#4
The use of nosodes as 'nosode therapy' under the umbrella of homeopathy is not eligible. 'Similia simillibus curentur' somehow supports nosode therapy as a kind of homeopathic action but defining simillimum as '....most similar to the by-products of underlying dynamic alterations' (e.g., infectious discharges, pathologically altered tissues,...) is not how it was coined ab initio. Where nosodes work, they are working either as true simillimums (like other remedies prescribed as simillimums) or according to other systems of treatment and not homeopathy.
Kind regards,
Ardavan Shahrdar
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ardavan- ... 2103925737
Minutus website will be uploaded with a new URL soon
Post 4
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Post 4
Hi,
It might be useful to compare nosode therapy with a therapuetic method that everyone can agree to be true simulum.
On what points are they similar and where do they differ?
Best,
Ellen Madono
It might be useful to compare nosode therapy with a therapuetic method that everyone can agree to be true simulum.
On what points are they similar and where do they differ?
Best,
Ellen Madono
-
healthinfo6
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:00 pm
Re: Post 4
Having ordered TubK LM12-20 from Helios today, this nosode currently feels like my simillimum, but I won't know until I keep going up the scale. It took until LM11 to begin to feel its truer healing power. I certainly don't feel yet that it is my final simillimum.
I feel putting special conditions around nosode use instills fear or reluctance to use them.
That's just one reason I can think of why so many homeopaths didn't prescribe it for me.
Additionally, as I've experienced, it can take a few doses to begin to feel a remedy action and with TubK until LM11 to be able to distinguish what it is doing.
This and previous Post # definitions implies an easy beginning and an end approach which is not how Hahnemann describes treating chronic diseases in Chronic Diseases. Having created an LM system that he specified upto LM32 shows he had the forethought to expect it may take that long in progressing higher potency to approach a cure or close to cure state though he didn't have the chance to test it fully.
Did Hahnemann describe treating chronic diseases by going from 3C, 12C to 30C, then 200C, then 1M, 10M, 50M?
Are there cases he used upto 50M?
If not, why would he then create the LM system, claiming it speeds the cure, giive it the range from 1-32? Why not 1 to 48?
By Hahnemann saying LM speeds the cure, does that then imply he felt C potencies couldn't speed the cure, even though higher potencies of C were already available during his lifetime?
Like a diamond, where simple elements are ingredients but long time high pressure and heat are required to create one, Hahnemann is saying that LM speeds the cure yet expects it could take upto 32 gradually increasing LM potencies to do so which also implies the vital force needs time like a diamond.
Does that mean he felt C potencies couldn't do this?
Where would LM32 put you relative in comparison to a C potency? Then why didn't Hahnemann instruct to go from a low to that high C potency in treating chronic diseases the way he does with LM potency?
Susan
I feel putting special conditions around nosode use instills fear or reluctance to use them.
That's just one reason I can think of why so many homeopaths didn't prescribe it for me.
Additionally, as I've experienced, it can take a few doses to begin to feel a remedy action and with TubK until LM11 to be able to distinguish what it is doing.
This and previous Post # definitions implies an easy beginning and an end approach which is not how Hahnemann describes treating chronic diseases in Chronic Diseases. Having created an LM system that he specified upto LM32 shows he had the forethought to expect it may take that long in progressing higher potency to approach a cure or close to cure state though he didn't have the chance to test it fully.
Did Hahnemann describe treating chronic diseases by going from 3C, 12C to 30C, then 200C, then 1M, 10M, 50M?
Are there cases he used upto 50M?
If not, why would he then create the LM system, claiming it speeds the cure, giive it the range from 1-32? Why not 1 to 48?
By Hahnemann saying LM speeds the cure, does that then imply he felt C potencies couldn't speed the cure, even though higher potencies of C were already available during his lifetime?
Like a diamond, where simple elements are ingredients but long time high pressure and heat are required to create one, Hahnemann is saying that LM speeds the cure yet expects it could take upto 32 gradually increasing LM potencies to do so which also implies the vital force needs time like a diamond.
