Thank you Shannon very much for explaining me. If writing in English
was easier for me, I'll try do it myself so thank's,
Ben.
pt
question
potencies is
terrific
there
AND what
and
client.
plain
hydration
dry"
for
change
4th
and
(as
reassurance,
only
for
that
and
4th
how
works
special
won't...
Hahnemann's Advanced Methods
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Advanced Methods
Once again all of this seems so silly to me...there is no one against
water potencies or LMs or anything else - it is just everyone develops
his/her own style- obviously if that style did not yield results no
prescriber is going to be so foolish not to try something else... be
it in water or brandy or snorting it...we need to make a living too...
- and all of us don't run a laundromat ( with patients hanging dry
around us for a month
the "wait a month" is--precisely and
are > urgent and acute.
Certainly- and I thought that this would be a no brainer-
If a 4th ed prescriber is managing an urgent acute
I have had patients wait in the waiting room if they came with acute
pain to make sure they are ok before going back, And I have seen so
many doctors even better than me at prescribing - never allowing the
patients to go home if they had the acute paroxsym still on.
"Wait a month" is just fine for most
Exactly- what could we expect in a chronic case of 10 years duration?
Cured with 10 sips of LM?
Also in general doctors need to be accessible one way or another. I
have been called up late nights and seen patients at even 11 o'clock
at night...
Sure - because if the same remedy in dry form cannot save the patient
but in watery solutions can, then for me it means the water is more
powerful than the medicine or the vital force was just looking for
the closest water fountain
I can understand the difference between the two forms - but not to the
extent that water dosing can save someone who is dying with a dry dose.
if it needs quicker evaluation and perhaps quicker change
I give potencies in water when I need quick repetition as well. Not
just in ALL cases...
The usual follow-up is after 3 or 4 weeks depending on the severity.
For more acutes more frequent follow-up. Everything said and done it
is the patient who sets the follow-up date in my practice. I just tell
them to call later to set up an appointment. I cannot say how long a
remedy would act in any given patient- it is just so individual...
They usually call or just walk-in - (sometimes they get placebo even
then - if what they thought as the problem is just a return of the old
symptoms)
I think this practice also empowers the patients as much... they
decide when they are ready for the next dosing...
There have been excellent prescribers who used dry dosing with high
potencies in daily doses - with very good results...
What can one say? It is all so individualistic and seems like varying
with practice and patient population as well...As I said - what works
- works....
Once again folks - read your Burnett or even Boericke and know that
there is so much more variety to life that it transcends our knowledge
and experience...
water potencies or LMs or anything else - it is just everyone develops
his/her own style- obviously if that style did not yield results no
prescriber is going to be so foolish not to try something else... be
it in water or brandy or snorting it...we need to make a living too...
- and all of us don't run a laundromat ( with patients hanging dry
around us for a month
the "wait a month" is--precisely and
are > urgent and acute.
Certainly- and I thought that this would be a no brainer-
If a 4th ed prescriber is managing an urgent acute
I have had patients wait in the waiting room if they came with acute
pain to make sure they are ok before going back, And I have seen so
many doctors even better than me at prescribing - never allowing the
patients to go home if they had the acute paroxsym still on.
"Wait a month" is just fine for most
Exactly- what could we expect in a chronic case of 10 years duration?
Cured with 10 sips of LM?
Also in general doctors need to be accessible one way or another. I
have been called up late nights and seen patients at even 11 o'clock
at night...
Sure - because if the same remedy in dry form cannot save the patient
but in watery solutions can, then for me it means the water is more
powerful than the medicine
or the vital force was just looking forthe closest water fountain
I can understand the difference between the two forms - but not to the
extent that water dosing can save someone who is dying with a dry dose.
if it needs quicker evaluation and perhaps quicker change
I give potencies in water when I need quick repetition as well. Not
just in ALL cases...
The usual follow-up is after 3 or 4 weeks depending on the severity.
For more acutes more frequent follow-up. Everything said and done it
is the patient who sets the follow-up date in my practice. I just tell
them to call later to set up an appointment. I cannot say how long a
remedy would act in any given patient- it is just so individual...
They usually call or just walk-in - (sometimes they get placebo even
then - if what they thought as the problem is just a return of the old
symptoms)
I think this practice also empowers the patients as much... they
decide when they are ready for the next dosing...
There have been excellent prescribers who used dry dosing with high
potencies in daily doses - with very good results...
What can one say? It is all so individualistic and seems like varying
with practice and patient population as well...As I said - what works
- works....
