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
