Teaching the Organon

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

You are studying Hahnemann's work as he was developing it and discovering it "on the go". all on his own, with nobody to guide him, with nobody to help him.
It is like trekking in a mountain range on another planet, with no map, no idea where anything leads and no helicopter to come to the rescue....been there, done that....
So he kept writing what he was discovering, learning form his mistakes and perfecting the system as he became more familiar with his own creation. Those are the documents you have in your possession right now. That was the state of the art when he died. Hence, what you read is what he proposed and presented to the world, until he could not any more.

My understanding of "Hahnemaniann homeopathy", shared with quite a few colleagues but not with all most probably is this:
- aim for a cure
- follow the patient, not a protocol
- use the least amount of remedy necessary so as not to be toxic, but at the same time the needed amount to be effective
- keep experimenting and searching.

I certainly disagree with the rigid protocol you were put through, no matter what denomination is attached to it, but then I have an allergic reaction each time I hear the word, or rather the concept, of protocol.

Is that answer satisfying?

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

[pb000014]

Well said Joe. Hahnemann's posology is a set of guidelines, which guide you dependant on the patient vital reactions. So they get adapted to the case. You could ignore the guidelines, but don't come crying if.....
Regards,
Paul
Sent from Samsung Mobile

[Leilanae]

"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"
-----------------

Not sure they had dropper bottles or a way for a patient to dispense 2 drops in Hahnemanns time??? Spoons were probably a household item.

Atb,

Leilanae

[healthinfo6]

Am I missing something in my vast ign orance, 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).