Once again folks - read your Burnett or even Boericke and know that
there is so much more variety to life that it transcends our knowledge
and experience...
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Advanced Methods
Theresa Partington wrote:
It's a personal choice.
I work mostly with cases where the vets have given up hope and the cat
(or other species) is recommended for euthanasia and expected to die,
perhaps has daya to live if noting is done.
Of what? Making dying cats healthy?
It happens a policewoman is a client - with a healthy cat who used to be
dying.
I think your attack is unwarranted. I do good work.
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."
It's a personal choice.
I work mostly with cases where the vets have given up hope and the cat
(or other species) is recommended for euthanasia and expected to die,
perhaps has daya to live if noting is done.
Of what? Making dying cats healthy?
It happens a policewoman is a client - with a healthy cat who used to be
dying.
I think your attack is unwarranted. I do good work.
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."
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Advanced Methods
Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
No they are urgent and chronic.
For example Feline Leukaemia, lymphosarcoma, Feline AIDS, and especially
FIP. All these are fast moving diseases where there is a lot of
involvement needed to get a case stabilized and not to lose it up front.
Veterinary work often involves much faster moving disease than human
work. The abuse of drugs in pet animal work by well meaning vets
especially is what leads to chronic disease of the kind that kills very
fast. It is my main area of work. FIP did not exist before the wide
misuse of vaccines and drugs - it's a new disease that has resulted from
this - and we can just be happy that the equivalent has not hit humans yet.
Thus my answer to Ben was literally true.
Except that I feel that "all that figures into it" with ALL cases - not
juist acute ones, and Ben's words specifically had no exceptions or
qualifications.
So if you DO feel all those things are relevant - it is Ben, not me,
with whom you should be conversing:-))
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."
No they are urgent and chronic.
For example Feline Leukaemia, lymphosarcoma, Feline AIDS, and especially
FIP. All these are fast moving diseases where there is a lot of
involvement needed to get a case stabilized and not to lose it up front.
Veterinary work often involves much faster moving disease than human
work. The abuse of drugs in pet animal work by well meaning vets
especially is what leads to chronic disease of the kind that kills very
fast. It is my main area of work. FIP did not exist before the wide
misuse of vaccines and drugs - it's a new disease that has resulted from
this - and we can just be happy that the equivalent has not hit humans yet.
Thus my answer to Ben was literally true.
Except that I feel that "all that figures into it" with ALL cases - not
juist acute ones, and Ben's words specifically had no exceptions or
qualifications.
So if you DO feel all those things are relevant - it is Ben, not me,
with whom you should be conversing:-))
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."
-
Sheri Nakken
- Posts: 3999
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Hahnemann's Advanced Methods
>Hi Luise,
every few days (like Hahnemann did) because letting the patient take the
dose at certain intervals for a month or so can be a very dangerous thing
to do since you must not give another dose if the improvement is
perceptibly good.
during treatment is a condition which, as long as it lasts, completely
precludes every repetition of the administration of any medicine
whatsoever..."
Yes, but how do you kow how long it lasts?
Aphorism 248 actually shows you that you determine that with test dose and
follow up and will repeat at suitable intervals - sometimes every 2 days even.
Sheri
From David Little
Aphorism 248 continues the theme that started in aphorism 246 where
Hahnemann taught when the single dose wait and watch method is appropriate
(in perceptively progressive and strikingly increasing ameliorations) and
where one should repeat the remedy at suitable intervals (case where a
single dose can only cause slowly progressive improvement). Aphorism 248
follows on the discussion of the five conditions for speeding the cure and
the need to adjust each dose so that patient never receives the exact same
potency twice in succession.
"For this purpose, we potentize anew the medicinal solution (with
perhaps 8, 10, 12 succussions) from which we give the patient one or
(increasingly) several teaspoonful doses, in long lasting diseases daily or
every second day, in acute diseases every two to six hours and in very
urgent cases every hour or oftener.
The "purpose" Hahnemann is speaking about how to adjust the potency
when repeating the remedy to speed the cure of cases that would only slowly
improve on a single dose or infrequent repetitions. This includes BOTH
acute and chronic diseases. For this purpose we potentize anew the
medicinal solution prior to the administration of each dose so that patient
never receives the exact same potency twice in succession. Then Hahnemann
offers a method for treating for long lasting protracted diseases where a
single dose can only produces a slow progressive improvement over 30 to 100
days at best and even this is rarely the case. it is more common for the
patient to relapse calling for repeated doses. Aphorism 248 teaches how to
speed the cure of resistant cases to 1/2, 1/4 or less the time it takes
with the exclusive single dose wait and watch method.
