Sheri,
Thanks for posting these! I just want to remark on this one part,
which I hear repeatedly and find disturbing:
4th ed prescribers do not necessarily (tho admittedly some do, as it
carries information) *want* to see aggravation--I was taught that the
*ideal* (from 4th ed perspective) is smooth improvement with no
aggravation--and in fact that is what I have *usually* seen. And when
there have been aggravations they have usually been more "interesting"
than troublesome, and brief; and usually the sort where an equally
plausible explanation is just that "the remedy took a while to kick in,
and in the meantime...". Even that I have not seen to be common. (A
couple of notable exceptions, but unusual--I would be interested to
hear whether others find my experience with this consistent with their
own?) So, (grumble grumble) at least you could say "... the 4th
edition prescriber MAY say, 'great, we are going to cure...'"
And, "Curing maybe but it will be a tough road"--that is NOT TRUE in
(at least according to my experience and understanding) the vast
majority of cases. This is the sort of mis-reporting in which
exaggeration tends to undermine credibility, and just feeds into the
"us/them" competitive mentality that is IMO such a time-waster.
For those (still many) of us who "grew up" with 4th ed. prescribing, it
just puts us on the defensive, when that is SO unnecessary.
As has been affirmed in the past by a number of prescribers on this
list who are experienced and successful with *both* potency scales,
they are different tools, with different strengths and weaknesses.
For some people and situations, single/high is preferable; for most it
is quite acceptable; and why the heck should it be a contest
anyway....? We don't debate over which remedy is "best", or which
potency, so why on Earth should we debate over which *scale* is
best--they are different tools.
And the idea that (as has been stated here recently) one should not
have treatment by any 4th ed prescriber--that is a huge disservice, as
it knocks out *most* of the most experienced and *successful*
prescribers in the US, just for example. In what way is *that* a
service to *anyone*?!
Argh, stepping down from my soapbox...
Shannon
How to judge the response to the first intake of your remedy? (and the consequent doses)
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: How to judge the response to the first intake of your remedy? (and the consequent doses)
If we contain ourselves within the subject, i.e. how to judge the first rx reaction then I am not sure what is so disturbing.
You wouldn't want an aggravation WITHOUT improvement at some point - watching and waiting is ok as long as the person isn't suffering and this situation can occur with both water and dry dose but improvement must come at some point for this to be curative. If there really is no improvement then the so called aggravation has to be 'read' properly - it could be that the rx was completely wrong and the diseased state has actually worsened, i.e. it is not a homeopathic aggravation at all - or it could be that there are some maintaining issues that haven't been mentioned or dealt with, e.g. the person has been on other medication and it has been stopped too abruptly and the diseased state is going its own course.
So if you get a situation where there is a worsening with no improvement the case really has to be re-taken. Matter of factly if there is aggravation in a homeopathic manner then improvement will come but might need case management depending on the individual.
You cannot always prevent aggravations and of course we want to see our clients get better without one. But don't be scared of an aggravation - sometimes it merely means a short lived eruptive stage for example and that would be excellent. Again, I say this can and will happen with water doses as well as dry and it ticks all the boxes in my opinion. It really depends on what you call an aggravation.
Do no harm comes first but I cannot understand anyone who refuses to prescribe according to the individual case. Anyone who claims "I am a low potency prescriber" or "I refuse to give LM's" or "I only prescribe high potencies in water" or "i only prescribe low potencies in water" etc etc is a direct refusal to deal with the individual case - simillimum rx, potency, posology, dose, would be the order of the day.
And all that aside many homeopaths still need to know what is going on after the first prescription, regardless of what the prescribing methods are and I feel there is a lot of teaching lacking in this area.
