Teaching the Organon

[Elizabeth Brandegee]

I may have forgotten this from school, but what is the meaning of the word Organon and why did he choose it?
Elizabeth

---In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Dear all
we did a lot of experiments with LMs and frankly our final conclusion was if you continue giving uninterruptedly you end up spoiling the case. Don't forget hahnemann said if there is good improvement don't repeat. We have realized this applies to LMs now what we usually do is give a week of 0/1 or 0/3 for a week and let the improvement continue. many times you never need to repeat again. If improvement stops you can go higher or change scale or medicine as needed.
Best regards
Elham
________________________________

[Irene de Villiers]

Definition:
An instrument for acquiring knowledge; specifically : a body of principles of scientific or philosophic investigation

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[bienemancrichard]

Irene,

First, I am at a loss to understand how you drew the conclusion that I did not acknowledge your previous responses. As a matter of fact, you talked about Fibonacci numbers in one of your two previous responses for example, and you'll find in one of my later responses a DIRECT reference to that. If my failure to use your name with that specific reference didn't make the connection for you, I'm sorry. I fully appreciate the time spent by any/everyone that responded.

To be honest, much of what you wrote did not address the question I had hoped would be properly understood. And you (and others) made assumptions that were just that - assumptions. Actually, I have the same impression - that you didn't carefully read what I wrote, because more than one of your assumptions was addressed in my response(s), and even the original post. For example, you wrote:

"I would ask your homeopath WHY they were doing what they recommended (so that you can judge whether it fits within the PRINCIPLES of what Hahnemann did, not the examples of what Hahnemann did - or is some new approach)."

I can only assume you did not read what my last post in which I specifically said, "I was disappointed that answers to questions seeking understanding were not ever provided, despite that homeopath having offered to mentor me as I began to learn about an aspect of homeopathy I had no idea even existed (6th edition and LM potencies). And there became some other issues having nothing to do with treatment that resulted in discontinuation of treatment."

So yes, I DID ask the homeopath why he was prescribing the way he was - and he would not provide answers (despite having previously said he would like to act as my mentor). And thus I'd previously already addressed the question you raised in your latest response.

I found it interesting that you chose to mention that you "came across ONE case that needed extended, daily, (very diluted and NOT succussed) drop doses (at 377C). That's one in many many thousands of cases. It shoud be relevant to explopre, not that this was done or needed, but WHY it was done."

I'm not sure if that example was to tell me that I cannot generalize based on my own individual case treatment from our previous homeopath, or the other theme in your post that I should be looking at the "whys," not just the "whats." If the latter, see below. If the former, please note that I specifically stated that I, my spouse, and at least two others I referred to that homeopath ALL received the same method of treatment from the very beginning: daily dosing without any breaks of even one day (in our case for over 8 months until discontinuation of treatment). I well understand the principle that generalizing from one-to-many is a logical error. But all four cases from the same homeopath seems a bit more than a generalization of one-to-many.

As for understanding the "whys" of what Hahnemann did, I could not agree more. But in learning, one also needs to know what the "whats" are first. Clearly one cannot understand the "why" of something before knowing what the "something" is. And if I had continued to naively believe our previous homeopath was practicing pure 6th edition homeopathy as Hahnemann practiced it prior to his death, and assumed that Hahnemann would have been fine with daily dosing for many months on end, I would have either missed other things he directly taught because of my false assumption that daily dosing for many months was pure 19th century Hahnemann, or I would have wasted time because of later needless confusion. At this point, I don't need to inject things that aren't fundamental to my re-education (which includes unlearning much of what I thought was from Hahnemann due to some ill-informed practitioners and teachers from past years).

