-stop daily doses. Given Little's extensive study to understand Hahnemann as thoroughly as possible, that only seemed to confirm that I was indeed noticing a discrepancy in how this particular homeopath was practicing, vs. what Hahnemann was teaching up to his death.

Both my spouse and I, as well as others I have spoken to that have been treated by this particular homeopath, have had exactly the same experience - not a single day that went by without a dose of the prescribed remedy for months on end (well over 6 months in our cases). I've looked through a fair amount of the material written by the individuals under whom our homeopath studied (which did not include David Little - I discovered him on my own), and nothing in their writing (that I've been able to find) suggests non-stop dosing on a daily basis for that length of time, with Little being the most direct on the subject (as quoted above).

So to summarize the only question that I care about addressing in this forum, is anyone else aware of something that shows Hahnemann frequently using doses actually ingested by patients in quantities of drops, not teaspoons or larger? And perhaps of even more importance, is anyone aware of anything contradicting my limited reading as well as David Little's extensive study of Hahnemann that indicates he would take patients along for months at a time without missing a daily dose of actual (not placebo) remedy? I am not, as you stated, "using the size of the teaspoon, the number of sucussions etc. (psology) as [my] standard for evaluating a homeopath." I am not "evaluating" that homeopath here - only his claim that he's using, for lack of a better term, "pure Hahnemann" 6th edition homeopathy, consistent with the evidence in his late-life case books.

And to Sheri, no my post was not cut off at least as I see it here. I didn't sign it, but it's complete. And as above, I fully recognize that, "potency, amount (dose), succussions and frequency (and of course the remedy selction)," are all important. No question. But that's not what I'm trying to evaluate or understand here.

Sincere thanks to you both for your responses. Further comments welcome.
====

[Irene de Villiers]

Dear ....,

Hahnemann was looking for the smallest dose to do the job.
He started with a drop dose as a medicating dose (see Organon 4th 1829 and Chronic diseases 1828) and then found that a whole drop on a tablet, caused frequent aggravation.
So in these volumes he changed it to use one drop of medicating potency for 500 poppy seed pellets of size number 10. And this was when he introduced 30C, a higher potency than before.
He then adjusted dose and potency to try to get less aggravations from then onwards, and mentions it in the final 6th organon, aph 275.
He says in 5th ad 6th Organon that one must control the dose size especially in the higher potencies.
In Aph 248, he gives examples of greater size doses and advises using "one or increasing more teaspoons" of the remedy when needed.

The point is that Hahnemann wanted the least amount of rermedy at the potency used, that would cure but not aggravate. He did not state a specific one to always use. He sometimes used less, sometimes more.
To be pedantic and suggest a teaspoon as the only way to achieve that, ignores Hahnemann's principles of finding the smallest amount to effect cure - the latter being a much more important principle to him.

Also bear in mind that different size individuals were treated and size of dose was adjusted accordingly, less for a premature human baby or newborn kitten, more for an adult elephant. Remedy need only be detected by the individual to be effective, it need not be swallowed. Choking a newborn premie with a whole teaspoon of remedy would be illogical and unkind to say the least, and I'd eat my hat if Hahneman was that way inclined:-)

But - why does it matter?
Do you not find the principles he is at such pains to have understood, more relevant, as he himself stressed?
That IS what Hahnemann stresses over all else.

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."