200C Potencies can be dangerous

[Ginny Wilken]

I'm really frustrated by this thread, and want to play the Emperor's
New Clothes here. I'm just a beginner, and have not much experience
with humans. But I know first hand of MANY dogs who have been messed up
by repeated 200c doses, usually of something not the correct
simillimum. Many of these have been permanently damaged as the helpless
owner watched the practitioner dose and redose, change remedies, and
the dog get worse and worse. No amount of correct prescribing can undo
the pathology generated.

Why take a chance on damage, when the LM potencies offer so much more
gentle an approach? I can see nothing bad about doing what Hahnemann
devoted the major part of his later life to explore. What happened to
not doing harm? It's an issue, perhaps, of arrogance, laziness, or
ignorance - the option of gentle and effective treatment is right there
on a platter. I can understand how a 200c or even a 1M might be the
best one can do if treating the indigent in a clinic situation, where
you're never going to see them again, but in any case where you CAN
manage it, why not do so?

I am fully willing to play the dumb kid here, just to get this
viewpoint out there, and I know some of you will agree even if you
haven't said anything so far.
ginny

All stunts performed without a net!

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Ginny,

I'm saddened and appalled that you've known "many dogs who have been messed
up" by homeopathic prescribing!!!! I would *love* to know more details
about what the dogs were being treated for, and what their schedule of
dosing was--do you happen to know any of the cases well enough to share
those details? (And/or would you be willing to find out, and bring them to
the list--with permission and with no names attached?)

I want to say that IMO the difference in "safety" between LM prescribing and
high potency prescribing is *far* less important than is the prescriber's
ability to *see and understand* what is happening in the case, and the
prescriber's understanding of the *appropriate* use of whichever method. In
fact I've been told that LMs should *not* be used by beginners, should not
be prescribed until the prescriber has first gained an understanding of how
remedies work, and the process of cure, thru use of low and (judiciously and
when appropriate!) high potencies. I'm sure this is only one person's
opinion (it's one of my first teachers that I got this from), but to me
seems extremely reasonable. Persistent overdosing can cause problems with
any potency, I would think...

And with LMs and high potencies both, if prescribing is done with an eye to
the *needs* of the case, the risk of overprescribing should be *very slight*
in nearly all situations. (I too will have to plead some "beginner"
status--many years and lots of books, but not so many patients--and am happy
to receive conflicting opinions!)

I get really nervous about dosing methods that repeat on a schedule (rather
than based on the patient's response), and that continue the schedule for
long periods of time... *Single* doses repeated *as needed* (and with
adequate understanding of what constitutes "need") are extremely unlikely to
cause any trouble. Can you tell us any more about the cases you're familiar
with?

Shannon
on 1/27/05 11:01 AM, ginny wilken at gwilken@alamedanet.net wrote:

[dusty1197]

Whoa, the descriptions below bespeak malpractice in the most extreme
sense of the word! I personally don't use LMs -- not for any
derogatory reason, just personal choice -- and I simply can't
imagine generating the sort of damage you describe with the dosing
methods I employ.

The potency, while important, is really not the primary issue in the
cases you cite. The size and frequency of the dose are more
relevant, and these can be beautifully controlled with aqueous
dosing. Medicinal solutions provide unlimited flexibility in degree
of dilution, number of succussions, and size of dose.

The suffering you describe is not only unforgiveable but entirely
preventable! Not using LMs, IMO, is not synonymous with taking a
chance on damage. Every remedy in every potency is determined
either gentle and effective or hazardous and impotent by the manner
in which it's prescribed.

I can, however, GENUINELY relate to your outrage!! Mistreatment of
animals is particularly heinous in my view. Companion animals are
totally dependent on human guardians for virtually everything to do
with their survival and well-being. When that trust and
ingenuousness is violated, whether through ignorance or complacency
or any other cause, any unflappability I might have heads straight
out the window. But don't mistaken the misdeeds of careless
practitioners for what might be misconstrued as dangers inherent to
certain potencies. It's sad how such cases create misrepresentation
of homeopathy and ENRAGING how they leave a trail of innocent
victims in their wake!!

Toni

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, ginny wilken wrote:
then
an
wiggle",
Emperor's
experience
messed up
helpless
and
undo
more
Hahnemann
to
there
the
where
CAN

[Ginny Wilken]

Noble sentiments, Dusty. But it happens all the time, by those who
haven't learned about the Sixth Organon. As far as cases, there are
some I am not at liberty yet to discuss, but I can cite our own as a
garden-variety disaster narrowly averted.