With a graduate degree and a full career now behind me already, and feeling like I'm just starting out from scratch with homeopathy (due to the erroneous learning I've picked up all these past years while learning about homeopathy on my own), I am choosing to look at what Hahnemann DID, and also always ask "why." That's fundamental to me. I don't like mere application of procedures - I personally choose to almost always question everything (for understanding). The "what" and the "why" are both fundamental as far as I'm concerned. In my current situation I just don't want to (re)start my study of homeopathy with false assumptions about what the master learned and taught before his death. Once I have those fundamentals down (again, including the "what" AND "why"), I'll begin looking more at later deviations advances by others. For example, Paulette mentioned that Hahnemann didn't have to deal with many factors we have today. I'm far from oblivious to that concept, and appreciate her observation just in case I was not thinking about that. I'm just not at a point where I can comfortably say I'm ready to study the advances when I don't understand the "whys" of Hahnemann's final original work. I'll get there, but expect it to take considerable time.

As just a bit more background, even further back in my lifetime, I was an Air Force instructor pilot, and trained students from about 35 different nations. The fundamental approaches to learning by some nations and cultures were almost beyond my comprehension at first! Some were great at memorizing the "whats" of flying, with absolutely no comprehension in too many cases regarding the "whys." They could get 100% on ground school tests (the "whats"), yet could not apply those principles because they had no comprehension of the "whys" of what they were attempting to do. It would have been deadly if we sent some of them up in an aircraft solo, only "knowing" rote procedures, but not the "whys" behind them. Yes - I "get" that concept very, very well. I've lived it fundamentally for over four decades in two very different career fields.

Having only recently obtained David Little's enormous contribution (the Homoeopathic Compendium) - which I appreciate more than I could properly express in writing - I'm all too painfully aware of the work ahead of me. But I've made that commitment, and intend to follow it through. It will be impossible to NOT understand the "whys" as I go through those 4500 pages plus the archived course he developed - all of which focus particularly on Hahnemann's last years (both the 6th edition and the casebooks). It's a daunting task, and not something I'm so naive to think I just need to read through once so I "know" what he did.

And thus I disagree that "it is wise to ignore what he did, and to learn instead WHY he did it." One cannot do the latter without first knowing the former. As I said regarding my own career profession(s), I first learned what the masters did, and then endeavored to truly understand WHY they did what they did. Only after that did I feel justified in making my own innovations (or looking at other more modern innovations to what the masters had done much earlier). To do otherwise could have even been dangerous in both professions. I all too painfully recall a very early mistake I made by focusing too much on a "what," and not realizing that I did not fully understand the "why" and "how" of it - to the detriment of a client. Fortunately for both the client and me (and therefore subsequent clients), I was able to recover from that, but realized I needed to refer that client to someone with greater skills in a specific area than I had at the time, and he ended up doing just fine, thankfully. So don't think I don't have a very deep understanding of the concept of not stopping just at the "whats" without going much further with the "whys" and "hows."

Again, I'm sorry you didn't read my responses closer and realize that I was including concepts you'd raised in your posts, simply because I happened to "address" the remarks to another person and didn't mention you personally. This is a public forum, and I just assumed that you'd read mine as closely as I read yours, and see the direct references to what you'd raised.

Richard

[bienemancrichard]

Paulette,

Thanks for the response. Yes, I fully understand that "all patients are unique." My question was primarily whether Hahnemann was teaching non-stop daily dosing, without interruption, for many months at a time as a general way of treatment. And between David Little's deep study of not only the 6th edition but also Hahnemann's case books, as well as answers here, I'm realizing that in fact Hahnemann did not practice that way. Could (as Irene related) one patient come along that needed such treatment? Sure - anything is possible with 7+ billion people on the earth. But my focus is on first learning fundamentals, then seeking to understand why they're so, and THEN branching out into later advances in homeopathy.

As for Hahnemann not having to contend with factors we have today, I agree - that's an excellent point. Just don't discount his reasons for leaving the practice of medicine as taught at the time. He well understood poisoning with such things as mercury, for example. Though we think of that early medicine as crude and irresponsible, in some respects Hahnemann's philosophy in the late 1700s applies perfectly today, as he saw what physicians were doing to their patients with poisons. We've just seen more (and more expensive) methods of doing the poisoning today. Hahnemann was "spot on" as the saying goes. Still, an excellent observation though.

