Minutus

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

Dear Chris,

I appreciate your interpretation. I would not get it just listening to my teacher.
I think I am confusing "resonace" with linear thinking about strength (6c 12c 200c... as getting progressively stronger). As Julian pointed out, the problem is matching resonace. Strength many not be at all linear. So, LM 01, 2nd cup moved up to LM 02, 2nd cup is at the same resonace much as musical note G at different octaves is at the same resonance. Which octave one is going to begin at must be an artistic choice.

I very much like your idea of routinely testing. With that I will have some idea of how to pace the remedy exposure.

Blessings,
Ellen Madono
***If a patient resonates well on a remedy at say, LM 01, 2nd cup, 1
tablespoon dose, and then moves through the whole bottle comfortably, with
improvement, what point is there in disrupting this equilibrium?
The only point in reducing the number of dilution cups is for what is most
convenient to the patient in terms of resonance. One patient may use 2
dilution cups at LM01 and 1dilution cup at LM03, or vice versa, you don't
know till you get there.

There is ONE thing I do routinely with all prescriptions and
that is use a test dose in the first instance and also when moving to a new
potency.
Most times you can know from your casetaking whether a person is going to
be highly sensitive - eg, they often have a long list of food intolerances,
or have known allergies to allopathic medicines, or they break out in a rash
if they hold a plastic telephone against their face, or they have severe
anxiety attacks in front of you while relating their symptoms, etc etc. In
these instances it is important to use a *test dose* of one dose ONCE then
stop, wait and watch the reaction. See what the Vital Force does in response
to the stimulation produced by the remedy. After all, it is the Vital Force
that cures.

If a patient appears to have a robust constitution, does not complain of any
adverse overreactions in general, then it is still important to use a test
dose. In this instance, I've learned to use a test dose of 3 individual
doses, then stop, wait and watch the reaction.
It is much, much easier to repeat a dose after a suitable interval, than it
is to begin a case with a severe aggravation caused by overrepetition at the
outset and then have to work your butt off to restore order.

the next potency when the remedy aggravates? Or do you wait for the
ameliorations to stop and then move up regardless of aggravations?

***I go up to the next potency when the remedy has shown to have a positive
effect and the previous bottle is finished. If there are troublesome
aggravations despite posology changes, then one has to assume the wrong
remedy is being applied.
No amount of posology changes will make the wrong remedy right.

One of the attributes of LM or Q prescribing is that it is possible to
decrease the time it takes to cure.
However, this is the important point: If the amelioration is occuring at a
reasonable and good pace, that is, positive changes can be seen on the
physical and emotional levels, dream content suggests internal movement,
then there is no need to repeat doses at a rapid rate.
Remember, Mama said you can't hurry love, and Hahnemann said .....In those
cases where the improvement occurs *only very slowly* then it is now
possible with LM's to repeat doses more frequently and bring the case to a
conclusion than was previously possible with Centesimals.

Why not just stop dosing and see what picture unfolds?

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.
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.
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.

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.
you stand a chance of weathering the aggravation. Maybe you learn to
managage what you chose to do.
steel factory town. Teaching school, I found adults and kids alike for the
most part did not accept complex directions or self sensitivity.

***There is an assumption that remedies can do little or no harm at all in
low potency.
I see an irony that the same people who cast aspersions on the single dose,
high potency prescribers spend a lot of energy staving off, erm,
aggravations in their own patients.
Penny dropped yet?????

Regards,
Chris
)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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]

Hi Shannon,

Shannon said:
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.

I am interested in these questions. Also, under certain circumstances are homeopaths more careful with deeper acting remedies? Do they tend to go lower or higher if the remedy is a deep acting one?

Shannon said:
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.

Ellen:
How do you select your "indicator symptom"?

Blessings,
Ellen Madono
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Chris,

How do you distinguish between palliation and amelioration when you are giving the remedy? If you have chosen a remedy that you believe fits the case and aggravations or ameliorations that fit the history of the case and the remedy come out, I am naively believing that the remedy is on target. Am I missing something?

I guess that you have plenty of experience proving that moving slowly and carefully from low potency to higher potency does not bring lasting cure.

Blessings,
Ellen Madono
[snip]

The big minus is that palliation produced by *endlessly repeated low potency
regimes* is the very thing which distorts the true picture of disease. The
prescriber thinks the case is moving in a positive direction, keeps the
patient on a dosing regime with a remedy that may not even be
*homoeopathically specific* to the case. When the 6C twice a day doesn't
"hold" anymore, the next step is to go up to 12C once or twice a day, with
the same remedy that is still not homoeopathically specific to the case.

