Medicinal Solutions

[Rosemary Hyde]

I thank Piet for his wonderfully clear exposition explaining what I had
noticed about LMs often not being able to finish cases. Now I understand as
well as observe, and I appreciate that deeply.

Shannon, yes, like Piet, I've also seen that there are times when C's work
better and LMs work better, even with the same patient. What patients need
at that point does indeed seem to be switching back to a high C potency to
finish the job. There's been no indication in these particular patients
that a different remedy is needed.

If the LM potency is right and the remedy is right on, patients can respond
amazingly quickly, and that works more often if I start a non-hypersensitive
patient with LM2 or evenLM3 rather than LM1, which generally takes much
longer to produce any effect.

Sometimes, if I'm not sure how sensitive a patient is likely to be, I start
them with water potency of 6c or 12c, daily until they notice an effect,
then have them stop and observe. If the remedy appears to act positively
and they show no indication of hypersensitivity, then I frequently switch to
LM2 or LM3 to start deepening the remedy's action. I also find switching to
an LM useful in cases where I've gone from 12c to 30c and feel that a switch
to 200c may be too big a jump. Some people (and animals) just seem to be
more resonant with different types of remedy action, and I'm finding this
discussion useful to get a feeling for how others have experienced the
different posologies (thanks, Arlene, for asking the question.).

I've experimented a bit with various ART methods, but don't feel really
confident enough yet of my abilities to determine different reactions to
makeme comfortable in using ART routinely. How hard have others of you
found it to become comfortable and confident with getting usable and
consistent results with these techniques? If I can get one of these methods
to work for me, I think, from what I've read, that this would be a big help
in choosing potencies.

Rosemary

[Gaby Rottler]

Hi Jon, Shannon,
Shannon, you are right, the word 'effective' was not correct.
For the Cs and LMs the ratio 1:100 was predefined by Hahnemann. Of
course a 1:120 would do as well - but I'm sure there will be limits as
to the ratio substance versus carrier.
Let's say a 1:5000 and 2 strokes - I doubt we will have any
potentization process. Perhaps a 1:5000 could be raised to the next
potency by doing 500 or 1000 heavy strokes....

Best,

Gaby

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de

http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~