In protracted cases, the remedy may be repeated daily or on alternated
days if necessary as long as there are no aggravations or new symptoms. It
must also be noted that in sentence 1 of aphorism 246 Hahnemann says every
strikingly increasing amelioration "during treatment" is a state that
"precludes" the repetition of the remedy as long as it lasts. This means
that anytime during a series of split-doses there appears a dramatic
increasing amelioration the remedy should be stopped as long as this state
lasts. If one stops the remedy under these three conditions (aggravation,
new symptoms, dramatic increasing amelioration) over medication can be
avoided while the cure greatly speeded.
Hahnemann noted in aphorism 246 that acute diseases are often cured by
a single dose. When he speaks about giving the acute remedy every 6 hours
or less it means in resistant acute disorders that can not be cured by a
single dose. The same conditions apply. There is no need to repeat the dose
when there is a strikingly increasing amelioration in acute diseases any
more than in a chronic diseases. All the conditions discussed in the
aphorism 246 condition all the statement that follow in aphorism 248. If
one ignores the first sentence of aphorism 246 they leave out 1/2 of
Hahnemann's case management strategies that deals with strikingly
increasing ameliorations.
In the footnote to aphorism 246 Hahnemann says one can give the remedy
daily "WHEN NECESSARY". This same when necessary applies to the statements
on the daily dose in aphorism 248! It is amazing some persons can
completely ignore or change the meaning of everything Hahnemann says in
aphorism 246 and its footnote. Then they say Hahnemann only taught that one
should give everyone the remedy daily or on alternate days in chronic
diseases and every 6 hours or less in acute diseases no matter what. This
type selective amnesia takes a few words out of context with the rest of
the text and ignores hundreds of words that explain Hahnemann's complete
posology and case management strategy in detail. To say Hahnemann said
always give the daily dose for months and forget the "when necessary" a
grand misnomer that puts the patient in danger.
It is very difficult to learn how to use the LM potency properly just
by reading the 6th Organon. There was supposed to be a living lineage of
teachers that could clarify the points and add oral teachings that are not
contained in the 6th edition. Hahnemann was teaching Boenninghausen about
the LM method when he died. Melaine Hahnemann asked Boenninghausen not to
speak about the new methods in pubic until after she published the 6th
Organon. Unfortunately, this task was not accomplished before the Baron and
Melaine passed away. By the time the 6th edition was published in 1920 all
those with personal knowledge of the LM potency had died. This makes it
extremely difficult to put the entire LM method into perspective without
studying the Paris casebooks, the testimony of those with inside
information, and the eyewitness accounts of those who witnessed Hahnemann's
practice between1838 to 1843.
Hahnemann shared LM cases with Beonninghausen as he hoped the Baron
would someday pass on his teachings on the new method. These cases showed
how Hahnemann actually gave the LM potency in the clinic. This information
was complemented by the eyewitness account of Dr. Croserio, who worked
closely with Hahnemann in his last years. Dr. Croserio's letter to
Beonninghausen IHahnemann's Doses of Medicine, Lesser Writing,
Boenninghausen) shows that the Founder often gave single doses (usually by
olfaction) followed by at least one week of placebos while he waited and
watched. The Paris casebooks confirm that Hahnemann used this method quite
often in the 1840s. This proves that Hahnemann did NOT always give the
daily and alternate day dose to every patient. He often used single doses
usually by olfaction but not always.
Dr. Croserio's letter clearly points out that; "Even in acute diseases
it was a rare case to see him [Hahnemann] allow the patient to take more
than one spoonful in 24 hours". Dr.Croserio's eyewitness account proves
that Hahnemann did not always use the daily or alternate day dose or give
acute remedies every 6 hours or less. The rapid repetition of the remedy
was specific for the treatment of resistant acute and chronic disorders. In
aphorism 246 Hahnemann clearly states that acute diseases often are cured
by single doses in a striking manner! If one gives the remedy every 6 hours
in a mechanical fashion i n these cases the outcome would be aggravations,
accessory symptoms and antagonistic counter actions of the vital force.
