Repetition?? The Potency of the Remedy (How Strong?) and the Repetition of the Dose (How often?)

[always.question]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
Seeing an aggravation and keeping it in check
... I think it

You're right, many patients are sensitive and sensible enough to know what they need and when. What is s.t. observed, where s.o. has been told to take a dose at certain intervals - they may 'forget' more and more often to take it; later indications are identified which show that less frequent doses were needed. (On the other hand, there are some people who operate on a 'more is more' principle on all levels and take too much.)

Have got no experience with the 12 - in my case definitely a legacy of initial Kentian training, where he based the C potency steps on the octave (I can't pretend to understand how and I can't remember where he said this), so 6-30-200-1M-10M-50M-100M was meant to be the ideal sequence. I usually work with 30 and higher and with LMs. From what I can see, the duration of remedy action is individual. Does anyone know how the 'durations' lists (e.g. Boger) were put together? It's s.th. I've always wondered about.

In that sense you are right - there is a difference between antidoting-by-overriding and antidoting-as-stopping-remedy-action. But usually one would want a curative reaction to replace the aggravation rather than simply stopping all medicinal action, so that's why I equate antidoting with inicated remedy/potency.

Antidoting with material substances is hit-and-miss, in my experience. Some patients, some remedies are more susceptible to antidoting than others. Mostly it is accidental antidoting that comes up for me - say the indicated remedy isn't acting and it turns out they washed their hair with a nice tea tree shampoo. While someone else can drink gallons of coffee from morning till night and the rx continues to act beautifully. Etc.

So I might try a material antidote but would not fully trust such substances to stop a remedy unless I knew that in this patient it happened before (though in the case of some remedies you can be pretty sure it'll work, e.g. Nux-v or Sepia). Or maybe I just haven't learnt a good method for material antidoting? Any tips out there?

where the remedy is definitely indicated then the correct potency &
Yes, this is what I mean: the indicated potency (here 10M) overrides/replaces the mistuned vibrations (here 200) - analogous to the way the 'artificial disease' of a potentised similar remedy overrides/replaces the natural disease of the mistuned vital force. In the case where you used the 12C to keep the 200 agg under control/in check, I would assume that the 12 took the edge off the 200 agg but was not the indicated potency (not most similar to the intensity & pitch of the patient's sufferings), ie from this standpoint one would assume the right potency will stop the agg, and if the 12 at the given dosing rate does not achieve this, one would re-assess and try a different potency level or dosing frequency.

Regards, Suse

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Nader,
Yes.

I have read quite a few cases where he just said to go on as before or
where he said to reduce or increase the quantity of the solution the
patient had been taking before or to reduce or increase the frequency.

Also many times a change in the dilution at the same potency.

This is with solution of C potencies. There are not many instances of
prescriptions of Q potencies in the published case journals. Thus I
cannot say much about the way he dosed them.

It would also be hard to find out much about them in the manuscripts
of the others, since in order to really make a solid statement, one
would have to randomly select quite a few.

The way I understand, David Little has been researching this in case
journal 13. This is the last of H's journals and in it he seems to
have used the Q's quite often and also the notations seem to be pretty
obvious, at least as compared to the earlier ones. I hope that David
will publish his results sometime soon and that his publication will
1) show a number of cases found by some method of randomizing and 2)
he will fully reference them, including page numbers, so that they are
open to the evaluation of his peers.

This should give all of us some valuable answers.

Regards

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

[Dr Nader Moradi]

Thanks a lot, Luise, for info.