Page 2 of 2

Re: LM question

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 4:03 pm
by Hennie Duits
About 'wait' (and this is just from memory, so it may not be too accurate):
I think it was a case Vithoulkas mentioned, a Helleborus one (?), some sort
of brain fag case, where he was pretty sure is was the right remedy, but
after one month nothing much had happened, but wait, and after two months
most would have said: give something else, but after three months of waiting
things started moving in the right direction. (Brain/nerve tissue is slow to
'move', and also: who's so sure about the chosen remedy..)
(Hm, maybe how about some Helleborus for me ..)
The real repair of tissue might take time, and nerve tissue takes a lot more
time than for instance stomach mucosa.

Hennie

Re: LM question

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:27 pm
by Shannon Nelson
Thanks Hennie,

Yes, this is an interesting example.
And it does support my assumption (hope???) that there will be a *reason* if
response is so slow, that there will be something to clue you in that
response *might* be slow (tho yeah, 3 months would surely have tested *my*
certainty, ouch...). Helleborus is a "slow" remedy, an if there was reason
to assume pathology (as in need for "repair"), then that too would suggest a
need for greater patience.

Best,
Shannon
on 4/24/03 7:12 PM, Hennie Duits at he.duits@wxs.nl wrote:

Re: LM question

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2003 2:24 pm
by David Little
At 02:12 AM 4/25/2003 +0200, you wrote:

Dear List,

These is little doubt that there are some conditions that take longer
to show signs of healing than others. This is one of the reasons that it is
important to understand the nature and stage of the disease state. One
sided diseases and local affections of a long term nature are some of the
slowest, especially in those with limited vitality. One must be very
patient. As I have stated in LM Question 3 there is no need to wait for 3
months when using Hahnemann methods of the 1840s. Nevertheless. there is
often a need use a period of observation to understand the true situation.
One sometimes has to wait days and weeks.

Too many that come to the LM potency thinking that they can be repeated
mechanically in every case. When this is done it only slows down the cure
due to over medication, aggravations, and relapses. One must learn to wait
and watch with the LM potency also but not for extended periods like 3
months without improvement. There is little doubt that the C and LM
potency in medicinal solutions used in the *proper manner* can speed up the
time period of cure in these protracted cases. Hahnemann claimed he could
speed up such cases by one half, one quarter or less the time. This is a
statement worth testing in the clinic. All but the most faithful patients
will leave treatment if they don't see some improvement before 2 or 3
months. As Hahnemann said "it must be a matter of great important, to the
physician was well as the patient, to foreshorten this period". Hahnemann's
advanced method were developed specially for these long-draw-out cases.

Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Re: LM question

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:13 pm
by Shannon Nelson
I don't have much experience using LMs, and have some "patients" (aka
"friends and family") who really push my understanding! So I'm hoping for
input on this... The good news -- my epileptic friend had done well for a
while on Nat-m LM1, but then had another seizure and stopped taking the
remedy. At the time I asked myself uneasy questions about whether the
seizure might have been brought on by her too-frequent and erratic dosing
schedule -- it was a *really* difficult situation to work with, as at the
start of her Nat-m she could barely string two thoughts together to have a
conversation (or give instructions), so I basically had to just hope for the
best... But she was ***MUCH*** better after the (?)couple of weeks with
Nat-m, so I decided to leave well enough alone for the time. This was about
a year ago, and she's been doing rather well since then (in context...).
Last week she had another seizure, quite bad, which sent her into
despair and grieving, so I suggested (take a wild guess) another dose of her
Nat-m. She said it worked "immediately", felt *much* better, and was
recovering from the seizure (which can take her as much as a few weeks to
really get over).
Last night she called saying she was feeling worse again, described
feeling groggy, and "as if" she were going to have another seizure, and "as
if" withdrawing from drugs (some years back she went thru a pretty
unpleasant process of withdrawing from prescribed opiates). I asked how
much of the Nat-m she had taken since we talked the week before, and she
said she'd been taking it more or less daily. (I had not told her to do
that, was waiting for her to call back!)
I thought *perhaps* this is overdose/proving, suggested she take a
single(!!) dose of LM-1 diluted thru an additional two glasses. This
morning she tells me that it worked *very* well (In my mind I'm jumpin'
around, yelling yes, yes!!! with relief! :-) ); she felt sleepy right
after the dose and had the first *good* sleep she has had in "quite a
while", and feels nearly back to normal this morning.

