that the same potency shouldn't be given twice in a row

[healthinfo6]

It depends on the remedy. I've been taking my constitutional at 200C weekly for 2 months at a stretch. Now taking it at 1M biweekly for 2 months. I just went past 2 weeks on the 3rd dosing and find my diabetes MUCH improved. Blood sugar readings almost 1/2 from 200's to lower 100's on fasting. The first time taking the 1M, the low readings lasted about 2 days. Now longer lasting but noticing started going higher so will take another 1M dose soon. Taking 6 1M pills in one day DRY. I know there will be other remedies in between these constitutional dosings but seems to be the way to go to achieve true cure of chronic illnesses by repetition. There are also aggravations which I usually get but the 1M works differently than 200C on another level. I also feel one's vital force becomes accustomed to the remedy and each administration produces an improved response. I don't feel the energy burst as on the 200C. I've found repeating non-constitutional remedies not helpful in acute situations if not truly needed. Have tried water dosing the constitutional but not as effective as the dry dose.
Susan

[Kerry]

I too find those Helios bottles awful to open. The ones from India are
in a much larger screw top bottle, more akin to your normal 4 gram
granule size bottle but taller.

Kerry

[Joy Lucas]

It doesn't depend on the remedy at all. Remedies do not have an inbuilt ability to decide what happens or what doesn't.

As has already been explained this kind of extreme dry repetitive dosing is either palliative, suppressive or antipathic - please begin by reading § 58 onwards. Cure is not taking place but the enforced suppression of sx or an antipathic amelioration of sx. If you were to stop taking the rx in the way you described it is highly likely, in fact definitely, that an aggravation will occur. This could be severe, depending on the case - the vital force is confused, the one sided treatment of the organ can go into crisis, whether it is the heart, the lungs, the liver, the pancreas or whatever is being treated and at worse a new and stronger disease state takes place, displacing the original.

Some clients who are suffering from serious pathology might well need the simillimum repeated, even for quite some time at an assessed frequency based on the individual but this should always be with water posology, always with frequent follow ups and assessments as there is no need to repeat routinely even in serious pathology, it will always depend on the individual and not the rx.

I dread to think who is doing this to you but your body your choice, it has been stated here often enough how such cases should be treated/managed. There are other choices, the correct Hahnemannian method and I would strongly advise you to change your homeopath. Allopathic suppression is bad enough, homeopathic suppress is unforgivable.

"And every attentive observer will agree that, after such short antipathic amelioration, aggravation follows in every case without exception, although the ordinary physician is in the habit of giving his patient another explanation of this subsequent aggravation, and ascribes it to malignancy of the original disease, not for the first time showing itself, or to the occurrence of quite a new disease".

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

[Kerry]

I was contacted by a lady that had given a home to an elderly cat some
years previously. The cat was now at least 17 years old and in complete
meltdown: near to being put to sleep. The owner was distraught. The
cat had ear polyps that had been treated with steroids, and then the
cat, unsurprisingly, became much sicker, developing kidney problems and
diabetes. The steroids were stopped when the diabetes developed but the
cat remained very ill. Its appetite had completely gone and it was
refusing to eat. I won’t treat other people’s animals so I suggested
various options for using homeopaths. This lady had no internet access,
and as there are no vet homs in her area, I suggested that she try the
homeopath that she had used for herself some time ago. She became very
distressed and said that that was definitely not an option (she detailed
what he had done: dry dosing, repeated daily, etc, etc – the usual, with
bad results). I said that the only thing I could suggest then was that
she tried Alfalfa in a 6x potency to stimulate the appetite: water
dosing, paying attention to reaction, etc. I told her that the cat
really needed a full case taking but it was up to her if she wanted to
try the Alfalfa. She said that as the alternative was the cat being
put to sleep she would give it a try. Over the next few months the
cat improved so much that it actually ceased to be diabetic. Her vet
said that they had never seen a cat cease to be a diabetic before. It
lived for about another six months. I hadn’t thought of the remedy in
terms of curing the diabetes as the cat was so old and so sick. It
just shows what can be done with the occasional dose of a remedy, even a
low potency such as a 6x.

Kerry

[John Harvey]

Hi, Chris --

The only thing that would concern me about this method is this: once one makes a slip and brushes that wet toothpick against a few pellets that don't stick (or even against the inside of the bottle!), what then? I think that there's great value, in dealing with pellets that are to go into many medicines, in respecting the principle of not taking the slightest risk of contaminating one's sources -- in this case, the source of all one's medicated pellets into the foreseeable future. So we spill some; they're cheap. Contaminate just one, and the loss to the patient may be irrecoverable.

What do you think? Or am I misunderstanding the method?

Cheers!

John
2009/12/7 Gail Allen >
________________________________
________________________________

[John Harvey]

Hi, Liz --

I think that you have successfully returned this conversation once again to its starting topic, which concerned not dry doses as such but blind repetition of dry doses in unchanging potency and Hahnemann's repeated and reasoned exhortations against that practice.

What, by the way, is this infernal initialism "b.d."? Not itself a contraction of another initialism, "b.i.d.", the allopathic shorthand for twice daily? If so, your treatment seems (on a plain reading of the case) to incorporate twice-daily prescriptions of Nat. mur., for months on end.

Did this poor woman have the patience and the resources to consult you twice daily for months on end?

