Dear Susan
I am pushed for time to give you a full answer.
But please see footnote to Aph 246:
1 What I said in the fifth edition of the Organon, in a long note to this paragraph in order to prevent these undesirable reactions of the vital energy, was all the experience I then had justified. But during the last four or five years, however, all these difficulties are wholly solved by my new altered but perfected method. The same carefully selected medicine may now be given daily and for months, if necessary in this way, namely, after the lower degree of potency has been used for one or two weeks in the treatment of chronic disease, advance is made in the same way to higher degrees, (beginning according to the new dynamization method, taught herewith with the use of the lowest degrees).
Please note that Hn writes that his new potency MAY now be given daily. He does not say MUST!!
Indeed if necessary it may be given more than once a day. Or even more than once an hour in acute cases.
One of the other key points of Hn's development of homeopathy was the concept of MINIMUM dose. That is to say the smallest amount necessary to stimulate the VF. This is an area that needs attention which means we do not blindly push the remedy in the patient. Only as and when needed.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of healthyinfo6@aol.com
Sent: 10 January 2012 03:04
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Mixing C acute with LM constitutional
My dear Soroush,
What you are saying shows that you are using LM's of the 6th ed. Organon in a 4th edition method, which is incorrect!
C potencies are WAIT and SEE
LM potencies are KEEP GOING, usually DAILY, even during an aggravation.
There is NO way I can be cured of both my inherited chronic miasmatic diseases using 4th edition methods, and I haven't been for 16 years, and why I'm already having some cure-like effects using 6th in 16 weeks.
Regards,
Susan
Do you know who wrote the following?
I think we would be met with blank stares if the above post I mentioned is any indication, so maybe you should tell us what the difference is between the 4th, 5th and 6th ed. of The Organon.
Keep in mind that 90% of the world still practices according to the 4th edition dry dose method.
1. The 4th edition prescriber WANTS a similar aggravation, an aggravation of the patient’s symptoms, since it tells him he has the right remedy (which does not mean OUR wanted simillimum, which is the right remedy, right dose and right potency).
The 5th and 6th edition prescriber wants to minimize and even totally avoid this similar aggravation! You can only imagine what that does to the patient. Let’s say you have an eczema case responding to Mezereum: the picture of such eczema is an extreme violent itching at night, “as if thousands of ants crawling under the skin.” The child is usually in a restraint so as not to scratch himself but usually the patient presents with a face that is one bloody mess, infecting easily…Imagine you aggravate such a child (4th edition): imagine the agony of this child and the parents alike! Does the homeopath think he can keep this patient after the first aggravating dose? Too many patients have been lost forever to homeopathy. Imagine, as I also had, the violent ADHD child that wants to kill his father and sister so he can marry his mother. You aggravate him and he will kill them!
2. The 4th edition prescriber MUST wait after his first dry dose till he is sure that no more improvement of the remedy can be expected, as is dictated in the 4th edition Organon.
The 5th and 6th edition prescriber can redose the patient WHILE having improvement (Aphorism 246), speeding therefore the cure to half or less of the time.
This dosing is more in line with allopathy except for one difference: we always will do a TEST dose (first dose) and check with the patient one day later to determine the interval in which the remedy will be given. As You can see, this is very different from individual to individual which is a must! Some practitioners boast that they use the watery methods but let the patient take a dose every day till the bottle is empty without checking on their patient! This mechanical repetition has NO place in a good homeopathic practice.
So the 4th edition loses much time trying to achieve a cure leading again to a loss of patients which he could have kept had he followed Hahnemann’s last methods.
3. The 4th edition prescriber is deadly afraid of many events/substances cancelling his one time given remedy (first dose) while waiting till the effect has ceased. Therefore he puts many restrictions on his patient regarding diet and allopathic medications, even other modalities like TCM (Acupuncture). Even in the case of cancellation of the remedy during the treatment, the 5th and 6th practitioner repeats the remedy at determined intervals therefore suffers little from these cancellations as each next dose will pick up the action on the Vital Force again..
4. In case of similar aggravation, the advanced prescriber easily adjusts the second dose which can already be given on the third day, not three weeks later as the 4th edition prescriber does. He has many possibilities adjusting the dose (the amount, succussions or potency, 2nd cup, giving drops from the bottle and cup while the only remedy the 4th edition prescriber has is either cancelling the remedy or trying to give a lower potency to slow down the aggravation. Either way is losing time again which is a concern for the patient and the possibility of losing him.