Thanks for your input.

Richard

[bienemancrichard]

Elham,

Thank you for the direct and specific response to my primary question. While our homeopath did vary the number of succussions and drops from time to time (usually a week or more between changes in that regard), daily dosing was non-stop for over 2/3 of a year. And specific remedy changes were not particularly frequent (as outlined in my original post). It was the daily dosing without interruption that I mostly questioned, in terms of what Hahnemann was teaching. IF our homeopath had what he considered to be a good reason, he chose not to disclose it despite questions about it, and represented his treatment as being essentially pure Hahnemann. I'm very grateful to him for learning there is far more since the 4th edition, and that combination remedies (as practiced by some) were nothing Hahnemann endorsed before his death. But as I begin my unlearning of much of what I "knew" about homeopathy, and my study of the fundamentals as taught by the original master (Hahnemann), I have also begun learning that what I was being taught (by example) by our homeopath was NOT pure Hahnemann. And I'm very grateful for this forum for the learning available (and the patience by most).
Richard

[Maria Bohle]

Hello Richard, I am late into this conversation so apologies if I am misunderstanding your question.

A professional homeopath may indeed do daily doses for a long time, such as you expressed, under certain conditions. The real question has more to do with its reaction on you, not the length of the treatment. If you benefitted and it worked is the real issue.

For example the time span of treatment may depend on many factors that need to be balanced such as the energy of the vital force, the sensitivity of the patient and the strategy of how to remove the disease state.

Think of the disease state like digging a big hole for a swimming pool. All that soil (the disease) needs to be removed. We can do it with a huge machine in a couple of big scoops (single dry dose method), or, with a lot of men with shovels, or one man with a teaspoon. The job will get done with each method, but the time it takes is going to be much different.
A deep seated disease like a family illness going back generations in a sensitive person could take a very long time to be coaxed out.
I prefer the 'low and slow' method in some cases. Yes, months and months sometimes. I would rather gently and smoothly than rocking the boat and pushing a patient to discomfort with a stronger and faster approach. Some people must change their whole lives to really heal - I like to give them plenty of time to do that.

Regards, Maria

[Leilanae]

"But my focus is on first learning fundamentals, then seeking to understand why they're so, and THEN branching out into later advances in homeopathy."
Layman's introduction: http://www.drdooley.net/Book.pdf

Ground school manual: join Yahoo group Hanamanics

Atb,

Leilanae

[Roger B]

According the Big Pharma and their medical shills, NO patient is unique. (:->)

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:11:59 -0500
Subject: RE: [Minutus] Teaching the Organon
All patients are unique.

Paulette
________________________________

[Irene de Villiers]

well, you did now, so thank you:-)

YOu also wrote
"My question was primarily whether Hahnemann was teaching non-stop daily dosing, without interruption, for many months at a time as a general way of treatment."
My answer is that Hahnemann never did teach ANY rote way of dosing. He taught ONLY principle, and expected the homeopath in all cases, to use the priinciples to devise dosing for each specific case.
Certainly the way of dosing you experienced, was not normal. But yo said you wished to learn Hahnemann's approach, hence you got advised on THAT principle (no point harping on the daily dosing poor example).

That Hahnemann's own cases were examples of his experimentig and also of his use of principles, is somethig to note AFTER first knowing the principles, so that the cases are seen in proper context.
"Learning cases" then looking for principles, is as backwards as the oft made error by homeopaths to look at detals of a remedy's provings to see if it has the patient's symptoms in there (instead of the correct way round, of looking at patient symptoms and seeing what remedies hold them.)

