REVISED Any 6th edition prescribers here?

[Sheri Nakken]

>Any 6th edition prescribers here?

Should have said 5th edition split dose, continuing to 6th edition advanced
methods including split dose and LM's
No dry potencies except with some acutes when can do nothing else, for the
most part
Sheri
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[Rosemary C Hyde, Ph.D.]

Yes, split dose except for acutes. I do occasionally use dry split doses in very very clear cases, usually people who are relatively recent immigrants to the US from countries where they have had minimal allopathic treatment.

Rosemary

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Rosemary,

By "dry split doses" do you mean e.g. two "doses" twelve hours apart
apart (or whatever), or do you mean a dose "as needed" or "daily" or
whatever?
Thanks,
Shannon

[Rosemary C Hyde, Ph.D.]

Two doses 12 hours apart. I can't possibly be the only person whose instructors at school used this protocol routinely, with good effect. )

Rosemary

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Magda,

The term "split dose" is used to describe more than one method. The
first use I heard of the term was from people who had no familiarity
with 6th (or 5th?) edition method, and did not use water doses. They
used it to mean two or three "doses" taken 12 (or 24) hours apart.
Best,
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks Rosemary,
That's the way I initially learned the term, but have since heard it
used in other ways too.

I'm curious why you do this only with "very very clear cases" who had
had minimal allopathic treatment? I had understood it as a way to
*lessen* chance of aggravation, not as something more apt to *cause*
it--could you explain your understanding?
Thanks!
Shannon

[Marybeth Buchele]

Hello all,
I'm 95% an LM user for chronic cases, but when I do use dry remedies for
chronic cases, I'll do any of the following, or whatever else seems to make
sense, taking into account the person's sensitivity, ability to follow
directions, etc.
1. two or three doses, 90 minutes apart.
2. two or three doses, 30 minutes apart.
3. two or three doses, one dose per day
4. two or three doses, 12 hours apart, like Rosemary said
I usually use 200C remedies with the split dose method. One recent case I'd
been treating for 2 1/2 years off and on, I found a really good remedy, but
the LM was too subtle for his rather immovable constitution that no remedy
had had more than a passing effect on. With three dose of 200C, one dose per
day, he seems to be a cured case, holding for 4 months so far.
In a message dated 4/24/2005 10:00:22 PM Central Standard Time,
rosemarychyde@mindspring.com writes:

Two doses 12 hours apart. I can't possibly be the only person whose
instructors at school used this protocol routinely, with good effect. )

Rosemary

[Rosemary C Hyde, Ph.D.]

Hi, Shannon.

Actually, as I said when this discussion began, with most chronic situations where the picture is a bit complex, I prefer to start with the LM potencies. If the case is complex, there's a long history of medical treatments for various symptoms, and there are likely to be drug and miasmatic layers, the picture is almost by definition unclear, requiring gentle, cautious treatment. I find that the LMs work gently and smoothly for most people -- although sometimes with very sensitive patients,I end up having them double dilute even the LM remedies and take them infrequently.

Different people respond better to different potencies and posologies, of course. I remember well, for instance, a patient I misjudged. I started him with a dry dose centesimal, 200c. He was a relatively young male patient, in his late 30s, who seemed healthy and strong, and for whom the indicated remedy was clearly Lycopodium. I gave him a dry dose of 200c, figuring there might be a brief return of something, but that he would heal uneventfully.

However, every day for the next week, he called two or three times complaining at great length about this ache and that pain -- all of which had been aroused by the 200c. They were good returns of benign old symptoms, but he was more disturbed by them than I had first judged he would be. I sent him LM1 of Lycopodium to take instead, and after the first LM dose he started feeling much better. He went through LM1-LM6, and was then apparently cured -- feeling fine.

After he was in a car accident a year later, he got Nux-v symptoms, and I gave him Nux-v 200c for short-term relief. (dry dose, evening and morning, once each). This worked just fine -- no problems. Then, a month later, he called to say that the Lyc symptoms had now started coming back. I then gave him a split dose (2 pellets in the evening and 2 the next morning) of Lyc 1M, and that took care of the breakthrough of Lyc symptoms. He's been fine since then (about 18 months).

I gave him centesimal dry doses in the two latter situations because they seemed short term -- the sequelae of the accident were obviously acute, and the return of the Lycopodium symptoms was a result of the acute trauma -- and it seemed that the centesimal dry dose would make short work of the necessary healing. This strategy worked fine now for this patient, in the right circumstances. For the longstanding, chronic symptoms he brought in the first place, the LM was obviously a better strategy for him than the dry centesimal.