The symptoms caused by over-repetition of an ill-fitting remedy are not
clearly discriminated - partly because there is an absolute blind faith that
low potencies are completely harmless compared to the evil high Kentian
potencies, and also because the instructions of the 6th edition Organon's LM
or Q scale of potency have been mistakenly applied to this low Centesimal
protocol.

You can see how easy it is to get lost in the mire.

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

Another thing I've noticed about palliation, is that the disease will follow
its "natural course" underneath or in spite of the relief provided by the
remedy (actually that's the definition of palliation versus cure, but
somehow seeing it in action was a surprise to me nonetheless.). So, the
remedy may appear to act well -- even "very well" -- and the patient is
happy, BUT when the dose wears off (so for this, it is important ot *let*
the dose wear off now and then, and see!), the patient is either *worse* off
than they were before, or in any case, no better off. They felt better
while the remedy was acting, but no healing occurred.

Cheers,
Shannon
on 5/1/04 1:29 AM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:

Dear Chris,

Chris said:
If there is immediate miraculous amelioration in a case with symptoms of
long-standing duration, be suspicious. Cure of long-standing symptoms do not
tend to disappear with the administration of one or a few doses. There are
usually layers to the disease.

Ellen:
Interesting. You read about apparent miracle cure all the time when the author says the cure held. Maybe that is written about because it is the exception not the norm.

So you use reoccurrence of minor symptoms as a means to judge how frequently to dose? I can see doing that in many cases, but not all.

For example, my husband is having dizziness with tinnitus at the same time or just before it. It is very hard to discuss symptoms with someone so close, but he does not seem to have any other symptoms. When he began, he was so doubtful about the remedy that I would not have dared to have given him complex instructions. Now he has seen amelioration so he is cooperative. Still he is reliant on me so he does not remember to take his remedy. I try to time the duration of dizziness ect, but he claims that he cannot see a pattern (time of day, frequency, intensity or duration). Certainly duration and intensity have improved. But, a wife knows nothing. Ideally getting him to take as needed would be good, but consciousness raising is a problem. Perhaps one dose of 200c and wait would help with his case.

Blessings,
Ellen

Hi Shannon,

I know that homeopathy performs miracles, but as Chris has said, the whole mind/body needs time to heal. Are you really expecting a temporally ameliorated problem to disappear immediately and if it does not, the remedy choice or potency is wrong? As advice for a beginner, that seems really dangerous. Maybe I am jumping to conclusions and you are implying something different. But, I'll explain anyway.

By the way, I am going to try to observe the wearing off of the remedy, to see what subtly I can observe, but I am not going to start quickly jumping around either.

Especially during my first few cases, I lost confidence in every prescription many times a day during the first few weeks of the remedy. My teacher guided me to stay the course or I would be quickly confused by my own lack of confidence. He told me that "you never want to look back at a remedy and ask was that the similum and you failed to fully explore it so you are not sure. Most cases take time and jumping from remedy to remedy is a sure way to confuse the case." I have had some bad choices, of course, but I am very glad that I did not jump around with every aggravation and instability in the case. If I did not have my teacher's backing, I certainly would have.

Blessings,
Ellen Madono

Hello Ferras,

Its a long one, starting below after the original posts.

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.
overlay) says, nor is it what Vithoulkas (who came through Kent) says.
it can.
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.

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

This is exactly the point, namely "masters have interpreted" and so when we
read Vithoulkas, it seems to make sense and we don't read hahnemann
properly. But Hahnemann goes to great lengths to explain his theory, which
he bases on observation of disease and disease interaction. Hence his long
expose on similar and dissimilar disease states inetracting.

But if you read it carefully there are 2 ponits which become apparent.

1.) Vithoulkas, whether right or wrong, got Hahnemann wrong and is
misinterpreting the Organon. However much he claims to be a purist and
follower of Hahnemann, he doesn't get it right and thats not my
interpretation. Read Hahnemann on the vital force and you will see. He
claims the vital force is unintelligent and left to its own desires, it will
kill the patient. It is his whole reason for explaining the allopathic
approach. That was based on the vitalist theory.

2.) Hahnemann makes a damn lot of sense and whats more, it explains what we
observe in practice ( hence his observations based not on conjecture but
fact). It also explains why dosing is important. The idea that the vital
force is good and can do no harm, encorages one to repeat doses and feel
that aggravations are "good", i.e. stuff s coming out and the patient is
"detoxing". While the patient is aggravating , they are diseased, by the
remedy instead of the natural disease. Keep dosing and you keep them
diseased.

