Water dose question

[David Little]

Hello all,

There is no doubt that the methods of the 4th Organon wait and wait
method is effective. I don't think there is any question that the dry dose
is effective and has cured many cases. It has also been shown that the low
potency Cs like the 6x and 6c can be repeated dry within reason without
producing a great number of aggravations and problems. I have tested this
method. It can cause aggravation if over used in a sensitive patient but
they don't last long if the remedy is stopped.

This said, I have received many reports from persons that used the dry
method that have found, in general, the medicinal solution more effective
due to series succussions and precise dose adjustments. Many well known
homoeopaths of the past who used the dry dose in chronic patients still put
the remedy in water for acute diseases because it was easier to repeat the
remedy this way rather than dry. Even Kent did this at times.

The problems of the dry dose are intensified as the potencies moved
through 30c to 200c, 1M, 10M, 50M, etc.These higher potencies have been
documented to produce a decent number of aggravations, some of which have
been quite prolonged. Hahnemann clearly wrote, and experience confirms,
that the higher the potency the more the size of the dose becomes
important. In fact, Hahnemann introduced the medicinal solution to control
the power of his remedies when the potencies reach 30c and beyond up to the
50th, 100th, 200th, 1000th and higher.

There is no doubt that method of the 5th (C) and 6th Organon (LM),
which include the wait and watch and the act and observe spit-dose method
is effective. Now it is a question of how to utilized all our assets and
understand the differences of these methods and where these difference may
be exploited. There is little doubt that the method of the medicinal
solution is more flexible than the dry dose. This is because the one can
not succuss the dry remedy to alter the potencies nor adjust the size of
the dose in such a precise manner. This certainly can be helpful in some
cases. I have cured several cases with the medicinal solutions with the
same remedy and base potency that was used dry and failed.

The cases in which the extra small doses of the medicinal solution fail
are those that need a much larger dose. If one still feels they wish to use
the serial succussions and dose adjustment on such patients they can use
several pills in the medicinal solution. I have found that these persons
usually will react to dropper bottle dose in a small volume like 200 drops
of 1/2 water and alcohol which is succussed 10, 12 or more times. When
giving each dose the number of drops can be increase until the is
sufficient medicinal action.

Just putting a remedy in water is not the aqueous method. One has to
know how to apply the adjustments succussions, size of the dose, and the
repetition, which includes a number of potential customizations. Those who
say they have never serious tested the medicinal solution have little room
to comment. I would ask those who have never used the medicinal solution or
say they saw no difference between wet and dry doses to test the method
again side by side in a clinical trial using *Hahnemann baseline protocols*
and its adjustments EXACTLY as written.

Take a percentage of cases and use the dry method and percentage and
use the liquid method. Do this for a minimum period of 1 year and then
review all the cases. If you still think there is no differences in these
methods and the solution never provides any advantages then please return
to the dry dose in all cases.

Sincerely, David Little

[Shannon Nelson]

My experience also has been pretty much the same (I do see differences
occasionally--a few where water does seem better, and a few where dry
seemed better). My guess is that the difference will be more
significant with certain patients and patient populations than with
others? I'm sure Hahnemann had good reason for insisting that water
doses are better, yet there's an awful lot of good experience behind
the idea that repeating dry doses also works very well. Robin, I share
your confusion! (And also your affection for 6 and 12
potencies!)

Carol, I'm curious whether your ten years' comparison covers a large
number of people? (My experiments cover only perhaps a dozen, so I am
particularly grateful to others for a broader context.)
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Very good sense, and I will try to do just that--thanks!
Shannon

[cbwillis9]

> Carol, I'm curious whether your ten years' comparison covers a large
I don't see a hundred people a day or have hundreds of people in
a practice. I've paid close attention to a relatively small number
of family, friends, and self over the years. That's an open
invitation for numbers people to write me off wholesale,
and quickly. I'm just an old multidisciplinary mad scientist
who lives perpetually in a few hard questions and gnawing
investigations. I agree that theology + medicine is a great
combination. If there's anything of value in my observations,
it's there for the taking -> as hypotheses for consideration and
further experimentation ad lib.
I've done dropper bottles, succussion, and a spoonful of a solution,
as well as plain aqueous preparation. If you need to redose several
times, then it is useful to change the vibration slightly by
succussion, give the system a little shock so it doesn't get bored
and fall asleep from the same ole vibration over and over,
and for other reasons. But I rarely redose more than once or twice,
and rarely go over 30C, so haven't needed to do much of that.
It's nice to have options.

But as to why dry dose has worked as well for me as aqueous
(and its variations)...I attribute that to homeopathic dose
as vibration, introducing the vibration into the person's
space/field, *however* it's done whether dry dose, aqueous, bottle,
spoonful, paper remedy even.
You're addressing the vital force in a field/space,
a vital force that's throwing out symptoms saying "help".
The fundamental address is to the vital force, symptoms secondarily.
As in spiritually oriented therapy, the fundamental address is
to the person as spirit, not their story (which contains
a combination of truth and falsehood, distortions, misunderstandings,
misplaced blame, pain, lack of acknowledgement, other key omissions).
The therapeutic process ostensibly deals with the story, but
only in order to get to the spirit and life energy that
ends up prevailing - prevailing bigtime. Vibration (quality) over
quantity again. Spirit overcoming the world. The remedy as
vibration in whatever form is a vehicle, a via.

Carol

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Carol,
My reason for asking wasn't to find an excuse to discount your
experience! But I always find it valuable to have a "context" for the
conclusions. My situation and observations are pretty much the same as
yours; but there may be a broader context as well, and that's why I
asked.
Best,
Shannon