I went to a respected, Pitcairn-trained DMV, and after a very expensive
interview, she decided, properly, that Tomo, then seven years old, had
vaccine damage. However, she sent us home with a 30c dry dose, multiple
pellets, of Lyssin. After a short initial improvement, things got worse
again - we're talking about aggression, fears, rear end pain, skin
disorders - all the common things one might expect. She advised
repeating the dose after six weeks. This dose produced NO improvement
at all, so after waiting another six weeks, she sent us a dry dose in
200c. This one clearly caused aggravations in all the principal
symptoms. She said this was wonderful, as it showed us the remedy was
working.

About this time, Magda threw us a rope, we switched remedies
immediately to Lachesis in LM03 and got immediate and fairly permanent
resolution. We have continued to follow the case through its layers and
changes with LMs and 30c in MS for the acute situations that have
arisen, and he is a changed boy, happy and calm, but with some leftover
pathological damage. My feeling is that the Lyssin was totally
incorrect, and that had we continued it he would have become incurable.

There are other worse cases, as I said. One that comes to mind is a dog
presenting with aggression issues that was nearly killed by starting
with Thuja in 200c multiple pellets, immediately aggravated. The
homeopath repeated the dry 200c dose several times, causing the animal
great discomfort. He then switched to Sulph in the same potency, for
the animal's skin which had started sloughing off and developing into
huge growths and sores. Wrong again, he switched to Merc, and the dog
was next to death, weak and almost comatose, full of sores. He was
saved with an antidote for the improper remedies in LM01 which worked
immediately to restore vitality. Continued treatment has resolved all
his temperament issues. He still has leftover skin issues from the
aggravations, but the case is continuing in the hopes of total
resolution.

Calling these poor examples of homeopaths criminals is to fall far
short. I'm glad I didn't come face-to-face with any of them back before
I got my own case under control. I would have been hard put to keep
myself from hurting them.
ginny

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Just to mention that it is illegal for homepaths to treat animals in
the UK unless they are vets also
regards
Simon King


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

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Ginny,

Thanks for these specific instances to discuss! My remarks and questions
below:

on 1/28/05 11:39 AM, ginny wilken at gwilken@alamedanet.net wrote:

...

To help give us a better context for what follow, could you describe what
Tomo's presenting complaints were, and other background--level of health
vitality, temperament, brief health history? (I don't mean extensive
detail, just enough to better understand what followed.)
What were her instructions for repetition--or were the pellets just to
"hold" for future use?
In my experience short initial improvement followed by relapse simply means
remedy is not close enough... But it would depend on the specifics, and
"how short is short", etc.
To me this seems a bit optimistic (if the rx was right, 30 should have a
decent action--usually but not always), but not unreasonable.
Depending on the size of dose and nature and degree of aggravation, this
again doesn't sound completely unreasonable to me (tho again a bit on the
optimistic side).
But what happened after the aggravation, how long did it last and was that
followed by any improvement? Was the aggravation was really unmanageable
and/or the dog suffering greatly? Or you simply felt that the prior doses
ought to have led to improvement if right rx?
(What does LMs and 30c in MS mean?)
Do you mean leftover pathological damage from three well-spaced doses of
Lyssin, or have I misunderstood? Or was the damage remaining from his prior
situation, or ?
I share your hunch that it was the wrong remedy, but wrong remedies don't
generally cause lasting harm unless they are given awfully aggressively...
Ginny, I'm asking this *not* to argue with your experience! But I'm curious
to understand just what might have happened. Maybe it's my "inner
hypochondriac" asking.
In Cs, multiple pellets given in a single dose is *not* generally a problem.
(The *only* time I've seen it to cause a significant problem is when a
sensitive toddler ate an entire half-dram vial; and even that one was over
in two weeks leaving a very much happier somewhat the wiser.) I am *not*
saying that "size of dose doesn't matter", because I've been disabused of
that one! But I continue to think/observe that, for most patients, using
Cs, within a range of a few pellets, it doesn't matter *very much*.

Multiple (and ill-timed) *doses* are more apt to cause trouble--in my
experience.
Ouch, repeated how far apart? I wonder why they repeated a dose that was
causing such discomfort, esp. since you do not mention any improvement...
I assume there were multiple, closely spaced doses of each remedy? It would
be awfully unusual for three wrongly chosen remedies to get an animal "close
to death" unless it had been there to begin with!
Do you recall what the remedy was? I wonder how much of the better result
was from the new remedy, and how much from the changed potency scale? (But
it is very true and for some folks/animals high potency is *not* the way to
go!)

Shannon

[Ginny Wilken]

One dose, watch and wait.