Now my questions:
- Since the first week or so of doses apparently worked well and without
problems, shall I assume that the only problem was too-frequent dosing and
that the original single-glass dose is okay *so long as* she repeats only as
often as *necessary* (I said, see how long this improvement lasts, and
repeat only when you start to relapse, and use that to time future
repetition), or will it be better if she sticks with the extra dilution
glasses?

- Can someone describe the difference in effect between (a) dose from first
dilution glass repeated, say, every week (let's assume that's what "as
needed" works out to in this case) versus (b) extra dilution glasses? If
the doses are extra-dilute does it become appropriate to re-dose more
frequently, or are the two factors not really connected?

Altho she does not fit the "typical" picture of nat-m -- at least not the
one that *I* had formed -- I do think this remedy could be a deep fit for
her, and last year on reading more about it was really struck by
correspondences that I hadn't been aware of. I'd like her to stay with the
remedy and see how far it can take her, but I really, really, really am
nervous about getting her on the right dosage, so all input will be
appreciated!!!

Thanks,
Shannon

Re: LM question

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:31 pm
by Felipe Cárdenas Támara Di hom
Hi
Many of your questions in relation to the LM Potencies can be answer int the
book written by Dr Harimohan Choudhury

LM POTENCIES. THEORY AND PRACTICE
B. Jain Publishers, LTD

cordially

Felipe Cárdenas HD, D.IHom

Re: LM question

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:33 am
by Shannon Nelson
Thanks Dave, I'll see how that works out.
Actually it hasn't been an issue of compliance, but of communication and
circumstance -- this time because of hectic circumstances (on her end) and
inaccurate assumptions (on both ends); and the first time last year simply
because she was such a wreck mentally (effects of seizures and concussion).
So despite the apparent/presumed overdose, the remedy did her a *lot* of
good, I'm relieved to say. (Better, I have to add, than placebo would
have!)

It's been a challenging situation.

Thanks again,
Shannon

on 10/12/04 4:33 PM, David Hartley at dave@holistiq.com wrote:

Re: LM question

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:19 am
by J Lucas
You seem to have had success with both single and double dilution but the
fact that the double dilution cured the interim sx you described it seems
that this would be the best procedure to go forward with.

Too frequent dosing could spoil any type of dilution and that is an area to
get sorted and be adamant about repeating only as necessary. Time will sort
that issue out. Remember the individuality of each case might require quite
a few changes as far as dosing is concerned. Stick with the 're-dosing as
necessary' for her and have strict guidelines about what this means - for
her.

It doesn't matter that she doesn't fit a typical picture of Nat mur - but
what does matter is that she has symptoms of this remedy, otherwise why
prescribe it. So if the main problem is just dosing you need to work out
guidelines for her and see how she responds.

Other points to consider - is she using the original stock bottle you made
up for her or is she making it up each time she needs it. You can always go
up to LM2 as the next step.

Best wishes, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 12/10/04 8:13 pm, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

edited

Now my questions:
- Since the first week or so of doses apparently worked well and without
problems, shall I assume that the only problem was too-frequent dosing and
that the original single-glass dose is okay *so long as* she repeats only as
often as *necessary* (I said, see how long this improvement lasts, and
repeat only when you start to relapse, and use that to time future
repetition), or will it be better if she sticks with the extra dilution
glasses?

- Can someone describe the difference in effect between (a) dose from first
dilution glass repeated, say, every week (let's assume that's what "as
needed" works out to in this case) versus (b) extra dilution glasses? If
the doses are extra-dilute does it become appropriate to re-dose more
frequently, or are the two factors not really connected?

Altho she does not fit the "typical" picture of nat-m -- at least not the
one that *I* had formed -- I do think this remedy could be a deep fit for
her, and last year on reading more about it was really struck by
correspondences that I hadn't been aware of. I'd like her to stay with the
remedy and see how far it can take her, but I really, really, really am
nervous about getting her on the right dosage, so all input will be
appreciated!!!

