Minutus

Rochelle wrote: Do you recycle the bottles? If so how? Will a dishwasher be OK? At the moment I am only reusing them for herbal tinctures!!

A sound source of info for this is Helios. They do re-use bottles; they sterilise them at a high temperature (well above 100 degrees Centigrade), in an oven, and the chap who I heard lecture about this (name, unfortunately, forgotten) did say one could do this at home.

The idea is that the heat somehow destroys the vibrations that may have entered the glass from the remedy. Lids you cannot re-use because they cannot be heated like that. If you have a source of separate lids, you may want to experiment.

The reasoning behind the vibrations-in-the-glass is not quite logical to my mind. We were advised to ensure that the dilution glass and spoon for LMs and plussed Cs should be briefly scalded with boiling water from the kettle - or put through the dishwasher. But the dishwasher is not usually hotter than about 65 degrees, and likewise a quick 'lick' of boiling water will not get the temperature of a glass up above 100 degrees. It is surmised that someone using a glass or spoon that's been used for LM dilutions may/can/will get an accidental dose unless the glass has been scalded. I know for sure that not all my clients comply with this, but haven't heard of anything that I could relate to family members accidentally proving a remedy.

As, in truth, we still do not know for certain just how our remedies work, the heat treatment is presumably a precaution based on plausible assumptions about the nature of vibration.

Personally, I prefer to simply buy new bottles - they cost about £0.75 each where I buy them, though they could probably be sourced more cheaply in bulk (I use 100ml screw top and 25ml dropper bottles).

Happy experimenting.

SUSE
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "rochelle" wrote:

Hi Rochelle,

The plussing method I use is a little different from Fran's only in that I would do just what you were asking about, namely plussing up the second bottle to the level of succussion I've calculated the first bottle had. I haven't got time right now to look through the literature to find the source for this. I certainly learnt this at college, and I'm certain I also read it in more than one 'classic' source (that would be, for me, SH and direct followers plus 'modern classical' writers).

The idea that it does not matter whether the potency keeps ascending is interesting, and the last word on this has not been spoken, I feel - because the whole field of potency is under-studied and so much depends on the patient's particular situation, especially their energy/VF, I'd suggest you might like to try and experiment with both options, depending on the case in front of you. I often experiment with different aspects of potency and posolgy, especially dilutions and succussions, and if done with care, close attention and good communication with the client, this enhances the client's experience and helps fine-tuning the dosage for that person as well as enhancing my experiential learning.

Another point is 'return of old symptoms' - this is not the same as aggravation. That's where it becomes significant to ascertain with precision what a given flare-up in the patient's symptoms represents. A return of old symptoms, if the Rx was appropriately diluted, lasts normally only a very short time, from a few minutes to, at the most, a few days, and is generally weaker than the original ailment. An aggravation is just that: symptoms appear that have not been experienced before (modalities!) and are part of the remedy picture - that's when you know the patient has had too much Rx (or Rx is similar, but not similar enough). Return of old symptoms is a good sign, aggravation is a bad sign and I always aim to avoid it.

Hope this doesn't confuse you, after Fran was so nice and clear about what you need to do.

SUSE
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "rochelle" wrote:

Dear Suse,
Thank you for your reasoning. The source of my information is Dr Luc de Schepper's book Attaining and Maintaining the Simillimum which I have recently read.
Yes I do understand the difference between an Agg and a ROS but I am presuming that with both of them you need to stop the dosing until they have subsided and an amelioration has taken place and then re start when this goes into a plateau. At least that is what I understand from the above book. I do stand to be corrected on this by more experienced 5th Edition prescribers so please come back to me on it.
An Agg can also IMHO be something that belongs to the Rx and is not necessarily a reason for abandoning that remedy. It is more a case of adjusting the dosing e.g. from dry to water dose or from the Stock Bottle to the first cup.
All the best
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

Dear Sarvadaman,
Thanks for your post.
Yes I have often used a lower potency to antidote the effects of a remedy with dry dosing but since I have only just started experimenting with 5th edition prescribing after reading Luc de Schepper's book I hadn't even thought of it for this. The Foll patient's Aggs are an exasperation of one of her current complaints and a ROS so it is the dose that needs to be adjusted in her case.
With the child I think a wait and see what happens approach is the best to take while the Rx is still working on the psoriasis on her body.
Thanks for the information about Hoitzia. Although I do have Julian's book I haven't come across this remedy before and will give it a read.
All the best
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

Hi Rochelle,
Well, the psoriasis (or the state leading to it) could be from a
suppression of this milk crust by external applications or also a
further development of it. In this case a return to the original
location might make sense and COULD be interpreted as a condition
going back in time, the only part of Hering's rule that is based
on Hahnemann. In that case the development would be in the right
direction.
I hope you took note of my smiley. The choice of "approval" was of
course tongue in cheek

but I have to say that taking
Well, of course I am on the side of those who think that in most cases
it is not all that important.

I think that the way Hahnemann did his thousand ways of further
diluting was experimental. I also think he found out that this did not
lead to anywhere and that this was the reason that

1.
after about 7 years of working on it he started a fresh line, i.e.
changing the base for the dilutions, i.e. developing the LMs.

2.
In his 6th Organon he did not elaborate on it.

In the published casebooks DF 5 and DF 2 there are probably several
thousands of these kinds of prescriptions. I hope that sometime
someone will analyse what H. did in which cases. (If so, if that is
done with anything coming close to scholarly principles, I think
IGM-Bosch would be happy to publish the article - Prof. Juette once
said that he was sorry that no-one seems to be working on that
aspect.)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========