Why dry for most homeopaths?
Of course dry potencies work sometimes - depends on choosing the exact right potency and the person not being over sensitive. Hahnemann used remedies dry at first. But later he changed his mind after working with them.
Hahnemann then recommended not repeating the same potency twice and only way to do that with dry is start with 30c, go to 200c, go to 1M and go to 10M and then what do you do and that potency may be way too high for some. By using remedies in water you can fine tune more and also aggravations will be way less or of shorter duration.
Classical has nothing to do with how remedies are given. It was a term made up by George Vithoulkas and indicated following principles of like cures like, one remedy at a time and lowest potency (but I guess people wouldn't meet that criteria when they don't use water potencies)
So many homeopaths were only taught dry dosing and this has to do with many factors.
1. The 6th edition of Organon didn't get into hands of homeopaths after Hahnemann died in 1800s
2. All the homeopaths at that time were following primarily the 4th edition in late 1800s
3. All the teachers of the early 20th century were taught by those homeopaths
4. Homeopathy pretty much died out in the US and when revived still taught by homeopaths who only learned 4th edition.
5. Homeopaths kind of set in their ways as most people are think dry is fine (but they aren't acknowledging the aggravations people have; or no results and they don't come back because remedy was right but potency was wrong). It isn't best for the patient as too much time has to go by before remedy is changed if not right. Too many aggravations. Too many non-results. Dr. Luc de Schepper and David Little (also Robin Murphy taught this) are the main homeopaths teaching this method (and of course their students such as myself). They are trying desperately to get homeopaths to listen. Some homeopaths have started using LM potencies which are in water, which helps, but most aren't using them according to Hahnemann's instructions in his 6th edition of Organon. And very few homeopaths ever use C or X potencies in water which Hahnemann did toward the end of his life.
We went a gentle cure and a faster cure and water potencies can do that. If an aggravation with water potencies it only lasts a few days. With dry potencies can last a long time or forever.
I saw problems with all the above and I kept studying and found water potencies and rarely use dry potencies at all (unless nothing else is possible).
Of course people have been cured with dry potencies but is it a gentle cure? Is it as fast as it can be? How many have not been helped - have given up because of how long it takes or severe aggravations?
Also homeopaths don't pay attention to the dose (the look at potency but not dose). Many think, because Kent said it, that 1 pillule = 10 pillules = 100 pillules and this is not true. 1 pillule or tablet in an amount of water is a dose.
To adjust for person's individual sensitivity with water potencies can adjust by:
1. selection of potency
2. number of tablets
3. amount of water diluted in in dilution bottle
4. amount of water dose from that bottle is further diluted in
5. number of succussions given to that dilution bottle before #4
With a dry pill you can only give the pill and hope and most homeopaths say it takes 3-6 weeks to know if it is working. That is not acceptable to me for my patients.
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/org ... ricke.html
click on tab that says Details to view
Samuel Hahnemann finished the 6th edition of the Organon in 1842. He died in 1843 before it could be printed. His wife Melanie kept the manuscript and attempted to have it published but European wars and lack of funds thwarted these efforts.
By the turn of the century the manuscript had passed on to the Boenninghausen family. Dr. Richard Haehl arranged the purchase and Dr. William Boericke and James William Ward paid $1,000 for it at the end of World War 1.
Boericke & Tafel published the first English translation of the 6th ed. Organon in 1922. Working from Dudgeon's 1893 revision of the 5th edition, William Boericke added in all of Hahnemann's newest information. This was not a 'from scratch' translation but it spotlighted the last iteration of Hahnemann's grand work.
Most importantly, the 6th edition introduced the preparation and management of the 50 millesimal potency, Hahnemann's 'perfected method'. Many of our greatest homeopaths such as Hering, Boenninghausen, Kent, etc., had no knowledge of the 6th edition.
This legacy of ignorance still permeates the homeopathic world today but is slowly being eroded through the efforts of David Little, Dr. Luc de Schepper, and others. The 6th edition of the Organon should not be relegated to some bibliographical footnote. Instead, its dissemination to student and practitioner alike would mean a quantum leap forward in homeopathic practice.
and under
Heritage
The 6th edition. Not a full re-translation.