Dr. Croserio also noted that anytime during treatment Hahnemann
observed strong medicinal actions he would reduce the dose or stop the
doses and give placebos while he waited and watched. This method has also
been confirmed by a study of the Paris casebooks. Hahnemann did not speak
about how much placebo he was using in the 1840s in the 6th Organon. That
would have alerted the general public to the fact that he was using almost
as much milk sugar in water as active medicine. The Founder rarely gave the
daily or alternate days dose for very long without placing the patient on
placebos for one or more weeks. I have not see one case in the entire Paris
casebooks where Hahnemann gave the daily or alternated day dose from months
on end without stopping the medicine and given 1, 2 even 3 weeks of
placebo. Hahnemann constantly used this "On again - off again" method
throughout his treatment. The idea that Hahnemann always gave the daily
dose or alternate day dose for months is a complete complete myth.
I have not written this discourse with the idea of proving a point to a
single party. I have written this post for the benefit of the Homoeopathic
community at large and for the good of their patients. The first
Hippocratic maxim is "Do no harm". Homeopathy is a very safe system when
one follows the basic checks and balances introduced by Samuel Hahnemann.
The biggest danger inherent in homeopathy is from over medication with
potentized remedies. This can cause remedy induced symptoms, medical
diseases, and antagonistic counter actions of the vital force. These
conditions can become very serious if the over medication is excessive.
None of this has to happen if one follows all the principles elucidated in
aphorism 246, 247 and 248 in a careful manner. If one just takes one or two
words out of context and ignores the rest they take the law in to their own
hands and are personally responsible for any suffering they cause.
Simila Minimus
Sincerely, David Little
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes - next one May 9, 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones fall 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
fall 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936
every few days (like Hahnemann did) because letting the patient take the
dose at certain intervals for a month or so can be a very dangerous thing
to do since you must not give another dose if the improvement is
perceptibly good.
during treatment is a condition which, as long as it lasts, completely
precludes every repetition of the administration of any medicine
whatsoever..."
Yes, but how do you kow how long it lasts?
Aphorism 248 actually shows you that you determine that with test dose and
follow up and will repeat at suitable intervals - sometimes every 2 days even.
Sheri
From David Little
Aphorism 248 continues the theme that started in aphorism 246 where
Hahnemann taught when the single dose wait and watch method is appropriate
(in perceptively progressive and strikingly increasing ameliorations) and
where one should repeat the remedy at suitable intervals (case where a
single dose can only cause slowly progressive improvement). Aphorism 248
follows on the discussion of the five conditions for speeding the cure and
the need to adjust each dose so that patient never receives the exact same
potency twice in succession.
"For this purpose, we potentize anew the medicinal solution (with
perhaps 8, 10, 12 succussions) from which we give the patient one or
(increasingly) several teaspoonful doses, in long lasting diseases daily or
every second day, in acute diseases every two to six hours and in very
urgent cases every hour or oftener.
The "purpose" Hahnemann is speaking about how to adjust the potency
when repeating the remedy to speed the cure of cases that would only slowly
improve on a single dose or infrequent repetitions. This includes BOTH
acute and chronic diseases. For this purpose we potentize anew the
medicinal solution prior to the administration of each dose so that patient
never receives the exact same potency twice in succession. Then Hahnemann
offers a method for treating for long lasting protracted diseases where a
single dose can only produces a slow progressive improvement over 30 to 100
days at best and even this is rarely the case. it is more common for the
patient to relapse calling for repeated doses. Aphorism 248 teaches how to
speed the cure of resistant cases to 1/2, 1/4 or less the time it takes
with the exclusive single dose wait and watch method.
In protracted cases, the remedy may be repeated daily or on alternated
days if necessary as long as there are no aggravations or new symptoms. It
must also be noted that in sentence 1 of aphorism 246 Hahnemann says every
strikingly increasing amelioration "during treatment" is a state that
"precludes" the repetition of the remedy as long as it lasts. This means
that anytime during a series of split-doses there appears a dramatic
increasing amelioration the remedy should be stopped as long as this state
lasts. If one stops the remedy under these three conditions (aggravation,
new symptoms, dramatic increasing amelioration) over medication can be
avoided while the cure greatly speeded.
Hahnemann noted in aphorism 246 that acute diseases are often cured by
a single dose. When he speaks about giving the acute remedy every 6 hours
or less it means in resistant acute disorders that can not be cured by a
single dose. The same conditions apply. There is no need to repeat the dose
when there is a strikingly increasing amelioration in acute diseases any
more than in a chronic diseases. All the conditions discussed in the
aphorism 246 condition all the statement that follow in aphorism 248. If
one ignores the first sentence of aphorism 246 they leave out 1/2 of
Hahnemann's case management strategies that deals with strikingly
increasing ameliorations.