Depends on what you conditions or diseases you are treating. Acute, chronic acquired, chronic inherited and stage of life you're in, possible progression of your homeopathic disease dur to miasms.
I take an LM daily and have so for much of the past few years and only follow instructions Hahnemann wrote in the 6th edition Organon.
I make the LM bottle using 2 LM pillules in 4 oz water.
Succuss the bottle strongly against a rubber mouse pad with similar force to a judge's gavel held high struck down against a leather book
One teaspoon from bottle stirred into a 4 oz. water dilution cup
Take one teaspoon from dilution cup per day. Rarely have I needed a 2nd dilution cup.
Take note, a Hahnemann "teaspoon" may not be the size of a USA/Western teaspoon but the size used in Europe in his time which may have been smaller.
I've experimented with half teaspoons twice a day and on occasion taking a 2nd teaspoon during day but found Hahnemann's original instructions work best, one teaspoon per day for chronic diseases, make new cup after 24 hours. More per day has led to brief aggravations.
LM action is highly dependent on how many times and how strongly you succuss, I say bang, the stock bottle.
By striking against rubber, it imparts a thud-like vibration which makes the LM work better or deeper vs. just banging against a hard surface or in your palm. This ability to have a vast change in effect by a small change in number and severity of succussions likely is due to the 1:50,000 dilution vs C 1:100 potency,
I average 6-8 succussions per dose but when my conditions warrant I go upto 10 succussions.
LMs show their merit for chronic diseases, which are defined by Hahnemann in Chronic Diseases, where he explains his miasm theory and methods to treat miasmatic based diseases, today thought of as genetic inheritances. The ability to safely use LMs daily and the way they work allows you to customize and have much tighter control of the disease(s) immediately, if necessary, vs. C potency, whose 4th edition Organon dry dose action meant waiting to see what happens after a dose before taking next dose and 5th edition Organon C potency water dosing allowing you to take smaller doses more often utilizing the minimum dose concept though not able to provide the gradual higher increasing potency step up of each successive dose which the LMs are designed to do and necessary to manage chronic diseases over longer periods of time.
Like exercising muscles where constant repetition leads to muscle fatigue, taking a remedy constantly also leads to fatigue where eventually the remedy doesn't work as well or may seem to cease working.
Using an intercurrent remedy allows you to take a break and eventually return to the remedy that was working and it continues to work again usually better. Sometimes, what I felt needed a remedy break turned out to be needing more succussions per dose to be effective or needing to go the next LM.
In Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann refers to using anti-miasmatic remedies (anti-psorics, anti-syphilitics and anti-sycotic) to cure chronic diseases that arise due to miasms, inherited disease traits. Here, the intercurrent remedies are nosodes, remedies made from disease matter of the disease that begot the miasm, so Psorinum for Psora, , Syphilinum/Syphilis, Medorrhium/Gonorrhea. Later on, Tuberculinum was added for Tuberculosis, aka pseudo-psora=false psora.
By alternating an anti-miasmatic remedy with a nosode when needed, I've been able to eliminate on most days all allopathic drugs, most recently this month, diabetes drug Metformin and a high blood pressure drug Atenolol.
In my case, the nosode is the similimum for multiple chronic diseases so I use my constitutional as the intercurrent. It took until LM17 to fully notice the homeopathic disease alleviating forcing a lessening of allopathic drug use. Eventually the allo drug makes one feel worse instead of better so it has to be curtailed. Once free of the shackles of an allopathic drug, one's vital force begins to surge higher and then you are able to experience what Hahnemann calls cure, I call a feeling of bliss or nirvana but like a near death experience, you only see the light and feel the warmth and love briefly not yet forever.
Treatment of chronic disease is ongoing. When not taking LM doses, I begin to fade back to disease, but I know each successive increasingly higher potency LM dose is gradually working to chip away and work towards minimizing, if not eliminating, the effects from generations of miasms I've inherited. Towards the end of an LM bottle, I may feel it's action waning especially if I'm using 10 succussions a dose and barely feeling better. Just yesterday I started LM18 before fully finishing LM17 for this reason. LM18 now is working, feels stronger and my disease symptoms have subsided once again.
Layers of disease, usually thought of as mostly acquired, can also be due to layers of inherited miasms and Hahnemann describes the methodology to treat. There are some noted Indian homeopaths, like Banerjea, devoted to miasmatic prescribing and various viewpoints on figuring out the miasms present, which ones are active, latent and approaches to treat single and mixed miasmatic cases.
You may find, as I did, that you have to combine the experiences you had from your past prescribing by homeopaths with learning from
insightful homeopaths, like David Little and Dr. Luc, to determine your own best treatment protocol in addition to studying and incorporating what Hahnemann wrote.
Thus, it's not that your homeopath was right or wrong, is good or bad, but more likely their approach to treatment, which is subjective, is influenced by results they've seen using their own interpreted methods on various types of conditions they've treated. If you have miasmatic caused diseases, the homeopath may have been reluctant to use nosodes extensively or understand how to use briefly to overcome a possible miasmatic block.
Due to various writings I've seen, it's been propagated to use nosodes sparingly, if at all, some homeopaths like Andre Saine wrote they're never needed. Also, since miasms are considered an advanced topic, they may be briefly covered in homeopathic schools, so learning about them takes extra effort.
Seeing how previous prescribing has affected your conditions, continuing to read and consult with a variety of homeopaths over time for their remedy suggestions and prescribing style, then if necessary, customizing posology methods to best fit your own needs eventually leads to success once you learn. Each homeopath I've worked with since 1996 didn't provide the complete roadmap I eventually needed but didn't know I would require one, occasionally took detours, hit road blocks, sent me in wrong directions, but like a hitchhiker, each one took me part of the way on a longer than expected journey.
Susan

[Edouard Broussalian]

--------------------------------------------
En date de : Dim 19.7.15, bienemancrichard@yahoo.com [minutus] a écrit :

Objet: Re: [Minutus] Teaching the Organon
À: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Dimanche 19 juillet 2015, 6h55
Hello

I've been too busy these past years to participate actively in this group, but you question arises a sensitive subject.

As you mention David, who's in turn has kindly quoted me in his masterpiece, i feel authorized to write a few words.

So of course, this is NOT an hahnemannian way to prescribe....

The great rule "as long as a clear improvement, etc" still holds. In other words, the first dose is always a kind of a test dose, to see what happens, who the patient reacts. Then after a REASONABLE amount of time, if there is no change at all, one can repeat, and even increase the parameters (succussions, dose).

What is a reasonable amount of time? LIPPE gives the answer in a wonderful paper in the ORGANON Vol 1. He explains the meaning of the CRITICAL DAYS of HIPPOCRATES. In short, the reactions usually take place the 1st, 3rd or 5th day after an active remedy.

