First Do Not Harm

[John Harvey]

Dear Shannon, Ben, H2002, and Kathleen, thanks for your comments,
which are all helpful and illuminating. To answer a couple of
questions:
I've never encountered the fourth edition entire, but in quotations
from it Hahnemann is explicit about using one or two pillules of
poppy-seed size and not repeating the dose till improvement ceases.
In this, he is doing all he can to avoid the aggravations that seem to
be so common today, by reducing the actual size of the dose and
avoiding all repetition.

In the fifth edition, Hahnemann introduces doses in solution and the
possibility of repetition, depending on the state of the patient (and
other factors), but only on condition that

(1) the medicine be perfectly homoeopathic (to be gauged by the
response to the first dose);

(2) there has been continuous but slow and gradual improvement rather
than either none or considerable improvement day by day;

(3) the medicine be highly potentised, dissolved in water, and given
in a properly small dose; and

(4) that the potency change with every dose (Aphorisms 285 to 288).
By the way, my earlier message refers in the third paragraph to the
Organon's fifth edition, where it should say fourth edition.
Fourth edition, Aphorisms 245:

"Even one dose of the same medicine which has up to now proved
beneficial, if repeated before the improvement has begun to stand
still in every direction, will, like an untimely interference, only
aggravate the state..."
I understand why it looks as though I've brought the separate issue of
mechanical repetition into a discussion of something unrelated. But
it relates in two ways:

(1) The fourth-edition method calls for a single dose, so doses
repeated -- whether artistically or by clockwork -- are inappropriate;
twice-daily ones especially so. Again, we're talking of repetition
before the symptoms have relapsed.

(2) The fifth-edition method allows for careful repetition (before
relapse) only under the most exacting of circumstances, and one of
those is that the doses be in solution; Hahnemann writes of the
dangers of repeating a dry dose in particular, and emphasises that the
danger is greater with more frequent repetition.

So the greater frequency is a factor that aggravates the dangers of repetition.
I studied under the guidance of a practising homoeopath in Canberra
from 1976 to 1978, at the end of which year I commenced practice.
Though I remain a student of the subject and continue to practise, for
family reasons I gave up commercial practice in 1984. My only contact
with the fourth edition till recently was indirect, principally via
Kent's teachings. Through repeated readings of the _Organon_'s sixth
edition and _Chronic Diseases_, I learned some great shortcuts to
cure, but in the meantime learned much by obeying Kent's injunction to
NOT repeat the remedy short of relaps but learn to assess the effect
of the first dose. Kent was, of course, not alone amongst the great
modern practitioners in maintaining this practice.

The most important thing that I learned from actually doing the
"waiting and watching" part rather than repeating the "single dose"
part till something happened concerned patients and the relationship
between their natural symptoms and the potentised substance I'd given
them.

It's quite simple.

If you don't hold in your hands in a single dose the means to remove
the patient's (chronic) symptoms for a considerable period (months
rather than days or hours) slowly, then neither do you hold the means
to remove them rapidly.

Look into these confusing cases that arise from repetition, and ask
yourself why the practitioner repeated the dose. Start with
Hahnemann's first condition for repetition, perfect homoeopathicity,
and you generally won't get any further than that: the practitioner
had no idea whether the medicine was suitable or not before repeating
it. The medicine was repeated not for the sake of the patient, not to
accelerate a clear but slow cure, but for the sake of the
practitioner's insecurities.

How long does it take to know whether you have a clear cure, if it's a
slow one? Can you gauge it in hours, a day, two days? Kent said to
take a month, though generally it will be clear in a couple of weeks.
The prescriber who can't wait for a week has no idea, and repeats the
dose in order to make something happen. And something does happen:
discussions like these.

Large dry dose, extremely low potency, unchanging potency, and
inappropriate (not to say mechanical) repetition won't mitigate in the
slightest the several but slight and temporary problems of giving the
wrong medicine; they'll exacerbate them beyond all control and
eventually entrench them beyond all removal. Every experienced
accurate prescriber and observer will tell you that the results of
recalcitrant repetition, and PARTICULARLY of frequent repetition, of
an unchanged potency will be confusing, aggravating, disagreeable, and
occasionally dangerous. That applies as much to low potencies (30 and
below) as to high (10M and above), and as much to the LM series as to
the C series.

And that, I think, is where this discussion began!

Kind regards,

John Harvey

[robin9168]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "arista000" wrote:

Great idea although "all" maybe not. Who has go the time to do that
much typing?