5. The management of homeopathy which is difficult is made much more difficult for the 4th edition prescriber since he has less options available for correction.
6. The watery methods are more sufficient for longtime suppressed cases (through allopathic meds and even homeopathy) and for cases on the border of curability.
No matter what the name of the disease, the 5th and 6th edition prescriber is much more equiped to give the patient what Hahnemann promised in Aphorism 2: A speedy, permanent and gentle cure.
Maybe some of the other homeopaths can tell me why then they still practice according to the 4th edition? Who is stubborn and dogmatic here? There is not one reason except that there is less work for the homeopath but that is a rather selfish reason.
Mixing C acute with LM constitutional
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
-
healthinfo6
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:00 pm
Re: Mixing C acute with LM constitutional
Dear Soroush,
I want to be clear I'm speaking of LONG standing miasmatic chronic diseases that are clearly genetically inherited vs. diseases acquired virally, bacterially, or those that become chronic thus are of shorter duration. Thus, while most chronic diseases are miasmatic, many don't occur until later in life, say Parkinson's, thus are not long standing and may respond well to less frequent LM or C-water dosing. Both my chronic diseases have been present, in progressive stages, for over 40 years.
In Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann is describing what amounts to a war plan on chronic disease. That is composed of many battles. You move the front forward, then have to retreat, regroup, then attack again. You think the enemy is defeated but then it returns sometimes stronger. Winning one battle usually does not win the war especially in long term chronic disease. Since, per H miasm theory, all chronic diseases are derived from psora, syphillis and sycosis and psora is the most prevalent and most hydra-headed of all the chronic miasmatic diseases, the ability to safely use LM's daily was his latest war strategy against an enemy that has the ability to marshall in additional troops (diseases) waiting (latent) in the background.
You may not need to use LM's daily but a classical homeopath should learn and thus be able to recognize what the nature of the chronic disease in their patient is and why they should be using LM's daily when the disease is long standing and/or clearly shown as a progression of an inherited miasm.
We would need to go back to the original German to really see what H meant. What we are reading is the English translation, "may". May doesn't mean must, but may also doesn't mean shouldn't. The context has to be looked at, and the overall tone that H is saying in 6th ed Organon is that LM's are encouraged daily in LONG standing chronic diseases.
Why would he give such specific instructions on how to prepare daily, administer daily and renew weekly or biweekly if he wasn't suggesting, encouraging to do so?
As an example of how the original German may not be properly interpreted and translated, my now ex-current LM prescriber says use ONE TEAspoon to prepare the daily dose from the LM stock bottle. The generally used English translation of 6th ed Organon says use ONE TABLEspoon. I was told that in H's day, there may be a discrepancy of what a teaspoon vs. tablespoon meant in old German compared to today's measures, so the English translation may NOT be accurate. When I went to prepare an LM8 from Boiron, their microprint instructions on the vial say to take 1-3 teaspoons from the stock bottle. So, here Boiron is leaving it open, thus there is obviously a question of what Hahnemann may have meant and also to what old German words may actually mean
While old German word transalation may be interpreted differently, I would think numbers haven't changed from his time to now.
Thus, by following H's instructions, ((§ 248 Sixth Edition footnote 1),
a 4 ounce LM stock bottle would last 8 days if one uses one TABLEspoon per day to make the daily dosage cup.
It would last 24 days if one uses one TEAspoon per day.
(One ounce=6 teaspoons=2 tablespoons)
but....
H writes (§ 248 Sixth Edition) the 4 ounce bottle would last between 7-15 days when given daily in chronic diseases, which would suggest using more than ONE teaspoon upto ONE tablespoon to make the daily dosage cup. If you use ONE TEAspoon per day, the LM bottle would last 24 days which is not written. If you use 1.5 teaspoons per day for 15 days you're close to the 24 teaspoons prepared in the LM stock bottle. Use 1 tablespoon then it lasts 8 days.
So while there are still valid discrepancies and possible interpretations, what can't be denied is Hahnemann is instructing us how to fight and hopefully conquer chronic disease by daily use of LMs.
