--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "John Harvey"
wrote:
Hi John and thank's everyone for your answers
This is a real case of course and the symptoms are very simillar to
the picture of Conium and it was like that also before the
administering of Conium.
The situation at present is mostly an aggravation of the old
sympthoms (the legs was weak but now almost totally paralysed, He was
tired but now much more, ect.)
About new symptoms: That is something I will check more carefully to
see If one of the Antidotes that were mentioned are better fit than
Conium, because the Idea of giving the poor man the same thing that
caused his aggravation is to me a bit frightening, even if given in a
different potency (note 63 to aphorism 56 in the Organon).
As I said in my message the Conium was given 6C daily dry dose for
about 7 to 10 days until the man was paralysed and rigid all over and
had to be rushed to the hospital, there he also had a sudden
deterioration in the mental state (like dementia) for one day but it
got better and he also had an pneumonia and a bladder inflamation
which was treated with antibiotics.
I will check carfully to look for new sympthoms.
Thank you all for sharing your experience.
Ben.
First Do Not Harm
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: First Do Not Harm
Dear Ben,
Thanks for all that clarification; I wasn't sure whether you'd meant
you had any influence on the course of this patient's treatment.
Ben, as hahemannian20002 was, I think, suggesting, Conium is not the
problem in itself. If the man is _so_ sensitive to Conium and it is
the correct remedy, then don't be scared of it; definitely use it. A
higher potency, as others have suggested, would be advisable, but the
main thing to do in order to prevent all further aggravations is to
follow Hahnemann's advice concerning the actual amount to be given.
When I finally needed to think about this myself about a decade ago
(not because of an aggravation, which I have never yet seen, but
because of failure to act) and I reread Hahnemann's directions, what
sank into my feeble brain is that my assumption had been wrong that
the quantity one takes in a single dose of a potentised remedy doesn't
matter.
QUANTITY DOES MATTER. So ludicrous can this seem when you're
discussing a homoeopathic potency that it's easy to shrug off, but one
of Hahnemann's recommendations in order to avoid all risk of
aggravations was to stir the medicated pellet into a small quantity (7
or 8 Tbsp) of water and thoroughly succuss that; stir a Tbsp of that
into another 7 or 8 Tbsp of water in a glass; stir a Tbsp of this into
another 7 or 8 Tbsp; and have the patient take a small amount of that.
(With very sensitive patients, he says, there's no reason not to go
through another one or two glasses!) I've used this method once or
twice, and can attest that the remedy still works just fine. (Of
course, there's water and there's water. Try to use water you won't
wonder about later. At the very least, if it's not properly filtered,
boil it and let it cool.)
Another method is to use olfaction -- but only in a suitable
environment. (Don't open the bottle even a long way downwind from a
working lawnmower, for instance. My Rhus tox. 200 never worked again
after suffering that indignity, and I had no option but to replace
it.)
Hahnemann's advice about homoeopathic aggravations in chronic illness
is unmistakeable: "where medicines of long action have to combat a
malady of considerable or of very long standing, [there] no such
apparent increase of the original disease ought to appear during
treatment and it does not so appear if the accurately chosen medicine
was given in proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat
modified with renewed dynamisation. Such increase of the original
symptoms of a chronic disease can appear only at the end of treatment
when the cure is almost or quite finished". (Aphorism 161) [I've
corrected the word "where" in the Dudgeon/Boericke 6th ed. to "there",
without which correction that sentence makes no sense.]
Again, it's easy to interpret "doses" as the inverse of potencies.
But in this context, notice that Hahnemann also speaks of modifying
the potency as an independent variable. So it's quite clear that when
Hahnemann uses the word "doses", he in fact means doses. To
recapitulate the great man: the patient initially hypersensitive to
the remedy homoeopathic to his chronic condition will gradually
tolerate higher quantities of the remedy, and as often as you like, as
long as you don't forget to change the potency at each dose!
Hahnemann also, incidentally, cautions against even a single
repetition in unchanged potency -- at all, but especially in dry
pellets -- and one of his strongest reasons was exactly the induction
of unnecessary medicinal symptoms.
This is the message of Aphorism 247.
It is the message of footnote 133 to Aphorism 247.