If anyone could actually say for sure that LM's and water doses NEVER cause an aggravation then that would be great but this can and does happen but I really think that the term 'aggravation' requires an understanding first.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings
You wouldn't want an aggravation WITHOUT improvement at some point - watching and waiting is ok as long as the person isn't suffering and this situation can occur with both water and dry dose but improvement must come at some point for this to be curative. If there really is no improvement then the so called aggravation has to be 'read' properly - it could be that the rx was completely wrong and the diseased state has actually worsened, i.e. it is not a homeopathic aggravation at all - or it could be that there are some maintaining issues that haven't been mentioned or dealt with, e.g. the person has been on other medication and it has been stopped too abruptly and the diseased state is going its own course.
So if you get a situation where there is a worsening with no improvement the case really has to be re-taken. Matter of factly if there is aggravation in a homeopathic manner then improvement will come but might need case management depending on the individual.
You cannot always prevent aggravations and of course we want to see our clients get better without one. But don't be scared of an aggravation - sometimes it merely means a short lived eruptive stage for example and that would be excellent. Again, I say this can and will happen with water doses as well as dry and it ticks all the boxes in my opinion. It really depends on what you call an aggravation.
Do no harm comes first but I cannot understand anyone who refuses to prescribe according to the individual case. Anyone who claims "I am a low potency prescriber" or "I refuse to give LM's" or "I only prescribe high potencies in water" or "i only prescribe low potencies in water" etc etc is a direct refusal to deal with the individual case - simillimum rx, potency, posology, dose, would be the order of the day.
And all that aside many homeopaths still need to know what is going on after the first prescription, regardless of what the prescribing methods are and I feel there is a lot of teaching lacking in this area.
If anyone could actually say for sure that LM's and water doses NEVER cause an aggravation then that would be great but this can and does happen but I really think that the term 'aggravation' requires an understanding first.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: How to judge the response to the first intake of your remedy? (and the consequent doses)
I have a busy practice in which I nearly always prescribe in diluted (water doses) and have done so for about 16 years – this was the training I received. I use both the centesimal and fifty millesimals in dilution. I so rarely prescribe in dry doses (except on occasions when needing convenience with myself or family members) that it is hard for me to compare the two methods.
I frequently see aggravations with a single test dose of a remedy in dilution. They would happen about 20 – 25% of the time. Most are minor and would perhaps come under the classification of a “healing crisis” – the patient finds them positive and exciting because at some level they are heading in the right direction. The remainder just have to wait it out for a day or two with nuisance value symptoms. About 5% experience a prolonged and unpleasant aggravation. I have many people on my books that I am treating by olfaction from 2nd, 3rd, or greater dilutions because this is all they can manage, even with water doses. Some can only hold their remedy bottle for a short period.
Mostly I start treatment with the low potencies because I have found it better to adjust the dilution and number of successions when managing sensitivity. Contrary to popular thinking, highly intense mental/emotional states do respond well to a 6C. I have found it more important to be concerned about potency if vitality is weak and there is a lot of pathology – then it is very important to start low, otherwise I have found low potencies, when adjusted for sensitivity, work well whether the problem is mental, emotional or physical.
I do seem to attract a high number of sensitive people/children, or perhaps it is just the nature of the world we live in today with vaccines and constant suppressions that is producing this sensitivity.
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Information - Education - Treatment)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
The Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
I frequently see aggravations with a single test dose of a remedy in dilution. They would happen about 20 – 25% of the time. Most are minor and would perhaps come under the classification of a “healing crisis” – the patient finds them positive and exciting because at some level they are heading in the right direction. The remainder just have to wait it out for a day or two with nuisance value symptoms. About 5% experience a prolonged and unpleasant aggravation. I have many people on my books that I am treating by olfaction from 2nd, 3rd, or greater dilutions because this is all they can manage, even with water doses. Some can only hold their remedy bottle for a short period.
Mostly I start treatment with the low potencies because I have found it better to adjust the dilution and number of successions when managing sensitivity. Contrary to popular thinking, highly intense mental/emotional states do respond well to a 6C. I have found it more important to be concerned about potency if vitality is weak and there is a lot of pathology – then it is very important to start low, otherwise I have found low potencies, when adjusted for sensitivity, work well whether the problem is mental, emotional or physical.
