Split Dose

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Rochelle,

I was never taught about ascending split dose, and have never done this (tho
I'll keep your experience in mind! -- Why would carc be more of a candidate
for this than other remedies?). If it was Blackie that wrote about this,
I'm quite sure she was talking about repeating the same potency -- but it
sounds like the same idea in any case!

Shannon
on 11/2/03 3:40 PM, ROCHELLE at rochelle@ntlworld.com wrote:

[Rochelle]

Why Carc? I don't know. I think I was getting agg from single potencies a few years back and I tried this and it worked!!! It was another way of prescribing we were taught at college.

Regards
Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk

[Dr.J Rozenewajg]

It is Margaret Tyler who developed that technique.
The idea is that you want to get to a high potency but want to avoid aggravations, hence you "warn" the system by giving a lower potency and working your way up to the desired potency.
I use that a lot, with the warning that if there is a change with a lower potency, not to take the next one and call, with very good results, smooth action and very few if at all aggravations.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[Rochelle]

I also give the instruction to phone me if there is any reaction to a dose and don't take the next.

Rochelle
---------------------------------------

www.rochellemarsden.co.uk

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Thank you Rochelle and other colleagues for responding to my question re
Split Dose.

I am yet to find out who has caused this 'deviation' from Hahnemann's
teachings.

You see, the second prescription is VERY important.

By giving your first dose, you have started the mechanism of activating the
VF to move in the correct direction. It is a bit like push starting a car,
once it start you do not push any more.

The action of the first dose MUST be evaluated before a second is given.
This applies to all potency prescribing, whether C or LM.
If you have given a remedy last thing at night, what is going to antidote by
the morning which going to necessitate another dose in the morning?

My suspicion is that some one has started this trend for reasons better
known perhaps to themselves. I am yet to find anyone who can defend such a
mode of prescribing based on anything from Hahnemann or his faithful
followers.

Just because it was the way you were taught at school does not justify it.

PLEASE reconsider by just giving one dose and waiting an appropriate period
of time to see what happens.

Rgds
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Rosemary C. Hyde, Ph.D.]

Soroush,

Yes, you're right that the second prescription is very important. However,
I was taught that second prescription refers to remedy selections made after
the first dose has acted. Before it has acted, or before any remedy has
acted, no matter how long one has waited, any remedy given is still part of
the "first prescription." I think the purpose of the "split dose" is to
anticipate the possibility of an aggravation and modify the first
prescription before that reaction can happen.

I learned this method from British born teachers who were also trained in
UK, and who use it routinely, apparently without any negative effects (and
also with virtually no aggravations or exacerbations of negative symptoms
and excellent therapeutic results -- so it doesn't seem so awful.). I've
used it sometimes, probably pretty erratically, but usually in acute
ailments with instructions to stop as soon as anything noticeable happens,
positive or negative. I've never seen any negative effects of any kind --
aggravations or indications that the remedy had been antidoted.

FWIW ))

Rosemary

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks, interesting!
Do you use this approach always/usually, or only with certain situations? I
have had so few aggs at all, simply with single doses, that I have never
felt motivated to use split doses, but that could change, I suppose!

I'm recalling a discussion -- here? -- some time back re *de*scending
potencies, and some people seemed to feel that worked better. Which leaves
me nothing but confused... Do you, or anyone, have experience on that?

Shannon
on 11/2/03 4:08 PM, Dr.J Rozenewajg at jroz@ihug.co.nz wrote:

[Dr.J Rozenewajg]

From my experience with a few terrible aggravations, I tend not to want to see that any more..........so I guess I have become a bit sloppy and when I do not use LMs, I tend to be driven towards that type of prescription, although last week 2 patients had single high potencies and are well.

I remember the discussion about descending potencies, one of the proponents even sent a drawing where the next lower potency was helping the patient "bounce back" from his aggravation, if any.
My understanding was and still is that raising potencies to the desired one is like "priming the system" whereas descending potencies is like "managing the havoc"............

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[safi hiten]

GIVE ME THE DETAIL UNDERSTANDING OF SPLIT DOSE.

WHEN TO USE IT AND WHY TO USE IT

D RHITEN SAFI BHMS
HOMOEOPATHY HEALS.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

[Homoeopathy]

Hello, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
Your answer below refers to the ascending dose, and what you say is correct,
but I was under the impression that we were talking of split dose and that
is another subject.
Best Regards
STAY HEALTHY THE NATURAL WAY
HOMEOPATHY & QXCI NEW QUANTUM ENERGETIC MEDICINE
Mr. Fernando Quaresma BRANCO LCPH MARH FBIH
Tel: +212 022 36 42 52
GSM +212 (0)61 65 18 73
Tel/Fax/Voice: International +44 (0)709 222 5225