It is the message of Aphorism 161.
He's told us three times; that should be enough!
But if the result of giving the patient a single dose of a
(sufficiently) potentised medicine is the awakening of new symptoms of
a chronic nature, then you have neither medical carelessness nor a
hypersensitive patient to worry about, but merely the wrong remedy.
(Close, probably, but no cigar.) (See Aphorism 248.) Hahnemann's
direction here is to simply select the right one and give it.
In a nutshell, if the "new" or "aggravated" symptoms are in fact new
(of a different kind from any the patient has ever experienced
before), then either they're part of the pathogenesis of the remedy --
in which case, let's simply call a halt to the proving and give the
poor guy a few days to get over it -- or they're the result of giving
the wrong remedy, in which case let's give him the right one. And if
the symptoms are in fact NOT new but aggravations, then raise the
potency and give him what he should have had in the first place, a
single dose to test the waters. That single dose will remove the
medicinal symptoms.
Kind regards,
John Harvey
Thanks for all that clarification; I wasn't sure whether you'd meant
you had any influence on the course of this patient's treatment.
Ben, as hahemannian20002 was, I think, suggesting, Conium is not the
problem in itself. If the man is _so_ sensitive to Conium and it is
the correct remedy, then don't be scared of it; definitely use it. A
higher potency, as others have suggested, would be advisable, but the
main thing to do in order to prevent all further aggravations is to
follow Hahnemann's advice concerning the actual amount to be given.
When I finally needed to think about this myself about a decade ago
(not because of an aggravation, which I have never yet seen, but
because of failure to act) and I reread Hahnemann's directions, what
sank into my feeble brain is that my assumption had been wrong that
the quantity one takes in a single dose of a potentised remedy doesn't
matter.
QUANTITY DOES MATTER. So ludicrous can this seem when you're
discussing a homoeopathic potency that it's easy to shrug off, but one
of Hahnemann's recommendations in order to avoid all risk of
aggravations was to stir the medicated pellet into a small quantity (7
or 8 Tbsp) of water and thoroughly succuss that; stir a Tbsp of that
into another 7 or 8 Tbsp of water in a glass; stir a Tbsp of this into
another 7 or 8 Tbsp; and have the patient take a small amount of that.
(With very sensitive patients, he says, there's no reason not to go
through another one or two glasses!) I've used this method once or
twice, and can attest that the remedy still works just fine. (Of
course, there's water and there's water. Try to use water you won't
wonder about later. At the very least, if it's not properly filtered,
boil it and let it cool.)
Another method is to use olfaction -- but only in a suitable
environment. (Don't open the bottle even a long way downwind from a
working lawnmower, for instance. My Rhus tox. 200 never worked again
after suffering that indignity, and I had no option but to replace
it.)
Hahnemann's advice about homoeopathic aggravations in chronic illness
is unmistakeable: "where medicines of long action have to combat a
malady of considerable or of very long standing, [there] no such
apparent increase of the original disease ought to appear during
treatment and it does not so appear if the accurately chosen medicine
was given in proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat
modified with renewed dynamisation. Such increase of the original
symptoms of a chronic disease can appear only at the end of treatment
when the cure is almost or quite finished". (Aphorism 161) [I've
corrected the word "where" in the Dudgeon/Boericke 6th ed. to "there",
without which correction that sentence makes no sense.]
Again, it's easy to interpret "doses" as the inverse of potencies.
But in this context, notice that Hahnemann also speaks of modifying
the potency as an independent variable. So it's quite clear that when
Hahnemann uses the word "doses", he in fact means doses. To
recapitulate the great man: the patient initially hypersensitive to
the remedy homoeopathic to his chronic condition will gradually
tolerate higher quantities of the remedy, and as often as you like, as
long as you don't forget to change the potency at each dose!
Hahnemann also, incidentally, cautions against even a single
repetition in unchanged potency -- at all, but especially in dry
pellets -- and one of his strongest reasons was exactly the induction
of unnecessary medicinal symptoms.
This is the message of Aphorism 247.
It is the message of footnote 133 to Aphorism 247.
It is the message of Aphorism 161.
He's told us three times; that should be enough!