I do seem to attract a high number of sensitive people/children, or perhaps it is just the nature of the world we live in today with vaccines and constant suppressions that is producing this sensitivity.
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Information - Education - Treatment)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
The Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: How to judge the response to the first intake of your remedy? (and the consequent doses)
Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
Yes however Hahnemann explains that with dry dosing you HAVE to wait
till the one dose wears off before you can give another - and that with
aqueous dosing you can progress the case faster without waiting. As he
puts it the body abhors a second dose of same potency.
Since the Organon 5th and 6th eds have been around a VERY long time -
there is not much excuse for failing to read what he says about the
benefits of dosing in aquoeus solution over dry dosing.
Dry dosing necessarily duplicates the exact potency - where aqueous
dosing has succussion to slightly change the potency between each and
every dose - which the system recognizes without seeing interference
between two doses too close together as is a problem in dry dosing.
You avoid aggravation - with aqueous dosing - but more importantly, you
progress the case faster, and allevioate suffering - or prevent death -
or both - more often.
It's nothing to do with potency scale!
ANY potency can (and should) be dosed in aqueous solution, whether it's
X scale, C scale or LM scale:-)
In Hahnemann's own Paris case notes in the last years before his death -
he was ALWAYS using aqueous dosing, never dry, whether he used C potency
or LM potency or (often) both. (See David Little's studies on this.)
In my own work this aqueous dosing is not just a "nice to have" but
absolutely essential in order to save life. If I Wws to wait for a dry
dose to do its thing before dosing again - the disease would kill way
before I had a chance to make progress against it:-)
So it would not even occur to me to use a dry dose - other than in
emergency when I do not have time to put it in water.
I will then put it in water in readiness for subsequent doses that may
be needed.
At 2 miles an hour when the disease moves at ten miles an hour?
Not a great result!
Why not learn from Hahnemann's wisdom and put those dry doses into water
so that you can use your past experience AND benefit from making
progress for the reasons explained in 5 & 6 Organon?
Being defensive is never IMO a good position for any logical progress.
Both potency scales?
What has that got to do with aqueous versus dry dosing?
Whether you use an X potency, a C potency or a LM potency (the last of
which I seldom use) the aqueous dosing approach is greatly appropriate
and beneficial.
Indeed - but it's a separate issue from aqueous dosing versus dry.
Most of my cases use various C potencies - all aqueous of course - and
very seldom do I use LM potencies. I have not found that most of my
cases have time for the LMs which I find too slow for my purposes
usually. (Exceptions are about 2% of cases.) Fast moving chronic disease
in my experience, needs the "kick in the pants" available from aqueous
doses of C potency.
If you have the life force available to handle it - I usually do not.
I handle a lot of "terminal" cases and the life force is too weak to
handle anything high.
No offence intended - but I see no reason to remain stuck in the past
when the benefits of putting a remedy into water and succussing between
doses are so easy to add, and have such huge benefit.
Is it not our highest ideal as homeopaths to do what is in the best
interests of the client?
One has to ask why a "4th ed prescriber" would resist such a
straight-forward and huge improvement to the benefit of their clients,
as adding a bit of water and a bit of energy.
Sorry if I poured too much water over it, but liquid soap is good too,
and works better and faster than dry soap
NAmaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Yes however Hahnemann explains that with dry dosing you HAVE to wait
till the one dose wears off before you can give another - and that with
aqueous dosing you can progress the case faster without waiting. As he
puts it the body abhors a second dose of same potency.
Since the Organon 5th and 6th eds have been around a VERY long time -
there is not much excuse for failing to read what he says about the
benefits of dosing in aquoeus solution over dry dosing.
Dry dosing necessarily duplicates the exact potency - where aqueous
dosing has succussion to slightly change the potency between each and
every dose - which the system recognizes without seeing interference
between two doses too close together as is a problem in dry dosing.
You avoid aggravation - with aqueous dosing - but more importantly, you
progress the case faster, and allevioate suffering - or prevent death -
or both - more often.