IOW You have assumed that principles can not be learned without first "learning" some examples of what was done, but I see that as backwards. "Learning" an example makes no sense. It teaches no principle. One needs to first read and understand the principle. Then look at the examples as just that - illustrations of principles.

Hence the first aphorism Hahnemann wrote was not an example but a principle - he advocates the homeopath should do what it takes to cure the patient (my wording not his.) ALL else he did must be seen in THAT context.
It did not connect any more than mention of centessimal or LM would have pointed to a specific person, unless they developed Fibonacci - which I did not

You have read all the answers you received looking for what YOU wanted to see as the answer, as opposed to looking at what the writer wished to communicate as more relevant. So it is not your responders who failed to read what you wrote, but the other way round. You seem to forget some of us answering are extremely experienced as homeopaths and as teachers of homeopathy, and may have something to offer other than what you are desperately wanting to have someone say.
You did receive advice on understanding, but you rejected it, as it was not the advice you had decided you wanted:-)
You do show some preconceptions and would be wiser to drop them and be open minded with what is offered, and LOOK for something useful in what was written instread of rejecting it out of hand as "not what you wanted".
It was to answer your question - namely that it is NOT normal to dose daily for a long time in multiple cases. It is only somethig that MAY be done in a rare case IF it fits the principles. It was also an example of why you need to know the principles FIRST, before trying to understand a case. The principles stand alone, they do not require cases. Cases are only there to help with understanding principles, once you have tried to assimilate the principle.
I feel you are doing it backwatds and preventing yourself from maing good progress, by your insistence that cases can be studied before you know the principles.

You show an excellent inquiring mind. As an experieced teacher of homepathy to successful homeopaths, I am suggesting a better approach for you than your current one of studying cases.
I am aiming for your OVERALL objective in my answer - your wish to study Hahnemann's homeopathy, which you stated oft - and I am pointing you to a more effective approach.
No. You need to know the WHYs first.
The WHATs are illustrations only, and do not LEAD to the WHYs- that is why it is backwatds.
The WHYs actually DO lead to the WHATs. You are looking at it backwards.
I am offering sound advice that you start at the top - same way Hahnemann did - with the OVERALL principle, and work down to the details as you get more and more familiar with the principles. Hahnemann was wise doing it this way round - so should you be.
Not true.
It is in fact essential to understadn the why first.
Example:
The main WHY - is to "cure the sick" in the most gentle way. You MUST understand this FIRST before you look at how to do it.
Forget WHAT any homeopath was doing, including Hahnemann.
It is not relevant before you know the principles.
Understand WHY to do things and there will never even be a question of what a specific homeopath did or did not do, or whether Hahnemann would or would not have done it. THis last is what you are lookign for, and it sounds like a vendetta against a homeopath as it has nothig to do with someone keen to understand homeopathy as you also claim.

The answers you got were about how to learn homeopathy a better way than you are using.
You threw those answers away as you are only wanting to know if a past homeopath was any good methodologically.

Instead - Once you learn the principles, you will not even need to ask the question.
It is for you to decide - are you REALLY wanting to learn homeopathy as Hahnemann developed it - or are you just wantig to make a storm in a teacup about something one homeopath did (which is how you come across).

Apologies if I appear blunt in my opinions. It is well meant. (I tried the subtle way and you did not even see it.)
Truly - Learn the principles FIRST
Then you will become a homeopath with understanding of the art, and not just a mechanic.
Study cases and you will become an average homepath who often does things backwards.
Learning principles first is more work, but it also causes deep understanding, and forces you to use principles to determine how to handle every case. THat is what makes a homeopath great.
Learning cases is the lazy way, but I assure you, the depth perception is missing that way. The principles work is worth it.
The Wright brothers did not make flying possible by looking at airplane examples either.
THEY understood the principles first. And that was hard work.
Hahnemann started with the principles also.
HIS cases were experiements as much as the Wright brothers flying machies were experiments.
Learning from experiemets comes later...much later.
First understand the basics so you know enough principles to make sense of an experiment.

