Minutus

Thanks Robyn. Yes, I remember Cath did say her mother's doctor was Indian,
which would explain his method of prescribing. However, even though I'm
pretty open-minded of various people's viewpoints regarding the
administering of homeopathic remedies, at the end of the day the best
teacher of all was Hahnemann, which is why I favour the classical approach;
to me, it makes sense. That doesn't mean to say homeopathy can't be
improved upon or added to, because if there was no such thing as death and
Hahnemann was alive today I'm sure he would have improved the system even
further and added to it. BUT in no way, as open-minded as I am, can I
accept prescribing such an high dose over such a long period of time can be
beneficial or even wise to do. Cath's mother did suffer a mild cardiac
problem that she had never ever had before so, to me, that's no coincidence.
We are talking here of taking EIGHT 200c tablets EVERY SINGLE DAY for two
weeks (luckily she had only taken a total of 12 in one-and-a-half-days). I
don't understand on what 'principles' Indian homeopaths base the prescribing
of such an high dose, nor what their success rate is, but I do know that a
200c remedy, used correctly, is very effective and, therefore, should be
prescribed with respect.

Christine Wyndham-Thomas
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com
.

Hi Venkat

I would have to agree with you when you say "there's something terribly
wrong". I can't see any logical sense to prescribing in such an high dose.
Even allowing for the fact that some problems may need 'aggressive'
treatment (as Robin put it) that still doesn't explain the prescribing of
eight 200c tablets to be taken daily for two weeks. My mind just cannot
comprehend that.

Christine Wyndham-Thomas
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com

Christine, just because you don't it doesn't mean that its
worth has no value!
All it means is that your knowledge base does not understand this kind of
treatment. This does not automatically make this treatment - it only
means it is out of your experience base.

If this list is only for discussion of predetermined views, then its worth
is very little. Any discussion of any worth has to acknoweldge the
possibility of something other our own views as being potentially useful and
for that matter potentially more useful than the views we already hold and
also for us to have the gain that is possible from learning from others,
equal or even at times better ways of doing things. Is this not the whole
point of the learning experience?

Robyn

"If the matter is one that can be settled by observation, make the
observation yourself." (Bertrand Russell)

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 16/03/2004

why not? isnt that just another form of prejudice? i personally have taken
very high potencies daily for acute and for chronic conditions without any
aggravations. this may not be a typical protocol to follow, but in some
cases
may be just fine.

tanya

I accept what you say Robyn, so explain to me the 'principles' behind this
sort of prescribing so that I might try and comprehend.

One other thing I would like to know. It is a well-known fact - which
cannot be disputed - that if you overdose even using a 30c remedy that
aggravations will occur; it happened to Venkat. If the aggravations were so
severe that it resulted in a fatal heart attack (we're talking about
somebody aged in her 70s-80s) and a post mortem was carried out would they
be able to determine the cause of death as being a heart attack brought on
by an overdose of that particular remedy. I would think not. All they
would know for certain is that the person died of a heart attack.

I know there was a school of thought in homeopathy that aggravations
necessarily weren't a bad thing because in some cases it was necessary for
the sitution to become worse before it could become better, but I believe
that aggravations are now looked on generally as the equivalent of an
'overdose' and so either a lower remedy would be indicated, or for that
remedy to be taken with less frequency.
Christine Wyndham-Thomas
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com

The thing is Tanya you know about homeopathy and aggravations. Maybe you
know it's safe to take another dose, and you would know immediately what to
do if an aggravation occurred. I'm not against the experimenting of it with
people who know what they're doing; it's up to them. What I am against is
it being used on someone in her 70s or 80s, who's got no idea what
homeopathy is all about, has no idea about aggravations, and not being
properly supervised whilst taking it.