And, incidentally, do you regard the treatment of skin symptoms through external remedies as being wholly irrelevant to the woman's more cheerful disposition? Or would you consider that her more cheerful disposition might be partly due to the support of her homoeopath in making herself available for consultation twice daily for months on end?

Cheers --

John
2009/12/8 Liz Brynin >

[Liz Brynin]

Dear John et al.
Ok - have your fun. Ha! Ha! Is that all you can find to say about this? Poke around the edges and make fun of little things. Can't you do better than that?
Well, it would seem that you can't not get over what I did - yes!! - Nat mur 12C b.d. for quite a few weeks - and she got better.
Nice direction of cure, nice improvement of mentals/emotionals as the case proceeded, with further outbreaks of the physical disease which in turn receded.
A good resolution. I'm sorry if it blows your theories (or Hahnemann's, come to that) out of the water. But that woman got better. That's all that concerns me.
Now, since no-one can say anything honest about this, this subject is closed.
Liz

[Chris_Gillen]

Hi John,
All I can say is that I use a new, clean toothpick every time I transfer a pillule into the remedy bottle, then throw it away of course. I can remember being a bit shocked at a seminar back in the late '80's, when S. Banerjea showed some photos of his busy clinic back in India. They showed some young kids, no shirts on, in front of an untidy workbench with an ash tray on it!! diligently wrapping up remedy prescriptions for the patients. Not like the video presentation on the Remedia site with its ultra clean lab and technicians with hair covered, gloves on etc.
Anyway, 12 years on, the remedies work as expected after using the toothpick transfer method. I can't figure out any other possible way to get just *one* pellet into a stock solution bottle, I think I would end up breaking both wrists in exasperation. These pellets are tiny.
Chris.

[John Harvey]

Dear Liz,
No, I think that there's an awful lot that could be said about the little you've revealed so far about this case, but that only so much is possible in a day.
I take it that you're confirming that "t.d." = "t.i.d." = twice daily doses, and that you didn't consider important assessing the suitability of a repeat prescription at all, let alone of doing so within a couple of months using the same unchanged potency.
If that's so, and since you fervently believe that your patient was "cured" using these and a number of other simultaneous treatments, I guess that you're right: your belief does conflict fundamentally with the first principle of homoeopathy, which is to say the similarity of the single treatment to the patient -- since there was no single treatment. Even discounting all the other treatments as ineffective and somehow irrelevant, prescribing a repeat dose without regard to whether the symptoms were unchanged and without regard to whether the remedy had shown itself suitable strikes me as prescribing without a homoeopathic basis -- again blowing homoeopathy, as you would say, out of the water.
Liz, these are not trivial matters on the periphery of homoeopathy. These are the matters that determine whether the initial treatment is homoeopathic and whether the follow-up treatments are homoeopathic. They're not really laughing matters. Since you chose to use this case as an example of why repeated unchanged dry doses are perfectly effective as homoeopathy, to now admit that the prescription was not homoeopathic at all does tend to undermine your argument that it was effective homoeopathy.
The suppression of this patient's skin symptoms through external remedies muddies the water a little more, but the mere fact of having lacked the confidence in the efficacy of Nat. mur., after nine doses in six weeks, to let it act alone (without Ignatia and all the rest) may act as a clue to you as to what was really motivating you, which clearly was not confidence in its curative action (i.e. secondary action, which, as Chris has pointed out, occurs when you're not repeating unchanged doses of the remedy but letting the organism react) but, on some basis, a lack of confidence in its efficacy.
The new symptoms that it caused to break out, whatever they may have been ("physical expression of her grief", "grief was overwhelming", etc.), would, in the theory you now say you've blown out of the water, give you cause (§§ 248, 249) to reevaluate and prescribe more closely. There is absolutely no fault in recognising such a need; on the contrary, it is a most important aspect of follow-up, one that will lead to homoeopathic cure even if the first prescription was less than perfect.
But in any case, as Chris has pointed out, without giving the patient a chance to have a curative reaction (see §§ 246, 247, 247 footnote 133), you simply will not see one, and instead will obtain the kinds of aggravations you saw in that case and ascribe, through disregard for Hahnemann's cautions, to curative response.
Yes, of course after six weeks this patient would be coming to terms with the matter that had so afflicted her social relations, and even more so after another two months. To ignore the medicinal aggravations your repeated dry dosing evidently caused her (unnecessarily -- see §§ 248, 249); to guess that her mental state had no connection with the march of time and every connection with all the remedies you prescribed; and to forget to take note of the rest of her symptoms and what they indicated for the prescription and as a response to it, are three oversights that merely complicate the basic matter. And that is the matter of having forgotten to check whether the remedy's action was curative in the first place, arising partly because of the routinism that led you to prescribe an unchanged remedy weekly (and then twice daily!) without thinking to check her response to the previous dose and without heeding Hahnemann's very clear warnings concerning one's inability, in doing so, to limit the damage one may cause.
The beginning of improvement may be a recognition that there is something that could use it because heedlessness is not infallibility and certainty is not truth.
Cheers --
John
2009/12/8 Liz Brynin >

[Joy Lucas]

I think you have to expect a bit of waste anyway, you get hundreds if not thousands in the tiny bottles. I tend to gently tip a few into the bottle top and then again into another clean bottle and then use the toothpick but I don't think there's any contamination to worry about, no more than letting air in

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/