In the footnote to aphorism 246 Hahnemann says one can give the remedy
daily "WHEN NECESSARY". This same when necessary applies to the statements
on the daily dose in aphorism 248! It is amazing some persons can
completely ignore or change the meaning of everything Hahnemann says in
aphorism 246 and its footnote. Then they say Hahnemann only taught that one
should give everyone the remedy daily or on alternate days in chronic
diseases and every 6 hours or less in acute diseases no matter what. This
type selective amnesia takes a few words out of context with the rest of
the text and ignores hundreds of words that explain Hahnemann's complete
posology and case management strategy in detail. To say Hahnemann said
always give the daily dose for months and forget the "when necessary" a
grand misnomer that puts the patient in danger.
It is very difficult to learn how to use the LM potency properly just
by reading the 6th Organon. There was supposed to be a living lineage of
teachers that could clarify the points and add oral teachings that are not
contained in the 6th edition. Hahnemann was teaching Boenninghausen about
the LM method when he died. Melaine Hahnemann asked Boenninghausen not to
speak about the new methods in pubic until after she published the 6th
Organon. Unfortunately, this task was not accomplished before the Baron and
Melaine passed away. By the time the 6th edition was published in 1920 all
those with personal knowledge of the LM potency had died. This makes it
extremely difficult to put the entire LM method into perspective without
studying the Paris casebooks, the testimony of those with inside
information, and the eyewitness accounts of those who witnessed Hahnemann's
practice between1838 to 1843.
Hahnemann shared LM cases with Beonninghausen as he hoped the Baron
would someday pass on his teachings on the new method. These cases showed
how Hahnemann actually gave the LM potency in the clinic. This information
was complemented by the eyewitness account of Dr. Croserio, who worked
closely with Hahnemann in his last years. Dr. Croserio's letter to
Beonninghausen IHahnemann's Doses of Medicine, Lesser Writing,
Boenninghausen) shows that the Founder often gave single doses (usually by
olfaction) followed by at least one week of placebos while he waited and
watched. The Paris casebooks confirm that Hahnemann used this method quite
often in the 1840s. This proves that Hahnemann did NOT always give the
daily and alternate day dose to every patient. He often used single doses
usually by olfaction but not always.
Dr. Croserio's letter clearly points out that; "Even in acute diseases
it was a rare case to see him [Hahnemann] allow the patient to take more
than one spoonful in 24 hours". Dr.Croserio's eyewitness account proves
that Hahnemann did not always use the daily or alternate day dose or give
acute remedies every 6 hours or less. The rapid repetition of the remedy
was specific for the treatment of resistant acute and chronic disorders. In
aphorism 246 Hahnemann clearly states that acute diseases often are cured
by single doses in a striking manner! If one gives the remedy every 6 hours
in a mechanical fashion i n these cases the outcome would be aggravations,
accessory symptoms and antagonistic counter actions of the vital force.
Dr. Croserio also noted that anytime during treatment Hahnemann
observed strong medicinal actions he would reduce the dose or stop the
doses and give placebos while he waited and watched. This method has also
been confirmed by a study of the Paris casebooks. Hahnemann did not speak
about how much placebo he was using in the 1840s in the 6th Organon. That
would have alerted the general public to the fact that he was using almost
as much milk sugar in water as active medicine. The Founder rarely gave the
daily or alternate days dose for very long without placing the patient on
placebos for one or more weeks. I have not see one case in the entire Paris
casebooks where Hahnemann gave the daily or alternated day dose from months
on end without stopping the medicine and given 1, 2 even 3 weeks of
placebo. Hahnemann constantly used this "On again - off again" method
throughout his treatment. The idea that Hahnemann always gave the daily
dose or alternate day dose for months is a complete complete myth.
I have not written this discourse with the idea of proving a point to a
single party. I have written this post for the benefit of the Homoeopathic
community at large and for the good of their patients. The first
Hippocratic maxim is "Do no harm". Homeopathy is a very safe system when
one follows the basic checks and balances introduced by Samuel Hahnemann.
The biggest danger inherent in homeopathy is from over medication with
potentized remedies. This can cause remedy induced symptoms, medical
diseases, and antagonistic counter actions of the vital force. These
conditions can become very serious if the over medication is excessive.
None of this has to happen if one follows all the principles elucidated in
aphorism 246, 247 and 248 in a careful manner. If one just takes one or two
words out of context and ignores the rest they take the law in to their own
hands and are personally responsible for any suffering they cause.