Does that mean he felt C potencies couldn't do this?
Where would LM32 put you relative in comparison to a C potency? Then why didn't Hahnemann instruct to go from a low to that high C potency in treating chronic diseases the way he does with LM potency?
Susan
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Post 4
Some of the nosodes have well-developed prescribing pictures, and are often used as simillimum, not simply because of a theoretical miasm.
Med, Carc, Tub, and more recently also AIDS, Leprominium, and many more.
Shannon
Med, Carc, Tub, and more recently also AIDS, Leprominium, and many more.
Shannon
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Post 4
Hi Susan,
Hahnemann never used higher than 200c, and usually only up to 30c. Part of the reason surely was the difficulty in making high-potency remedies (all that succussing, and all those little bottles!), but also he found it conceptually uneasy. Instead he developed the LM scale, which he felt eliminated the need for higher potencies.
He did not use truly high potencies; he didn't approve of them conceptually.
And Sheilagh Creasy describes cases where the patient topped out the available LM potencies in their needed remedy, but still needed the remedy -- so she had them drop back down to LM-1 and begin the ascent over again, with progress continuing as before.
Shannon
Hahnemann never used higher than 200c, and usually only up to 30c. Part of the reason surely was the difficulty in making high-potency remedies (all that succussing, and all those little bottles!), but also he found it conceptually uneasy. Instead he developed the LM scale, which he felt eliminated the need for higher potencies.
He did not use truly high potencies; he didn't approve of them conceptually.
And Sheilagh Creasy describes cases where the patient topped out the available LM potencies in their needed remedy, but still needed the remedy -- so she had them drop back down to LM-1 and begin the ascent over again, with progress continuing as before.
Shannon
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Post 4
I confirm that this is a Sheilagh Creasy teaching about the use of LMs.
May God grant her long life and good health.
I am attending one of her Master classes on March 8th – yes she is still teaching!
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Nelson
Sent: 28 February 2014 18:41
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Post 4
Hi Susan,
...
Did Hahnemann describe treating chronic diseases by going from 3C, 12C to 30C, then 200C, then 1M, 10M, 50M?
Are there cases he used upto 50M?
Hahnemann never used higher than 200c, and usually only up to 30c. Part of the reason surely was the difficulty in making high-potency remedies (all that succussing, and all those little bottles!), but also he found it conceptually uneasy. Instead he developed the LM scale, which he felt eliminated the need for higher potencies.
If not, why would he then create the LM system, claiming it speeds the cure, giive it the range from 1-32? Why not 1 to 48?
By Hahnemann saying LM speeds the cure, does that then imply he felt C potencies couldn't speed the cure, even though higher potencies of C were already available during his lifetime?
He did not use truly high potencies; he didn't approve of them conceptually.
Like a diamond, where simple elements are ingredients but long time high pressure and heat are required to create one, Hahnemann is saying that LM speeds the cure yet expects it could take upto 32 gradually increasing LM potencies to do so which also implies the vital force needs time like a diamond.
And Sheilagh Creasy describes cases where the patient topped out the available LM potencies in their needed remedy, but still needed the remedy -- so she had them drop back down to LM-1 and begin the ascent over again, with progress continuing as before.
Shannon
May God grant her long life and good health.
I am attending one of her Master classes on March 8th – yes she is still teaching!
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Nelson
Sent: 28 February 2014 18:41
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Post 4
Hi Susan,
...
Did Hahnemann describe treating chronic diseases by going from 3C, 12C to 30C, then 200C, then 1M, 10M, 50M?
Are there cases he used upto 50M?
Hahnemann never used higher than 200c, and usually only up to 30c. Part of the reason surely was the difficulty in making high-potency remedies (all that succussing, and all those little bottles!), but also he found it conceptually uneasy. Instead he developed the LM scale, which he felt eliminated the need for higher potencies.
If not, why would he then create the LM system, claiming it speeds the cure, giive it the range from 1-32? Why not 1 to 48?
By Hahnemann saying LM speeds the cure, does that then imply he felt C potencies couldn't speed the cure, even though higher potencies of C were already available during his lifetime?
