Minutus

Hi Vicky,

below:
Yes, if our primary goal is to follow his last instructions as written, then yes we should follow his last instructions as written. (smile)

But I continue to hold that it is *not* the ideal tool for every circumstance.

I suppose the successes of my experiences, from both patient and practitioner ends, with 4th ed. method (which does include both wet and dry dosing, BTW), as well as the particular circumstances I have used it in, lead me to view 6th ed of Organon as not the only material worth reading or using. If my history and circumstances were different, perhaps my conclusions would be also, so I offer this simply as my opinion and understanding.
And if memory serves me, David did say, years back, that he does not consider LMs to be the only valid or acceptable way to practice homeopathy. I would be interested to hear whether that is his current opinion or not, just as a point of curiosity.
I don't really know what you mean. If a dry dose doesn't act, then -- same as if a wet dose doesn't act -- we have to decide *why* it didn't act… Okay, I'll read on.
There are many of us here that can answer that, but it's an awfully broad question… It's part of what many of us spent years in homeopathy school learning. I'll read on, then try to answer more.
Taken and given both, yes I certainly have. I could make a list, if you like, but I know that others here will also be able to.
My cow, my cat, my daughter -- those are the three most outstanding in my mind. In each of those it was indeed *one* dose, and for the cat and the daughter, that particular remedy did not ever need to be repeated again. The cat's was in his water dish; my daughter's was a dry dose.

Many other times too, I saw or felt a dry dose (and recalling another that was 1M in a glass of water, one sip) act pretty much instantly.
Especially with some acute, but also some number of times with chronic cases.

I am not saying that any of those single doses "fixed everything", but that is a separate issue.
Same could well have been true had the dose been dry, but who knows. I have seen instantaneous and dramatic responses to dry doses also, not only to wet ones.
Hm, "how did they manage the cases…" Well, usually there is *some* response, but let's say there was none noticed at all.
Depending on many particulars, you would re-examine the case and/or have them repeat the dose in a different potency and/or explore for possible antidoting or remedy damage (not common, but these can happen) and/or see whether *really* nothing happened ("Last time we talked, you said…" and read back what their state was at the time of prescribing. Sometimes they will then realize that something DID happen)…

Sometimes lack of response to "an apparently well indicated" remedy means that the "indications" were not read correctly, something was missed, or…. many possibilities.

Does that give you any answer at all? It really is too broad a question…
If by "healed" you mean that the person never has any more problems, and never needs any further doses of any remedy, no that is not likely, though it can happen if the person is basically healthy and etc.

But okay, let's assume I am going to give a high potency single dose, via 4h ed method. Person takes the remedy; I give them instructions to call me if anything troublesome happens in the meantime (can be a fine line between letting the person know when they *might* appropriately call between visits, versus not setting them up to *expect* trouble), and I ask to see them back in ___ weeks, typically 4 - 6.

Yes for some cases this would be too long to leave the patient dangling. If I am working with one of those people, I will give different instructions, and/or I will make sure they *do* understand that they should call me before that, *if* they feel the need. I might *ask* them to check in with me sooner, so I can make sure things are going alright, and see them sooner if needed. Approaches do differ on this point, and different cases have different needs.

At the first follow-up, usually 4 - 6 weeks on, we explore for what has and hasn't changed, and proceed accordingly.

If the single dose acts *well*, then the person might need only periodic follow-ups, weeks and then months apart, and typically that single dose will bring on a sort of cascade of healing results. Typically their progress will be sort of similar to the path of their decline -- but in reverse, a path of healing. It will have its ups and downs, better days and badder days, but as long as they are *generally improving*, and no crises erupt or accidents or etc., then we just let the remedy run.

When a patient is *new* to homeopathy, they will need more guidance to recognize when the remedy is still acting just fine (even tho they may be having a "down"), and when it's time to repeat (which may indeed be the same potency, or may be higher or lower), or when a different remedy is needed. Again, those are all part of what we studied for some years to learn.