I've also used dry centesimal doses with patients (usually male) who come in, even with longstanding chronic symptoms (psoric, no other complicating miasms or pathologies), and tell me spontaneously that they want "fast results" -- no waiting around for weeks or months to get relief for them, thank you! They're telling me they want direct, dramatic results, and I figure it's their vital force speaking. These patients have responded well to the dry doses I gave in response to their request.

Occasionally, I have also switched from LMs to dry centesimal potencies if the person is recovering with the LM but so slowly that it's not clear after two or three months whether we've really got the right remedy or not. It's clear at that point they're not overly susceptible to the remedy's action. A 1M dry dose generally gives us a pretty good idea rather quickly of whether to continue with the same remedy (then usually in ascending centesimal potencies) or to switch to the remedy whose picture starts coming out in response to the 1M.

I put the centesimal potencies in water if there's any likelihood that the patient will need to repeat that remedy in that potency before going on to a higher potency. For example, with the patient I posted a few days ago who was experiencing the neurological reactions to chemo, I gave a centesimal potency in water because she needs a strong definite counteraction to the chemo and she will need to repeat the remedy after each dose of chemo, possibly several times till she sees results -- so then plussing becomes useful.

I also put the remedies in water if I'm using a centesimal potency with someone who seems likely to be highly sensitive for some reason, so I have more control of how much of the remedy they will actually take -- then the number and size of dilutions becomes part of the treatment strategy.

So in short I find that posology presents many different possibilities and challenges, depending on the patient and the circumstances, as David Little has taught us so well.

Rosemary

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

As an aside - I have mentioned before that I tried this method once and
having seen the second dose antidote the good progress of the first ,
abandoned it. have never used it since or seen the need of it.

Simon

[Sheri Nakken]

No, but that isn't what I was referring to - it is the liquid potencies
I've referred to in previous email.
The 5th edition of the organon split method

David Little's info summarizing this
http://www.simillimum.com

And Luc de Schepper's info (his book " Achieving and
Maintaining the Simillimum." is excellent at explaining this and looking at
various scenarios.

http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/simillimum.html

http://www.minimum.com/interviews/drlucpt1-rev.htm
"Dr. Luc: It is not correct that I treated patients exclusively with LM
potencies but I certainly was one of the first in this country to treat
patients with LM potencies in the correct way. However the discovery of the
5th edition split method, to which I came later, was a huge improvement in
treating patients. LMs are very penetrating and fast working and patients
with their allopathic mindset often abused it in a mechanical way (even
homeopaths do it). This always leads to unnecessary similar aggravations
(removed from the 6th edition as not being necessary!) and the formation of
more complex diseases. Now I would treat at least 70% of the chronic
patient cases with the 5th edition split method and 100% of the acutes with
this split method. Results are astonishing and if applied worldwide, would
change the face of practice of homeopathy. My only hope is that the 90% of
the homeopaths stuck in the 4th edition, will take advantage of these
advanced methods of Hahnemann and see the remarkable, speedy and gentle
cures as promised in A2 of the Organon. It is Kent who steered all the next
generations of homeopaths on the wrong path, as he never bothered to use
the 5th edition split method (which he could have-1833!) and with his
belief that the "dose (or amount of pellets) was of no importance". This
goes into the face of everything Hahnemann said and what every observing
practitioner has seen. Although in his Lesser Writings , Kent stated that
"no similar aggravation" is what we need to strive for, he was known to
have caused countless severe aggravations. Unfortunately, even well known
homeopaths today, think that they need to cause a "similar aggravation" in
order to know they applied the simillimum, something Hahnemann had removed
from his teachings in the 6th edition of the Organon (A161). Kent and
therefore most homeopaths under his influence, never even applied watery
doses and never dared to repeat a dose "while the patient was improving,
A246." Regarding the "myth" that Hahnemann was suffering from senility in
his later years, it is a cheap excuse for those who claim so to abandon
Hahnemann's teachings and apply their own frivolities. One only has to
study the microfiches of his Paris years and read statements from those
that were present in those years (Dr Croserio, read Lesser Writings of von
Boenninghausen) to observe that until the last days of his life he remained
a staunch intellectual, industrious 'till the end to provide us with his
last legacy, the LM potency. For more about this split method and
Hahnemann?s later years, I refer the reader to my book, " Achieving and
Maintaining the Simillimum."
"

At 07:59 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, you wrote:
instructors at school used this protocol routinely, with good effect. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936