William Boericke began with the 5th edition (the Dudgeon 1893 revision), and simply corrected it where Hahnemann had made changes.
The philosophical questions raised by the differences found between the fifth and sixth edition are too complex to be detailed here.
Nevertheless, Hahnemann made a number of changes and proposed a new method of remedy preparation and administration (the fifty millesimal potencies).
The method was unknown to the great practitioners (Hering, Kent, etc.) who followed in his steps. The book was re-published in 1935.
From:
The Heritage of Homoeopathic Literature
copyright 2001 by Julian Winston
Reprinted with the permission of the author
Hope that helps
Sheri
Why dry for most homeopaths?
-
John R. Benneth
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:00 pm
-
Vicki Satta
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:00 pm
Re: Why dry for most homeopaths?
Sherry: thanks for all of he information! I'm saving it for further study. Would you say that, when making decisions about homeopaths for pets and humans, that a question concerning dry or medicinal medicines should be asked? In your opinion, should DRY DOSING disqualify perspective homeopaths?
Also, what happens if the water-based medicine is not supported with a small amount of preservative? How long can we expect the medicine to last?
Thanks again for the information.
Vicki
Also, what happens if the water-based medicine is not supported with a small amount of preservative? How long can we expect the medicine to last?
Thanks again for the information.
Vicki
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Why dry for most homeopaths?
Sheri has said A LOT there, again, that really shouldn't stand unchallenged. If the dry dosing situation were as dire as what she paints, *homeopathy would have died* long ago. Because, as she notes, *most* of homeopathy has been done dry dose, fourth edition (at best), ever since it was begun.
Nearly all of our "greats" used dry dose, and (at best) fourth edition method.
It *does* still work today -- although I would never want to be one to say that 6th ed / water dosing should not also be learned, nor that it should not have a far greater place in our picture than what it has had.
For those reasons I feel really silly trying to argue with her -- and yet, she says MUCH there that really should not stand unchallenged.
Dry dosing and 4th edition methodology DO have their place -- and it is, and IMO should very properly be, a very large place. I could not have had *most* of the wonderful experiences I've had with homeopathy, if I (or my prescribers) were confined to 6th edition, or to water doses. Or to the "do not repeat" rule, for that matter.
My (congenitally defected gifted to us as an infant) cow, who needed her 10M doses (first one by accidental olfaction, and the others dripped onto a grain treat or hay) only at very long intervals, a year or more apart.
My "PTSD" and almost mortally injured cat needed his 1M dose *once*, and it changed his life.
My very-challenged good friend who has often been simply unable to cope with LM method; my unobservant and forgetful husband, who will happily take a dry dose tipped into his mouth, but would simply not get around to dosing daily.
The people whose cases I learned closely, but was able to do only spotty follow-up with.
My kids went through their huge changes with widely spaced *single*, high potency doses, often delivered via baby bottle (so they wouldn't fight me to eat the entire vial of sugar pills). I just could not have managed to do what I did with them, if I had been confined to giving them LMs -- we work with what we have. LMs maybe faster to *cure*, but they are not faster to help; they may be faster *if followed through with appropriately,, but they are NOT faster if neglected, and they are not easier.
And they are NOT the only way, not even the only effective way.
I'm betting that even now, while LMs/6th ed method are so much more widely known than they used to be, I'll bet that even now, many practicing homeopaths on this list might say the same.
Then there's Fibonacci…
Vicki, I would have to think that getting "the remedy" -- and "understanding the case", and understanding principles of "case management" -- by *whatever* method of prescribing the practitioner is using, would really have to trump their choice of potency scale.
Would you choose a surgeon based on his knives, or a homebuilder based on his saws, or a therapist based on the books on his shelf… Certainly those things *might* be considerations, if someone happens to know the basis to evaluate, but it would be silly to set those above performance, reputation, training, and results. Same thing will apply with a homeopath. That said, it is not an easy thing to choose…
Shannon
Nearly all of our "greats" used dry dose, and (at best) fourth edition method.
It *does* still work today -- although I would never want to be one to say that 6th ed / water dosing should not also be learned, nor that it should not have a far greater place in our picture than what it has had.
