Minutus

I never said in all cases - in fact I said it has worked for many
over the years. But more and more are very sensitive and need a
faster gentler cure as Hahnemann discussed and developed water
potencies My experience, which is what I share, is that I have FAR
LESS aggravations, and faster gentler results.

Everyone can pontificate on all of this, but he went on from dry to
water in 5th and 6th and most don't seem to want to look at that or
even try to learn it and with vaccine injury cases I have, those are
the only practitioners I will refer to.
Sheri

At 08:10 PM 1/21/2013, you wrote:

At 08:34 PM 1/21/2013, you wrote:

and how is that? then why did Hahnemann see the need?
that isn't potency, that is dose
that isn't potency, that is dose
again dose
again dose
potency remains the same
Oh good grief.................
It is so much easier to just use remedies in water in the specific
way Hahnemann developed.
And you don't have to wait a month to see if the remedy is working,
then wait another month for the next try.
It is so much easier.................and so much easier on the
patient...............but............
Sheri

and not just that. It enables us to help with a faster cure. Don't have to wait to see what a dry dose does and then not sure if the action is still working. You can get into a frequency of dosing that is individualized.
Sheri

At 08:37 PM 1/21/2013, John Harvey wrote:

No, John, I think I clearly wrote dose when quantity was involved and potency when "energy" or information was involved.

The small alterations are not beneficial indeed when the first dose, no matter what its potency is, is way too big for what need to be achieved, even though that first big dose does not present obvious bad effects. It is the repetition of big doses that is harmful at times.

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

Yes Dom, it is called "Third Millennium Homeopathy" and it is with the printers right now.......

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com
________________________________

I clearly differentiated between doses and potencies....or maybe my English is not that good.......

Who said I was using the "good grief dosage"????you should know by now I don't. Nd I don't wait months for results, on the contrary......

And indeed the potency does change in a very minimal way when you alter the dose and dilute it more....but as John pointed out, not in a very efficient way.

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

It's potency too, because it changes the ratio of dilution.

Hi, Dr Roz --

Perhaps you were differentiating in some way that was not obvious; but, in using dot points to substantiate the assertion that "you cannot repeat the same potency twice, it is physically impossible", every dot point barring the heartbeat one referred to either dose or dilution (effectively altering dosage rather than potency). My point, and Sheri's too, I believe, was that -- leaving aside the hypothetical possibility that a heartbeat (a very gentle squeeze in comparison with the heavy compression that the liquid comes under in the dynamisation process Hahnemann outlined) might alter potency -- your apparent attempt to substantiate this claim rests not on any dynamisation process but only on changing dosage. Whilst it would be nice to imagine that the potency of consecutive doses will differ sufficiently to avoid the aggravations that sometimes follow, even with the smallest doses, repetitions in unchanged potency, unfortunately (a) Hahnemann's experience was clearly that any such changes cannot be relied upon, and (b) there is no reason to imagine that they would be reliable.

Fortunately, (c) there is an easy solution to this problem of the unpredictable hazard arising from repetitions such as this, one that is available to anybody with the humility to use it.

Rationalisations, confused speculations, and inexperience in close patient observation can all contribute to false confidence that we have that problem licked in some new way -- chiefly by failing to notice its existence in the first place. But enough cases have appeared on this list alone to show that in fact the problem clearly does exist -- if we but took enough notice, used our heads, and kept an open mind as to the possibility that the problem we're seeing reflects one of the fundamental mistakes that Hahnemann went to such pains to keep us from making.

Cheers --

John

Will it be sold through lulu, or your website?
________________________________

Hi, Shannon --

A moment's reflection may confirm that altering the amount of water in which one takes a dose cannot be sufficient to alter its potency -- as, if it were, then, for the exact reasons that Dr Roz has outlined, the problem would never have arisen and would never have resulted in Hahnemann's long, arduous experimentation and eventual confirmed solution to it.

Cheers --

John