mitigating too high a remedy

[muthu kumar]

Venkat-

Potency and its surrounding myth in homeopathy is very real. As I
have probably said atleast 2 score times in this group, potency and
posology is very individualistic - irrespective of what the learned
Dr.Luc or whoever else thinks and says about it. Whatever claims are
made about the way high and low interact, those are very general and
may not apply to the individual case at hand-

If the remedy screams at you but a given potency does not work, you
might go higher and also lower. I have seen 6c working for 3 months
or more. It all depends on the aptness of the medicine and dose.

Homeopathy is about interaction. There is nothing that is inherently
possible or impossible; it is how, where and with what the
interaction is taking place. Sulphur 6c did not work on its own...
it works in the context of a given individual - for that particular
person 6c happened to be the right dose of the right medicine.

Sometimes the same remedy in different potencies behaves like a
different medicine; not always. If there is only one simillimum for
a person at a given point in time, and if that depends on the
potency ( for example 6c works but not 200) then does that not mean
that XYZ medicine in 6c is the simillimum and XYZ in 200c is only a
near-simillimum or similar. But this situation where a medicine can
work only in one potency is rather rare. In general the medicine
usually works- in a lack-lustre way at least - if the selection is
right but not the potency.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "J.venkatasubramanian"
wrote:
responding so
given low
potency
low
stopped the
=====================================================================
other
after
low

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Shannon
I have no experience of Roger Morrison's work - but plenty of Sheilagh.
Most of Hn's work shows ASCENDING potencies! and Never two potencies in the way advocated.
It made absolutely no sense to me to give some one a 200 C and then having done that, to suddenly bring him down to 12 C level. What the patient needed was 200C or even higher as most of the patient's sx were mental & emotional.
I understand that the higher the number of physical sx, the lower one should go.
In any case I saw before me a case that was perfectly curable completely destroyed.
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert & Shannon Nelson
Sent: 05 August 2008 02:11
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: mitigating too high a remedy
Hi Soroush,
I share your skepticism that 12c is in any way necessary, but
How do you reconcile your last statement--that the body will react (only?) to the last remedy (potency) given? In practice this is not seen to be the case.

While I have enormous respect for Sheilagh, i have similar respect for Roger Morrison, who has frequently used 12c doses along with high potencies, with apparently fine result.

I also have at least substantial respect for my own experience, which has similarly *not* shown a low potency undoing a prior high potency.

How would you explain this difference in opinion, and how how do you reconcile my observations of my own (and Roger's) patient's experience, with this viewpoint you're expressing?

Best wishes,
Shannon
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1590 - Release Date: 8/4/2008 8:09 AM

[Sheri Nakken]

At 08:55 AM 8/5/2008, you wrote:
That is not exactly what Hahnemann has said/done. And that is not my experience.
When someone is sensitive, as so many are now (whether mental/emotional symptoms or physical symptoms predominating, I go low 30C (or 6c or 12C for very very sensitive) and go up if need be. Also use remedies in water.

I see no reason to give for m/e and low for physical as a general rule.

In start most with LM1, but if sensitive start with 6C, 12C, or 30C in water, depending on sensitivity.

I see no need to do what is mentioned below and in fact, see much problem with it. And I'm sure it was given dry and that even creates more problems
Sheri
________________________________

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

HI Sheri
I was speaking in relation to that particular case - where 30 had worked well for about 20+ days. So 200 was the option and not 12 especially when there were no physicals.
I agree with you. In most cases 30C does well on the full spectrum of M/E/P sx, especially when given in water. If necessary then one can go up 200 and 1M etc. This way reduces any aggravations.
LMs do the same and that is why I love them. They can be of course double and triple diluted.
How many people on this list use a dropper bottle for LMs pls?
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sheri Nakken
Sent: 05 August 2008 11:49
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] Re: mitigating too high a remedy
At 08:55 AM 8/5/2008, you wrote:
That is not exactly what Hahnemann has said/done. And that is not my experience.
When someone is sensitive, as so many are now (whether mental/emotional symptoms or physical symptoms predominating, I go low 30C (or 6c or 12C for very very sensitive) and go up if need be. Also use remedies in water.

I see no reason to give for m/e and low for physical as a general rule.

In start most with LM1, but if sensitive start with 6C, 12C, or 30C in water, depending on sensitivity.

I see no need to do what is mentioned below and in fact, see much problem with it. And I'm sure it was given dry and that even creates more problems
Sheri
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1592 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 6:03 AM

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Soroush,
I wonder why no one *talked* to the patient, to find *out* what had
happened?
Those 12c doses could not have "brought him down to the 12c level", and
if they had, there would have been no problem from that. I sometimes
use 6c or 12c repeated as a substitute for high potency, under several
different situations. It handles the same range of complaints as high
potency, just with a different pacing...

