Minutus

Hi again Julian,

I was a bit confused because you started clarifying the Q and LM nomenclature and then began describing making a titration of for both the c and the Q scales. You started with a 3c titration. I was not able to understand how you got the titrated powder. I see that remedies vary in the initial preparation of the raw material. So you are assuming the standardized preparation of the prepared raw material?

I had never heard of the thimble with a hole in it. Somehow, I imagined that many remedies would react with metal.

I am afraid to repeat the preparation of Q's because my memory is probably incorrect in detail, but dilution 1 remedy:400 water two times for Q's is very different from the 1:100 water for centesimal preparation.

I don't understand how a drop can be a good measure. Between alcohol and water the viscosity is different so the amount is also different. Is it the ratio that is essential not the exact amount?

Blessings,
Ellen
(snip)
First-- they are started as triturations-- not tinctures. The
substance is triturated 1:100 through three steps-- and the beginning
point of these new potencies is a 3c trit.
As I just outlined in another topic, it looks like this:
1. Dissolve 1 gr. of the trit powder in 500 drops of a mixture that
is 1 part alcohol and 4 parts distilled water.
2. Place a single drop of this mixture in a vial.
3. add 100 drops of alcohol to the vial."

But that's not the end....
You take 500 poppyseed sized granules, put them in a "thimble with
holes" and pour in the alcoholic solution from step 3. This saturates
the granules. Then, take the granules out and dry them off. Now THIS
is the key:
Each granule has absorbed a specific amount of liquid.
To make the next potency, you take 1 granule in 100 drops, and THIS
again will yield a dilution of 1:50,000. You use that to moisten 500
more granules, and you're off.

So a 50M remedy is a dilution ratio of 1:100 serially diluted and
succussed 50,000 times, and a Q (for quinquagintamillesimal) is in
the ratio of 1:50,000 ONCE.

Quinquagintamillesimal is the correct nomenclature for this dilution ratio.
"LM" is NOT. In fact, if we look at Roman numerals, L (50) before M
(1000) would be 950 and not 50,000.

Short answer: They are prepared differently.

Does that answer it?

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

At 10:11 AM -0400 4/29/04, Ellen Madono wrote:

I am NOT a prescriber, although I've taken my share of stuff, and
have watched others prescribe.
It is my feeling/belief that ANY remedy should be discontinued when
there is ANY reaction-- either an aggravation or amelioration. To
"keep the pressure up" does ot sound like a very homeopathic way to
do things.

When Eizayaga first started lecturing my doc prescribed a remedy for
me, and I decided to take it in 6c daily, rather than in the 200 he
wanted me to take. I have no idea what would have happened with the
200, but I DO know that in six days of 6c daily I had a massive
aggravation. I stopped the remedy, and the aggravation continued for
another week.

The whole idea if the Q potencies was the "gentle restoration of
health." An aggravation is NOT "gentle." If the Q potencies are used
as directed (which takes a lot of observation on the part of the
prescriber and the patient) the cure is gentle and the "aggravation"
is at the end of the process and NOT at the beginning.
Hahnemann assumed people had some degree of intelligence. We should
do the same.
If you want to put them on a routine, give them the dose in the
office and then give them sac-lac (placebo) to take every day. That's
what the old guys used to do.
The intelligent use of Q potencies needs careful monitoring and is
NEVER routine.

Actually, NOTHING in homeopathy can be routine. People looking for
routines should go into allopathy where everyone is treated the same.
If you have a low-level of experience, are you being supervised?
We should all.

JW

At 10:39 AM -0400 4/29/04, Ellen Madono wrote:
Why not stop the remedy and see if she's better when the aggravation subsides?
There is never any certainty in anything homeopathic. Every case is
different, and everyone will react differently.

Para. 280: you can continue to give more potentized doses which
produces no new troublesome sxs, and has a general improvement of
conditions UNTIL there seems to be a return of old sxs. This
indicates that the patient is near cure and is responding to the
medicinal disease (homeopathic aggravation).
Para 281: Stop the remedy and observe. If sx go, fine. If sx return,
start treatment with a higher potency.
Para 282: If the first doses bring on an aggravation, then the doses
were too large.

So an aggravation at the FRONT is due to a wrong dosage. The
aggravation with Q potencies happens at the END.
Why say "not provings?" Jeremy Sherr said that most aggravation that
are not of the disease ARE proving symptoms.
Jeremy (to group): Anyone here done any provings?
Group: no
J: Anyone ever have symptoms after taking a remedy which were not an
aggravation of existing symptoms?
G: yes.
J: Well, you've all done provings!
It is a close remedy but not the exact one needed.

JW

At 11:10 AM -0400 4/29/04, Ellen Madono wrote:
TITRATION: making a mixture of decreasing amounts.
TRITURATION: grinding into a fine powder.

In the case of preparing a homeopathic solid, it is TRITURATION and
not the former.

The instruction for making a 3c trituration are clearly stated in the Organon.
You start with one part by weight of substance, and add 99 times the
weight in milk-sugar. This is done in three separate additions, 20
minutes apart, until the whole thing is done after an hour.
Then you repeat the 1:99 to get the second, then again to get the 3rd
trituration.
That is how it is done in a standardized way. And that is how it is
done with all homeopathic pharmacies I know.
I am talking shorthand. Read the instructions in the Organon. It is a
thimble like container made of porcelain which has holes in the
bottom. It is cleaned after each use.
YES. That is why they are *different* preparations.
Well, that is not only what Hahnemann said, but that is what the US
Pharmacopieia calls out in the the manufacture of the Q potencies.
"one drop..."

JW

Hi Chris,

You explanation of dilutions repeats what I learned.

I still don't understand why decreasing the dilutions is not useful, although I accept that what you are saying is probably true. At some level of dilution, with only 2 relevant cases behind me, it does seem that the patient will aggravate. That is, you cannot dilute less without severe aggravations. Do you go to the next potency when the remedy aggravates? Or do you wait for the ameliorations to stop and then move up regardless of aggravations?

Tom says Eizayaga taught the low potency technique in the 80's. I suspect like every method in homeopathy, management of the case is the hardest and most important part. With 8 months of the clinical practicum working through out with the same clients, I have see much aggravation, but they were sensitive and complex cases. Patients who were young and had a simple history with little suppression did not aggravate much. Even my 80 year old father only suffered needlessly when he refused to contact me about his aggravation. He had his MD run tests on him instead. With low potencies, it's easy to keep the client's attention on the remedy and symptoms because they are taking the remedy constantly. But also, you have to watch the case carefully. For most people, Tom starts with 6c 3 times a day. I am much more cautious and if they look the least bit weak, I start with taking the remedy 1 or 2 times a day. Recently we had a patient take the remedy every third day after a month of aggravations (she did not call). When they are taking meds, drinking coffee, etc crapp, repetitions make sense at least from my perspective. Tom tells horror stories about high potency aggravations. He says the aggravations are more severe with high potencies and then the patient quits the remedy because they think the remedy does not work, it only aggravates. If you can convince the patient to call when the least aggravation occurs, you stand a chance of weathering the aggravation. Maybe you learn to managage what you chose to do.

I like this idea of giving the remedy as needed. But Pittsburgh is a steel factory town. Teaching school, I found adults and kids alike for the most part did not accept complex directions or self sensitivity.

Blessings,
Ellen Madono
*** IME low potency repetitious dosing causes unnecessary aggravations.
Several practitioners here, including myself, were influenced in the 1980's
by the low potency populist teachings of Robin Murphy. In general, we found
that cases went round in cirlces with proving or dissimilar symptoms (caused
by over-repetiton) wrongly interpretated as new acutes or new layers and
more and more and more remedies being thrown at the patient. A muddled mess
with no clear end in sight.

[snip]
dilution is revolutionary to me (As I am in a low state of ignorance this
says little). I am not understanding the logic: "More dilution is more
potent (stronger)." Then why do fewer dilutions not aggravate?

***You've misunderstood what I wrote. Dilution AND SUCCUSSION increase
potency.
When you take a tablespoon dose from a LM or Q bottle and drop it into a cup
of water, and then take another tablespoon dose from this cup and place it
in a second cup of water, there has been dilution but no succussion. So, the
effect of the tablespoon dose is simply diluted or softened, not made
stronger. There is more space between the strength of the remedy and person
receiving the remedy.
The strength of the *potency* remains at LM 01, but the impact of the *dose*
is softened by the number of dilution cups used.

aggravations resulted. Or perhaps you are suggesting that I should decrease
the dilutions and at a point I find that fewer dilutions will aggravate, I
should stay at that dilution. After all, telling the patient to take x
dilutions is arbitrary at my low level of experience. I have had another
case that was tied up with aggravation amid ameliorations and I just gave up
on the deep acting remedy and switched to an herb. But the ameliorations
were better with the original Q remedy. So, you are saying that when the
patient taking the Q remedy severely aggravates, just bump up the potency by
one Q at the non-aggravating dilution. That is very helpful. Whew!
Thank-you. Please tell me if I am incorrect.

*** This is a misunderstanding. See if you understand the explanation above.

from Q's.

***I didn't say that. The whole emphasis on LM or Q prescribing is to reduce
UNNECESSARY aggravations.

Chris
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 6:21 PM -0400 4/29/04, Ellen Madono wrote:

Yes. And this was Eizayaga's experience and people who were unhappy
with the Vithoulkas "essences" and high potencies, jumped on it all
like a dog on a bone-- partly in backlash to their lack of sucess
with cases using "George's method."
I'm still baffled by it. A while back I presented a case on line
where I gave someone a single dose of Nat mur 6X for a cold. It had a
major life-changing effect. I just cannot understand, within the
context of what Hahnemann talks about, why a dose has to be routinely
repeated. Three times a day for ONE DAY might make sense. But them
you wait and see the reaction before repeating anything-- low
potency, high potency, Q potencies, whatever. SEE what happens with
the patient!
somewhat. Still... not as a routine. See the effect first.
There are some. But I had a whopper off repeated doses of a 6c.
Yes.
Then do the single dose and placebo routine. But routine giving a
remedy when it might not be needed strikes me as bad practice.

JW

I would think there must be some theories about the 'how and why' of various
potencies working miracles in particular cases. I have my own ideas about
this 'how and why', but before starting to write a book about that (:-)
maybe some wise ones could say something about this, or maybe some
references from books might help, too.

Hennie

At 4:57 PM +1000 4/30/04, Chris Gillen wrote:

[snip]
Hate to be picky here, but that's not what Hahneman says in the 6th
edition, although he says that in the 5th. In the 6th he says that it
is the REMEDY (the artificial disease) that displaces the true
disease. Then because it it artificial, it them fades, letting the
vital force resume operation.

The Vital force is (according to Hahnemann) reactive and
unintellegent. This is NOT the same thing that Kent (with his
Swedenborg overlay) says, nor is it what Vithoulkas (who came through
Kent) says.

The remedy cures, the vital force reacts and resumes its operations
when it can.
Why not?
Just what I've been asking.

[snip]
Most interesting!

JW

Julian Winston wrote:
Hate to be picky here, but that's not what Hahneman says in the 6th edition, although he says that in the 5th. In the 6th he says that it is the REMEDY (the artificial disease) that displaces the true disease. Then because it it artificial, it them fades, letting the vital force resume operation.

The Vital force is (according to Hahnemann) reactive and
unintellegent. This is NOT the same thing that Kent (with his Swedenborg overlay) says, nor is it what Vithoulkas (who came through Kent) says.

The remedy cures, the vital force reacts and resumes its operations when it can.

Dear Julian,

These masters have interpreted the same phenomenon in different ways. But it seems to me a better idea to consider the vital force as the healing agent. It brings us close to the spiritual viewpoint which I like more than the materialistic one. But I repeat that it is not a fundamental difference; it is just different interpretations of one phenomenon.

Sincerely,

Feras

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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

Hi Ellen,
It seems to me (my scanty but consistent experience seems to indicate) that
the more closely suited the remedy is -- other things being equal -- the
less often they are likely to need to take it. (By "other things being
equal", I mean that different folks respond differently, and different
disorders respond differently...) In my two recent 6c people (so to speak),
one needs a dose every three days (tho has no trouble from taking it every
day), and the other seems to need it daily (tho certainly not more). In
both cases we decided on the interval by looking at how long it took an
indicator symptom to return -- almost four days in one case, and about two
days in the other case. So 2 or 3 times daily seems a little aggressive to
me, but would certainly depend on the person.

...

I'd be curious about whether these were *repeated* high potency doses, or
one dose and wait, and how large the dose was (I've learned that size of
dose *does* matter in some cases)? And what it was that distinguished those
cases -- oversensitive patient? skin disorder (should be treated with low
potencies)? organic damage (should be treated with low potencies)? It
would be interesting to know more.
In most patients and most situations (functional problems, not organic), if
the potency and size of dose are appropriate (and usually there's a generous
margin-of-error), significant aggravations are unusual, tho in those
patients *prone* to aggravation, there would indeed be greater risk from
high potency.

However, you can also get aggravation from going too low...
If an aggravation is not followed by *improvement*, then it was simply the
wrong remedy. And if it *is* followed by an appropriate level of
improvement, most patients will easily conclude that it was "worth it"!
Most homeopaths in the US do practice with high potencies, and most do not
(so far as I'm aware) seem to have much trouble with this.

Low potencies are more forgiving if the remedy is *not* such a good match,
and you can get some palliative effects (helps in the short-term, but
doesn't bring lasting cure) from a low potency, whereas the same remedy in
higher potency would do less, or nothing. This can be a plus, or a minus.

...

I've had a few like that, and that can be a problem. Which is a *big* plus
for single dose/high prescribing, for many of those patients!!! For most
folks, an initial dose in the range of 200c (30 for some, 1M for others)
will present no particular "risk" in terms of aggravation, and all you need
to do is get a *good* record of what's happening before the dose, and a
*good* follow-up at 4-8 weeks afterwards -- so that when they say, "Well,
nothing's really changed...", you can look back thru your notes and say,
"Ah. Well, in October you said you were waking up four times a night. Is
that still happening?" And they can say, "Oh, was I? Well, no, I'm
sleeping fine now. I'd forgotten about that." And etc.

Best wishes,
Shannon