For those reasons I feel really silly trying to argue with her -- and yet, she says MUCH there that really should not stand unchallenged.
Dry dosing and 4th edition methodology DO have their place -- and it is, and IMO should very properly be, a very large place. I could not have had *most* of the wonderful experiences I've had with homeopathy, if I (or my prescribers) were confined to 6th edition, or to water doses. Or to the "do not repeat" rule, for that matter.
My (congenitally defected gifted to us as an infant) cow, who needed her 10M doses (first one by accidental olfaction, and the others dripped onto a grain treat or hay) only at very long intervals, a year or more apart.
My "PTSD" and almost mortally injured cat needed his 1M dose *once*, and it changed his life.
My very-challenged good friend who has often been simply unable to cope with LM method; my unobservant and forgetful husband, who will happily take a dry dose tipped into his mouth, but would simply not get around to dosing daily.
The people whose cases I learned closely, but was able to do only spotty follow-up with.
My kids went through their huge changes with widely spaced *single*, high potency doses, often delivered via baby bottle (so they wouldn't fight me to eat the entire vial of sugar pills). I just could not have managed to do what I did with them, if I had been confined to giving them LMs -- we work with what we have. LMs maybe faster to *cure*, but they are not faster to help; they may be faster *if followed through with appropriately,, but they are NOT faster if neglected, and they are not easier.
And they are NOT the only way, not even the only effective way.
I'm betting that even now, while LMs/6th ed method are so much more widely known than they used to be, I'll bet that even now, many practicing homeopaths on this list might say the same.
Then there's Fibonacci…
Vicki, I would have to think that getting "the remedy" -- and "understanding the case", and understanding principles of "case management" -- by *whatever* method of prescribing the practitioner is using, would really have to trump their choice of potency scale.
Would you choose a surgeon based on his knives, or a homebuilder based on his saws, or a therapist based on the books on his shelf… Certainly those things *might* be considerations, if someone happens to know the basis to evaluate, but it would be silly to set those above performance, reputation, training, and results. Same thing will apply with a homeopath. That said, it is not an easy thing to choose…
Shannon
-
Ginny Wilken
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Why dry for most homeopaths?
I'll put my two cents in: Yes, one should ask - the quality of the answer, which may not be a simple yes or no, can tell you a lot about the practice. It has been my experience, though, that some will tell you what they think you want to hear, i.e., that they work both ways and of course you may have medicinal solutions if you like. I would not accept that, but would look for a practice that is solidly into dilutions. Even "big" material doses like the Ms do better in solution.
Depending upon the quality of your water and the environment, I would expect about two weeks from a plain solution. OTOH, I have some decades-old LMs in solution with alcohol that are fine. I have heard of remedies from the past two centuries still kicking:)
ginny
--
Ginny Wilken
gwilken@fastmail.fm
Depending upon the quality of your water and the environment, I would expect about two weeks from a plain solution. OTOH, I have some decades-old LMs in solution with alcohol that are fine. I have heard of remedies from the past two centuries still kicking:)
ginny
--
Ginny Wilken
gwilken@fastmail.fm
-
Vicki Satta
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:00 pm
Re: Why dry for most homeopaths?
Makes sense, but... if one is attempting to follow the instructions left by Dr. Hahnemann in the last days in Paris, we would follow the dosing information he left for us. Do you agree? I think it will be very interesting with David Little's books are published after his long term research. I understand that he worked from microfische of the manuscript that Dr. Hahnemann left at the time of his death.
My very basic understanding is that the dry dose leaves us nowhere to go if the dose doesn't act. How do people who use dry doses manage a case Shannon? I have never taken a remedy that changed everything in one dose, have you? Well, the first dose of Belladona for one of my dogs was remarkable and never needed to be repeated, but it was a medicinal solution. However, that is the only time in my experience that the results were so remarkable.
So how did they manage the cases when the dry dose didn't work? So you're saying that they were so good at finding the remedy that they healed with one dose? That seems pretty far from what I've seen in my days as a patient and pet owner who administers to my dogs.
Ok. It did nothing the one time I tried it with one of my dogs, per a homeopathic vet's prescription. There was no place to go.