In practice, if there is no change after the 3rd day it's safe to repeat. On the contrary, and it's certainly the great majority of the cases as your hair will grow whiter, the reaction occurs quite fast as even a very small amount of potency will be detected by the vital force. Then as long as you see signs of improvement, it's just the old wait and watch system. The advantage of the liquid dose here being that one can repeat when the amelioration is starting to fail, it's no longer useful to wait for a complete relapse.

Best

Ed

PS: you've been lucky to be dosed with lm1 and not lm9 or 32 as i saw the case quite recently...

[bienemancrichard]

Ed,

Thank you for your reply. I had posted a follow up that apparently never made it to the group for some reason, and a re-attempt also never made it to the group. So I honestly had somewhat given up on having the original post understood as I meant it, and have been away from the group for a couple of weeks. There were too many side issues that came in some of the responses, certainly in part because respondents had to make assumptions based on the obviously incomplete background available in a relatively short post, and because my follow up clarification attempts never made it for whatever reason.

I decided to come back and just see if there were any more responses that addressed what I'd hoped to address - and thankfully yours particularly did. I had subsequently found where David Little said that in all his study of the casebooks, he "never" (his word, as I recall) found an instance where Hahnemann continued to give daily doses over long periods of time (certainly not for many months without even a single day's break). He either used placebo for those patients that "needed" to feel like they were doing something by taking some remedy, or he simply discontinued (waited and watched) for periods of time to see what happened.

I am aware that there are instances where as little as one drop has been useful in treating people (and animals - such as just a few drops in a watering trough used by farm animals), so in retrospect, perhaps I should have confined my initial question to the non-stop daily dosing for well over six months. Thankfully, your answer was what I was looking for.

In response to one who thought I was "bitter," and others that thought I was dissatisfied with the treatment provided by our previous homeopath, that was not the issue at all, and I regret anything I said that led some to focus on those topics. Bitterness never was an issue with the homeopath during treatment. I was disappointed that answers to questions seeking understanding were not ever provided, despite that homeopath having offered to mentor me as I began to learn about an aspect of homeopathy I had no idea even existed (6th edition and LM potencies). And there became some other issues having nothing to do with treatment that resulted in discontinuation of treatment. None the less, there were some VERY significant positive results from the treatment for which my spouse and I are very thankful. Other hoped-for results never came, but by itself, that doesn't mean we were on the wrong track.

My sole purpose for posting here was for purposes of understanding what Hahnemann learned and documented up to his death. I FULLY recognize that even he would likely have evolved in his methods had he lived much longer, and that others may very well have developed further methods that represent significant advances in homeopathy. For all I know, our recent homeopath may have discovered some things on his own over the years that represents an advancement from Hahnemann's final understanding. All of that is fine and good. But I don't want to start at the end and not understand the beginning. I chose to purchase the Homoeopathic Compendium despite the fact that I can't use it for any type of later certification, because I am looking to as thoroughly understand what Hahnemann discovered up to the time of his death, before I move on from there. I expect this to be a significant effort in time (4500 pages is, of course, no small task - even just to "read through" one time, let along truly study). And I want to understand the fundamentals before I look at what others have contributed since, on the belief that I can't fully appreciate any later advancements unless I reasonably thoroughly understand the fundamentals on which it was all based. So when I see David Little saying that he NEVER found an instance of Hahnemann continuing daily doses for the better part of a year, non-stop, I at least wanted to question our treatment that was claimed to be what Hahnemann had been teaching/discovering.

And by the way - I referred others to that same homeopath because of our initial results, so I happen to know for a fact that all of us got non-stop daily doses for months at a time, ours being the longest because we didn't refer others to him until after we'd seen major progress ourselves. So it is not a matter of what that homeopath saw as appropriate for one patient, or even that patient and his spouse, but for a group of people. It's clearly his "standard" of practice. If it's legitimate (i.e. if it works - and clearly it did initially), fine. But I wanted to know whether it's what Hahnemann was teaching before he died, purely for understanding the basics.

Again, thank you for your definitive response. I wish my follow up attempts had made it to the group, but am appreciative of you having discerned my primary question.