Simila Minimus
Sincerely, David Little
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes - next one May 9, 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones fall 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
fall 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Advanced Methods
Hi Irene,
But my point is just the same.
4th ed method can handle these too--at least I have no reason to think
not, given what I *know* it handles. I am not saying that 5th/6th
offers no advantage--likely it does have advantage in some cases. All
I am protesting is the idea that 4th ed cannot handle fast-moving, or
serious, or acute, or delicate cases. It can.
Again, I do not want to say that 5th/6th offers no advantage; but the
lines and attitudes being bandied about re 4th ed method are IMO pretty
outrageous--ridiculously untrue, as well as rude and unprofessional.
That is what I'm protesting.
I think Ben understands the intricacies, and was speaking generally,
and only about non-urgent, chronic cases, because this is really where
the difference lies between the methods; in treatment of urgent acutes,
there would not be much difference at all between 4th and 5th/6th
procedures, other than preparation of the doses. Management would be
much the same.
I find it very weird that you would assume a sweeping generalization
could possibly encompass enough of 4th edition method to warrant the
remarks you made.
But--if you want to talk *substance*--how it works, what it can do,
etc.--I am happy to.
Otherwise, let's let it rest. Let's maybe assume a certain degree of
competence in both camps, shall we? After all, the successes that
homeopathy has made its name with (as I mentioned in my other post--the
epidemics and more personal successes) happened not with 5th/6th ed
method, but with 4th. If it was as totally lame as you guys are
implying, how would that have happened?
Best wishes,
Shannon
But my point is just the same.
4th ed method can handle these too--at least I have no reason to think
not, given what I *know* it handles. I am not saying that 5th/6th
offers no advantage--likely it does have advantage in some cases. All
I am protesting is the idea that 4th ed cannot handle fast-moving, or
serious, or acute, or delicate cases. It can.
Again, I do not want to say that 5th/6th offers no advantage; but the
lines and attitudes being bandied about re 4th ed method are IMO pretty
outrageous--ridiculously untrue, as well as rude and unprofessional.
That is what I'm protesting.
I think Ben understands the intricacies, and was speaking generally,
and only about non-urgent, chronic cases, because this is really where
the difference lies between the methods; in treatment of urgent acutes,
there would not be much difference at all between 4th and 5th/6th
procedures, other than preparation of the doses. Management would be
much the same.
I find it very weird that you would assume a sweeping generalization
could possibly encompass enough of 4th edition method to warrant the
remarks you made.
But--if you want to talk *substance*--how it works, what it can do,
etc.--I am happy to.
Otherwise, let's let it rest. Let's maybe assume a certain degree of
competence in both camps, shall we? After all, the successes that
homeopathy has made its name with (as I mentioned in my other post--the
epidemics and more personal successes) happened not with 5th/6th ed
method, but with 4th. If it was as totally lame as you guys are
implying, how would that have happened?
Best wishes,
Shannon
-
Luise Kunkle
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Advanced Methods
Hi Gal, well I should say "list" - the hours I just spent I would not
have used just to answer your mail - the first problem got me
intrigued and I did some research, which is always slow going. Perhaps
other are also intrigued - that's why I share it:-)
Did he?
Here are some data from his French case journal DF 5, which has been
analysed over several hundred pages by some of the medical historians
at the IDM-Bosch (Institute of the History of Medicine) in Stuttgart.
This question has hardly been investigated - at least not to the
extent that we have published data.
There has been a thorough investigation of the 5th French case journal
- but most of those data have not been published, although there is
are several hundreds of unpublished pages by a medical historian at
the archives of IGM-Bosch in Stuttgart.
One of the items investigated is the intervals between appointments of
all the patients in that journal. While indeed short intervals are by
far the majority, there are also quite a few long to very long
intervals listed. Unfortunately I did not copy all the pages, so I do
not know whether between all those longer intervals Hahnemann had
prescribed or whether he had in some cases called the case cured, and
given nothing.
I do not have th time to check all those cases, so I just picked out
by alphabet the first where those longer intervals occurred.
Cecil Blase
6 Jan, 5 Febr., 28 Febr (placebo), 9 March, 29 March,(placebo) ... 20
August, 21 September(placebo)
The next was the Christille family.
Christille, Arthur, 8 years old 29th June, next appointment 21 Jan,
next 28. May - no further appointment in that journal
Christille, Claire, 11. Oct, 12. Dec., 21 Jan, 28 May, (11. June, 15
June), 7 August, 21 August, 29 Sept.