LOL... okay. I'll stick with Dr. Hahnemann and David Little unless some new research proves it to be wrong.
Could you please explain exactly what that means? If the first dose wet or dry brings about amazing results, like it did with my dog Walter, then there was nothing else to do at that particular time. Within weeks the results lasted, so it was just observation and feedback to the homeopath until the next symptom showed up.
Interesting...
Dry dose?
I'm taking the Fseries remedies, so it's an entirely new process I had to learn.
Ok... LOL... I haven't really taken them so I don't know. I was told to buy a bunch of them and never used them.
LOL... no comment.
Yes... well we know that Dr. Joe has a very good record of getting the results he sets out to get. I forget the numbers. Perhaps he'll have time to comment.
Well... the bottom line is getting well. I have spent hours and hours writing to different homeopaths and asking my questions. I think it's important to do.
Yes, but as Roger has said, each time you make a mistake... it costs you money because there is no Obamacare for homeopathy... maybe we should work on that one! Just kidding, but making a mistake would be easier if money wasn't an issue. Unfortunately it is for me so I'm probably overly cautious and maybe too judgmental.
Thanks for your thoughts...
Vicki!!!
My very basic understanding is that the dry dose leaves us nowhere to go if the dose doesn't act. How do people who use dry doses manage a case Shannon? I have never taken a remedy that changed everything in one dose, have you? Well, the first dose of Belladona for one of my dogs was remarkable and never needed to be repeated, but it was a medicinal solution. However, that is the only time in my experience that the results were so remarkable.
So how did they manage the cases when the dry dose didn't work? So you're saying that they were so good at finding the remedy that they healed with one dose? That seems pretty far from what I've seen in my days as a patient and pet owner who administers to my dogs.
Ok. It did nothing the one time I tried it with one of my dogs, per a homeopathic vet's prescription. There was no place to go.
LOL... okay. I'll stick with Dr. Hahnemann and David Little unless some new research proves it to be wrong.
Could you please explain exactly what that means? If the first dose wet or dry brings about amazing results, like it did with my dog Walter, then there was nothing else to do at that particular time. Within weeks the results lasted, so it was just observation and feedback to the homeopath until the next symptom showed up.
Interesting...
Dry dose?
I'm taking the Fseries remedies, so it's an entirely new process I had to learn.
Ok... LOL... I haven't really taken them so I don't know. I was told to buy a bunch of them and never used them.
LOL... no comment.
Yes... well we know that Dr. Joe has a very good record of getting the results he sets out to get. I forget the numbers. Perhaps he'll have time to comment.
Well... the bottom line is getting well. I have spent hours and hours writing to different homeopaths and asking my questions. I think it's important to do.
Yes, but as Roger has said, each time you make a mistake... it costs you money because there is no Obamacare for homeopathy... maybe we should work on that one! Just kidding, but making a mistake would be easier if money wasn't an issue. Unfortunately it is for me so I'm probably overly cautious and maybe too judgmental.
Thanks for your thoughts...
Vicki!!!
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Why dry for most homeopaths?
Fibonacci can be dry, semi-dry, liquid, multiple dilution glasses, etc,.....total flexibility....
.....and to add to your list, you have the lazy homeopath (me!) who teaches liquid dosing to his patients but takes them dry himself.............
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
.....and to add to your list, you have the lazy homeopath (me!) who teaches liquid dosing to his patients but takes them dry himself.............
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Why dry for most homeopaths?
You have to read the cases of the old masters, those that were treated with a single dose: most of them are either acutes or very physical, material pathologies.
This should not be confused with the "modern" trend that attempts to cure everything through "constitutionals" or "miasmatic" remedies with one single remedy being a cure for everything for this patient.....and then we get desperate cries for help as it does not work in most cases........yes, I am back with my layers and all that stuff.......
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
This should not be confused with the "modern" trend that attempts to cure everything through "constitutionals" or "miasmatic" remedies with one single remedy being a cure for everything for this patient.....and then we get desperate cries for help as it does not work in most cases........yes, I am back with my layers and all that stuff.......