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[healthinfo6]

Dear all

Dear Elham,
That may be good info for acute and non-miasmatic disease conditions.
Studying Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases miasm concepts plus that Hahnemann wrote later that the Organon is for acutes and Chronic Disease is his methodology to treat inherited miasmatic chronic diseases leads to combining CD with overall Organon guidelines on how to prep, dose, administer remedies and judge progress.
| case. Don't forget hahnemann said if there is good improvement don't repeat
You're using 4th edition Organon theory applied to 6th edition Organon LMs without fully incorporating Hahnemann's evolution from 4th edition dry dosing to 5th edition minimum C water potency dosing to 6th edition Organon LM deviating each dose to raise potency instructions:
In Aph 246, 5th edition, note 1, Hahnemann wrote,
1 In the former editions of the Organon I have advised that a single dose of a well-selected homoeopathic medicine should always be allowed first fully to expend its action before a new medicine is given or the same one repeated - a doctrine which was the result of the positive experience that neither by a larger dose of the remedy, which may have been well chosen (as has been again recently proposed, but which would be very like a retrograde movement),
nor, what amounts to the same thing, by several doses of it given in quick succession, can the greatest possible good be effected in the treatment of diseases, more especially of chronic ones; and the reason of this is, that by such a procedure the vital force dose not quietly adapt itself to the transition from the natural disease to the similar medicinal disease, but is usually so violently excited and disturbed by a larger dose, or by smaller doses of even a homoeopathically chosen remedy given rapidly one after the other, that in most cases its reaction will be anything but salutary and will do more harm than good.
As long as no more efficacious mode of proceeding than that then taught by me was discovered, the safe philanthropic maxim of sin non juvat, modo ne noceat, rendered it imperative for the homoeopathic practitioner, for whom the weal of his fellow-creatures was the highest object, to allow, as a general rule in diseases, but a single dose at a time, and that the very smallest, of the carefully selected remedy to act upon the patient and, moreover, to exhaust its action. The very smallest, I repeat, for it holds good and will continue to hold good as a homoeopathic therapeutic maxim not to be refuted by any experience in the world, that the best doses of the properly selected remedy is always the very smallest on in one of the high potencies (X), as well for chronic as for acute as for acute diseases - a truth that is the inestimable property of pure homoeopathy and which as long as allopathy and the new mongrel sect, whose treatment is a mixture of allopathic and homoeopathic processes is not much better continues to gnaw like a cancer at the life of sick human beings, and to ruin them by large and ever larger doses of drugs, will keep pure homoeopathy separated from these spurious arts as by an impassable gulf.
In Aph 246 6th edition, note 1, Hahnemann revised his long 5th edition instructions above to shortened 6th edition instructions below that pertain to the LM potency:
1 What I said in the fifth edition of the organon, in a long note to this paragraph in order to prevent these undesirable reactions of the vital energy, was all the experience I then had justified. But during the last four or five years, however, all these difficulties are wholly solved by my new altered but perfected method. The same carefully selected medicine may now be given daily and for months, if necessary in this way, namely, after the lower degree of potency has been used for one or two weeks in the treatment of chronic disease, advance is made in the same way to higher degrees, (beginning according to the new dynamization method, taught herewith with the use of the lowest degrees).
http://homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/organ240.htm#P246
There must be a good yet overlooked reason he created an LM system specifying up to LM30.
Hahnemann envisioned at least 15+ months may be necessary, when using each LM potency completely, to fully treat chronic diseases due to inherited miasms besides using LMs for non-miasmatic conditions.
It seems contradictory that Hahnemann says LM speeds the cure yet provided for 30 potencies of it that deliberately takes a much longer time to use than previous 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M, .. potencies of which Hahnemann's cases only used up to 30C (??)
One reason is he observed how the vital force reacts to potencies, dose repetition, total doses and that to reduce aggravations and advance cure, gradual potency dose increases w/o repeating same dose is what's needed which is what the LMs do.