Right you are, IMO.

But even in my ignorance, I was beginning to have serious doubts.

I find this completely wrong, and intolerable. See below.
I'm not going to drag this on, and except in our case, I'm not in a
position to answer in detail. I do want to point out that your
expression of things in terms of optimism, unreasonableness, and
willingness to give the benefit of the doubt seem to me to be products
of an incomplete expectation of homeopathy. Firstly, I know a
dissimilar aggravation when I see one, but, more importantly, I think -
and in this I have good company in the Master himself - that they are
unnecessary, obstructive to the case, harmful to the patient - and
completely avoidable. One has to expect better, and this, I believe, is
what spurred Hahnemann onward.

I can't believe you're asking this:) LM potencies, and 30c potencies
given in Medicinal Solution, as explained in the Fitfh and Sixth
Organons. I would use a 30c, in solution, almost exclusively in an
acute situation, expecting that its action will be immediate, but far
shallower and of shorter duration than an LM. This again is why
Hahnemann went onward, not to higher potencies in the C range, but to
the finer and deeper effects of LMs, and firstly to the idea of
splitting doses via a medicinal solution to avoid aggravation and at
the same time continue the action of the remedy.
I believe the damage was pre-existing to his treatment, but aggravated
into an acute crisis. Hard to say in these cases because you can't
always see things developing under the skin, or do not recognize them
as symptoms in earlier stages.

The susceptibility and sensitivity of patients varies widely. This is
clearly another reason behind Hahnemann's search for gentler ways.
There is NO NEED to risk aggravation.
I disagree strongly. See above.
Go figure. Idiots with incomplete educations are everywhere.
Unfortunately, his errors are common, based on knee-jerk prescribing
and incomplete repertorization. The animal was healthy except for
recently arising behavioral aberrations prior to treatment.
I would say that it is not the way to go for any patient. The remedy is
irrelevant; it's a documented antidote. The important thing was to stop
the action of the improper and grossly overdosed remedies. This alone
brought the animal back from death's door, literally.

Folks, I don't belong in this discussion. As I said, I am a beginner, a
student, and would not deign to prescribe for anything except
emergencies and illnesses without checking with my mentors. But I can
already see that folks like Shannon and I are on different pages -
actually, different editions. I find Hahnemann's late work extremely
moving and powerful in its desire and scope. This, to me, validates
everything he discovered from the earliest writings, and makes it all
the more understandable. I cannot fathom why this is considered
"advanced" conceptually, as it speaks even more directly to what makes
homeopathy work in the first place.

But that's all I can contribute, and I'll go back to my studies for
now. Thank you for bearing with my neophyte's perspective, and for
sharing yours.

ginny
All stunts performed without a net!

[Shannon Nelson]

First--in continuing this I definitely can't argue with the *result*, since
the change you made has evidently worked! It's more some of the processes
and assumptions I'm interesting in following up on, and hoping not to be
annoying about it! Because again, obviously your choice to change *did*
work...

on 1/28/05 1:57 PM, ginny wilken at gwilken@alamedanet.net wrote:
And *yet*, I have watched a couple of cases where, after a "too-soon"
relapse the prescriber re-dosed, in case there had been an antidoting (and I
realize that some here don't believe in that!) or in case the VF just needed
the extra reminder, and it worked out. And BTW this was a cautious
prescriber who did this (not myself, FWIW). So I hesitate to come down
*too* hard on this repetition in itself. But onward...

Another "but"--some folks here have talked about seeing a remedy act weakly
in one potency, not at all in the next step up, then act well on the *next*
step up in potency. I would have assumed that if the remedy was going to
work, you'd have *some* response at each step, but I do think I've heard
folks here saying otherwise.

Maybe the bigger issue in *my* mind (and I'm only throwing out ideas) is the
level the potency has now reached (1M), and whether that's appropriate for
a weak animal with skin problems. *That*, I think, is what would give me
pause, more than the dosing method itself, so far. (?)
Well, this is part of why I was asking for "what was he like before" and
"what happened"... You didn't give us enough to reocgnize that it was a
dissimilar aggravation. If it was in fact dissimilar, then that entirely
changes things. You didn't say that.
Sorry, I do not recall that abbreviation, but now that I know what it
*stands* for, I can follow you. Thanks.
If there was preexisting tissue damamge (pathology), then of course high
potencies were contraindicated. This too you did not say, and is another
part of what I was interested in finding out.
Okay, I'm at a loss to understand just what happened, but since (from this
above and the following) I see that I'm annoying you without moving things
any forwarder, I'll bow out.

Best wishes,
Shannon