Saine/Lm potencies

[David Little]

Dr. Sanie said:

"In total, he had only about a dozen remedies prepared in this way and the
highest was Sulphur LM 20. He experimented with these for about two years.
In the later part of 1842, he made fewer prescriptions. In 1843, he barely
practiced. By that time he was preparing the sixth edition of the Organon
for publication. Apparently, he
felt that he had enough experience to authoritatively recommend the LM
potencies to his colleagues."

Dear students and colleagues,

Dr. Sanie's comments on the 50 millesimal potency contains several
historical inaccuracy. For the true statistical facts please refer to
Ubiratan and Maristela Adler's, Hahnemann’s Experiments with 50 Millesimal
Potencies: A Further Review of his Casebooks. I have spoken to them and
they are honest researchers. I have also added a few additional sources
from the Paris casebooks.

1;. According to U. Alder's lasted statistical study (2007) of the
Paris casebooks shows that Hahnemann used the LM potency in around 1,836
prescriptions. This shows that Hahnemann had ample experience with the LM
potency to speak of them in the 6th Organon. The idea that Hahnemann hardly
had any experience with the LM potency is uninformed.

2. Hahnemann uesd the 50-millesimal prescriptions with around 35
remedies. The remedies Hahnemann used in the LM potency are Acon., Alum.,
Ambr., Ant-c., Ars., Aur., Bell., Bry., Calc., Carb-v., Carb-a., Caust.,
Cham., Chin., Cinn., Cupr., Graph., Hep-s., Ip., Kali-c., Lyc., Merc.,
Nat-m., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Plb., Phos., Puls., Rhus-t., Sep., Sil., Spong.,
Sulph., Thuja, Verat., along with five remedies that could not be
deciphered. Sanie's idea that Hahnemann only used around 12 remedies with
the LM potency is historically incorrect.

3. As to the 1840s Hahnemann made around 19 LM prescriptions in 1840;
576 in 1841; 776 in 1842; and 392 in the five months of 1843. There are
also a few prescriptions from 1839 and earlier that may be LM potencies.
Idea that Hahnemann started using the LM potency in 1841 is incorrect. From
what I have seen in the Paris casebooks Hahnemann worked quite hard in 1843
right up until he became ill. In fact, if you go by the monthly amount of
cases his pace in 1843 was higher than in 1842, which was more than 1841,
which was more than 1840, etc. Hahnemann was using the 50 millesimal
potency more not less in his final year!

4. While Hahnemann mostly used LM potencies were between 0/1 and 0/10
he did prescribe up to the 0/30, etc. For example, Hahnemann Rhus-t 0/30
(Lyster, DF8, p. 143), Merc 0/30 (Everest, DF9 page 253) and Sulphur 0/30
(de la tour, DF10, p. 157). He also used potencies like 0/21, 0/25, 0/26
(Delero, DF4, p. 159-160). Sanie's idea that Hahnemann only used up to 0/20
is historically incorrect.

5. The idea that the LM potencies act like "very low potencies" is
contrary to clinical experience. One cannot compare the medicinal powers
of the C and LM potency by numbers alone. This is because the 1/100 (C)
dilution ratio and 10 succussions and 1/50,000 (Q ratio) and 100
succussions have vastly different medicinal qualities. It was Hahnemann
experience that the larger dilution ratio brought out deeper acting
remedial powers at lower degrees than the C potency. I and my colleagues
around the world agree with this assessment.

Although a dose of a 0/1 taken from the medicinal solution and dilution
glass has a numerical equivalence to around 9C, the medicinal powers of the
0/1 50 millesimal potency is much deeper than a 30C! The 0/2, 0/3, 0/4,
0/5, 0/6, 0/7 etc., have very deep actions like the higher potency Cs. So
powerful are these remedies that Boenninghausen wrote that the LM potency
"essentially presents our present high and highest potencies". The clinical
experience of my colleagues and I are in agreement with the Baron's
statements.

6. Hahnemann first developed the medicinal solution and divided doses
with the C potencies in the 1830s and later applied the liquid method to
the LM potency. He used this method with the lower to moderate C potencies
(30C to 3C), the higher C potencies (90C, 150C, 200C, 300C) as well as the
LM potency (0/1 to 0/30) throughout the 1840s. Hahnemann advance posology
system is not just an "LM potency method". He applied similar techniques to
the C and LM potency. This method can be learned easily by those with good
powers of observation and a mind open to making changes that benefit their
patients. Of course, it is best to learn it from someone with amble
experience in the proper methods.

