Minutus

Thanks Luise,
Very weird on so many counts...
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi H,
You're presenting the issue of the size of the dose (donut, whatever) as if it's a clear-cut, conclusion, totally obvious and known. But there is a debate, and it's known there's a debate, Kentians on one side of the line with "never mind the quantity feel the potency" and H's original writings (CD and Organon) speaking against the mistake of giving a dose that is too large - in size not in potency. You often write about the importance of accepting that different homeopaths work in different ways, and there is a growing number of homeopaths who work according to minimum dose in terms of size of dose not just potentisation.
Neither Koppikar nor Kent's opinions should be brushed off, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to work to their (K&K's) truths and no-one else's.
Regards,
Vera

hahnemannian2002 wrote:
Hi Ben-
No offense taken- Call me whatever you want - this is what I am
calling myself- You can call me H2002 as some do - Horror 2002 if
you want...

The cases described were not mine and the remedies as such were taken
this way by the patients themselves - not prescribed thus by Dr.Koppikar.
He just mentions what he had observed in his practice...

For me a dose is one time administration of the medicine No. 10 pill
or No.20 pill or a huge donut size pill. At 30th potency I do not
think size matters whether it is the simillimum or not. I have never
had any aggravation in my patients as far as I could see due to
that.May be I am myopic ( I really am) any way. I have even soaked the
medicines in allopathic sugar tablets each one the size of a coat
button and given it.

I have seen practitioners ( even I have done it) put one whole drop in
milk sugar and administer to the patient. In terms of globules this
would be enough to moisten about 1 ml pills at least.

Let us say you dilute a minute No.10 pill of the medicine in a bucket
of water- would it matter if you gave it in a teaspoon or a
tablespoon? Would it matter if the patient swallows the water or
gargles his/her mouth and spits it out? Or if swallows half of it and
spits out the rest? Will there be a difference in action?

Regarding swallowing a bucket of globules with impunity if not the
simillimum does not sound reasonable either as there is always the
question of proving.

What do you think of Clarke's and Burnett's prescriptions? Are these
unHahnemannian creatures still homeopaths?

Let me quote Koppikar again: "The law of Homeopathy is a Universal
Law, and every cure can be explained through the Law, irrespective of
the dose".

And once again in terms of experience Dr.Koppikar has been in practice
since Sept 1937 and is the oldest living homeopathic practitioner in
India. So his opinions cannot be easily brushed off.

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "briut1" wrote:
---------------------------------
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

depends what you call harm. For me, an extremely unpleasant and/or prolonged aggravation constitutes harm, it doesn't correspond with the instruction to cure gently, rapidly and permanently. I had a very bad mental/emotional aggravation with a dry dose of Stramonium a long time ago (which is why I moved to water doses), and a more recent aggravation from a dose of Causticum 6C which raised the patient's blood sugar (since she was diabetic this was all definitely cause for concern), caused tremendous headaches in an old operation site, caused hot flushes, increased irritation, and general malaise. The dose in question was given from one tiny poppy-seed size pill diluted in 20 ml of half-half alcohol/water, succussed 6 times, one drop taken from the solution diluted in a full cup of water, half a teaspoon taken from the cup as the dose. This was taken once only. The aggravation lasted almost a month - this is the only aggravation of this nature that I've seen from a
medicinal solution. The patient left homeopathy, although towards the end she was starting to improve and her blood sugar apparently dropped dramatically, so it's possible that the dose was ultimately helpful (I hope!).
So I don't know if that's harming the patient or not, but I've learned to start with olfaction when there is any deep pathology whether the patient seems sensitive or not. And I do feel that an intense aggravation is potentially very harmful as the patient is knocked off balance physically and emotionally, which means that if any physical or emotional trigger occurs during the time of the aggravation, there could be a serious deterioration in the patient's situation due to increased vulnerability.
I think maybe there should be a forum for those who are willing to post all their FAILED cases! Those of us lesser mortals who don't always succeed, but just try, try, try again...!
Vera

Kathleen Ramsey wrote:
This is right out of the books you should have read as a trained Homeopath!
I posed a question if anyone in their own practice and history have ever had
a severe aggravation as was one stated for the 94 year old man? All I keep
getting is quotes from books. I personally have not ever HARMED anyone
with homeopathy. I have had only great success with it. So any personal
stories would be greatly appreciated. These kind of stories are truly the
reason people are afraid of it. Thanks Kathy

_____

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
briut1
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 1:48 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: First Do Not Harm

Dear John,
It is so exciting to read your clear presentation of this important
subject and good to know that there are some who really are followers
of the founder of Homeopathy.
I would like your permission to translate it to Hebrew and to
publish it on the local websites. The confusion about this matter is
great.

Thank you so much
Ben.