But perhaps they could have brought on a proving? That would be
unusual, but in some people it can happen.

it sounds like no follow-up was done, other than finding out third-hand
that there had been a bad result. To me *that* is the really sad part.
Why didn't the homeopath *talk* to the patient??? IMO we *have* to
follow-up wherever possible on our "bad results". *Not* to try to
twist the patient's arm into returning, but simply so that we *know*
what results we're getting, and can learn from them.

I have had and seen several instances where a remedy produced a really
wonderful initial result--sure seemed like a simillimum response!--but
was not able to sustain it, despite further repetitions in various
potencies, so IMO there's still a full range of possibilities as to why
the improvement was not sustained: wrong remedy or aggravation. But
because there was no meaningful follow-up, there's no way of knowing.
So IMO *that* is what destroyed this case; the homeopath forfeited
his/her chance of at least *trying* to set it right.

I do share your skepticism at the idea of assuming that a high potency
dose *needs* a low-potency add-on, tho. If there are factors that may
interfere with high potency (drugs, etc.), then why not just begin with
low potency? Maybe the people who do this are under the mistaken
assumption that low potency addresses *only* physical issues (I think
Roger is or was in that group), but that is most definitely not the
case, speaking from my experiences and many others'!

Best wishes,
Shannon

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Shannon
The Lyc case goes back some 10-11 years ago and the patient liaison was something between the practitioner and the link student.
Of the type cases that you mention, it is possible that the first rx was a 'near' similimum - so by its nature its action would have been limited.
Or indeed, it could have just removed the first layer - like peeling an onion - and another rx may have been needed for the next layer.
Best wishes
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert & Shannon Nelson
Sent: 05 August 2008 12:39
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: mitigating too high a remedy
Hi Soroush,
I wonder why no one *talked* to the patient, to find *out* what had happened?
Those 12c doses could not have "brought him down to the 12c level", and if they had, there would have been no problem from that. I sometimes use 6c or 12c repeated as a substitute for high potency, under several different situations. It handles the same range of complaints as high potency, just with a different pacing...

But perhaps they could have brought on a proving? That would be unusual, but in some people it can happen.

it sounds like no follow-up was done, other than finding out third-hand that there had been a bad result. To me *that* is the really sad part. Why didn't the homeopath *talk* to the patient??? IMO we *have* to follow-up wherever possible on our "bad results". *Not* to try to twist the patient's arm into returning, but simply so that we *know* what results we're getting, and can learn from them.

I have had and seen several instances where a remedy produced a really wonderful initial result--sure seemed like a simillimum response!--but was not able to sustain it, despite further repetitions in various potencies, so IMO there's still a full range of possibilities as to why the improvement was not sustained: wrong remedy or aggravation. But because there was no meaningful follow-up, there's no way of knowing. So IMO *that* is what destroyed this case; the homeopath forfeited his/her chance of at least *trying* to set it right.

I do share your skepticism at the idea of assuming that a high potency dose *needs* a low-potency add-on, tho. If there are factors that may interfere with high potency (drugs, etc.), then why not just begin with low potency? Maybe the people who do this are under the mistaken assumption that low potency addresses *only* physical issues (I think Roger is or was in that group), but that is most definitely not the case, speaking from my experiences and many others'!

Best wishes,
Shannon
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1592 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 6:03 AM

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Soroush,
This is WRONG.

With the C potencies he ALWAYS!!! went LOWER, usually in steps of 3,
i.e. C30, the C27, then C24....

So we might say that all of Hahnemann's experience with any remedy up
to the year of roughly 1837 was gained by starting higher and going
lower.

Regards

Luise
and Never two potencies in the

--
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 <==========

[Lynn Cremona]

Varied observations:
He is speaking of LMs here

50 Millesimal Potency in Theory and Practice, by Dr. Harimohan Choudhary

Applicability of medicine in descending scale in lieu of ascending scale demands attention and experimentation

Applicability of medicine in descending scale in lieu of ascending scale demands attention and experimentation
Reconsideration in respect of applicability of Homoeopathic medicine in ascending scale is felt necessary in the light of the great Hahnemann's observations made in his Chronic Disease (pp. 84 and 157) in super-cession of his directives made in the Organon (vide aphorisms - 161, 201, 247, 280 - 281 etc.).

For a long time I have observed that some patients of weak vitality, hypersensitivity and destructive diathesis continue their experience of weakness, loss of weight, discomfort, etc., or medicinal aggravation (drug disease) even after their recovery from natural diseases by LM scale. It is also a fact that after application of the simillimum, disease state becomes weaker, the patient feels improvement both mentally and physically. Usually, at this weaker state of disease, stronger and higher scale of medicine is applied. Naturally, dissimilarity between disease and medicinal state arises as a matter of consequence. This is not at all desirable in Homoeopathy, being a science of similarity. So, application of medicine in descending scale is more logical and scientific.

