Teaching the Organon

[Shannon Nelson]

I'd like to second Leilanae's thought that "drops" was probably not an accessible measure for Hahnemann's patients, whereas "spoons" would have been. The daily repetition for months on end with no pause, that would give me pause…
But as far as the size of dose, it's certainly very flexible. You may have read where one of Hahnemann's methods of dosing was olfaction -- a far smaller dose than drops! And yet effective.

I think there's a lot about size-of-dose that's uncertain; what I know from repeated experience, is that usually there is a very wide range of acceptable size-of-dose; some *people* are more sensitive than others (some require tiny doses such as olfaction, or multiple dilution cups; some require larger doses; most -- so far as I have seen -- can do fine with large *or* small doses; at least with C and X; I am not sure about LMs).
Just for fun I'll note that my only experience with a dose given by olfaction was -- with my cow. She'd been needing her (yearly or so?) re-dose of her chronic remedy, hadn't been feeling great, and was annoyed with me for some reason. When I offered her remedy in my usual cow-dosing way -- dissolved in water and splashed on what I thought would be a treat -- she just stuck her nose into the pail, gave a derisive sniff and stalked away. And was a changed girl by the next day. (My cow-dosing method is not Hahnemannian, but it's worked great for me.)

It has appeared to me that LMs are more dose-sensitive than are Cs, but I'm not certain.
Shannon

[Leilanae]

Here is the link to Lois's Yahoo Hahnemanics Group:
A group to study Hahnemann's 6th Organon


A group to study Hahnemann's 6th Organon
This group's purpose is to bring people together who are interested in going back to the basics: to Hahnemann's own writings in the or...
View on groups.yahoo.com
Preview by Yahoo
Atb,

Leilanae

[Paulette Montoya]

Richard,

My question to you/wife: was there improvement on all levels with the dosing schedule you supplied?

Paulette
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:27:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Teaching the Organon

I'd like to second Leilanae's thought that "drops" was probably not an accessible measure for Hahnemann's patients, whereas "spoons" would have been. The daily repetition for months on end with no pause, that would give me pause…
But as far as the size of dose, it's certainly very flexible. You may have read where one of Hahnemann's methods of dosing was olfaction -- a far smaller dose than drops! And yet effective.

I think there's a lot about size-of-dose that's uncertain; what I know from repeated experience, is that usually there is a very wide range of acceptable size-of-dose; some *people* are more sensitive than others (some require tiny doses such as olfaction, or multiple dilution cups; some require larger doses; most -- so far as I have seen -- can do fine with large *or* small doses; at least with C and X; I am not sure about LMs).
Just for fun I'll note that my only experience with a dose given by olfaction was -- with my cow. She'd been needing her (yearly or so?) re-dose of her chronic remedy, hadn't been feeling great, and was annoyed with me for some reason. When I offered her remedy in my usual cow-dosing way -- dissolved in water and splashed on what I thought would be a treat -- she just stuck her nose into the pail, gave a derisive sniff and stalked away. And was a changed girl by the next day. (My cow-dosing method is not Hahnemannian, but it's worked great for me.)

It has appeared to me that LMs are more dose-sensitive than are Cs, but I'm not certain.
Shannon

[Elham Mohajer]

Dear all

a few years back we did an experiment where we treated 400 patients with LMs and another 400 with single dose. We wanted to see which worked better. After three months of treatment we did an analysis and we found LMs had done much better. It was an analysis where some factors were taken into consideration such as level of improvement number of visits etc. If a patient did not come for a follow-up it was a zero, if there was no improvement a zero if slight improvement one and if great improvement 2 so on. At the end of three months the LMs had dome much better they scored 77 percent whereas the single potency had got around 54 percent. The most important reason for the low score was that the patient did not turn up for follow-up. In fact practically in both cases almost all those who had continued had said they were better.

This seemed like a major victory for LMs. The only problem is after one or one and a half year someone did another analysis to see if the pattern had continued. To our surprise after that long period the results had become almost similar. I am writing this from memory so there might be one or two percent here or there but after a long gap those who had been given single dose had come back reporting improvement so that there was actually very little difference between the two. Something like 84 percent for LMs and 81 or 82 percent for single dose.

So we ended up equally confused. But over the years we have done a lot of work and it is more or less clear that if there is no advanced pathology and you are giving a constitutional it might be better to give a single dose and wait. And if there is pathological change or you are giving a remedy locally or the patient is on medication etc. then LMs might be better. There are of course many other ways of prescribing and we use each method when needed. If some day I get time I will write something in detail on that.
Best regards
Elham

[Elham Mohajer]

Sorry I think I made a mistake in my last post. I think we had 200 patients in each category of LM and single dose

[M. Irfan Qureshi]

Irene's one sentence advice is the best advice for all those who wish to know about and understand Homeopathy without going through confusion.

[bienemancrichard]

Paulette,

You asked, "My question to you/wife: was there improvement on all levels with the dosing schedule you supplied?"