But if the result of giving the patient a single dose of a
(sufficiently) potentised medicine is the awakening of new symptoms of
a chronic nature, then you have neither medical carelessness nor a
hypersensitive patient to worry about, but merely the wrong remedy.
(Close, probably, but no cigar.) (See Aphorism 248.) Hahnemann's
direction here is to simply select the right one and give it.
In a nutshell, if the "new" or "aggravated" symptoms are in fact new
(of a different kind from any the patient has ever experienced
before), then either they're part of the pathogenesis of the remedy --
in which case, let's simply call a halt to the proving and give the
poor guy a few days to get over it -- or they're the result of giving
the wrong remedy, in which case let's give him the right one. And if
the symptoms are in fact NOT new but aggravations, then raise the
potency and give him what he should have had in the first place, a
single dose to test the waters. That single dose will remove the
medicinal symptoms.
Kind regards,
John Harvey
Re: First Do Not Harm
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
potency. It is
else ever
Luise talks a lot of sense. My first ever post on here was about the
filter of our beliefs and how we interpret our results according to
those. What is even more amazing is the extent to which we CREATE
results according to our beliefs. The response I got nearly made me
leave this place for good. However I have been observing this
phenomenon for many years and have found it both perplexing and
fascinating at the same time. I was taught by people who did not have
David Little's grasp of Hahnemann and the Organon or interpeted it
differently. They made repetition of dry doses work without doing
harm and their collective experience of many years was that the size
of the dose does not matter. That has been my experience too. Those
who find otherwise to a man (and woman), have beliefs that support,
and seemingly, mould, their experience. I am loathe to dismiss
anything that has been proved over and over by people of integrity and
intelligence but boy, it would be a lot easier to just nail ones
colours to one mast and be done with it.
potency. It is
else ever
Luise talks a lot of sense. My first ever post on here was about the
filter of our beliefs and how we interpret our results according to
those. What is even more amazing is the extent to which we CREATE
results according to our beliefs. The response I got nearly made me
leave this place for good. However I have been observing this
phenomenon for many years and have found it both perplexing and
fascinating at the same time. I was taught by people who did not have
David Little's grasp of Hahnemann and the Organon or interpeted it
differently. They made repetition of dry doses work without doing
harm and their collective experience of many years was that the size
of the dose does not matter. That has been my experience too. Those
who find otherwise to a man (and woman), have beliefs that support,
and seemingly, mould, their experience. I am loathe to dismiss
anything that has been proved over and over by people of integrity and
intelligence but boy, it would be a lot easier to just nail ones
colours to one mast and be done with it.
Re: First Do Not Harm
Hi John,
This caught my curiosity--so you had a case where you simple needed to
give more *pellets*, or less diluted, or ??
Thanks,
Shannon
This caught my curiosity--so you had a case where you simple needed to
give more *pellets*, or less diluted, or ??
Thanks,
Shannon
Re: First Do Not Harm
Hi H2002,
Can you say what sorts of situations or cases they might use repeated
(e.g. daily or more?) high potencies for? I have always been confused
about this...
Are there situations where you would feel 30c is already too high, or
not?
For Ben's case--94 and already very weak and tired--what sort of
potency and repetition might you have chosen? I realize that might
*not* be what you'd choose for any specific such case, but am only
looking for your general idea!
This is different from what I've been told...
I know that certain remedies cannot be sold (at least in the US) in
very low potencies, but there are very few that you can't get in 6c.
(I can't remember which I've noted in the past...) On the basis of the
math--looking at how many pillules of the potency would yield what dose
of the substance--very few things are toxic enough for even large
amounts of a low potency to cause a *chemical* problem, tho I realize
that even a too-heavy energetic effect *could* be a problem.
I'm trying to understand how to reconcile what I'd previously been
taught--that low potencies are less apt to cause trouble, and are more
appropriate for the weak and elderly--with this present concern about
them being possibly toxic. Do you think that a single week of conium
6c could be *chemically* toxic, or do you feel (as I gather you meant)
that overrepetition of *any* potency can be a problem for a depleted
patient?
Thanks,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Can you say what sorts of situations or cases they might use repeated
(e.g. daily or more?) high potencies for? I have always been confused
about this...
Are there situations where you would feel 30c is already too high, or
not?