Look at aphorism 9.

In a healthy state the vital force keeps everything in harmony. This is for
a purpose which is so that the "higher reasoning mind" can achieve its goal
or mission. So the vital force responds to a type of blueprint. "OK you are
John Smith, this is what you are on earth for - I will keep the physical
organism in the best shape to do this mission".

Disease is what happens when this blueprint goes haywire. Then the vital
force says "John Smith, your mission is to make enough money cause you will
never have enough and the germs will get you and your wife wants to poison
you to get your insurance - I can do that". And then the vital force
follows that blueprint and the physical organism goes from a healthy
aphorism 9 pattern (the intended mission) to the disharmonius (disease
state - maybe Ars alb) pattern. " I just doing what you tell me to , John"

It will keep doing this more and more while John is in the Ars alb state.
Only when the disease state is repelled or annhilated, will the original aph
9 state again take place where John is back on track. And then the vital
force will say " Yes John, I hear you, hell there is a lot of repair work to
do here - what happened?" And that is the state of recuperation. Sounds
like Hal from 2001 but thats what it is.

Look at it another way. The proving tells us the reaction of the vital
force. And in disease we observe the reaction of the vital force. So if a
ptient has angina, how is that going to cure the? More angina - more cure?
Or a convulsion or cramp in the muscles or cyanosis. Where is the cure.

Here is where the nisconception arises::

In the healthy aphorism 9 state the organism will be held in a state of
dynamic health. The state which we were designed for by the almighty. We
will react to the environment, so if a bacteria (foreign invader) comes into
the sphere of the immune system, it will be immediately despatched. The
same with cancer cells. The same with bad food or bad relationships. If
someone eats rotten meat, they will vomit it up. Thats healthy, and they
will feel better. Any residule food will still be expelled, even some
diarrhoea. When someone experiences a deterioration, it means either the
stressor was so strong as to be inimical to life (like radiation) or tey
weren't able to mount the appropriate response. Thats when they are not at
aph 9. Then they may develop the picture of the already present ars alb
state and need the remedy. Without the remedy they would keep vomiting and
have diarrhoea until either the organism died or they died. Even if they
lived, there would be a considerable loss of vital force and they would be
weakened, showing slow recuperation and then another organism will take
hold, seizing the opportunity, and so on until the patient expires. That is
the whole basis of chronic disease.

So when a patient gets a bug, there is a fever response. We know that fever
can help to kill off the bug and activate the immune response and in aph 9
this would happen. But in the disease state the fever is not going to do
it. Thats why the fever goes higher and higher. So rather thatn more
fever - more cure, its more fever - more ill. So Vithoulkas was asked about
this, whether the fever wasn't harmful and by stimulating more fever ( the
vital force reaction) would that not harm the patient, and he covered
himself by saying " No the vital force would'nt do that, its intelligent".
But that is conjecture. Show me where that happens. As a practitioner one
is well aware of the dangers of fevers if left unchecked. So the remedy
must be doing something else.

In 1836 some of the homeopathic community actually (not understanding this)
took a decision against Hahnemann's ideas and stood by the vitalist theory.
Julian would have the details on hand, I don't have the exact info right
now. The problem homepaths have is they worship the vital force and think
that allopaths don't and make that the battle field, so anything against the
vital force is considered heresy. Its fear and lack of understanding.

The vital force is important, - in health for healthy function and for
recuperation after the disease is overcome. And Hahnemann more than anyone
supported this. Thats why he said, be careful when you dose the person.
You don't want to waste the vital force by giving too strong a dose. You
need vital force left over for the recuperation phase and for normal (aph 9)
life.

To add to Julian, you said that Vithoulkas and Kent differed with Hahnemann.
I think Kent was actually in agreement. His whole reason for going higher
in potency was to reach the "Esse", which is the inner disease state. That
is the master plan which the vital force is obeying. The vital force
follows the Esse. I don't see where Kent says the higher dose stumulates
the vital force and so cures and that is the reason why he goes higher. It
is Vithoulkas, to some extent Roberts and then the followers like Margaret
Roy who hold on to the vital force cure, based mainly on having an opposing
view point to the orthodox profession. Again, people such as Sankaran are
also looking at the blueprint by understanding the life stance of the
person, throough delusions, fears, sensations etc. The signs of the vital
force are just clues to identify the disease state.

Students need to read the Organon to learn homeopathy. But they read
Vithoulkas because it seems easier and is often the prescribed text, as is
Margaret Roy.