Christille, Elaine, 19 Dec, 22 Feb., 18 May, 29 May, 11 Oct., 12. Dec.
Christille, Madame 25. April, 15. June, 7 August,
I wish to emphasise that the above were the periiods, where the
intervals between appointments were comparatively long.
It seems that the records in the journal mostly cover appointments of
his first year or years, when he still had a lot of time and when his
most of his patients would have been relatives, friends and
acquaintances of Melanie, who were well-to-do and had lots of time
themselves. Whether the average intervals increased as he got
better-known and busier, as his patients got to be from other ways of
life with less money and time - I do not know whether there has been
any research done on these matters.
because letting the patient
Yes, but go on citing:
"....because all the good the medicine taken continues to effect is
now hastening towards its completion."
He does not say that it is dangerous, just that it is not necessary.
He did warn about dangers when he talked about repetition of dry
doses.
Then he says right afterwards:
*******************
This is not infrequently the cause in acute diseases, but in more
chronic diseases, on the other hand, a single dose of an appropriately
selected homoeopathic remedy will at times complete even with but
slowly progressive improvement and give the help which such a remedy
in such a case can accomplish naturally within 40, 50, 60, 100 days.
This is, however, but rarely the case; and besides, it must be a
matter of great importance to the physician as well as to the patient
that were it possible, this period should be diminished to one-half,
one-quarter, and even still less, so that a much more rapid cure might
be obtained. And this may be very happily affected, as recent and
oft-repeated observations have taught me under the following
conditions: firstly, if the medicine selected with the utmost care was
perfectly homoeopathic; secondly, if it is highly potentized,
dissolved in water and given in proper small dose that experience has
taught as the most suitable in definite intervals for the quickest
accomplishment of the cure but with the precaution, that the degree of
every dose deviate somewhat from the preceding and following in order
that the vital principle which is to be altered to a similar medicinal
disease be not aroused to untoward reactions and revolt as is always
the case1 with unmodified and especially rapidly repeated doses.
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).
*******************
I think all this is expressed much clearer in the Germany Original -
perhaps a re-translation of these aphorisms should be undertaken. I so
far have not met any German homeopath who has read the aphors the way
you say. - That does not mean that some homeopaths do not work
differently, work e.g. the way David Little or Luc de Schepper or
whoever teach. But they all seem to agree that Hahnemann did not say so.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
have used just to answer your mail - the first problem got me
intrigued and I did some research, which is always slow going. Perhaps
other are also intrigued - that's why I share it:-)
Did he?
Here are some data from his French case journal DF 5, which has been
analysed over several hundred pages by some of the medical historians
at the IDM-Bosch (Institute of the History of Medicine) in Stuttgart.
This question has hardly been investigated - at least not to the
extent that we have published data.
There has been a thorough investigation of the 5th French case journal
- but most of those data have not been published, although there is
are several hundreds of unpublished pages by a medical historian at
the archives of IGM-Bosch in Stuttgart.
One of the items investigated is the intervals between appointments of
all the patients in that journal. While indeed short intervals are by
far the majority, there are also quite a few long to very long
intervals listed. Unfortunately I did not copy all the pages, so I do
not know whether between all those longer intervals Hahnemann had
prescribed or whether he had in some cases called the case cured, and
given nothing.
I do not have th time to check all those cases, so I just picked out
by alphabet the first where those longer intervals occurred.
Cecil Blase
6 Jan, 5 Febr., 28 Febr (placebo), 9 March, 29 March,(placebo) ... 20
August, 21 September(placebo)
The next was the Christille family.
Christille, Arthur, 8 years old 29th June, next appointment 21 Jan,
next 28. May - no further appointment in that journal
Christille, Claire, 11. Oct, 12. Dec., 21 Jan, 28 May, (11. June, 15
June), 7 August, 21 August, 29 Sept.
Christille, Elaine, 19 Dec, 22 Feb., 18 May, 29 May, 11 Oct., 12. Dec.
Christille, Madame 25. April, 15. June, 7 August,
I wish to emphasise that the above were the periiods, where the
intervals between appointments were comparatively long.
It seems that the records in the journal mostly cover appointments of
his first year or years, when he still had a lot of time and when his
most of his patients would have been relatives, friends and
acquaintances of Melanie, who were well-to-do and had lots of time
themselves. Whether the average intervals increased as he got
better-known and busier, as his patients got to be from other ways of
life with less money and time - I do not know whether there has been
any research done on these matters.
because letting the patient
Yes, but go on citing:
"....because all the good the medicine taken continues to effect is
now hastening towards its completion."