7. I use the lower, moderate and higher C potencies and as well as
the LM potency 0/1 to 0/30. So did Hahnemann in the 1840s! I simply could
not practice without all ranges of the C and LM potency. This is because
some persons do better on lower potency C potencies and some on higher C
potencies and some on the 50 millesimal potencies. Also, there are quite a
few cases where the low potencies do not act well (6C to 30C) and the
higher potencies (200, 1M, 10M) only cause long term aggravations and
serious complications. This is a lacuna in the C potency system that is
often filled wonderfully by the 50 millesimal potencies.

8. Although Hahnemann may have only used the LM potency extensively for
3 years there are practitioners who have used them 40, 30, 25, 10 years,
etc. There is a group of practitioners in India and Bangladesh who have
been using these remedies since the 1950s. I have used them for around 25
years 1000s of times and taught the method to 100s of people. Of course,
one must learn how to use the 50 millesimal potency properly to reap the
benefits. How can a person who "stayed away from them" have any idea about
the medicinal powers of the LM potency in the clinic?

I personally believe it is important to understand the methods of the
4th, 5th and 6th Organon well. The 4th Organon (1829) is the foundation of
the system as it introduces the single dose wait and watch method. Not
knowing when to wait and watch is disastrous to good clinical practice even
if you use the medicinal solution, etc. The 5th Organon (1833) teaches to
wait and watch when there is a strikingly progressive amelioration and to
repeat the remedy to speed the cure in slow moving cases. Hahnemann called
this method the "middle path" because it stands between the exclusive
single dose and the mechanical repetition of remedies. The 6th Organon (c.
1842-1843) teaches how to apply the new methods developed in the 1830s for
the C potencies to the 50 millesimal potencies in a new manner. It is not a
matter of the C versus the LM potency. It is a matter of knowing how to get
the best out of both potency systems.

There is room for a variety of delivery systems and posology methods in
Homoeopathy. Hahnemann even mentions using 1 pill of the LM potency dry on
the tongue in aphorism 272 of the 6th edition. He states that this dry dose
can be used in a moderate cases of recently arisen diseases. Then he says
that the medicinal solution makes a "far stronger medicine" that can be
used in divided doses over a longer period of time. I, like Hahnemann,
prefer to medicinal solution because of its superior flexibility but one
still finds the dry dose, medicinal solution and olfaction even in the 6th
Organon when speaking of the LM potency!

Hahnemann's 1836 prescriptions with the LM potency is certainly enough
experience to speak about the 50 millesimal potency in the 6th edition. One
must also realize the Founder knew he was in his last days and it was
important to record his final experiences. He did not have a long time to
wait. I respect Dr. Sanie and he is welcome to his opinions as to his
practice, BUT he should get his historical facts straight so as not to give
the wrong idea about Hahnemann and the 50 millesimal potency.

Similia Minimus
Sincerely, David Little

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines." - Samuel Hahnemann

Homoeopathic Online Education (H.O.E)
Visit David Little's website:
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2006

[Ellen Madono]

Dear Dr. Little,
That was such a clear article on the LM potencies. I hope you will put it on your site, maybe without Dr. Sain's problems.
Best,
Ellen

[David Little]

Dear Minutus,

I would like to point out that when we speak of Hahnemann making around 1,836 LM prescriptions we are speaking about the number of entries Hahnemann made in the Paris casebooks that include an interview date, remedy and suggestions on how to take the remedy. Some of these prescriptions are single doses followed by placebos (usually, but not always by olfaction) while the majority involve 3, 7 to 15 doses over a specific period of time like 1, 2 or more weeks. This means that the actual number of *times* Hahnemann gave the LM potency is much greater than the number of prescription entries in the Paris casebooks. The actual number of times Hahnemann gave the LM potency reaches in 1000s and 1000s. This is amble proof that Hahnemann had sufficient experience with the LM potency to share the method in the 6th Organon.

I am very grateful to Ubiratan and Maristela for their statistical work on the Paris casebooks as they have provided an accurate assessment of Hahnemann's use of the 50 millesimal potency. I would recommend that those who are interested in the truth on the subject read Hahnemann?s Experiments with 50 Millesimal Potencies: A Further Review of his Casebooks by Ubriatan and Maristela Adler at:
http://www.hahnemann-congress.org/referent-adler.html

Sincerely, David Little

[Luise Kunkle]

I think Prof. Juette at the GIM-Bosch Institute is about to publish a
small book on the research in the Paris casebooks on the LM potencies.

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 <==========