On ALL levels? No, not for either of us. And after the first two (maybe three) months, all progress ceased in all significant areas. The specific gains that we initially achieved have continued, but my wife's presenting complaint remains entirely unchanged (a significant pain issue, of unknown origin with which allopathic medicine entirely failed - actually created additional problems, unsurprisingly). To be fair, I achieved what I wanted as my primary treatment goals, and then some. I would consider my own treatment as having stopped at a point at which I can be satisfied if that's as far as I ever get. But treatment continued with no changes after those first couple of months in both our cases. For my wife, her two related primary treatment issues never changed at all. There was some excellent progress in other areas, but the initial assurances of success with my wife's primary treatment issue (and a closely related issue) never materialized. It was an almost constant "just a little bit longer" or "just a little more change in remedy or dosing and you should be experiencing relief," stretched out for the entire roughly 8 months of treatment. With zero changes for many months for both of us, along with other non-treatment issues that were arising, we were considering discontinuation. But because of the significant initial improvements in other areas early on, we were reluctant to give up too quickly, always hoping that the next change in remedy or dose would bring the first glimmers of hope regarding my wife's primary presenting issue. Perhaps fortunately, the decision was made for us when the homeopath abruptly announced he was discontinuing treatment.

Are we better off today? Absolutely - (particularly me, since my primary issues were successfully addressed, though my wife's did not change at all). Could it possibly be placebo effect? Not a chance. Unfortunately, a major constant pain issue that we were told to expect resolution of, never materialized to even the slightest degree for my wife. That's difficult to live with day after day, and she refuses to use pain medication because she fully understands the dangers of that, not to mention the principle of suppression.

But I did not come here seeking specific treatment guidance. My purpose here remains as it was initially - seeking clarification in my overall learning (and un-learning) process.

Richard

[bienemancrichard]

Thank you , Leilanae - I appreciate that. Between that and Wenda Brewster O'Reilly's edition of the Organon, I think I'll be well served.

Richard

[Rebekah Azzarelli]

I highly recommend the course Will Taylor taught on Dose and Potency. http://www.wholehealthnow.com/courses/potency.html

All the best,

Rebekah Azzarelli
This 5-session recorded course, is a careful exploration of dose, potency and repetition of dose (posology) in homeopathic clinical practice.

In the context of specific case examples (both acute and chronic), these 10 hours of study will help you transfer the material to direct application in your clinical practice.

This course reviews the history of dose and potency in our tradition, and relevant lessons for our work today.

Additional topics covered include:

* examples and exercises in potency selection in a variety of acute and chronic cases
* the early development of dose & potency over Hahnemann's lifetime
* recommendations & practices of notable historical & contemporary practitioners ~ as they practiced, as well as what they wrote about it
* schools of practice promoted in the 1980's rebirth of homeopathy ~ notably the approaches of Vithoulkas and Eizayaga
* 50-millesimal (LM, Q) potencies - use & management
* the use of crude and tincture doses in homeopathic practice

[bienemancrichard]

Irene,

Given that a single sentence in black and white on a computer screen has no inflection, facial expression, or other evidence of meaning, I can potentially take your statement that "David Little is not Hahnemann," in at least two, maybe even three different ways. But that's more of a side issue now, after you then raised a far more important new concern for me.

I've really been thrown for a loop, contemplating your second statement in which you recommend that "before study opinions of other than Hahnemann, read Hahnemann ....from start to end."

First, are you saying start with the 1st edition of the Organon and proceed through the 6th, or just read the 6th edition "from start to end?" And in either case, with respect to the 6th edition, I certainly would not want to be misled, since I don't speak German (either 21st or 18th century). Therefore, which translation of the 6th edition would you suggest, since there is even disagreement on what constitutes the "best" version? Should I stick with Dudgeon and Boericke, or go with Naude, Pendelton and Künzli? Or if Wenda O'Reilly's is now the best available (on which I finally settled, and from which I read regularly), who determined which should be the "Official Authorized and Accepted Orthodox" English version? I certainly would not want to be studying the wrong one and thereby develop even more misunderstandings about homeopathy than I've already developed to this point, since there seems to be so much discussion and even disagreement about what Hahnemann really meant to say if he'd said it in 21st century English.

Or do I need to completely shelve my study of homeopathy, until I can become fluent not only in German, but 18th century German as well? I could well be dead before then. But if alive and mentally still intact, should I then read the microfilms from the University of California for myself, where Hahemann annotated his 5th edition? And where do the casebooks fit in - before or after I start reading anyone else's ideas on 6th edition homeopathy?

You may not take the above to be worth responding to. But given your absolute statement that "before study opinions of other than Hahnemann, read Hahnemann ....from start to end," the logical questions of "how much" and "which translation(s)" arise. Quite honestly, I don't know whether you mean to read just the 6th edition, or go sequentially (as someone else stated here) from the 1st edition through the 6th, trying to keep track of the changes. And either way, given the sometimes significant disagreements on what Hahnmann meant in his original German, as it should correctly be translated today, one quite legitimately should ask, "Which translation? And why?"

Having earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees, in addition to getting halfway through a 2nd masters program before realizing I was not interested in pursuing that field, I've had a fair amount of formal education (both good and bad). And in all those many years of formal education, no one has ever suggested to me that I could not sign up for a course, let alone a degree program, because I had not completed the prerequisite of having already finished the writings of the masters in a given field, through independent study. I was always admitted after having demonstrated the ability to learn at an advanced level (which included being able to reasonably discern between conflicting opinions). And I then started with introductory courses, followed by more detailed courses, as I concurrently studied those original writings of the masters in a given field. This is the first time I've ever heard someone say not to start reading any other material in a field until I've finished the original masters' writings (in this case Hahnemann). I would suppose then that you would strongly disagree with Sheri when she said, "Read Dr. Luc and David Little for the interpretation of 5th and 6th edition dosing. Few practice properly with those editions...."

If I correctly understood what you wrote here, I suppose I'll just have to be content with letting you consider me a lost cause.

And if I misunderstood those two short sentences in your last post, please better explain them.
Richard