How long before he died and how many Paris LM cases exist to reach any definitive conclusion on what he intended on doing but didn't have a chance to fully test in his practice?
I think that Hahnemann saw a clear distinction between acutes, epidemics and miasmatic chronic disease in his day and hardly saw what today we see as layers of illness and acquired "chronic" diseases. Thus, he saw chronic diseases mainly due to miasms, along with various acutes, an epidemic while today we see "chronic" diseases arising due to our tainted polluted air, water environment, vaccines, high use of chemical additives, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides in food, stress, fast paced lifestyle along with decades of suppressing allopathic drug use. Many of the 300 or so chronic latent psora conditions that Hahnemann describes in Chronic Diseases are now quickly suppressed by modern methods from antacids to medicated shampoos, skin creams that may eventually cause stronger diseases to emerge due to one's miasmatic inheritance. Babies are suppressed during pregnancy from whatever drugs, foods a mother may be using.
Seeing a brief "improvement" after a dose in a chronic miasmatic disease is not curing it and doesn't mean waiting, watching to administer next dose unless you're giving the very first test dose.
Hahnemann states as much in Aph 246, 6th edition
"Every perceptibly progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration during treatment is a condition which, as long as it lasts, completely precludes every repetition of the administration of any medicine whatsoever, because all the good the medicine taken continues to effect is now hastening towards its completion. This is not infrequently the cause in acute diseases, but in more chronic diseases, on the other hand, a single dose of an appropriately selected homoeopathic remedy will at times complete even with but slowly progressive improvement and give the help which such a remedy in such a case can accomplish naturally within 40, 50, 60, 100 days. This is, however, but rarely the case; and besides, it must be a matter of great importance to the physician as well as to the patient that were it possible, this period should be diminished to one-half, one-quarter, and even still less, so that a much more rapid cure might be obtained. And this may be very happily affected, as recent and oft-repeated observations have taught me under the following conditions:
firstly, if the medicine selected with the utmost care was perfectly homoeopathic;
secondly, if it is highly potentized, dissolved in water
and given in proper small dose that experience has taught as the most suitable in definite intervals for the quickest accomplishment of the cure
but with the precaution, that the degree of every dose deviate somewhat from the preceding and following
In order that the vital principle which is to be altered to a similar medicinal disease be not aroused to untoward reactions and revolt as is always the case1 with unmodified and especially rapidly repeated doses."
This is an enhancement to 5th edition Organon Aph 246 where Hahnemann says it is necessary to intersperse another suitable remedy briefly to then be able to go back and continue to give a useful remedy for a longer period of time. Seems to be the concept of intercurrent remedies being introduced in the 5th Organon edition along with minimum dosing and then in the 6th edition Organon added raising the potency of each successive dose as an additional method plus ability to safely use daily when necessary that the LMs are designed to do well.
In Aph 246, 5th edition:
On the other hand, however, practice shows us that though a single one of these small doses may suffice to accomplish almost all that it was possible for this medicine to do under the circumstances, in some, and especially in slight cases of disease, particularly in those of young children and very delicate and excitable adults, yet that in many, indeed in most cases, not only of very chronic diseases that have already made great progress and have frequently been aggravated by a previous employment of inappropriate medicines, but also of serious acute diseases,
one such smallest dose of medicine in our highly potentized dynamization is evidently insufficient to effect all the curative action that might be expected from that medicine, for it may unquestionably be requisite to administer several of them, in order that the vital force may be pathogenetically altered by them to such a degree and its salutary reaction stimulated to such a height, as to enable it to completely extinguish, by its reaction, the whole of that portion of the original disease that it lay in the power of the well-selected homoeopathic remedy to eradicate; the best chosen medicine in such a small dose, given but once, might certainly be of some service, but would not be nearly sufficient.