Regards,
Susan
I want to be clear I'm speaking of LONG standing miasmatic chronic diseases that are clearly genetically inherited vs. diseases acquired virally, bacterially, or those that become chronic thus are of shorter duration. Thus, while most chronic diseases are miasmatic, many don't occur until later in life, say Parkinson's, thus are not long standing and may respond well to less frequent LM or C-water dosing. Both my chronic diseases have been present, in progressive stages, for over 40 years.
In Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann is describing what amounts to a war plan on chronic disease. That is composed of many battles. You move the front forward, then have to retreat, regroup, then attack again. You think the enemy is defeated but then it returns sometimes stronger. Winning one battle usually does not win the war especially in long term chronic disease. Since, per H miasm theory, all chronic diseases are derived from psora, syphillis and sycosis and psora is the most prevalent and most hydra-headed of all the chronic miasmatic diseases, the ability to safely use LM's daily was his latest war strategy against an enemy that has the ability to marshall in additional troops (diseases) waiting (latent) in the background.
You may not need to use LM's daily but a classical homeopath should learn and thus be able to recognize what the nature of the chronic disease in their patient is and why they should be using LM's daily when the disease is long standing and/or clearly shown as a progression of an inherited miasm.
We would need to go back to the original German to really see what H meant. What we are reading is the English translation, "may". May doesn't mean must, but may also doesn't mean shouldn't. The context has to be looked at, and the overall tone that H is saying in 6th ed Organon is that LM's are encouraged daily in LONG standing chronic diseases.
Why would he give such specific instructions on how to prepare daily, administer daily and renew weekly or biweekly if he wasn't suggesting, encouraging to do so?
As an example of how the original German may not be properly interpreted and translated, my now ex-current LM prescriber says use ONE TEAspoon to prepare the daily dose from the LM stock bottle. The generally used English translation of 6th ed Organon says use ONE TABLEspoon. I was told that in H's day, there may be a discrepancy of what a teaspoon vs. tablespoon meant in old German compared to today's measures, so the English translation may NOT be accurate. When I went to prepare an LM8 from Boiron, their microprint instructions on the vial say to take 1-3 teaspoons from the stock bottle. So, here Boiron is leaving it open, thus there is obviously a question of what Hahnemann may have meant and also to what old German words may actually mean
While old German word transalation may be interpreted differently, I would think numbers haven't changed from his time to now.
Thus, by following H's instructions, ((§ 248 Sixth Edition footnote 1),
a 4 ounce LM stock bottle would last 8 days if one uses one TABLEspoon per day to make the daily dosage cup.
It would last 24 days if one uses one TEAspoon per day.
(One ounce=6 teaspoons=2 tablespoons)
but....
H writes (§ 248 Sixth Edition) the 4 ounce bottle would last between 7-15 days when given daily in chronic diseases, which would suggest using more than ONE teaspoon upto ONE tablespoon to make the daily dosage cup. If you use ONE TEAspoon per day, the LM bottle would last 24 days which is not written. If you use 1.5 teaspoons per day for 15 days you're close to the 24 teaspoons prepared in the LM stock bottle. Use 1 tablespoon then it lasts 8 days.
So while there are still valid discrepancies and possible interpretations, what can't be denied is Hahnemann is instructing us how to fight and hopefully conquer chronic disease by daily use of LMs.
Regards,
Susan
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Mixing C acute with LM constitutional
Dear Susan
Thank you for taking time in preparing this well thought out response.
When it came to psora or even the identification of what he meant by Gonorrhoea, we find that according to modern medical science, he made some mistakes. The reason being that he did not have the knowledge that is available today.
Useful here would be if you read Dr Shahrdar's articles on repertorium virosum.
When you look at Hn's writings on Syph you see how well he defines it.
On Sycosis he is not so sharp. In fact is gonorrhoea is not what we know as gonorrhoea today.
On Psora his thoroughly confusing. The reason is that he bundled everything that caused an itch into a pot called Psora.
To get a clear picture of these, again I would recommend that you carefully and slowly read Dr Shahrdar's articles - please see http://www.repertoriumvirosum.com/about.htm
Based on Dr Shahrdar's work, you then see how various infections can lead to chronic conditions 40 years on! These have names completely unrelated to the original infection and I would not be surprised if the rest of the medical profession is also unaware of the same.
For every one who is reading these lines, Dr Shahrdar and Dr Moradi and Ellen are helping to pass on these teachings free of charge. Please do not think that because it is being given for free it is a 'fool's gold' it absolutely 24 carat superb stuff that you won't get any where else in the World.