He did not use truly high potencies; he didn't approve of them conceptually.
Like a diamond, where simple elements are ingredients but long time high pressure and heat are required to create one, Hahnemann is saying that LM speeds the cure yet expects it could take upto 32 gradually increasing LM potencies to do so which also implies the vital force needs time like a diamond.
And Sheilagh Creasy describes cases where the patient topped out the available LM potencies in their needed remedy, but still needed the remedy -- so she had them drop back down to LM-1 and begin the ascent over again, with progress continuing as before.
Shannon
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Post 4
Hi,
Shannon pointed out that there are specific descriptions of nosodes. Are there based on provings? Are they clinical? Or from some thing else?
I think you are implying some kind of hierarchy of remedy reliablity from the prescriber's perspective.
What is meant by "not simply because of a theoretical miasm."
Best,
Ellen
Shannon pointed out that there are specific descriptions of nosodes. Are there based on provings? Are they clinical? Or from some thing else?
I think you are implying some kind of hierarchy of remedy reliablity from the prescriber's perspective.
What is meant by "not simply because of a theoretical miasm."
Best,
Ellen
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Post 4
Hi Ellen,
I don't have my materials to look any of that up at the moment, and can't remember -- but I'm pretty sure that the main ones have provings, as well as lots of clinical refinement.
Sorry for my unclarity! By "… because of a theoretical miasm" I meant, e.g., giving Carcinosin because it is presumed to be the active miasm in the case (maybe because of so much cancer in the history? or because of an "I can't succeed, but I am not allowed to stop trying" belief?). Or giving Syphilinum because of e.g. destruction in the personal or family history). Some people advise giving an occasional dose of "the nosode of the dominant miasm" or some such, without it necessarily having symptom similarity with the case.
"Hierarchy of remedy reliability", I am not sure what you mean… I assume that any *remedy* is only as reliable as the skill and appropriateness with which it is prescribed. I have gathered that some homeopaths are not very familiar with the nosodes' full prescribing pictures; I knew one who said she never used them at all (I can't imagine why), and others use them as intercurrents, on very superficial basis, as above.
Shannon
I don't have my materials to look any of that up at the moment, and can't remember -- but I'm pretty sure that the main ones have provings, as well as lots of clinical refinement.
Sorry for my unclarity! By "… because of a theoretical miasm" I meant, e.g., giving Carcinosin because it is presumed to be the active miasm in the case (maybe because of so much cancer in the history? or because of an "I can't succeed, but I am not allowed to stop trying" belief?). Or giving Syphilinum because of e.g. destruction in the personal or family history). Some people advise giving an occasional dose of "the nosode of the dominant miasm" or some such, without it necessarily having symptom similarity with the case.
"Hierarchy of remedy reliability", I am not sure what you mean… I assume that any *remedy* is only as reliable as the skill and appropriateness with which it is prescribed. I have gathered that some homeopaths are not very familiar with the nosodes' full prescribing pictures; I knew one who said she never used them at all (I can't imagine why), and others use them as intercurrents, on very superficial basis, as above.
Shannon
-
healthinfo6
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:00 pm
Re: Post 4
Dear Soroush,
Helios lists LM nosodes and antipsorics upto LM49 on their new website and I think they will make them higher, I'm sure on their previous website I saw LM100 on some.
During your class it would be illuminating if you would ask does she know that higher than LM32 is available and if she would consider using them vs.restarting the scale? Maybe she already did.
I'm not familiar with her work yet, though by tackling cases where she restarted after LM32, she is treating patients long term with chronic illness. She sounds wonderful!
Best,
Susan
Helios lists LM nosodes and antipsorics upto LM49 on their new website and I think they will make them higher, I'm sure on their previous website I saw LM100 on some.
During your class it would be illuminating if you would ask does she know that higher than LM32 is available and if she would consider using them vs.restarting the scale? Maybe she already did.
I'm not familiar with her work yet, though by tackling cases where she restarted after LM32, she is treating patients long term with chronic illness. She sounds wonderful!
Best,
Susan