For Ben's case--94 and already very weak and tired--what sort of
potency and repetition might you have chosen? I realize that might
*not* be what you'd choose for any specific such case, but am only
looking for your general idea!
This is different from what I've been told...
I know that certain remedies cannot be sold (at least in the US) in
very low potencies, but there are very few that you can't get in 6c.
(I can't remember which I've noted in the past...) On the basis of the
math--looking at how many pillules of the potency would yield what dose
of the substance--very few things are toxic enough for even large
amounts of a low potency to cause a *chemical* problem, tho I realize
that even a too-heavy energetic effect *could* be a problem.
I'm trying to understand how to reconcile what I'd previously been
taught--that low potencies are less apt to cause trouble, and are more
appropriate for the weak and elderly--with this present concern about
them being possibly toxic. Do you think that a single week of conium
6c could be *chemically* toxic, or do you feel (as I gather you meant)
that overrepetition of *any* potency can be a problem for a depleted
patient?
Thanks,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: First Do Not Harm
Hi Shannon,
There is a method popular amongst some homeopaths of repeating low potencies daily (dry dose) for months, even years. The dose is given almost mechanically, and if there is slight aggravation the patient is told to carry on taking regardless. I was treated at one point with this method, and was told I'd probably be taking a daily dose for two years in order to see improvement. I kept it up for a few months but all I saw was constant slight aggravations (I was told to stop for a few days and then resume), and no improvement. It seems I was lucky it wasn't worse!
Vera
Shannon wrote:
Hi Vera,
A bunch of questions leap to mind, but mainly I wonder why anyone would
continue to take a remedy that seemed to be making them worse? Were
they told to continue *regardless* of what changed, or were they
without guidance and thinking that maybe they just hadn't "taken
enough", or ??
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Visit Minutus Website at http://www.minutus.org
ATTENTION PLEASE:
The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, you can simply change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Links
---------------------------------
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
There is a method popular amongst some homeopaths of repeating low potencies daily (dry dose) for months, even years. The dose is given almost mechanically, and if there is slight aggravation the patient is told to carry on taking regardless. I was treated at one point with this method, and was told I'd probably be taking a daily dose for two years in order to see improvement. I kept it up for a few months but all I saw was constant slight aggravations (I was told to stop for a few days and then resume), and no improvement. It seems I was lucky it wasn't worse!
Vera
Shannon wrote:
Hi Vera,
A bunch of questions leap to mind, but mainly I wonder why anyone would
continue to take a remedy that seemed to be making them worse? Were
they told to continue *regardless* of what changed, or were they
without guidance and thinking that maybe they just hadn't "taken
enough", or ??
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Visit Minutus Website at http://www.minutus.org
ATTENTION PLEASE:
The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, you can simply change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Links
---------------------------------
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: First Do Not Harm
Ah, that's something I hadn't come across, and as you've described it,
it rather gives me the willies. Daily for two years in order to see
improvement???? I'm at a loss. Can you say any more about this
method--who teaches and practices it, what part of the world / country,
anything like that? Why would anyone stick with *anything* that
requires two years just to "see an improvement"??? Does the homeopath
at least arrange regular check-ins to give guidance with any changes
that might occur?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
it rather gives me the willies. Daily for two years in order to see
improvement???? I'm at a loss. Can you say any more about this
method--who teaches and practices it, what part of the world / country,
anything like that? Why would anyone stick with *anything* that
requires two years just to "see an improvement"??? Does the homeopath
at least arrange regular check-ins to give guidance with any changes
that might occur?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Luise Kunkle
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: First Do Not Harm
Hi Robin,
This has perplexed me no end over the years also!
I see the point you are making and agree.
Nevertheless, many cases can be explained just by "seeing what you
want to see or expect to see". Take the present "conium case" and look
at it with a different filter.
What happened?
A 94 year old man had weak legs etc., i. e. symptoms that suggested
conium. Then his state got worse
quote until the man was paralysed
and rigid all over and had to be rushed to the hospital, there he also
had a sudden deterioration in the mental state (like dementia) for one
day but it got better and he also had an pneumonia and a bladder
inflamation unquote
We jump to the conlusion that this deterioriation was caused y the
conium. This is, however, not a fact but just speculation, a
possibility - at best a probability.