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
-
Veronique Bouan
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: Why dry for most homeopaths?
Just love it !
I'll do that too
And I have also that case, second hip surgery, asking for help with the surgery for this second time :"but not with wather, bottle and tralala, just little globule gobbled Ok ? " said the patient.
What do you think I did ?
Véronique
2014-12-09 20:58 GMT+01:00 'Dr. J Rozencwajg, NMD' jroz@ihug.co.nz [minutus] >:
I'll do that too
And I have also that case, second hip surgery, asking for help with the surgery for this second time :"but not with wather, bottle and tralala, just little globule gobbled Ok ? " said the patient.
What do you think I did ?
Véronique
2014-12-09 20:58 GMT+01:00 'Dr. J Rozencwajg, NMD' jroz@ihug.co.nz [minutus] >:
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Why dry for most homeopaths?
Hi Vicky,
below:
Yes, if our primary goal is to follow his last instructions as written, then yes we should follow his last instructions as written. (smile)
But I continue to hold that it is *not* the ideal tool for every circumstance.
I suppose the successes of my experiences, from both patient and practitioner ends, with 4th ed. method (which does include both wet and dry dosing, BTW), as well as the particular circumstances I have used it in, lead me to view 6th ed of Organon as not the only material worth reading or using. If my history and circumstances were different, perhaps my conclusions would be also, so I offer this simply as my opinion and understanding.
And if memory serves me, David did say, years back, that he does not consider LMs to be the only valid or acceptable way to practice homeopathy. I would be interested to hear whether that is his current opinion or not, just as a point of curiosity.
I don't really know what you mean. If a dry dose doesn't act, then -- same as if a wet dose doesn't act -- we have to decide *why* it didn't act… Okay, I'll read on.
There are many of us here that can answer that, but it's an awfully broad question… It's part of what many of us spent years in homeopathy school learning. I'll read on, then try to answer more.
Taken and given both, yes I certainly have. I could make a list, if you like, but I know that others here will also be able to.
My cow, my cat, my daughter -- those are the three most outstanding in my mind. In each of those it was indeed *one* dose, and for the cat and the daughter, that particular remedy did not ever need to be repeated again. The cat's was in his water dish; my daughter's was a dry dose.
Many other times too, I saw or felt a dry dose (and recalling another that was 1M in a glass of water, one sip) act pretty much instantly.
Especially with some acute, but also some number of times with chronic cases.
I am not saying that any of those single doses "fixed everything", but that is a separate issue.
Same could well have been true had the dose been dry, but who knows. I have seen instantaneous and dramatic responses to dry doses also, not only to wet ones.
Hm, "how did they manage the cases…" Well, usually there is *some* response, but let's say there was none noticed at all.
Depending on many particulars, you would re-examine the case and/or have them repeat the dose in a different potency and/or explore for possible antidoting or remedy damage (not common, but these can happen) and/or see whether *really* nothing happened ("Last time we talked, you said…" and read back what their state was at the time of prescribing. Sometimes they will then realize that something DID happen)…
Sometimes lack of response to "an apparently well indicated" remedy means that the "indications" were not read correctly, something was missed, or…. many possibilities.
Does that give you any answer at all? It really is too broad a question…
If by "healed" you mean that the person never has any more problems, and never needs any further doses of any remedy, no that is not likely, though it can happen if the person is basically healthy and etc.
But okay, let's assume I am going to give a high potency single dose, via 4h ed method. Person takes the remedy; I give them instructions to call me if anything troublesome happens in the meantime (can be a fine line between letting the person know when they *might* appropriately call between visits, versus not setting them up to *expect* trouble), and I ask to see them back in ___ weeks, typically 4 - 6.
Yes for some cases this would be too long to leave the patient dangling. If I am working with one of those people, I will give different instructions, and/or I will make sure they *do* understand that they should call me before that, *if* they feel the need. I might *ask* them to check in with me sooner, so I can make sure things are going alright, and see them sooner if needed. Approaches do differ on this point, and different cases have different needs.
At the first follow-up, usually 4 - 6 weeks on, we explore for what has and hasn't changed, and proceed accordingly.