But the careful homoeopathic physician would not venture soon to repeat the same dose of the same remedy again, as from such a practice he has frequently experienced no advantage, but most frequently, on close observation, decided disadvantage. He generally witnessed aggravation, from even the smallest dose of the most suitable remedy, which he has given one day, when he repeated the next day and the next.
But it happens, moreover, that a number of the smallest doses given for the same object in quick succession accumulate in the organism into a kind of excessively large dose, with (a few cases excepted) similar bad results; in this case the vital force, not being able to recover itself betwixt every dose, though it be but small, becomes oppressed and overwhelmed, and thus being incapable of reacting in a salutary manner, it is necessitated passively to allow involuntary the continuance of the over-strong medicinal disease that has thus been forced upon it, just in the same manner as we may every day observe from the allopathic abuse of large cumulative doses of one and the same medicine, to the lasting injury of the patient.
Using Sulphur as an example of this Hahnemann writes in Aph 246 5th edition:
Now, therefore, in order, whilst avoiding the erroneous method I have here pointed out, to attain the desired object more certainly than hitherto, and to administer the medicine selected in such a manner that it must exercise all its efficacy without injury to the patient, that it may effect all the good it is capable of performing in a given case of disease,
I have lately adopted a particular method.
I perceived that, in order to discover this true middle path, we must be guided as well by the nature of the different medicinal substances, as also by the corporeal constitution of the patient and the magnitude of the disease, so that - to give an example from the use of sulphur in chronic (psoric) diseases - the smallest dose of it (tinct, sulph. X°) can seldom be repeated with advantage, seen in the most robust patients and in fully developed psora, oftener than every seven days, a period of time which must be proportionally lengthened when we have to treat weaker and more excitable patients of this kind; in such cases we would do well to give such a dose only every nine, twelve, or fourteen days, and continue to repeat the medicine until it ceases to be of service.
When for other serious chronic diseases also we may consider it requisite, as far as we can calculate, to give eight, nine or ten doses of tinct. sulph. (at X°) it is yet more expedient in such cases, instead of giving them in uninterrupted succession, to interpose after every, or every second or third dose, a dose of another medicine, which in this case is next in point of homoeopathic suitableness to sulphur (usually hep. sulph.) and to allow this likewise to act for eight, nine, twelve or fourteen days before again commencing a course of three doses of sulphur.
As I recently wrote, I take LMs almost daily and have so the past 3 years.
I have made vast improvements in health and reduced and eliminated most allo drugs and more recently, as I experienced during TubK LM17, are able to further reduce diabeties drug Metformin and HBP drug Atenolol to once or twice a week from daily.
Having treated a few friends/relatives, I have seen that daily LM or C potency admin is generally unnecessary but the conditions they have seem, all inherited, not to require them. Someone I'm not treating but referred out is taking daily 1M doses and seems to need them.
I have a newer case which I'm moving to LM 4 from daily 200C as the person has noticeably benefitted from daily 200C thru 203C dosing for 2 months then waning. Currently taking their antimiasmatic nosode intercurrent the past week, I will resume them on LM 4 in a week or so to further progress.
By providing this info I'm hoping to dispel the myth that's been propagated and have become part of homeopathic lore that LMs are weak, LMs are not needed daily and all chronic diseases may be as easily curable as acutes by solely following the Organon. I don't think I've read one case that has cured a truly inherited miasmatic chronic disease but mainly provided some improvement along with many amazing cures of acutes, acquired diseases and conditions have been discussed.
Also to encourage usage of antimiasmatic nosodes as intercurrents when case appropriate since it's been written over the years to use them sparingly, rarely if at all thus discouraging use.
Also dependent is age you're treating as those inherited miasmatic diseases that emerge later in life can be improved by using the proper antimiasmatic nosode once the miasm has progressed from a latent state to active and or dominant.
Susan