Thanks,
Shannon
Clinical Guidance for Homeopaths and Students of Homeopathy!
http://www.shahrdarhost.net/Clinical%20Guidance.htm
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and
educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding
the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read
or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or
email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use
remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its
individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental,
special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the
subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily
digest.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: LM question

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:09 pm
by Dave Hartley
Hi Shannon,

Your issue sounds like pretty much a client compliance problem.
The best cure for this is PLACEBO.
I'd suggest a daily dose of sac lac.

-regarding the LM remedy..
From what you've written - I'd say give the LM dose in 2nd dilution
glass, once weekly for a couple of weeks, and see how that goes.

best,

David Hartley www.localcomputermart.com/dave www.holistiq.com
San Francisco EastBay Berkeley (510)776-5914
---------------------
I don't have much experience using LMs, and have some "patients" (aka
"friends and family") who really push my understanding! So I'm hoping
for
input on this... The good news -- my epileptic friend had done well for
a
while on Nat-m LM1, but then had another seizure and stopped taking the
remedy. At the time I asked myself uneasy questions about whether the
seizure might have been brought on by her too-frequent and erratic
dosing
schedule -- it was a *really* difficult situation to work with, as at
the
start of her Nat-m she could barely string two thoughts together to have
a
conversation (or give instructions), so I basically had to just hope for
the
best... But she was ***MUCH*** better after the (?)couple of weeks with
Nat-m, so I decided to leave well enough alone for the time. This was
about
a year ago, and she's been doing rather well since then (in context...).
Last week she had another seizure, quite bad, which sent her into
despair and grieving, so I suggested (take a wild guess) another dose of
her
Nat-m. She said it worked "immediately", felt *much* better, and was
recovering from the seizure (which can take her as much as a few weeks
to
really get over).
Last night she called saying she was feeling worse again, described
feeling groggy, and "as if" she were going to have another seizure, and
"as
if" withdrawing from drugs (some years back she went thru a pretty
unpleasant process of withdrawing from prescribed opiates). I asked how
much of the Nat-m she had taken since we talked the week before, and she
said she'd been taking it more or less daily. (I had not told her to do
that, was waiting for her to call back!)
I thought *perhaps* this is overdose/proving, suggested she take a
single(!!) dose of LM-1 diluted thru an additional two glasses. This
morning she tells me that it worked *very* well (In my mind I'm jumpin'
around, yelling yes, yes!!! with relief! :-) ); she felt sleepy right
after the dose and had the first *good* sleep she has had in "quite a
while", and feels nearly back to normal this morning.

Now my questions:
- Since the first week or so of doses apparently worked well and
without
problems, shall I assume that the only problem was too-frequent dosing
and
that the original single-glass dose is okay *so long as* she repeats
only as
often as *necessary* (I said, see how long this improvement lasts, and
repeat only when you start to relapse, and use that to time future
repetition), or will it be better if she sticks with the extra dilution
glasses?

- Can someone describe the difference in effect between (a) dose from
first
dilution glass repeated, say, every week (let's assume that's what "as
needed" works out to in this case) versus (b) extra dilution glasses?
If
the doses are extra-dilute does it become appropriate to re-dose more
frequently, or are the two factors not really connected?

Altho she does not fit the "typical" picture of nat-m -- at least not
the
one that *I* had formed -- I do think this remedy could be a deep fit
for
her, and last year on reading more about it was really struck by
correspondences that I hadn't been aware of. I'd like her to stay with
the
remedy and see how far it can take her, but I really, really, really am
nervous about getting her on the right dosage, so all input will be
appreciated!!!

Thanks,
Shannon

Re: LM question

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:10 pm
by maly suissa
Dear Shannon,
IMHO, the best [and thanks god - living] source is David Little.
Maybe you already know it [but just in case...], there is an excellent introduction to the matter in his website:
www.simillimum.com/Thelittlelibrary.html\A Comparison of the 5th and 6th Organon and the C and LM Potency .
See also there, under "Case Management": "Adjusting the size of the dose".
He is also giving online courses [warmly recommended, for anyone who can afford it...]
Please keep us informed with any news on this matter. Personally, I am very interested in this subject, as a beginner who dreads too strong reactions in patients...
Best wishes,
Maly

Bob&Shannon wrote:
I don't have much experience using LMs, and have some "patients" (aka
"friends and family") who really push my understanding!

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]