If the single dose acts *well*, then the person might need only periodic follow-ups, weeks and then months apart, and typically that single dose will bring on a sort of cascade of healing results. Typically their progress will be sort of similar to the path of their decline -- but in reverse, a path of healing. It will have its ups and downs, better days and badder days, but as long as they are *generally improving*, and no crises erupt or accidents or etc., then we just let the remedy run.
When a patient is *new* to homeopathy, they will need more guidance to recognize when the remedy is still acting just fine (even tho they may be having a "down"), and when it's time to repeat (which may indeed be the same potency, or may be higher or lower), or when a different remedy is needed. Again, those are all part of what we studied for some years to learn.
All of this is with reference to chronic prescribing; acute work happens of course on a much shorter timeframe, and is more straightforward in a number of ways.
(Is that enough of an answer for this part?)
What did nothing -- do you mean s/he prescribed a single, dry dose and it did nothing, so you didn't know what to do next? The place to go next, would have been back to the vet -- probably first simply by phone -- to say I don't think anything happened. What should I do next? Did you do that?
? Explan what *which* means… basically I am saying that dry dosing does have *advantages* over LM method, not merely deficiencies. There are situations where dry dosing and 4th ed methodology (and again, 4th ed method can be used with water doses as well as with dry, and with low potencies as well as with high) does all that's needed; and there are situations where LMs are not practical, and others where it simply isn't needed.
That dose was in his water dish, set out under a tree because he would not be in sight of anyone, but I saw him come out at night if he thought no one was there. And I knew he needed water, so that was the obvious way to dose him. Next morning he stopped hiding, started speaking to me again, and began healing form his wounds.
Nice! Where do you get them?
)
Yes, it is important, and good for you!
Very true. Same, of course, if one is seeing an herbalist or bodyworker or counselor or fitness trainer; or buys herbs or vitamins….
I think one has to think of it as process, and be somewhat philosophical about the fact that *not* every effort will yield an immediate result. And that is true no *matter* what the project.
It is difficult, though, when we can get drugs and etc. practically for free, but have to pay "full value" for "alternative" care. Personally, I decided decades ago that it doesn't matter how inexpensive something is, if it does not get me the result I am after. So I prefer paying more for something that *works*, versus paying less for something that makes me worse instead of better -- and for me, the choices were just that stark. But it is a challenge.
The money part of it can be really difficult. Some practitioners have sliding scale, and even at that, it takes some commitment. I wish I had an easy answer, that's for sure.
Well, cautious is good, and I wish there were easier answers!
Shannon
below:
Yes, if our primary goal is to follow his last instructions as written, then yes we should follow his last instructions as written. (smile)
But I continue to hold that it is *not* the ideal tool for every circumstance.
I suppose the successes of my experiences, from both patient and practitioner ends, with 4th ed. method (which does include both wet and dry dosing, BTW), as well as the particular circumstances I have used it in, lead me to view 6th ed of Organon as not the only material worth reading or using. If my history and circumstances were different, perhaps my conclusions would be also, so I offer this simply as my opinion and understanding.
And if memory serves me, David did say, years back, that he does not consider LMs to be the only valid or acceptable way to practice homeopathy. I would be interested to hear whether that is his current opinion or not, just as a point of curiosity.
I don't really know what you mean. If a dry dose doesn't act, then -- same as if a wet dose doesn't act -- we have to decide *why* it didn't act… Okay, I'll read on.
There are many of us here that can answer that, but it's an awfully broad question… It's part of what many of us spent years in homeopathy school learning. I'll read on, then try to answer more.
Taken and given both, yes I certainly have. I could make a list, if you like, but I know that others here will also be able to.
My cow, my cat, my daughter -- those are the three most outstanding in my mind. In each of those it was indeed *one* dose, and for the cat and the daughter, that particular remedy did not ever need to be repeated again. The cat's was in his water dish; my daughter's was a dry dose.
Many other times too, I saw or felt a dry dose (and recalling another that was 1M in a glass of water, one sip) act pretty much instantly.
Especially with some acute, but also some number of times with chronic cases.
I am not saying that any of those single doses "fixed everything", but that is a separate issue.