Join the classes and benefit.
Coming back to 248 - why is Hn stating that the bottle may last 7-15 day or however long? Because he is leaving us free to use as and when required. I will post an article from David Little in a short while which may answer most of the questions that have arisen.
Best wishes
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of healthyinfo6@aol.com
Sent: 10 January 2012 21:05
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Mixing C acute with LM constitutional
Dear Soroush,
I want to be clear I'm speaking of LONG standing miasmatic chronic diseases that are clearly genetically inherited vs. diseases acquired virally, bacterially, or those that become chronic thus are of shorter duration. Thus, while most chronic diseases are miasmatic, many don't occur until later in life, say Parkinson's, thus are not long standing and may respond well to less frequent LM or C-water dosing. Both my chronic diseases have been present, in progressive stages, for over 40 years.
In Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann is describing what amounts to a war plan on chronic disease. That is composed of many battles. You move the front forward, then have to retreat, regroup, then attack again. You think the enemy is defeated but then it returns sometimes stronger. Winning one battle usually does not win the war especially in long term chronic disease. Since, per H miasm theory, all chronic diseases are derived from psora, syphillis and sycosis and psora is the most prevalent and most hydra-headed of all the chronic miasmatic diseases, the ability to safely use LM's daily was his latest war strategy against an enemy that has the ability to marshall in additional troops (diseases) waiting (latent) in the background.
You may not need to use LM's daily but a classical homeopath should learn and thus be able to recognize what the nature of the chronic disease in their patient is and why they should be using LM's daily when the disease is long standing and/or clearly shown as a progression of an inherited miasm.
We would need to go back to the original German to really see what H meant. What we are reading is the English translation, "may". May doesn't mean must, but may also doesn't mean shouldn't. The context has to be looked at, and the overall tone that H is saying in 6th ed Organon is that LM's are encouraged daily in LONG standing chronic diseases.
Why would he give such specific instructions on how to prepare daily, administer daily and renew weekly or biweekly if he wasn't suggesting, encouraging to do so?
As an example of how the original German may not be properly interpreted and translated, my now ex-current LM prescriber says use ONE TEAspoon to prepare the daily dose from the LM stock bottle. The generally used English translation of 6th ed Organon says use ONE TABLEspoon. I was told that in H's day, there may be a discrepancy of what a teaspoon vs. tablespoon meant in old German compared to today's measures, so the English translation may NOT be accurate. When I went to prepare an LM8 from Boiron, their microprint instructions on the vial say to take 1-3 teaspoons from the stock bottle. So, here Boiron is leaving it open, thus there is obviously a question of what Hahnemann may have meant and also to what old German words may actually mean
While old German word transalation may be interpreted differently, I would think numbers haven't changed from his time to now.
Thus, by following H's instructions, ((§ 248 Sixth Edition footnote 1),
a 4 ounce LM stock bottle would last 8 days if one uses one TABLEspoon per day to make the daily dosage cup.
It would last 24 days if one uses one TEAspoon per day.
(One ounce=6 teaspoons=2 tablespoons)
but....
H writes (§ 248 Sixth Edition) the 4 ounce bottle would last between 7-15 days when given daily in chronic diseases, which would suggest using more than ONE teaspoon upto ONE tablespoon to make the daily dosage cup. If you use ONE TEAspoon per day, the LM bottle would last 24 days which is not written. If you use 1.5 teaspoons per day for 15 days you're close to the 24 teaspoons prepared in the LM stock bottle. Use 1 tablespoon then it lasts 8 days.
So while there are still valid discrepancies and possible interpretations, what can't be denied is Hahnemann is instructing us how to fight and hopefully conquer chronic disease by daily use of LMs.
Regards,
Susan
Thank you for taking time in preparing this well thought out response.
When it came to psora or even the identification of what he meant by Gonorrhoea, we find that according to modern medical science, he made some mistakes. The reason being that he did not have the knowledge that is available today.
Useful here would be if you read Dr Shahrdar's articles on repertorium virosum.
When you look at Hn's writings on Syph you see how well he defines it.
On Sycosis he is not so sharp. In fact is gonorrhoea is not what we know as gonorrhoea today.
On Psora his thoroughly confusing. The reason is that he bundled everything that caused an itch into a pot called Psora.