Richard

[bienemancrichard]

Clarification: I found the quote by David Little to which I referred in my response to Ed, and wanted to post it here. David Little wrote:

" I have not found one case in the Paris casebooks where Hahnemann gave a daily dose for months on end without interspersing placebos."

As I wrote to another individual that replied via private email, that quote is the primary reason I came to this discussion group - to find out if what I was being "taught" by our own homeopath was indeed pure Hahnemann - or not. Our homeopath opened my eyes to what Hahnemann had further discovered and documented before his death, and he sparked a tremendous personal interest in me to learn all I could about it. I was "re-hooked" on homeopathy, after my initial enlightenment nearly 30 years ago (without knowledge of the 5th and 6th editions or LM prescribing). Our homeopath offered to be my mentor and suggested several publications by Luc DeSchepper and Robin Murphy. He indicated that he personally used what Hahnemann was teaching in his last years. He also offered to be my mentor as I studied, but then for whatever reason would not answer questions I had, such as this one. I subsequently found David Little on my own, and just recently purchased his masterpiece, Homoeopathic Compendium.

My question is not about whether our previous homeopath was "right" or "wrong" in how he was practicing, but solely whether he accurately said he was using what Hahnemann taught. I have no problems with improvements as I said, and have little doubt that Hahnemann would not likely be practicing today as he did before his death, had he somehow been able to continue for another 200 years. My focus now is on learning Hahnemann as my solid foundation (which also involves unlearning much of what I understood). There's a monumental amount to be understood from Hahnemann first, without getting confused by THINKING (or being told) that he also taught other things as well. That can only lead to confusion and potentially going down the wrong path. Only after I have a firm grasp of Hahnemann do I feel comfortable looking at other "enhancements." (An example might be Fibonacci numbers in homeopathy treatment - personally very intriguing, but I don't want to go outside Hahnemann before I understand him first.)

As a (now retired) professional in another field, I learned the early masters first in graduate school, and only then started integrating my own changes into the "basics" after I felt confident enough about my knowledge of those basics. I did not feel justified in changing existing methods before I even understood those methods. And in this case, finding David Little's quote seemed to assure me that what I was being told was NOT the way Hahnemann did it. Whether our recent homeopath was "wrong" or not in how he was treating, I am not judging. I merely don't want to be thrown off track in my initial study of what Hahnemann practiced (in this case, uninterrupted daily dosage for more than 2/3 of a year).

Richard

[Irene de Villiers]

You received other answers also, which were not acknowledged, at least two from me for example.
(So I am not sure I should put in still more time if it is wasted. I shall try to be brief this time.)

My concern is that you are looking for what Hahnemann DID and not looing for WHY he did it.
"Be careful not to spend all your time countring the leaves on a tree, instead of understanding why a tree has leaves."

Hahnemann spent much of his time on other things than worig with sensitive cases who needed drop doses of remedy. He was busy writing books lecturing etc. So as a homneopath, he saw less cases than some susequent homeaopaths, who all togetehr will have seen a wider variety of cases than he ever could. He may not have come across all possible examples of the uses for the PRINCIPLES he developed. B ut that is the beuty of his work - his principles can apply firectly yo never before seen cases.
So maybe he never happened to find a pine tree with one crooked pine needle. But his principles still apply.
In your shoes I would be at pains to learn those principles and not get hung up with counting leaves.

It is never normal to use daily doses indefinitely. But where the principles fit, a rare situation, that may be what is needed to achieve aphorism one by Hahnemann.

In my own work over 30 years of helping owners to treat their animals by homeopathy, I came across ONE case that needed extended, daily, (very diluted and NOT succussed) drop doses (at 377C). That's one in many many thousands of cases. It shoud be relevant to explopre, not that this was done or needed, but WHY it was done.
It's by no means the norm, becasue I follow the PRINCIPLES of WHY Hahnemann did what he did, even if he never found a twisted pine needle as I happened to do.

In your shoes I would ask your homeopath WHY they were doing what they recommended (so that you can judge whether it fits within the PRINCIPLES of what Hahnemann did, not the examples of what Hahnemann did - or is some new approach).
.............

