Minutus

I agree to a certain extent, but Jeff is caught up in his molecules and trying to understand why it works and that is what I am saying is not necessary nor does he understand
Sheri

At 02:00 PM 2/25/2013, you wrote:

That is something totally different.
I think we have here a linguistics confusion: as far as I seem to understand what Jeff says and the papers he quoted, it deals with the mechanism of action of the remedies, not with the way to choose them, to administer them or anything else like that.

This is completely similar with my own research (soon to be on the shelves), using actual existing and demonstrated pathways and mechanisms that show how it happens that a remedy in contact with the oral mucosa eventually acts inside of the patient.

Does that help selecting a remedy? definitely not! but I like to know HOW things work and why and I personally feel that by knowing that I am a better practitioner.

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

Dear all

after a long time I got the time to look at minutus and it is
wonderful to see hair splitting arguments that will take us nowhere
still going on.

Anyway I have noticed people arguing at times over 5th and 6th edition
and water dosage versus dry dose so I thought I would add to the
confusion. Over the last few years we decided to have have a
systematic study and comparison of the two methods. So every
alternate patient would either receive a water potency or a dry dose.
After treating a few thousand cases in this way I am happy to say all
the five doctors in our centre are agreed that we are still as
confused as ever.

It is almost impossible to decide which system works better. But some
conclusions we have got so far (and don't take these as the word of
God as we are still confused

1, Water potencies seem to work faster at least in the beginning but
actually it may not be so as in the long run the single dose seems to
work equally well if not better.

2. When the prescription is based on mental emotional level and there
is not much pathological change a dry dose seems to work better.

3. When the prescription is based on physical or pathologicall
symptoms water potency seems to work better.

4. In acute diseases water potency seems to work better.

after all this I understand why Hippocrates said something like "life
is short and art is long and observation inconclusive.

Best regards

Elham

Dear Elham,

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you haven't managed to add to
the confusion one iota. There's no problem inherent in using a dry
dose, as many of us have found, and it's interesting that your group's
research suggests that in certain circumstances it may be superior.
Possibly the difference concerns penetrability of the dose and the
relation between that and the depth of the case; regardless, I don't
think that there's any argument about the value of a dry dose as you
appear to have employed it: as a single dose. (Feel free to try again
to add to the confusion, though, by correcting that impression.)

The chief problem that Hahnemann observed and solved with repeated
dosing in water was the problem that arises in repeating a dry dose,
inherently maintaining the same potency. That problem seems to arise
due to the organism's inability to respond to that second, unchanged
dose as it did to the first, and is solved by changing the potency
minimally with vigorous stirring.

Your group's research, apparently using both wet doses and unrepeated
dry doses, doesn't seem to bear on that particular problem.
Nevertheless, it's interesting research, and I hope that more emerges
from it.

Kind regards,

John
--
"There is no exercise better for the heart than reaching down and lifting
people up."
— John Andrew Holmes, Jr.