To get a clear picture of these, again I would recommend that you carefully and slowly read Dr Shahrdar's articles - please see http://www.repertoriumvirosum.com/about.htm
Based on Dr Shahrdar's work, you then see how various infections can lead to chronic conditions 40 years on! These have names completely unrelated to the original infection and I would not be surprised if the rest of the medical profession is also unaware of the same.
For every one who is reading these lines, Dr Shahrdar and Dr Moradi and Ellen are helping to pass on these teachings free of charge. Please do not think that because it is being given for free it is a 'fool's gold' it absolutely 24 carat superb stuff that you won't get any where else in the World.
Join the classes and benefit.
Coming back to 248 - why is Hn stating that the bottle may last 7-15 day or however long? Because he is leaving us free to use as and when required. I will post an article from David Little in a short while which may answer most of the questions that have arisen.
Best wishes
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of healthyinfo6@aol.com
Sent: 10 January 2012 21:05
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Mixing C acute with LM constitutional
Dear Soroush,
I want to be clear I'm speaking of LONG standing miasmatic chronic diseases that are clearly genetically inherited vs. diseases acquired virally, bacterially, or those that become chronic thus are of shorter duration. Thus, while most chronic diseases are miasmatic, many don't occur until later in life, say Parkinson's, thus are not long standing and may respond well to less frequent LM or C-water dosing. Both my chronic diseases have been present, in progressive stages, for over 40 years.
In Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann is describing what amounts to a war plan on chronic disease. That is composed of many battles. You move the front forward, then have to retreat, regroup, then attack again. You think the enemy is defeated but then it returns sometimes stronger. Winning one battle usually does not win the war especially in long term chronic disease. Since, per H miasm theory, all chronic diseases are derived from psora, syphillis and sycosis and psora is the most prevalent and most hydra-headed of all the chronic miasmatic diseases, the ability to safely use LM's daily was his latest war strategy against an enemy that has the ability to marshall in additional troops (diseases) waiting (latent) in the background.
You may not need to use LM's daily but a classical homeopath should learn and thus be able to recognize what the nature of the chronic disease in their patient is and why they should be using LM's daily when the disease is long standing and/or clearly shown as a progression of an inherited miasm.
We would need to go back to the original German to really see what H meant. What we are reading is the English translation, "may". May doesn't mean must, but may also doesn't mean shouldn't. The context has to be looked at, and the overall tone that H is saying in 6th ed Organon is that LM's are encouraged daily in LONG standing chronic diseases.
Why would he give such specific instructions on how to prepare daily, administer daily and renew weekly or biweekly if he wasn't suggesting, encouraging to do so?
As an example of how the original German may not be properly interpreted and translated, my now ex-current LM prescriber says use ONE TEAspoon to prepare the daily dose from the LM stock bottle. The generally used English translation of 6th ed Organon says use ONE TABLEspoon. I was told that in H's day, there may be a discrepancy of what a teaspoon vs. tablespoon meant in old German compared to today's measures, so the English translation may NOT be accurate. When I went to prepare an LM8 from Boiron, their microprint instructions on the vial say to take 1-3 teaspoons from the stock bottle. So, here Boiron is leaving it open, thus there is obviously a question of what Hahnemann may have meant and also to what old German words may actually mean
While old German word transalation may be interpreted differently, I would think numbers haven't changed from his time to now.
Thus, by following H's instructions, ((§ 248 Sixth Edition footnote 1),
a 4 ounce LM stock bottle would last 8 days if one uses one TABLEspoon per day to make the daily dosage cup.
It would last 24 days if one uses one TEAspoon per day.
(One ounce=6 teaspoons=2 tablespoons)
but....
H writes (§ 248 Sixth Edition) the 4 ounce bottle would last between 7-15 days when given daily in chronic diseases, which would suggest using more than ONE teaspoon upto ONE tablespoon to make the daily dosage cup. If you use ONE TEAspoon per day, the LM bottle would last 24 days which is not written. If you use 1.5 teaspoons per day for 15 days you're close to the 24 teaspoons prepared in the LM stock bottle. Use 1 tablespoon then it lasts 8 days.
So while there are still valid discrepancies and possible interpretations, what can't be denied is Hahnemann is instructing us how to fight and hopefully conquer chronic disease by daily use of LMs.
Regards,
Susan