It is too long ago for the examples of what Hahnemann did to be anywhere near a complete set from which to study what Hahnemann developed for us. (it is counting leaves)
So it is wise to ignore what he did, and to learn instead WHY he did it (why the leaves are there).
WHY Hahnemann did what he did, is still 100% applicable today. So essentially, if you extract the PRINCIPLE - the REASONS - he did what he did (and he was at pains to describe them) , you will have a true foundatio from Hahnemann (which is an especially wonderful foundation) on which to build your understanding of his true and applicable achievements.

Direct your study with a realistic objective in mind. Your current one seens to be to know what Hahnemann did in his cases. WHY ? That is not a realistic objective, TO know WHY he did what he did, would be realistic and useful.
A Japanese proverb applies:
"Do not lean your ladder against a cloud."

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."

[Paulette Montoya]

All patients are unique. So potencies/frequencies will be unique. Some need a 6C daily (carefully watching sxs) and others can accept higher potencies at various intervals according to sxs. Sometimes gentle cell salts are needed first.

So many things to learn. Dr. H didn't see cases of the magnitude of damage from blotched/unnecessary surgeries/procedures, vaccine damage or poisoning from medications. that homeopaths see daily.

Paulette
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:38:46 -0700
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Teaching the Organon
You received other answers also, which were not acknowledged, at least two from me for example.
(So I am not sure I should put in still more time if it is wasted. I shall try to be brief this time.)

My concern is that you are looking for what Hahnemann DID and not looing for WHY he did it.
"Be careful not to spend all your time countring the leaves on a tree, instead of understanding why a tree has leaves."

Hahnemann spent much of his time on other things than worig with sensitive cases who needed drop doses of remedy. He was busy writing books lecturing etc. So as a homneopath, he saw less cases than some susequent homeaopaths, who all togetehr will have seen a wider variety of cases than he ever could. He may not have come across all possible examples of the uses for the PRINCIPLES he developed. B ut that is the beuty of his work - his principles can apply firectly yo never before seen cases.
So maybe he never happened to find a pine tree with one crooked pine needle. But his principles still apply.
In your shoes I would be at pains to learn those principles and not get hung up with counting leaves.

It is never normal to use daily doses indefinitely. But where the principles fit, a rare situation, that may be what is needed to achieve aphorism one by Hahnemann.

In my own work over 30 years of helping owners to treat their animals by homeopathy, I came across ONE case that needed extended, daily, (very diluted and NOT succussed) drop doses (at 377C). That's one in many many thousands of cases. It shoud be relevant to explopre, not that this was done or needed, but WHY it was done.
It's by no means the norm, becasue I follow the PRINCIPLES of WHY Hahnemann did what he did, even if he never found a twisted pine needle as I happened to do.

In your shoes I would ask your homeopath WHY they were doing what they recommended (so that you can judge whether it fits within the PRINCIPLES of what Hahnemann did, not the examples of what Hahnemann did - or is some new approach).
.............

It is too long ago for the examples of what Hahnemann did to be anywhere near a complete set from which to study what Hahnemann developed for us. (it is counting leaves)
So it is wise to ignore what he did, and to learn instead WHY he did it (why the leaves are there).
WHY Hahnemann did what he did, is still 100% applicable today. So essentially, if you extract the PRINCIPLE - the REASONS - he did what he did (and he was at pains to describe them) , you will have a true foundatio from Hahnemann (which is an especially wonderful foundation) on which to build your understanding of his true and applicable achievements.

Direct your study with a realistic objective in mind. Your current one seens to be to know what Hahnemann did in his cases. WHY ? That is not a realistic objective, TO know WHY he did what he did, would be realistic and useful.
A Japanese proverb applies:
"Do not lean your ladder against a cloud."

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."

[Elham Mohajer]

Dear all
we did a lot of experiments with LMs and frankly our final conclusion was if you continue giving uninterruptedly you end up spoiling the case. Don't forget hahnemann said if there is good improvement don't repeat. We have realized this applies to LMs now what we usually do is give a week of 0/1 or 0/3 for a week and let the improvement continue. many times you never need to repeat again. If improvement stops you can go higher or change scale or medicine as needed.
Best regards
Elham
________________________________