--- In minutus@yahoogroups .com, "John
Harvey"
wrote:
or
he
in
other
homoeopathic
a
of
one
between
END
(Aphorism
disease "will
effecting a
next
must
be
begin,
establish
give
may
their
at
cure.
symptoms
find.
do.)
the
frequent
second
expecting

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

probably quite a few if t
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

post all their FAILED cases! Those of us lesser mortals who don't
always succeed, but just try, try, try again...!
That is a VERY good idea, Vera.

I hope others follow your example.
Such a site or forum would definitely be as "educational" as any
other, and probably much more so.

Kind regards,

A.

Heck, we don't need a special forum, just some more volunteers...
(We've gotten them now and then!) One of my favorite type of case, is
where the prescriber thought they knew what was needed, but it didn't
work, then to learn what finally "cracked the case" and delivered the
remedy that worked.

Vera, are you talking about steps along the way toward a working
remedy, or cases where the remedy hasn't been found yet? One good
place to look is HomeopathicSymposium, esp. at their "team effort"
cases. Also Jeremy Sherr's video presentation on Germanium mentions
one of his patients (also a student) for whom he'd been unable to find
the needed remedy for I think a couple of years, until the proving of
Germanium.
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Vera,
This sounds too me like a situation where a single dose of a higher
potency would have made sense--tho nerve-wracking if, like me, you have
the assumption that low potencies are more gentle than high! I've seen
just a couple of instances where a lower potency aggravated (i think it
was 200 in one case and 30 in another, tho I can't remember for
certain) but a much higher potency acted very smoothly. In each case
the aggravation was not a violent one, but just sort of grindingly,
whiningly unpleasant, like their system was trying to get down to
business, and just couldn't quite get on with the job. One of my
teachers described the situation as, "strong enough to irritate the
vital force, but not strong enough to move it." Tho it sounds like
maybe things did finally begin to move for her, we can hope! I would
love to hear others' thoughts about Vera's case, whether those with
more experience feel that a dose of higher potency would have been
reasonable, or risky? (I assume those who always use 30 and up will
feel that it would have been!)
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Saturday, November 4, 2006, at 01:04 PM, VR VR wrote:
Two thoughts about this: One is to wonder whether that caution about
"too-large" dose appeared in the 4th edition, as well as 5 and 6? And
second, to note that when H *first* developed homeopathy, he was using
crude substances, and in that situation size of dose would *definitely*
have mattered with the toxins!

With LMs (and a sensitive patient?) size-of-dose is certainly a factor,
but with Cs it seems much, much, much less so, at least so my own
experience says.
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here is the personal experience I had with remedies, which
led me to understand that first of all it is a question of
individual sensitivity but also that if the remedy you take
is perfectly indicated, then your sensitivity to it is
increased.
After some events, I realized I had a pattern of answer to
them all my life, fitting perfectly one remedy. As it was a
deep issue and long lasting, I reasoned I needed a high
potency and used a single dose of 10M: result was horrible
vertigo for a few days with nevertheless eventual resolution
of the issues and better all over health.
I decided to experiment on doses and started popping high
potencies of non indicated remedies, 10M and 50M, including
nosodes. No bad effect whatsoever, even when I thought I was
taking remedies close or similar to my constitution or my
dominant miasms.....but I must boast that I am now very
healthy, so maybe that is why I apparently did not have any
reaction.

Experiences with patients: no deaths or dangerous
situations, but sometimes surprises like a 30c giving
aggravations in a young, otherwise strong and almost healthy
person, reason why I now went back to Margaret Tyler's old
techniques of 3 doses over 3 days (30-200-1M or
200-1M-10M)the latest dose being the one you would have used
as single dose, with the usual warnings to the patient. As I
now use mainly LM potencies for deep chronic cases, it
becomes easier to pick up the beginning of aggravations and
stop the remedy at once if this is well explained to the
patient.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

Hi John and Ben and all,
Does anyone recall whether this size-of-dose issue was raised already
in the 4th edition, or not until the 5th or 6th?
This too--had he said this in the 4th, or not until later?
[...]
Hahnemann very clearly distinguished, in Aphorisms 246 to 250, between

This is--as far as I can see--specific to treatment with LMs; because
they certainly can occur at the beginning with Cs, and can also occur
with LMs if the dose is too strong! And actually with LMs, if you are
re-dosing "as needed", then there is no need for aggravation at the end
either--repetitions just get spaced farther and farther out, until the
patient has just "forgotten about it". What are others' experience in
this regard?
You are mixing two quite different issues!
1) repeating unchanged potency, and
2) repeating mechanically and (over-)frequently.

The two do not necessarily go together. For e.g. 4th ed. prescribers
always do the first, and never (or ideally never) do the second. I
confess that was my first training, and my first long experience as a
patient. I am slowly learning water dose methods too, but find myself
still quite unafraid of the 4th ed methods...

But anyway--I do always appreciate hearing others' experiences, and
"always learning"!

John--I am curious whether you are a practitioner, and where you
studied? Was your first instruction in 6th ed. methods, or did
you--like many of us--begin by learning to practice with 4th ed
methods, and move on from there?

Thanks and best wishes,
Shannon