Regards,
Paul Booyse

Hi Chris and Ellen,

Ellen wrote:
and Chris replied:

Ellen's remark *might* have been with reference to mine? I sort of do use
"reoccurrence of minor symptoms as a means to judge how frequently to dose."
Which I'd say is about the same as saying "... based on how long signs of
amelioration last"! The reason one notes that amelioration has faded, is
because symptoms have recurred... On the relatively few occasions when I've
used low/repeated dosing, if the first dose produces a clear benefit --
which has usually been the case -- I wait to see how long that benefit
lasts, and plan to re-dose shortly before discomforts would otherwise begin
to return.

Chris, does this seem consistent with what you're saying? I *think* we're
doing the same thing but describing it differently??
Altho with a nice palliative remedy, it can (I've found!) be largely
impossible to tell that you're not seeing a curative response -- until
either enough time passes and the remedy stops working (re-delivering the
patient back to their starting point) or (if my observations mean what I
think they do) until you observe that, even tho the remedy is still
"working" (still makes the person feel better), it is not achieving movement
toward what it needs to--lasting cure.

Best,
Shannon

Dear Chris, Shannon and Julian,

I'm getting the idea. I'll try testing in the beginning, and stopping the dosing after a few day to see how often repetition needs to occur. I think it will help me to clarify the progress of the case as well.

Do you call the client into the office after they have taken a break so you can see their faces as part of the evaluation of the remedy?

I will also talk with my student friends and ask them to think about these issues with me.
Blessings,
Ellen
not
author says the cure held. Maybe that is written about because it is the
exception not the norm.

***Yeah, you read a lot of things. *One dose cures* do happen of course, but
most people acknowledge they occur only a small percentage of the time. If
these cases are held up as the benchmark of what defines a good
practitioner, then we could all lose our self-confidence.

frequently to dose? I can see doing that in many cases, but not all.

***No, I didn't mean that exactly. (Maybe it's my accent ) I said, minor
symptoms that are associated with the remedy normally pass off without
incidence one or two days after the person stops dosing. That's why it's
important to stop, wait and watch the effect of the remedy, rather than
mechanistically repeat more doses.
The way to judge how frequently to dose is based on how long signs of
*amelioration* last. It gets tricky here because sometimes the physical
symptoms are stirred up, and there is discomfort, but the patient remains
largely positive in themselves.

You know when a patient is NOT reacting well, they become profoundly
discouraged, tired, and pain is written in their eyes.

If the signs of reactivity and amelioration last a few days, then you could
repeat a dose every few days and see how it works. If the signs of
reactivity and amelioration last a month, then try repeating monthly and see
if that works. If you are seeing a lot of aggravations along with some
amelioration, then you need to review the case as you probably are using the
wrong remedy.

or just before it. It is very hard to discuss symptoms with someone so
close, but he does not seem to have any other symptoms.

***There are always other symptoms. It is as much the responsibility of the
patient - as far as possible - to provide clear details, as it is for us to
perceive and record them. Our task is to match characteristics in the case
with Materia Medica, not fill in the missing details with guesswork. Often
times we are too quick to blame ourselves for inadequate casetaking or poor
remedy choices, when it is the patient who is being uncooperative. Then we
have difficulty following up the case because it has been based on guesswork
and poorly selected rubrics. A patient's reluctance or impatience or
dissmissiveness also points to a group of remedies based on temperament.

dared to have given him complex instructions. Now he has seen amelioration
so he is cooperative. Still he is reliant on me so he does not remember to
take his remedy. I try to time the duration of dizziness ect, but he claims
that he cannot see a pattern (time of day, frequency, intensity or
duration). Certainly duration and intensity have improved. But, a wife
knows nothing. Ideally getting him to take as needed would be good, but
consciousness raising is a problem. Perhaps one dose of 200c and wait would
help with his case.

***Well we don't HAVE to use Q potencies in every situation, they don't suit
all cases. What I've found when treating friends or family is that you still
need to keep it formal, just as you do with regular patients. Don't have
them telling you their follow-up symptoms in the supermarket aisle, or at a
Saturday afternoon bbq. Make an appointment and insist they keep it.
Otherwise, strike them off your Xmas card list! Ongoing treatments will
simply NOT happen without a proper structure. It is preferable to see
chronic patients at least monthly, if not fortnightly, with phone calls in
between when necessary. I think it is absurd to expect a patient to
correctly interpret remedy reactions and adjust their own dosages. Sure,
some people are finely attuned to their own inner processes, but that's why
we spend all those years at college, learning how to interpret the signs
accurately, and that's why they've hired our services.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]