Christine Wyndham-Thomas
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com

well, i would certainly agree that this person should receive adequate
information/education and supervision. the isssue, then, is not the
potency,
but the practioner and his/her ethics.

tanya

Well yes I would agree with that, but I would still like to know the
principles behind the 'frequency' with which the higher potencies are
prescribed. I don't believe it's suitable for everybody and should be used
as the exception rather than the norm. I think Venkat said they use it to
cure a common cold; in fact, by the sound of it, I don't think they use
lower potentices at all! And it would be fascinating, I agree, to understand
the principles behind this way of prescribing. Maybe Robyn can enlighten
us.

Christine Wyndhan-Thomas
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com

on 3/20/04 5:25 PM, BRoten1721@aol.com at BRoten1721@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 3/20/2004 7:55:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
shannonnelson@tds.net writes:
Well, *cumulative* experience (whether of one person or many) can at least
give us a clue as to what the "alternate universe" might hold... I was
"raised" on the idea that "dose doesn't matter", but eventually revised
that, *partly* because of David Little's scholarly expositions , but
really more so because those expositions suddenly made sense of what had
already been my experience.

Altho I couldn't edit and re-play the few doses (only two at that time,
actually) I'd seen significant aggravation after, I *could* make note of the
fact that those two were also the *only* two where the patient (my toddler
daughter) had taken an entire "single dose vial" (hundreds of pellets)
instead of the usual 5-15 (and yup, I know that's still a lot more than
one!). She'd had *many* other doses, of (sadly) many remedies, but never
any aggravation other than those two. Quite a coincidence...

Then I also made note of the fact that when I take a single pellet it
*feels* different than when I take (what had been my usual) 5-15. I
actually prefer taking several because I like the "rush", which I don't get
from only one. So while I could brush all that aside and say "How do I
*know* that dose matters?", I personally found it easier to simply revise my
understanding to something like, "Size of dose doesn't usually matter
*much*, for most people, within a rather generous range of dose." (And
actually, according to both Hahnemann anad experience, there are some *few*
people who ought to have several pellets for a dose... But those would be
that small sub-group of hyposensitive patients with a "stuck" sort of
disease, so should be identifiable enough?)

Best,
Shannon
dear shannon,

i agree with everything you wrote. ................but, imagine
for a minute
what this sounds like to the scientific mind!

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

"If the matter is one that can be settled by observation, make the
observation yourself." (Bertrand Russell)
***I am not a spokesperson for Indian or other homoeopaths who may prescribe
oft repeated doses of remedies. I am simply a practitioner who has available
to her, in one eg. the results of 70 yrs of clinical observations. I could
type stuff from one of these books about what the particular author believes
if you want, but it is not my opinion - I am only

It would be more useful for all of us, if those practitioners on the various
lists, who use these methods successfully, would share their experience with
us.

It is not inconceivable to me, that out of clinics with large numbers
passing through them every day, and clinical notes being rigorously kept,
that eventually, these clinicians would see patterns of treatment that serve
patients better than others. Who am I to disagree with their observations? I
would rather listen to them, try it and then comment.

Re the repetition of high potencies - the source I have uses potencies from
tincture to 1M - and only prescribes the repetitions based on experience.
Each individual case requires a different prescription obviously, and the
management of the case is the key to success.

Re aggravations - where is the evidence that aggravations are common? I have
not had more than one reported aggravation in my practice. Obviously, there
are going to be some persons who are highly sensitive who will prove or
aggravate one dose of a remedy - and without any evidence of the occurence
of these incidents, why should we believe that it is common? For all we
know, it could be 1 in 10,000 people who will aggravate on one dose or prove
a remedy. Does this mean that we should not use repeated doses on all the
others who would not aggravate, or prove?

I feel that since Hahnemann, there is plenty of clinical evidence for
treatment surfacing and it is our duty to explore this and if it works, take
it on board. Why should this be a problem?

Robyn

Noone on this list including myself would condone the over the counter
methods that Venkat described - this is not what I am talking about. This is
just what he described as his experience. I don't think it is fair to extend
this to all wouldn't you agree?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 16/03/2004