It's nothing to do with potency scale!
ANY potency can (and should) be dosed in aqueous solution, whether it's
X scale, C scale or LM scale:-)
In Hahnemann's own Paris case notes in the last years before his death -
he was ALWAYS using aqueous dosing, never dry, whether he used C potency
or LM potency or (often) both. (See David Little's studies on this.)
In my own work this aqueous dosing is not just a "nice to have" but
absolutely essential in order to save life. If I Wws to wait for a dry
dose to do its thing before dosing again - the disease would kill way
before I had a chance to make progress against it:-)
So it would not even occur to me to use a dry dose - other than in
emergency when I do not have time to put it in water.
I will then put it in water in readiness for subsequent doses that may
be needed.
At 2 miles an hour when the disease moves at ten miles an hour?
Not a great result!
Why not learn from Hahnemann's wisdom and put those dry doses into water
so that you can use your past experience AND benefit from making
progress for the reasons explained in 5 & 6 Organon?
Being defensive is never IMO a good position for any logical progress.
Both potency scales?
What has that got to do with aqueous versus dry dosing?
Whether you use an X potency, a C potency or a LM potency (the last of
which I seldom use) the aqueous dosing approach is greatly appropriate
and beneficial.
Indeed - but it's a separate issue from aqueous dosing versus dry.
Most of my cases use various C potencies - all aqueous of course - and
very seldom do I use LM potencies. I have not found that most of my
cases have time for the LMs which I find too slow for my purposes
usually. (Exceptions are about 2% of cases.) Fast moving chronic disease
in my experience, needs the "kick in the pants" available from aqueous
doses of C potency.
If you have the life force available to handle it - I usually do not.
I handle a lot of "terminal" cases and the life force is too weak to
handle anything high.
No offence intended - but I see no reason to remain stuck in the past
when the benefits of putting a remedy into water and succussing between
doses are so easy to add, and have such huge benefit.
Is it not our highest ideal as homeopaths to do what is in the best
interests of the client?
One has to ask why a "4th ed prescriber" would resist such a
straight-forward and huge improvement to the benefit of their clients,
as adding a bit of water and a bit of energy.
Sorry if I poured too much water over it, but liquid soap is good too,
and works better and faster than dry soap
NAmaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
Luise Kunkle
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: How to judge the response to the first intake of your remedy? (and the consequent doses)
Hi Fran,
No. I have no idea why, but NO!
In all the years that I have read on the homeopathy lists - and I have
read a lot:-)) - I have found that it depends on the homeopath.
Some have a great rate of aggravations with whatever doses and
potencies at whatever "glasses" - other have barely any, no matter
what potencies at what doeses at what repetitions.
This I have found to be so worldwide.
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 <==========
No. I have no idea why, but NO!
In all the years that I have read on the homeopathy lists - and I have
read a lot:-)) - I have found that it depends on the homeopath.
Some have a great rate of aggravations with whatever doses and
potencies at whatever "glasses" - other have barely any, no matter
what potencies at what doeses at what repetitions.
This I have found to be so worldwide.
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 <==========
-
Luise Kunkle
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: How to judge the response to the first intake of your remedy? (and the consequent doses)
Hi Shannon,
I just want to expand on what you say below:
When we read the CD we find that Hahnemann did not suggest the demedy
to be dissolved because this would lessen aggravation - he said that
the effect would be stronger, since "more nerve ends are touched by
the remedy when taking it into the mouth"
When we read the footnote to the 5th Organon, we find that Hahnemann
did not suggest the method of taking the dissolved remedy because of
less aggravation, but because of better results in consequence of the
sustained action of repeating.
Whether this "better result" is so or whether it is not - this seems
to be very much a matter of opinion:-)
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 <==========
I just want to expand on what you say below:
When we read the CD we find that Hahnemann did not suggest the demedy
to be dissolved because this would lessen aggravation - he said that
the effect would be stronger, since "more nerve ends are touched by
the remedy when taking it into the mouth"
When we read the footnote to the 5th Organon, we find that Hahnemann
did not suggest the method of taking the dissolved remedy because of
less aggravation, but because of better results in consequence of the
sustained action of repeating.