In a 94 year old man with the symptomatology he had before taking the
conium, a detoriation would have been probable in any case. Its
rapidity may with a high probability have been caused by
the onset and presence of the pneumonia and bladder infection.
Without even taking this into consideration even as a possibility, the
conium resp. the mode of taking it is blamed and will be quoted in the
future as one of the examples of the damage this mode may do.
As to the "arsenic case" - I guess it is the one from Vienna. I read
it long ago in a German journal. IMO the husband literally got away
with murder!
All over the world "the others" are striving to wipe homeopathy from
the board. Stories such as these, spread uncritically as it is done,
may very well turn out to be the sponge used for the wiping.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
This has perplexed me no end over the years also!
I see the point you are making and agree.
Nevertheless, many cases can be explained just by "seeing what you
want to see or expect to see". Take the present "conium case" and look
at it with a different filter.
What happened?
A 94 year old man had weak legs etc., i. e. symptoms that suggested
conium. Then his state got worse
quote until the man was paralysed
and rigid all over and had to be rushed to the hospital, there he also
had a sudden deterioration in the mental state (like dementia) for one
day but it got better and he also had an pneumonia and a bladder
inflamation unquote
We jump to the conlusion that this deterioriation was caused y the
conium. This is, however, not a fact but just speculation, a
possibility - at best a probability.
In a 94 year old man with the symptomatology he had before taking the
conium, a detoriation would have been probable in any case. Its
rapidity may with a high probability have been caused by
the onset and presence of the pneumonia and bladder infection.
Without even taking this into consideration even as a possibility, the
conium resp. the mode of taking it is blamed and will be quoted in the
future as one of the examples of the damage this mode may do.
As to the "arsenic case" - I guess it is the one from Vienna. I read
it long ago in a German journal. IMO the husband literally got away
with murder!
All over the world "the others" are striving to wipe homeopathy from
the board. Stories such as these, spread uncritically as it is done,
may very well turn out to be the sponge used for the wiping.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
Re: First Do Not Harm
I assume this is the one that was talked about here a few years ago?
Someone "getting away with murder" makes a *lot* more sense than did
the suggestion that the remedy had been to blame! As I recall, her
blood had been found to contain toxic levels of arsenic, and it was
assumed that this had come from the arsenicum she had been taken (daily
for months, as she grew worse and worse... One wonders why she
continued to take something that was, at best, not working? But aside
from that...). However, working out mathematically the dosage that
would have been contained in the pellets she had been taking, it seems
quite impossible that she could have gotten anything remotely
approaching a toxic dose of arsenic from the remedy. Yet that fact
didn't seem to be recognized, and no other source of the arsenic seems
to have been even looked for. (But I can't remember the details, and
my link isn't working.)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Someone "getting away with murder" makes a *lot* more sense than did
the suggestion that the remedy had been to blame! As I recall, her
blood had been found to contain toxic levels of arsenic, and it was
assumed that this had come from the arsenicum she had been taken (daily
for months, as she grew worse and worse... One wonders why she
continued to take something that was, at best, not working? But aside
from that...). However, working out mathematically the dosage that
would have been contained in the pellets she had been taking, it seems
quite impossible that she could have gotten anything remotely
approaching a toxic dose of arsenic from the remedy. Yet that fact
didn't seem to be recognized, and no other source of the arsenic seems
to have been even looked for. (But I can't remember the details, and
my link isn't working.)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: First Do Not Harm
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "John Harvey"
wrote:
A
the
doesn't
one
(7
into
that.
filtered,
again
illness
medicine
treatment
to "there",
when
as
induction
of
remedy --
giving
if
Thank you very much. The size of the dose is probably a crucial
parameter on the weak constitution, I feel that repetition of the
same potency day after day is as dangerous as a too large dose if not
even more.
What do you think?
wrote:
A
the
doesn't
one
(7
into
that.
filtered,
again
illness
medicine
treatment
to "there",
when
as
induction
of
remedy --
giving
if
Thank you very much. The size of the dose is probably a crucial
parameter on the weak constitution, I feel that repetition of the
same potency day after day is as dangerous as a too large dose if not
even more.
What do you think?