[muthu kumar]

Hi Vera-
I never said anything about any one else using the dosing as they
prefer...it is individual and there is a lot of "self-fulfilling
prophecy" in this business...
I am not saying it is a clear-cut, conclusion either. I was just
responding to a questioning of my unHahnemannian "dangerous"
suggestions;

Also this is not Kentians against Hahnemannians... This is against
years of practice since Hahnemann- show me how many of the old
practitioners gave the plussing or LM all the time...

I am not saying that LMs cannot work -just that in my practice I
have poppy seed to donut size doses with no problem- or at least had
no issue with any patient because of that... may be Indians are made
of sturdier stuff or may be all the spices protect us from all
that aggravations unleashed by 3 or 4 globules of the simillimum.

Everyone encounters aggravations in their practice - may be by
giving LM I can turn this into a delight for my patient. Till now
nobody complained that those 5 little pills I gave them are dragging
them to their death-

I have no problems with people working with any potencies - solid,
liquid or olfaction- heck I had nothing against even combinations-

So that is for clarification-
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, VR VR wrote:
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.
that doesn't mean that everyone has to work to their (K&K's) truths
and no-one else's.
if
taken
Dr.Koppikar.
pill
never
the
drop in
bucket
and
these
of
practice
in
what
in my
with
was not
not
they
them,
lived
ones... I
certanly
full
but
affinity
a
of
of
to
always
I
about
is
showed
and
has a
years" . He
it
of
fingers
this
and
myself -
extremely
dosage or
had
aggravations
old
I
a
see-
Phone call rates.

[bijupgeo]

hai,

i am new to this group.

i am biju, from india.

i am practicing homoeopathy for last 10 years .

first 9 using 4th ed.

now both 4th and 5th.

in psoric cases i an using 4th and in sycotic or supprressed cases 5th.

am getting results from both.

but has to be very careful with selection of patient for 5th ed method:

most of the patients are repeting medicine unneccesarily and causing
aggravations, which is very difficult to manage.

my experince is very limited.

am interested to know more about water potencies.

will keep in contact.

with love

in homoeopathy,

biju.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon wrote:
even
END
end

[VR VR]

Hi H,
thanks for the clarifications. I don't see it as Kentians against Hahnemannians (whatever they are), but I think it is evident that there are at least two schools of thought regarding the dosing issue (probably many, many more).
Does "coffee and donut" count as a combination remedy?
Regards,
Vera

hahnemannian2002 wrote:
Hi Vera-
I never said anything about any one else using the dosing as they
prefer...it is individual and there is a lot of "self-fulfilling
prophecy" in this business...

I am not saying it is a clear-cut, conclusion either. I was just
responding to a questioning of my unHahnemannian "dangerous"
suggestions;

Also this is not Kentians against Hahnemannians... This is against
years of practice since Hahnemann- show me how many of the old
practitioners gave the plussing or LM all the time...

I am not saying that LMs cannot work -just that in my practice I
have poppy seed to donut size doses with no problem- or at least had
no issue with any patient because of that... may be Indians are made
of sturdier stuff or may be all the spices protect us from all
that aggravations unleashed by 3 or 4 globules of the simillimum.

Everyone encounters aggravations in their practice - may be by
giving LM I can turn this into a delight for my patient. Till now
nobody complained that those 5 little pills I gave them are dragging
them to their death-

I have no problems with people working with any potencies - solid,
liquid or olfaction- heck I had nothing against even combinations-

So that is for clarification-

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, VR VR wrote:
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.
that doesn't mean that everyone has to work to their (K&K's) truths
and no-one else's.
if
taken
Dr.Koppikar.
pill
never
the
drop in
bucket
and
these
of
practice
in
what
in my
with
was not
not
they
them,
lived
ones... I
certanly
full
but
affinity
a
of
of
to

always
I
about
is
showed
and
has a
years" . He
it
of
fingers
this
and
myself -
extremely
dosage or
had
aggravations
old
I
a
see-
Phone call rates.
---------------------------------
Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near historic lows: $150,000 loan as low as $579/mo. Intro-*Terms

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

[Rosemary C. Hyde, Ph.D.]

It would be a very good and useful book for homeopaths. When I have had
trouble finding the right remedy through several tries, and then it finally
"clicks" what it is, I find that the key elements needed to choose that
remedy often hadn't come to the foreground yet. Sometimest they were
present, but as minor background issues that have become clarified.
Sometimes they weren't apparent in any way previously. However, this is
always a wonderful learning opportunity, to see how the primary picture can
be obscured, and how the case has evolved. I think that sharing such cases
(although it would be a work of devotion in our busy lives, for sure to take
the time to share the write-ups) is important and very useful.

Rosemary