Whether this "better result" is so or whether it is not - this seems
to be very much a matter of opinion:-)
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 <==========
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: How to judge the response to the first intake of your remedy? (and the consequent doses)
Sometimes there can be a mismatch between what is spoken about on lists and
what is actually seen in practice.
1. The closer the match between symptoms and remedy, the more sensitive the
person will be to the remedy. This is part of our philosophy and experience.
Could this mean then that the more accurate the prescriber is, the more
likely it is that they will see aggravations?
2. I have confirmed in my practice that the diluted doses do seem to
penetrate the case just as strongly or more strongly than dry doses. They
are certainly not weaker. On this basis, is a single diluted dose more
likely to produce an aggravation than a single dry dose?
3. I keep close contact with my patients - they have to phone me 3 days
after a test dose at which time they are advised on subsequent doses.
Thereafter, they are expected to contact me again before the next
appointment if there is significant change - for better or for worse. This
style of management is more likely to pick up aggravations. With those who
will develop a "tolerance" to the remedy and be able to dose through an
aggravation, such close management is not especially necessary and any
aggravation is often forgotten about before the next consult and so not
reported. With those who are truly sensitive, who just keep redosing with no
practioner contact, it can be disastrous and they will often lost to
homeopathy. Are these the ones who miss that first followup appointment and
you never know why?
4. I do come across other practitioners who scoff at the idea of
aggravations and say it is only a practitioner related phenomenon. I have
also seen their patients coming through my clinic at a later date who report
that they did aggravate on their treatment and so did not go back to see
them. Patient confidentiality means that I can only smile the next time I
hear the practiioner making the same claim.
5. I also see practitioners refusing to see that their patient is
aggravating and attributing it to something else because it does not fit
within their framework of what should be happening. If practioners do not
recognise aggravations then they will never acknowledge them.
6. It is my observation that practioners saying that they never see
aggravations are often the ones who do not have busy practices. Obviously,
the busier you are, the more often you are likely to see them.
7. From my experience, hyper and hypo-sensitivity does seem to have a
cultural/environmental component as well. For example, "hot house" flowers
of affuent western cultures do not seem to manage repeated mechanistic
dosing as well as those from more labouring societies.
8. Can we so readily dismiss the reports of homeopaths who have gone before
us? Was Hahnemann and some of our earlier master homeopaths completely
deluded when they taught about aggravations?
9. Finally, if aggravations are impossible or highly unlikely, how do we
account for provings? Surely these are the product of sensitivity and
remedy. Are the symptoms arising from provings also dependent on the nature
of the co-ordinator in the same way it is claimed that aggravations are
prescriber-specific rather than a more generalised phenomenon?
Just some thoughts that run through my head when this topic is discussed,
Luise. Forgive me if I am not able to respond to subsequent discussion -
there are only so many hours in the day!
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Information - Education - Treatment)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
The Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
what is actually seen in practice.
1. The closer the match between symptoms and remedy, the more sensitive the
person will be to the remedy. This is part of our philosophy and experience.
Could this mean then that the more accurate the prescriber is, the more
likely it is that they will see aggravations?
2. I have confirmed in my practice that the diluted doses do seem to
penetrate the case just as strongly or more strongly than dry doses. They
are certainly not weaker. On this basis, is a single diluted dose more
likely to produce an aggravation than a single dry dose?
3. I keep close contact with my patients - they have to phone me 3 days
after a test dose at which time they are advised on subsequent doses.
Thereafter, they are expected to contact me again before the next
appointment if there is significant change - for better or for worse. This
style of management is more likely to pick up aggravations. With those who
will develop a "tolerance" to the remedy and be able to dose through an
aggravation, such close management is not especially necessary and any
aggravation is often forgotten about before the next consult and so not
reported. With those who are truly sensitive, who just keep redosing with no
practioner contact, it can be disastrous and they will often lost to
homeopathy. Are these the ones who miss that first followup appointment and
you never know why?