All of this is with reference to chronic prescribing; acute work happens of course on a much shorter timeframe, and is more straightforward in a number of ways.
(Is that enough of an answer for this part?)
What did nothing -- do you mean s/he prescribed a single, dry dose and it did nothing, so you didn't know what to do next? The place to go next, would have been back to the vet -- probably first simply by phone -- to say I don't think anything happened. What should I do next? Did you do that?
? Explan what *which* means… basically I am saying that dry dosing does have *advantages* over LM method, not merely deficiencies. There are situations where dry dosing and 4th ed methodology (and again, 4th ed method can be used with water doses as well as with dry, and with low potencies as well as with high) does all that's needed; and there are situations where LMs are not practical, and others where it simply isn't needed.
That dose was in his water dish, set out under a tree because he would not be in sight of anyone, but I saw him come out at night if he thought no one was there. And I knew he needed water, so that was the obvious way to dose him. Next morning he stopped hiding, started speaking to me again, and began healing form his wounds.
Nice! Where do you get them?
)
Yes, it is important, and good for you!
Very true. Same, of course, if one is seeing an herbalist or bodyworker or counselor or fitness trainer; or buys herbs or vitamins….
I think one has to think of it as process, and be somewhat philosophical about the fact that *not* every effort will yield an immediate result. And that is true no *matter* what the project.

It is difficult, though, when we can get drugs and etc. practically for free, but have to pay "full value" for "alternative" care. Personally, I decided decades ago that it doesn't matter how inexpensive something is, if it does not get me the result I am after. So I prefer paying more for something that *works*, versus paying less for something that makes me worse instead of better -- and for me, the choices were just that stark. But it is a challenge.
The money part of it can be really difficult. Some practitioners have sliding scale, and even at that, it takes some commitment. I wish I had an easy answer, that's for sure.
Well, cautious is good, and I wish there were easier answers!
Shannon

LOL that is poetic!

I know there is a very wide range in the way it has been practiced, right from early on, and in the early years it was more about acutes.
Was Kent the start of high potency single dosing?

(I wasn't talking about a single dose or even a single remedy being a cure for "everything"…)

I think Kent continued the exploration of potencies above 30C......I do remember on of his cases where he gave Sepia 55M to a patient....now how did he get there? Was that the only potency he had handy at that time? or did he test a new potency to see what happens? how was that potency made? good luck trying to make it by hand....

During his time, many different contraptions were invented and used for creating potencies, without any real "proof"....e.g the fluxion machines where a certain amount of water passing under a certain pressure for a certain time "increased the potency by 1C" (read Julian Winston's book!)....says who, how why?????.......so that 55M could as well have been in reality a 5C, or anything else...

That is one of the reasons I do not trust those "indications" of which potencies to use for what circumstances....you really do not know what you are using unless you ask the pharmacy or prepare them yourself.

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

In effect Hahnemann figured out how to get around in a model T Ford before cars were invented.
model T Fords still do what they used to do. Nothing there changed.
Does that mean we shoud sick with Model T Fords in 2014?
In other words, I prefer Fibonacci potencies, for any case that needs more than one dose, though the old stuff still works the same way it did back when it was first invented. Just as back when it was dirst invented, it had limitations - diseases Hahnemann called incurable but which Fibonacci potencies handle.

Hahnemann himself was the ultimate example of the principle of continuing to malke progress and find new ways to do things better, and to address more difficult situations. Why else were there six editions of the Organon?


So what kind of individual thinks progress should stop while diseases get harder to handle over time.
By all means old style still does what old style always did. But it cannot do MORE.
The severity of diseases increases constantly. The average issue nowadays is far more involved that the average issue of Hahnemann's time, when it comes to chronic disease especially. Why are we supposed to play dead and fail to keep up?
I prefer to keep up. It is also much easier and more effective to use F series potencies in chronic disease, there are no problems with choosig potency or dose, and it works about twice as well. How can one justify not using Fibonacci in a chronic case?
I use dry doses only when it is convenient, like when I awake with an impending heart attack, and I will grab a 1M dry arnica to halt it. I could faff around matching a remedy and making it aqueous, but I would likely drop dead in the process.