Same could well have been true had the dose been dry, but who knows. I have seen instantaneous and dramatic responses to dry doses also, not only to wet ones.
Hm, "how did they manage the cases…" Well, usually there is *some* response, but let's say there was none noticed at all.
Depending on many particulars, you would re-examine the case and/or have them repeat the dose in a different potency and/or explore for possible antidoting or remedy damage (not common, but these can happen) and/or see whether *really* nothing happened ("Last time we talked, you said…" and read back what their state was at the time of prescribing. Sometimes they will then realize that something DID happen)…
Sometimes lack of response to "an apparently well indicated" remedy means that the "indications" were not read correctly, something was missed, or…. many possibilities.
Does that give you any answer at all? It really is too broad a question…
If by "healed" you mean that the person never has any more problems, and never needs any further doses of any remedy, no that is not likely, though it can happen if the person is basically healthy and etc.
But okay, let's assume I am going to give a high potency single dose, via 4h ed method. Person takes the remedy; I give them instructions to call me if anything troublesome happens in the meantime (can be a fine line between letting the person know when they *might* appropriately call between visits, versus not setting them up to *expect* trouble), and I ask to see them back in ___ weeks, typically 4 - 6.
Yes for some cases this would be too long to leave the patient dangling. If I am working with one of those people, I will give different instructions, and/or I will make sure they *do* understand that they should call me before that, *if* they feel the need. I might *ask* them to check in with me sooner, so I can make sure things are going alright, and see them sooner if needed. Approaches do differ on this point, and different cases have different needs.
At the first follow-up, usually 4 - 6 weeks on, we explore for what has and hasn't changed, and proceed accordingly.
If the single dose acts *well*, then the person might need only periodic follow-ups, weeks and then months apart, and typically that single dose will bring on a sort of cascade of healing results. Typically their progress will be sort of similar to the path of their decline -- but in reverse, a path of healing. It will have its ups and downs, better days and badder days, but as long as they are *generally improving*, and no crises erupt or accidents or etc., then we just let the remedy run.
When a patient is *new* to homeopathy, they will need more guidance to recognize when the remedy is still acting just fine (even tho they may be having a "down"), and when it's time to repeat (which may indeed be the same potency, or may be higher or lower), or when a different remedy is needed. Again, those are all part of what we studied for some years to learn.
All of this is with reference to chronic prescribing; acute work happens of course on a much shorter timeframe, and is more straightforward in a number of ways.
(Is that enough of an answer for this part?)
What did nothing -- do you mean s/he prescribed a single, dry dose and it did nothing, so you didn't know what to do next? The place to go next, would have been back to the vet -- probably first simply by phone -- to say I don't think anything happened. What should I do next? Did you do that?
? Explan what *which* means… basically I am saying that dry dosing does have *advantages* over LM method, not merely deficiencies. There are situations where dry dosing and 4th ed methodology (and again, 4th ed method can be used with water doses as well as with dry, and with low potencies as well as with high) does all that's needed; and there are situations where LMs are not practical, and others where it simply isn't needed.
That dose was in his water dish, set out under a tree because he would not be in sight of anyone, but I saw him come out at night if he thought no one was there. And I knew he needed water, so that was the obvious way to dose him. Next morning he stopped hiding, started speaking to me again, and began healing form his wounds.
Nice! Where do you get them?
) Yes, it is important, and good for you!
Very true. Same, of course, if one is seeing an herbalist or bodyworker or counselor or fitness trainer; or buys herbs or vitamins….
I think one has to think of it as process, and be somewhat philosophical about the fact that *not* every effort will yield an immediate result. And that is true no *matter* what the project.
It is difficult, though, when we can get drugs and etc. practically for free, but have to pay "full value" for "alternative" care. Personally, I decided decades ago that it doesn't matter how inexpensive something is, if it does not get me the result I am after. So I prefer paying more for something that *works*, versus paying less for something that makes me worse instead of better -- and for me, the choices were just that stark. But it is a challenge.
The money part of it can be really difficult. Some practitioners have sliding scale, and even at that, it takes some commitment. I wish I had an easy answer, that's for sure.
Well, cautious is good, and I wish there were easier answers!
Shannon