Hi Hahnemannian,
I've wondered about this...
I guess I should have said that, in my own understanding, and
experience to date, this is the case (that if a low potency seems to
work nicely, but high potency of the same remedy does nothing, then the
rx is acting palliatively only).
So, in case others have further thoughts, here's another approach i
have found useful to determine whether a seemingly good action (of a
low potency) is palliative or curative... It's been my habit to
re-dose only "as-needed"--see what the first effects are of the
"well-acting remedy", and use that symptom as a "marker" for when to
repeat. I should add that this is based moly on my own "playing", over
about a decade, on only a small number of people and situations; but
within that arena it has been extremely reliable and useful... I have
the person keep track of when they repeat, and what pattern emerges.
In some cases the remedy (6c and 12c are the low potencies I usually
use) might need repeating often (maybe even daily) at first, BUT in
time the period between repetitions lengthens, becoming perhaps every
few days, then maybe weekly, then maybe every few weeks--and then they
just forget about it. That I consider to be a curative (durable)
response, and if I see that pattern I may have them move to single
doses of high(er) potency (various reasons).
But in other cases the remedy needs repeating over and over at the same
interval; or after a time the interval begins to shrink (they need to
repeat more frequently) and/or the response to it becomes less
decisive. In that case I have seen it as meaning either that higher
potency is needed (and I would tend to think that only if the remedy
*first* through a nice pattern of lengthening intervals), or that the
remedy is only palliative, and I should use the "calm" period to begin
searching out a closer fit.
On myself (while following the directions of another prescriber) I had
two episodes where each dose of the remedy (this was with high
potencies; same idea, but longer time frames!) seemed to act very well
(phew!), BUT--the time between repetitions was decreasing, and (more
tellingly), each relapse was *worse* than the one before. In other
words, not only was the effect of the remedy not "sticking" (not acting
curatively), but in fact it was sort of masking my situation, as my
underlying state deteriorated. The call there would be, "was it
suppressing?" For various reasons I think it was not that, but just
that it wasn't stopping "the natural progression of the disease";
palliation just wasn't good enough.
Well, I wonder whether others have had similar experiences? To me it
is both interesting, and also useful (and important) to be able to tell
as soon as possible whether a "good action" is curative or only
palliative...
I do gather that for some purposes low potencies are more
effective--drainage, for instance. Also for some people/situations
high potencies are "too strong", too harsh, would produce unacceptable
aggravation. But to have a high potency do nothing--or at least to not
be followed by a curative response? Well, maybe that *can* happen
simply from "going too high"; as I said, I have wondered, but so far
the other situation (palliative) is what I have seen instead. I am
very interested in others' experiences with it!
Say more--where lower potencies work better in what particular ways?
Do you mean beyond simply being gentler and easier to control? Can you
think of specific example(s)?
I think it is a very interesting bunch of questions--thanks for your
thoughts!
)
Shannon