First Aid situations need to be handled according to the specifics. That includes whether it is urgent like a heart attack, or something merely uncomfotable but not pathological, like teeething pain.
I prefer to be alive with a grab and swallow Arnica, (solid, no repping, no water - but fast) and I prefer to have the baby sleeping peacefully right away on chamomilla, and I prefer to put arnica on my bashed knee before it hurts more (without repertorizing), and I prefer to use Lachesis for my cat who just got a boomslang snake bite seconds ago, and I prefer to just take Ars after meat food poisoning, rather than trying to match it formally and make it aqueous while I feel so ill, and I prefer to just grab the calendula for bleeding ratehr than messing about matching a remedy while the individual bleeds out..... etc.
None of these things needs repertorizing, or liquid dose for the first dose becase the acuteness of the symptoms points directly to a specific suitable first aid remedy with known matching symptoms, for immediate urgent help.

Later, after the first aid has helped meantime, there is time to fine tune an approach if any further action is needed. Very often noting more is needed, or only prevention is needed to avert a future snake bite or heart attack etc repeat event.
But it is important to differentiate First Aid from other aproaches. It is called FIRST aid for a reason.

The thing not to forget, is that homeopathy is individual and needs to fit the specific situation, preferably using the best option for THAT situation.
Namaste,
.....Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

This conversation seems to be ripe for engendering a great deal of confusion on a basis of misunderstandings of the supposed limitations of a dry dose in terms of the kinds of illness or kinds of patient in which it can successfully trigger a curative secondary action.
If there is any historical evidence to suggest as much, I’d like to see it; but I suspect that such claims are nonsense.
I am not a proponent of dry dosing as such. It has the limitations that Hahnemann himself noted: that the dose is less flexible (and often too high and less gentle than it might be in its primary action), and that repetition tends to create problems. We have seen numerous case reports illustrating the latter on this list in those cases in which a patient starting out with a relatively simple chronic condition becomes increasingly more difficult to treat as he or she mysteriously acquires symptoms of the medicine he has been taking repeatedly (often daily or more frequently) in an unchanged potency.
But one limitation that there may be no grounds for suggesting dry dosing has is in its ability to stimulate a curative reaction in chronic conditions. In my first few years of practice, I used dry dosing, and I never saw any such limitation. Neither, as anybody will notice who has read Kent’s Philosophy and Materia Medica, did Kent.
But notice that Kent did not prescribe repeated dry doses willy-nilly. He gave a single dose; he evaluated the patient’s response; and he went from there. He repeated that potency at most twice, and only at very long intervals, before raising it. And he was no slouch, I understand, in obtaining admirable results. Yes, he sometimes had aggravations that were probably avoidable had he dissolved his doses in water. But the range and depth of the cases his methods cured were irreproachable.
Hahnemann’s findings concerning the expedition of the cure by more-frequent doses in always increasing (“wet”) potency highlight the disadvantage of being unable to incrementally raise potency in a dry dose. This is the outstanding advantage of “wet” dosing: control of the potency (as well as of the dose) in order to prescribe altering potencies frequently, which Hahnemann found greatly accelerated the curative process. Hahnemann himself made no claims as to the superiority of the process in the kinds of illness (or of patient) in which cure was possible; and that suggests that such claims may be more speculative than real. That such an astute observer as Hahnemann himself also made no claims as to a more rapid response to the initial dose again suggests that the supposed difference is speculative.
Dry dosing does have one advantage in the hands of a wise practitioner: it reduces the temptation to repeat the remedy before understanding well its effect on the patient’s state of health. But a practitioner armed with “wet” dosing has the option of exercising equal wisdom, not repeating the “wet” dose before understanding.
That few practitioners have the confidence and patience to assess patient response properly before prescribing a second dose reflects not at all on either technique; it rather reflects on a mentality that expects failure and holds “results” higher than cure.
Cheers --
John

thank you John
Sheri

At 02:11 AM 12/10/2014, you wrote:
Sheri Nakken, former RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases and Child Health
Next classes start in December