4. I do come across other practitioners who scoff at the idea of
aggravations and say it is only a practitioner related phenomenon. I have
also seen their patients coming through my clinic at a later date who report
that they did aggravate on their treatment and so did not go back to see
them. Patient confidentiality means that I can only smile the next time I
hear the practiioner making the same claim.
5. I also see practitioners refusing to see that their patient is
aggravating and attributing it to something else because it does not fit
within their framework of what should be happening. If practioners do not
recognise aggravations then they will never acknowledge them.
6. It is my observation that practioners saying that they never see
aggravations are often the ones who do not have busy practices. Obviously,
the busier you are, the more often you are likely to see them.
7. From my experience, hyper and hypo-sensitivity does seem to have a
cultural/environmental component as well. For example, "hot house" flowers
of affuent western cultures do not seem to manage repeated mechanistic
dosing as well as those from more labouring societies.
8. Can we so readily dismiss the reports of homeopaths who have gone before
us? Was Hahnemann and some of our earlier master homeopaths completely
deluded when they taught about aggravations?
9. Finally, if aggravations are impossible or highly unlikely, how do we
account for provings? Surely these are the product of sensitivity and
remedy. Are the symptoms arising from provings also dependent on the nature
of the co-ordinator in the same way it is claimed that aggravations are
prescriber-specific rather than a more generalised phenomenon?
Just some thoughts that run through my head when this topic is discussed,
Luise. Forgive me if I am not able to respond to subsequent discussion -
there are only so many hours in the day!
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Information - Education - Treatment)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
The Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
-
Luise Kunkle
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: How to judge the response to the first intake of your remedy? (and the consequent doses)
Hi Fran,
I have no idea about the why's - it is just an observation from my
long readings of the list and from personal communications in Germany.
But even if all what you say is true - it is still depending on the
homeopath, no?
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 <==========
I have no idea about the why's - it is just an observation from my
long readings of the list and from personal communications in Germany.
But even if all what you say is true - it is still depending on the
homeopath, no?
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 <==========
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: How to judge the response to the first intake of your remedy? (and the consequent doses)
Depending on the homeopath *and* on their different patient populations!
Shannon
Shannon
Re: How to judge the response to the first intake of your remedy? (and the consequent doses)
I work for the most part with solutions and not with the dry dose. Having said that - one of the worst aggravations I've seen came from one dose of Causticum 6C in water. That means - 1 tiny grain of Causticum 6C in 20ml water+brandy, succussed, one drop in one cup of water, 1/2 tsp dose. Taken once only. The aggravation went on for almost a month - coffee made it slightly gentler, but did not antidote. The patient absolutely refused to take any other homeopathic remedy. As far as I could tell, after the aggravation an amelioration set in, including drop in blood sugar and drop in blood pressure which were high - but the patient left homeopathy, I doubt if she will ever come back!
She had a lot of deep, chronic, ongoing pathology. There was no way of knowing that she was sensitive - that wasn't the impression I got during the intake. But since then, I prefer to start those with deep pathology with an olfactory dose, and have found that some continue and do well on olfaction alone.
So it really is very individual, and although I think it is possible to work in a way that there are much less aggravations from medicinal solutions (watery doses) than from dry, it's certainly not, if you'll forgive the pun, watertight.
Regards,
Vera
Joy Lucas wrote:
________________________________
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
She had a lot of deep, chronic, ongoing pathology. There was no way of knowing that she was sensitive - that wasn't the impression I got during the intake. But since then, I prefer to start those with deep pathology with an olfactory dose, and have found that some continue and do well on olfaction alone.
So it really is very individual, and although I think it is possible to work in a way that there are much less aggravations from medicinal solutions (watery doses) than from dry, it's certainly not, if you'll forgive the pun, watertight.
Regards,
Vera
Joy Lucas wrote:
________________________________
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.