Minutus

Hi JROZ, Shannon,
Mea culpa:-)

Just shows how things can go wrong by b bit of sloppy translatiion.
But I did own up to my error some posts ago:-)

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 <==========

Hi Shannon,
Aha:-) Yes, I have known David's comment, of course.

I will not argue with that interpretation but analyse Hahnemann's
text from scratch.

The quotes I'll put in ********. Inside ** .. ** show up what I want
to emphasize.

*********************

** In acute cases this happens quite frequently:**

**********************

This is the crux - Hahnemann there is referring to acute cases.

It will become obvious below that for chronic diseases his ideas are
exactly the opposite. I'll translate from scratch, since Boerecke's
translation is often quite nebulous. There are some posters on this
list, e.g. Michael, who can check my translation for its
correctness.

*******************

** with more chronical diseases**, however, one dose of the properly
selected homeopathic remedy will admittedly sometimes, with slowly
progressing improvement, complete the aid that this remedy can do
because of its nature, within a period of time of 40, 50, 60, 100
days. **But for one thing this is very rareley the case,** for another
it must be a matter of utmost importance for the doctor as well as for
the patien that, if possible, this period be reduced to half, to a
quarter, yea even more, and thus **a much faster cure can be
achieved.**

And this may be very happily affected, as recent and oft-repeated
observations have taught me under the following conditions:

Firstly, the the remedy was with proper care selected to be
homeopathically quite suitable, secondly, if, highly potentized, was
dissolved in water and in in suitably small dose **is given in time
intervals proclaimed by experience to be the most suitable**
for the fastest-possible acceleration of the cure.

******************************

So the homeopath is called to rely on his experience in determining
the best-suitable intervals. H. says nothing about adjusting before
the follow-up taking of the case.

*******************

with the precaution that the POTENCY-LEVEL OF EACH DOSE SI SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE PREVIOUS (capitals are from Hahnemann), so
that the life principle, which is to be altered to a similar
remedy-illness, never could feel aroused and outraged to untoward
countereffects, as it always happens by unmodified new doses,
especially if repeated rapidly one after the other.

**********************

He calls for precaution NOT as far as the rapid repetition is
concerned, but as far as the **unmodified doses** arre concerned. If,
and only if they are left unmodified can untoward effects occur.

He takes that up again in the footnote:

[with his new, altered, perfected method]

**********************

The same well,chosen remedy can now be given daily and this over
months, where necessary

****************

This "where necessary" refers to the "over months", NOT to the daily
doses. There is no ambiguity in the German text concerning this.

H. definitely considers it a RULE that the remedy should be given at
short intervals, as the following excerps from aphor 248 show, where
he gives detailed instructions on how to make and give the remedy.
++++++++++++++++++++
For this purpose, we potentize anew the medicinal solution1 (with
roughly 8, 10, 12 succussions) of which we have the patient take one or
(increasingly) several teaspoonfulls , **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 moreoften. **Thus in chronic
diseases, every correctly chosen homoeopathic medicine, even those
whose action is of long duration, can be repeated daily for months
with ever increasing success.**
******************

The rule-character shows even more clearly below:

**************
On the other hand, should there appear** during almost daily
repetition** of the well indicated homoeopathic remedy,
***************
Only then does he make an exception to this rule:

*******************
**towards the end of the treatment** of a chronic
disease, so-called (§ 161) homoeopathic aggravations by which the
balance of the morbid symptoms seem to again increase somewhat (the
medicinal disease, similar to the original, now **alone persistently**
manifests itself). The doses **in that case** must then be reduced
still further and repeated in longer intervals and possibly stopped
several days, in order to see if the convalescence need no further
medicinal aid.
*****************

Hahnemann obviously thought - and taught - that when using his LM
potencies homeopathic aggravations could only happen at the end of a
cure, when health was practically achieved.

This is probably the answer to your rhetorical question below:

He just did not expect "untoward" effects to happen:-)

While this of course is not impossible, it is very unlikely, because
he did add such things as "shall stop drinking tea", "shall do this,
shall do that". In his shorthand manner of noting his records are
quite detailed.

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 <==========

Oops sorry--I'd missed that.
Anyway, this does make more sense!
(And now I know another way to preserve water if needed...)
)

Well, I see what you're saying, and I guess I have no basis to argue.
Clearly you *can* do LMs in a "wait and watch" way, but your reading
sez that Hahnemann preferred not to in chronic cases. I guess I'll
just have to experiment over time.

Thanks for explaining (again).

Shannon

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
Most certainly! Perhaps it is even better to do it that way - I have
no idea.

Regards

Luise

but your reading sez that

--
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 <==========

We are agreed:-)
I agree that it is nicer to look it up from the source.

I just mentioned what i did because I found it interesting that H
used C and LM in the same case - as opposed to all LM for example, as
one might expect in cases after the 6th ed was written.
In my own fast-moving chronic cases (such as FIP) I have found LMs to
be useless and C's to be best.
The case books imply C's are acceptable protocol whereas the 6th
edition implies that LMs supercede C altogether.
That was my main thought behind the comments I made.
Well that's unrealistic. All good research goes to the source where
possible
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."

Hi Irene,
cut>

Well, this is quite easy to explain.

Hahnemann used C's exclusively until about 1837 (roughly - I keep
forgetting dates). Only then did he start experimenting with the Q's
and in the beginning used them only very sparsely and only for
Sulphur. He used them more often as time went on, but until about a
year before his death the "work horse" remained the C's.

There is wherre David's work comes in, and also some of the
differences of opinion.

My knowledge about H#s use of the Q's is from the published casebooks,
which in time go on to about 1840 or so. Afaik David wors with the
last casebook, where Hahnemann seems to have used Q's much more often
- perhaps even most of the time or practically always. I do not know -
I have never studied that casebook (the 13th).

Thus it is really heard to understand why H. insisted on the Q's.

However, this is what until a few years ago was the state of research,
which is mirrored in the published casebooks.

The Argentinian Dr. Adler claims that he has found a lot more
instances in the earlier casebooks, where H had used Q's. The problem
about all this is that H. never said anywhere what notations he used
for them. So Adler claims he identified notations, David also does
(different ones, it seems).

To me, their claims as to the notations are questionable. But I cannot
follow up, since neither David nor Adler have published where in the
casebooks they have found those notations - so I cannot check. (No-one
can)

This is a shame, since such research, such publications are worthless.
Just more anecdotal stuff;-(

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 <==========