He does not say that it is dangerous, just that it is not necessary.
He did warn about dangers when he talked about repetition of dry
doses.
Then he says right afterwards:
*******************
This is not infrequently the cause in acute diseases, but in more
chronic diseases, on the other hand, a single dose of an appropriately
selected homoeopathic remedy will at times complete even with but
slowly progressive improvement and give the help which such a remedy
in such a case can accomplish naturally within 40, 50, 60, 100 days.
This is, however, but rarely the case; and besides, it must be a
matter of great importance to the physician as well as to the patient
that were it possible, this period should be diminished to one-half,
one-quarter, and even still less, so that a much more rapid cure might
be obtained. And this may be very happily affected, as recent and
oft-repeated observations have taught me under the following
conditions: firstly, if the medicine selected with the utmost care was
perfectly homoeopathic; secondly, if it is highly potentized,
dissolved in water and given in proper small dose that experience has
taught as the most suitable in definite intervals for the quickest
accomplishment of the cure but with the precaution, that the degree of
every dose deviate somewhat from the preceding and following in order
that the vital principle which is to be altered to a similar medicinal
disease be not aroused to untoward reactions and revolt as is always
the case1 with unmodified and especially rapidly repeated doses.
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).
*******************
I think all this is expressed much clearer in the Germany Original -
perhaps a re-translation of these aphorisms should be undertaken. I so
far have not met any German homeopath who has read the aphors the way
you say. - That does not mean that some homeopaths do not work
differently, work e.g. the way David Little or Luc de Schepper or
whoever teach. But they all seem to agree that Hahnemann did not say so.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
-
cameron jones
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Advanced Methods
Hi I am new here but glad to read about dosing methods. I use both dry and wet for my animals (cats and dogs mainly) and they seem to handle both really OK but I alter my methods if I need to. But I do not treat other's animals.
Strange to think you are here Irene with your known methods. Shouldn't you come clean about them. You advised us on your lists to give nosodes daily as well as several other remedies daily, usually repeated a few times each day ad nauseum. You've killed cats with this way of treating. I know because one of mine died with it. You might not have any cases that hang out but you sure do have cases that suffer with repeat doses and multiple remedies for long periods of time. CJH
Irene de Villiers wrote:
________________________________
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane . Get the new Yahoo! Mail .
Strange to think you are here Irene with your known methods. Shouldn't you come clean about them. You advised us on your lists to give nosodes daily as well as several other remedies daily, usually repeated a few times each day ad nauseum. You've killed cats with this way of treating. I know because one of mine died with it. You might not have any cases that hang out but you sure do have cases that suffer with repeat doses and multiple remedies for long periods of time. CJH
Irene de Villiers wrote:
________________________________
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane . Get the new Yahoo! Mail .
-
cameronjoneshealth
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:42 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Advanced Methods
Hey wouldn't it be good to have some truth around here? In my new and
pristine organon I can read that the old guy writes about increasing
amelioration completely precluding repetition of any remedy. NUmber
245. So who needs glasses me or you? CJH
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
pristine organon I can read that the old guy writes about increasing
amelioration completely precluding repetition of any remedy. NUmber
245. So who needs glasses me or you? CJH
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
-
cameronjoneshealth
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:42 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Advanced Methods
Hi I am new here but glad to read about dosing methods. I use both dry and wet for my
animals (cats and dogs mainly) and they seem to handle both really OK but I alter my
methods if I need to. But I do not treat other's animals.
Strange to think you are here Irene with your known methods. Shouldn't you come clean
about them. You advised us on your lists to give nosodes daily as well as several other
remedies daily, usually repeated a few times each day ad nauseum. You've killed cats with
this way of treating. I know because one of mine died with it. You might not have any
cases that hang out but you sure do have cases that suffer with repeat doses and multiple
remedies for long periods of time. CJH
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers wrote:
animals (cats and dogs mainly) and they seem to handle both really OK but I alter my
methods if I need to. But I do not treat other's animals.
Strange to think you are here Irene with your known methods. Shouldn't you come clean
about them. You advised us on your lists to give nosodes daily as well as several other
remedies daily, usually repeated a few times each day ad nauseum. You've killed cats with
this way of treating. I know because one of mine died with it. You might not have any
cases that hang out but you sure do have cases that suffer with repeat doses and multiple
remedies for long periods of time. CJH
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers wrote: