When your order an F series from Homeodel or other supplier, what potencies do they provide? (not shown on websites)
Do you get the same set of potencies from any supplier?
Meaning, have you instructed pharmacies that an F series must consist of these potencies? Or what is in a FULL set?
3C, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, ... ??
LM is considered "weak" when compared on a mathematical scale to C since they only span 5C to 73C but their action is much stronger/deeper than their math equivalent C's because the dilution is 1:50,000 vs 1:100 which acts differently, supposedly gentler and deeper than if taking as their C equivalents.
Using this table, from Will Taylor's WHN dosing and potency course, differs from yours, as recently posted by Kari Kindem on SN:
LM1 – 5C
LM2 – 8C
LM3 – 10C
LM4 – 12C
LM5 – 15C
LM6 – 18C
…
LM12 – 31C
…
LM30 – 73C
Varun had commented on this:
Dilutional equivalent doesn't tell the potency, as the "absorption coefficient of alcohol" is not taken into account in this... Alcohol is expected to absorb more power on more dilution (including succession), and that's what happens in LM scale... So, each LM absorbs far more power than what happens in each C scale dilution, coz of more dilution ratio... The difference is quite a lot, 1 : 100, and 1 : 50,000... That's why LM potencies are scared too, even otherwise in general, and considered more strong... Now you can say LM potencies rather act more gently... Then that's also true, and I won't like to go into the details of why both the aspects hold, (provided used rightly)...
And you are assuming that, "Each LM potency goes up by around 2C - per each LM level increasing." Let me know your mathematics behind this. Quite difficult to even expect or assume this, as the difference in dilution is 1 : 100 to 1 : 50,000.
Irene De Villiers wrote in 2011:
"That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
LM, etc aspect.
But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved."
http://www.otherhealth.com/homeopathy-l ... 1-lms.html
Dr.Joe wrote:
"So how do you plan to do that? LM1, LM3, LM5, LM8, etc,...? it is of
course possible but then you miss out on the intermediate LM potencies
that are prepared differently than the C or X potencies and on the slow,
constant progression and exponential multiplication of the C potencies
given in an F series."
I would start LM3 then go LM5 which based on Fibonacci, should then act like an LM15 (?)
Here at first I'm only skipping LM4, which should be tolerable, and I would know fairly quickly if that works.
Not clear on why you feel missing out on intermediate LM potencies and their different preparation would matter in Fibonacci theory?
Possibly, I'll miss out on the gentler action by skipping a gradual progression of LMs
You're comparing mathematical equivalency between LM and C, by showing what an LM equates to as a C and then what the resulting extrapolation in C potency theoretical action is when taken as Fibonacci.
But LM action is different because the dilutions are different (1:100 C, 1: 50000 LM)
Without Fibonacci, LMs taken in sequential order from LM1 to LM30 have much stronger/deeper/gentler action than if taken as their C equivalents from 5C to 73C.
So why compare LM to C if taken in F series??
They already don't compare in action when not taken as Fibonacci.
For example, taken as F series: LM3, LM5 (should act as LM15), LM8 (should act like LM120)
When equating to C, LM3=10C, LM5=15C which are not Fibonacci and the action shouldn't extrapolate as Fibonacci C's do.
So taking LM as F series shouldn't work if it your theory depends on it's C equivalency for it to work
Then again, doesn't seem likely you would only need LM3, 5 and 8 to reach LM120 by Fibonacci, which would be considered quite high in action.
I don't know if by taking an LM in F series I'm defeating the inherent nature of LMs, mainly best for daily administration necessary for long term management of chronic diseases which besides being miasmatic are genetic in themselves.
Most of the cases discussed using F series have seemed to resolve themselves after series use and you once mentioned mostly having non-miasmatic cases of your ~ 1000 cases.
I don't expect final resolution or "cure" just hoping to speed up whatever help I'm receiving from the new antipsoric remedy.
Having moved upto LM25 on my constitutional/core antipsoric remedy and LM13 on an antimiasmatic nosode, maybe I can bypass having to do a monthly LM progression with a new remedy I've only taken as 200C, 2 pills, 25 water doses.
Since it takes over a week to receive from Helios or Homeodel, .
I'll order LM3, 5 and to play it safe LM6, 7, 8.
If I run into problems skipping LM4 after starting LM5, I'll continue on LM 6 in non F series mode
I don't think it will be too detrimental to skip LM4 for a test.
Susan