I started my experimentation on this subject since 1986 and have been getting very satisfactory results almost without injurious medicinal aggravation or side-effects. The result of my experimentations have been published in different Homoeopathic journal and books. I have also put it in several scientific seminars in India and Bangladesh. In consequence, some learned Homoeopaths in both countries are also applying medicines in descending scales with their utter satisfaction.
Now, from what scales of potency to start with? This is to be assessed on the basis of the vitality and susceptibility of the patient. The present condition (subjective and objective symptoms), reports of laboratory tests, physical examination, etc., of the patient help us in determination of the same. According to the present state of the patient treatment may be started with LM/5, or LM/8, or even with LM/10, as the case may be and gradually descends to lower scales.

But where the vitality is too low/weak, the patient is extremely hypersensitive, only LM/1 is to be repeatedly applied. When the patient will regain his vitality to some extent after taking 2-3 courses of LM/1, then it can be raised to LM/3 or LM/4 and after that again gradually to lower scales.

Administration of medicines in descending scales demands correct assessment, as far as practicable of the vitality of the patient. Otherwise there will be undesirable aggravation creating dangerous injury to the patient. We should be cautions.

In fine, it may be mentioned that the aforesaid observations were not incorporated by Dr. Hahnemann in his Organon, probably due to his senility and heavy burden of other more important assignments.
---------------------
from David Little
Hahnemann used DESCENDING potencies his entire career. His most common
series was to lower his potencies from 30c to 24c to 18c to 12c to 6c.
Perhaps when Hahnemann was using potencies above the 30c and the LM potency he tended to raise the potencies? I think it is very interesting that he lowered his low potencies and raised
his high potencies!
Most people depend on modern sources for their information and don't really study the works of the first generation. IMO, "modern classical Homoeopathy" is only using a small % of the methods that Hahnemann and the first generation introduced. Therefore, most persons are still using the 4th Organon exclusive single dose wait and watch method instead of the single dose in strikingly ameliorations and repeating the dose to speed the cure in slow moving case, which is found in the 5th and 6th Organon. Many still use the static dry dose method instead of the medicinal solution and divided doses when necessary. Why is homoeopathy in 2006 still stuck in the 1820s when Hahnemann continued to evolve the system through the 1830 and 1840s? I think the answer is psychic inertia and an unconscious fear of change.
Sincerely, David Little
----------------------
from Luc DeSchepper
Hahnemann also used the descending scale. When I studied his Parisian cases (1835-1842) he indeed often went from his beloved 30C to 24C to 18C as case progressed...Hahnemann did many other things at that time: he did olfaction in the office and gave a remedy along to be used later...He used potencies of 196C , LM, etc....Why he did this he does not say. These Paris books were for his personal clinical use and not intended to teach us how to conduct the practice. His different editions of Chronic Diseases and the Organon served as a clinical guide to all his students and still serve us.
When I studied these cases it should not come as a surprise that even Hahnemann struggled with many of his cases (and that in a time where less strong suppressive measures were available than now) so he continually experimented with his potencies...He often told the patient to stir the remedy and take 1, 2, 3 tsp from it that day from the cup...Hard to judge why since his note taking does not give us all the info we would like.
Personally, going up in the potency scale sounds more logical. Each time the homeopath gives the right dose/potency/frequency of the right remedy, the VF gets stronger and is able to eliminate some aspects of the disease. When the VF gets stronger, its reactivity (how fast and strong the VF can react) gets stronger and can therefore withstand a stronger stimulus from the indicated remedy. The descending scale also contradicts Hahnemann's sayings in CD and the Organon where he tells us to make sure that each new dose should be stronger (through succussions) than the previous one. I rather use a lower potency as one way to slow down the similar aggravation if I made a mistake. I explain a lot more about all this in my new upcoming book. One thing Hahnemann never did: omitting and abandoning our sacred Principles and Laws. His experiments were always aimed at fulfilling the promise of A2: a speedy, gentle and fast cure!
Warm regards
Dr luc DeSchepper
-------------------------
from Dr. Elizabeth Wright Hubbard
?I once had a backache from falling off a horse, and went to an osteopath. It did not work. I went to a chiropractor. Nor did that. I got a belt. It did not work. No help and an awful lot of expense. Finally, I went to my beloved Dr. Stanton in New York, and he gave me Rhus-t. 20M. No soap. I was getting a little fed up, so at the summer school I asked Dr. Roberts, ?What do you do when Rhus-t. is indicated and doesn?t help you?? Old Dr. Roberts looked at me in his slow way and said, ?You change the potency.? So I said, ?All right, Stanton gave me 20M. What do you give me?? He gave me 200c, and having had a sacroiliac for ten weeks, after two hours I did not have another one for about five years. That is very interesting. Your lovely high 20M to no effect, and a 200c of the same thing - quick!?
Dr. Elizabeth Wright Hubbard
Imagine Peace

[G WILKEN]

One here who does.

ginny

All stunts performed without a net!
________________________________
How many people on this list use a dropper bottle for LMs pls?
Rgds
Soroush

[Rochelle]

And just to add to the discussion we were taught to give 1 x 6c to boost a single high dose of a remedy that may be running out and I know this works.
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk