Minutus

I will not answer for others, but who said they refused to learn?

WHY I do it?
Because I like to understand what I do professionally in the minutest parts.
I enjoy dissecting mechanisms of actions, working on hypotheses "what if...?", trying to look at everything from different perspectives to build a bigger, better, more complete picture.

It is an intellectual exercise that I like, that increases my knowledge, my ability to explain how things work and at times allows me to tweak some approaches to increase efficiency and speed.

I do not appreciate working by rote, according to rules that, as effective as they might be, have not received the research and explanation they deserve based on today's understanding.

It is not propaganda, it is not proselytism, it is curiosity, like that of a child breaking his toys to see how they work and where are the little people who play the music in the radio.

Fair enough?

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

http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com ... h-dr-aadil
A marvellous set of recordings in which you might find some excellent ideas. Requires patience to listen but a wealth of teaching.
He is a cardiologist and he and all family are homeopaths. He like Dr Joe uses supportive low potencies or tinctures at times. Jean

Hi, Dr Roz --
I think that there may be some basic confusions here.
Dosage!
Dosage, as you would know, concerns amounts. In allopathic practice, this always concerns measurable quantities of medicinal substances.
In homoeopathic practice, it usually concerns amounts of a solvent (water and alcohol), in which there may or may not be a detectable (and certainly known) amount of the original medicinal substance; but the amount remains relevant even if it is not detectable, even if its remaining in the solution is beyond all probability. This is something that Hahnemann emphasised, and something that you are obviously very aware of: that a large dose of a potentised medicine containing none of the original drug can still be too strong for the patient if the patient is particularly sensitive.
Potency is another matter altogether.
Potency!
Whilst every increase in potency number in preparing a homoeopathic medicine does entail making a dilution first, it is not the process of dilution itself that adds potency to the medicinal preparation we call a homoeopathic medicine. Dilution is a step in the process that appears to be important in limiting the violence of the medicine's effect whilst still allowing increases in potency to make its effects more deeply felt and possibly longer-lasting.
But simply diluting the medicine does not affect potency. What it does affect most obviously is, again, quantity: if the patient takes a fixed amount of one dilution or another, then an extra stage of simple dilution reduces the quantity of potentised medicine taken.
Dilution solves problem no. 1, not problem no. 2
All of this is relevant to preventing an aggravation from arising due to administering too much medicine in one dose. As such, your discussion is relevant to that topic. What it is not wholly relevant to, though, is the matter of unchanging potency from dose to dose!
Hahnemann very plainly found, through close observation, that when a person has taken a certain quantity of a certain potency of a certain potentised medicine suitable to the particular illness that has befallen her, a certain change occurs that marks an evident substitution of the medicine's symptoms for her original symptoms, effectively annihilating the original illness. Yes, this is surmise on his part, but it appears to be the best possible explanation for the observed phenomena; it is surmise after the fact, not a rationalisation for practice as such but a stab at true understanding; and it is surmise that leads us, and led him, to useful questions and experimentation without risk to the patient.
The same cannot be said of surmises that serve as mere rationalisations of how we'd like to do things or as mere confirmation of the way we'd like things to work.
What Hahnemann also found, through close observation and ruthless self-honesty, is that a second dose of the same medicine caused setbacks.
Of course most of the time this does not occur; that is a given. Yet its occurrence is not easily predictable, and when it does occur, you, as the practitioner, have a problem. More importantly, the patient has a problem -- one that was completely avoidable.
How was it avoidable? By taking note of what Hahnemann had discovered about this: that varying the potency from dose to dose entirely prevented this so-called aggravation, which he was at pains to point out is not a homoeopathic aggravation at all but merely a strengthening of the medicinal illness initially implanted by the first dose.
So there are two problems here, and they're quite distinct.
The first problem arises from sensitivity
The first problem concerns the sensitive patient for whom an initial dose may be too strong. This is not, at least primarily, about potency; it is about quantity. And Hahnemann's directions concerning diluting a medicine in multiple glasses address this problem.
The second problem arises from reimplanting a medicinal illness already implanted
The second problem concerns the patient in whom a correctly or nearly correctly prescribed medicine has apparently set up, as it should, a medicinal illness to which the patient shortly responds with what we call a secondary reaction, which opposes the medicine's primary action (and thereby responds appropriately to the patient's initial natural symptoms by tending to negate them). All goes as it should, until the second dose upsets the secondary reaction by strengthening the original medicinal illness. The healing secondary reaction stops; the patient is once more in the state of medicinal illness so closely resembling the initial natural illness that she can't distinguish it from a relapse. The practitioner all too commonly shares the patient's misperception of the matter and responds by compounding the problem with yet another dose, and another, and another.
This second problem, which begins innocently enough, can, as we've seen in many cases on this very list, get completely out of hand, with the practitioner wringing his hands over the failure of the medicine to improve the patient even as his every dose ensures further failure.
This problem is not primarily -- or, necessarily, at all -- a problem of quantity. It cannot be solved by varying the amount or dilution of the medicine. It is a problem primarily of potency: of repeating the unchanged potency. And it is very, very simply solved before it even arises: always vary the potency.
That is why the topic refers to "wet" and "dry" doses: because Hahnemann's directions for "wet" remedies allow the practitioner to vary potency with ease, using the simple expedient of stirring.
As it happens, use of "wet" doses also enables easy prevention of the first problem (homoeopathic aggravation or even general medicinal oversensitivity), by using serial dilutions without succussion (yes, even without a heartbeat!) to reduce the dosage, the amount. But it's a different problem, and its similar solution has little to nothing to do with the second problem.
That's why all of your fluff about dilution is irrelevant to the topic. What is relevant is the contention that a heartbeat will cause a change in potency. So let's look at that.
What modifies the medicine's potency after administration?
First, a homoeopathic medicine very plainly is capable of effecting its substitution within seconds of administration. Anybody with enough experience has seen this occur, and if it occurs in some, then it's a pretty safe bet that by the same mechanism its effects are felt equally rapidly in all whom it will affect.
So the clicking of a tongue, or the snap of fingers, or the pressure on the bloodstream (into which -- what -- a bit of potentised water may have made its eventual way) shortly after administration may, and probably do, make zero difference to the effective potency of the medicine already taken.
Second, 150 mmHg (= 200 millibars) represents merely 2/11 of one atmosphere, or the pressure you're under in 2 metres of water. In other words, it's insignificant. Whether pressure is even the relevant factor, I'm not at all certain. Perhaps the dynamisation process depends on something to do with chaotic motion, or, as I think likely, concerns force, a factor that evidently would be necessary to the release of certain unusual physical phenomena measured during succussion (solitons etc.). If pressure is the relevant factor, it would seem strange that a very small quantity of liquid can be succussed and thereafter diluted etc., to create a successful potency, as readily as a large quantity. But, in any case, a pressure of 150 mmHg, or 2 metres of water, is minor in comparison with the pressure that arises in following Hahnemann's directions concerning firm striking of the vessel containing the medicinal solution.
For these reasons, there seems no strong reason to believe that a heartbeat is likely to have any effect whatever on the potency of a medicine that has already done its work and likely been inactivated in the process.
But there's a third thing to think about: if heartbeats or snapping fingers or tapping toes or twitching eyebrows were enough to alter potency and prevent the problem that Hahnemann observed in his patients -- then were his patients all dead? Did none of those he saw spoiled by a subsequent unchanged potency have a heartbeat?
The second problem remains unsolved by recourse to heartbeats
Assuming that Hahnemann's patients too had heartbeats, and that the problem he set out to solve existed despite those heartbeats, I think that it's safe to assume that the presence of a heartbeat today is not enough to guarantee safety from the same phenomenon, the ingraining of a medicinal illness by repetition of an unchanged potency.
Hahnemann's solution to the second problem stands unrivalled
Given that there is no better solution to hand, why not -- as Sheri asks time and again -- use the ounce of prevention that Hahnemann offers? It's cheap, it's easy, it's risk free; in fact all it costs is the merest smidgen of humility.
Kind regards,
John

Where will we find the book when the ink starts to cool?
I want one

(Congratulations on yet another book, I'm sure it will be as realistic and insightful as the others.)

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

You seem to be talking to yourself and do not pay attention to what I write.

OK, it is "fluff".

No use to waste any more time.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

???
The standard pressure used for compressors and pneumatic tool industries, you might agree is a LOT of force. It is 760mm Hg. Systolic blood pressure of say 125 mm Hg is a sixth as much. That's no gentle squeeze in my book!
And some of us have more squeeze than others

As regards your notion that some variables cause alteration of "dosage rather than potency", both are relevant.
The amount of energy in a dose is dependent on BOTH.
Potency is something like voltage in electricity - where dosage is perhaps like wattage.
Total dose in electricity is thus better specified in amps (watts divided by volts), but we have no specified term for total energy of dose in homeopathy yet - though it is necessarily a formula involving both dose and potency.

Hahnemann pointed out that the body does not like repeats of identical "total energy" (or is it repeats of potency regardless of dose amount that are to be avoided?), it seems less than clear to me which is the problem referred to, unless one *assumes* (is that ever safe to do?) that he is using "identical" solid dose tablets (could he make those? did he make those?) , with identical amount of medicating liquid applied to them (did he assure that? could he assure that?).
There's a big gray area. I see a *principle* only that matters - namely that an aqueous application of a total energy dose, allows more frequent re-application of a homeopathic dose in a severe situation, than some form of "dry" dose. The physical details involved can only be surmised, they can not be known. So we need to work wit the principle.

It applies well in the now well-proven Fibonacci series approach - with the principle we should uphold being "ability to dose more effectively to cure, in a severe case". Indeed, FIbonacci dosing DOES enable more cures in more severe cases, than any prior system.
That's really the bottom line here as it uses LESS potency for MORE usable healing energy, to achieve greater and gentler CURE rates. That seems to suit H's principles very well - regardless what actual variances he had in practice in his dry versus aqueous doses, and in the application of his advised-against "identical" doses in a row.

Namaste,
......Irene

REPLY TO: > only
--
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."

www.emryss.eu or info@emryss.eu
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

"Edge" cases?
Immune compromise cases and other "incurable" situations like Cancer, FIP, Lymphoma, Skin tuberculosis, Pemphigus, HIV/FIV, Chronic Kidney "failure", Pyothorax, (to name a few I've worked with since using F series exclusively) and the list goes on..... did not resolve before F series - or not often, and not efficiently or gently!.

Are these really "edge" cases? Their incidence in the multiple millions per year!
Perhaps it is a mistake to relegate this major deadly disease incidence to "the rarely seen edge"?

I find the "edge" here to be absolutely and critically relevant on a daily if not hourly basis!!!
These ideas belong more to "cutting edge" for all cases, than "rarely seen edge", IMO.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Really, Dr Roz? I thought I had addressed your contentions about dosage very directly, even though, yes, they were off topic and rather more pertinent to book promotion than to understanding.

If potency seems to you to have no relevance, then certainly we are talking about two different things. The chief problem that Hahnemann detected and solved through the serial dilution and stirring of "wet" doses was not one of dosage, Dr Roz, but one of unchanging potency.

This is something that Irene has evidently overlooked as well, in her confusion between force (a product of, for instance, mass and effective acceleration, measured in Newtons) and pressure (the division of force by area, measured in kiloPascals, millibars, mmHg, pounds per square inch, etc.); between medicines' potency (an established phenomenon) and their supposed energy (a purely hypoethetical construct without detail, dimension, or reference point); between potency (a singular concept) and "total energy" / "total energy dose" (another hypothetical product of potency and quantity); and finally between potency and quantity (as in "it uses LESS potency for MORE usable healing energy").

The more such hypotheses compound each other's confusions, the more ludicrous they become.

Despite some confusions, Irene expresses (and demonstrates) well that what chiefly matters in relation to the question of "wet" dosing as a preventative of the problems arising from unchanging potency is not any ludicrous hypothesis confusing force, energy, and other dimensions; that what matter are two things.
First is our ability to truly understand one basic caution: that a master observer of homoeopathic practice has found that unaltered potencies -- yes, even in altered dosage -- have a habit of springing unwonted medicinal effects where and when they're most inopportune.
Second is our ability to swallow our fantastic egos and get on with the job.

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

Hence they are not used in F series..(Why do you not actually read what is written instead of inventing problems that do not exist?)
Which is what I do with F series - I use it and get on with the job of healing.

Where are your healing successes? And in what way are they superior to those achieved with F series?

Basically - your rudeness in your last couple of emails - which pretend not to be able to read Dr Roz'a plain good English and also pretend that pressure has no force instead of seeing an obvious analogy - just smacks of jealousy? Can you not find a LOGICAL excuse to argue? Must it be illogical and off topic comments that deliberately misconstrue what was said?

Call Fibonacci approach fluff if you wish - in that case since Fluff heals better than your personal assumptions about what Hahnemann thought (that being your worst response to a good discussion in which your own view did not prevail) - I'll take your good advice and "get on with the job of healing" (that being your best response to a good discussion in which your own view did not prevail).
It's a shame someone capable of knowing the difference between two scientific terms - is not able (or pretends not to be able) to see the analogous context in which they are used by another.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."