LM Cases in the Hahnemann Paris casebooks 1
Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:32 pm
Homeopathy. 2006 Jul;95(3):171-81.
Hahnemann's experiments with 50 millesimal potencies: a further review of
his casebooks. Adler UC, Adler MS.
Homeopathy Postgraduation Program, Jundiai School of Medicine, Av. Moema,
170. Cj 52., 04077-020 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. ubiadler@uol.com.br
BACKGROUND:
A review of Hahnemann's clinical records at the Institute for History of
Medicine of the Robert Bosch Foundation in Stuttgart shows that until the
end of his life, Hahnemann continued to refine his clinical method, based
on clinical cases. His "most perfected method" motivated him to write the
sixth edition of the The Organon of the Healing Art, proposing solutions
controlling the side effects he observed with repeated doses of homeopathic
medicines. Unfortunately, this was published many years posthumously. The
sixth edition of The Organon introduced the fifty-millesimal scale.
OBJECTIVES:
To identify the clinical cases treated with fifty-millesimal potencies and
analyze Hahnemann's use of them.
RESULTS:
1836 prescriptions of fifty-millesimal potencies were found, between1837
and 1843 in three phases: initially sporadic; later compared regularly to
centesimal dynamizations; and finally systematically. Thirty five medicines
were identified in fifty-millesimal prescriptions, seven in potencies
higher than 10 and only 3 (Sulphur, Mercurius solubilis and Rhus
toxicodendron) used in the 30th degree. This accords with Haehl's
information about the remedies in Hahnemann's case of
fifty-millesimal potencies.
CONCLUSIONS:
Hahnemann probably decided to write the sixth edition, in 1840, to
incorporate his latest experience with the repetition of potentized doses
and periodically modified potencies. He must have revised it after February
1842 to include his latest findings with fifty-millesimal potencies in
ascending degrees. Hahnemann's conception about the superiority of the
fifty-millesimal in comparison with the centesimal dynamization was based
on a significant number of experiments with the
two scales.
------------------------------
Dear students and colleagues,
I have been in touch with U. Adler and he had sent me his full article
with some digital images and additional information, etc. I must commend
his wife and he on their latest statistical research of Hahnemann Paris
Casebooks. It is interesting to note that the Adlers new research confirms
exactly what I have been saying for several years. There are many more LM
cases in the Paris casebooks than he noted in his first article in 1995. My
first criteria for confirming an LM notation is that the notations in
Hahnemann's Paris casebooks match the notations found on the vials in
Hahnemann LM remedy chest recovered by R. Haehl. Haehl noted that the LM
remedies in his remedy chest were "designated as medicaments aux globules
with 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc." Haehl noted that some of the remedies were
potentized up to the 30th degree. Therefore if the remedy notation is in a
vertical stack with a single 0 and Arabic numbers 1 through 30 this is
direct evidence that the notations is an LM potency.
Haehl's eyewitness testimony agrees perfectly with the eyewitness
account of Reverend Everest. When speaking of the new potencies Everest
said Hahnemann "put them into a tube in his medicine chest, well corked;
these he labeled 0/1". Everest also wrote; "The preparation so made were
called medicamens au globule (which is the meaning of the 0), to
distinguish them from the old ones, which are marked with a small cross
(x), and called medicamens a la goutte (medicine of the drop)". My second
criteria for confirming the LM potency is the context in which the notation
appears. If the notations are in harmony with other proven LM cases in
Hahnemann's casebooks, the posology and case management found the 6th
Organon, and with first hand accounts like that of Everest, Croserio and
Boenninghausen, it adds confirmatory evidence.
On this basis of the above criteria I have been saying that Hahnemann
made many more than 681 LM prescriptions. Alder has now counted around 1886
LM prescriptions in the Paris casebooks demonstrating 35 remedies. My
research shows that in the years 1840 and 1841 Hahnemann often begin cases
with higher LM potencies like the 0/5, 0/7 even 0/10, etc. After April,1842
Hahnemann began to systematically use the lowest degrees like 0/1, 0/2, 03
in the manner suggested in the 6th Organon. U. Adler has confirmed the fact
that in 1840 and 1841 Hahnemann would often begin with higher potencies
(0/6, 0/6, 0/7, etc.) but that after 2/1842 he began to methodically use
lower potencies like 0/1, 0/2, 0/3. Adler offered charts that show this
pattern. Adler quotes one of my articles in his work in which I stated
that one of the reasons Hahnemann lowered his potencies to the 0/1, 0/2,
0/3 was aggravations being caused by starting cases with higher potencies
in the early years.
For some time, I have been saying that the version of the Organon
recovered by Haehl in 1920 may not be the same as the copy he sent to the
publishers in 2/1842. Adler also has come to a similar conclusion. Why are
we been saying this? One reason is because the way Hahnemann used the LM
potency up to April, 1842 is different than the way he used it in the
second half of 1842 and 1843. It is during these later dates that Hahnemann
systematically applied the LM potency in the "lowest degrees" as stated in
the footnote to aphorism 246 of the 6th edition. It has been my opinion
that Hahnemann would have continued to add his latest experiences to his
personal manuscript so that it was completely up to date by the time he
passed away in 6/1843. The Adlers agrees. They makes it clear with their
charts and commentary that the footnotes which introduced the use of the
lowest degrees had to be added after April, 1842 because at this date
Hahnemann had NOT developed that method yet!
I have been saying for a long time that Hahnemann made many more than
27 prescriptions before the date April, 1842 when he attempted to publish
his early draft of the 6th Organon. I made public 33 prescriptions as
examples. The Adlers now point out that Hahnemann used the LM potency
around 884 times before this date! He includes fprescriptions I published
on the WWW. In U. Adler's first article he said that all 27 LM
prescriptions made before 2/1842 were of Sulphur. I have been saying for
years that I had seen other remedies besides Sulphur before this date and
published a few examples on the WWW. The Adlers have now confirmed that
indeed Hahnemann did use remedies other than Sulphur. These remedies
include Hep-s., Lyc., Bell., Sil., Rhus-t., Nux-v., Merc., Graph., Bry.,
Alum., Caust., and Calc.
Adler's new research article confirm several things that I have been
saying for many years. There are those who have been using the incomplete
information in U. Adler's first article as a basis to say that Hahnemann
did not have "much experience" with the LM potencies, etc. Some act as if
he should not have even tried to publish the 6th edition. There are those
that have repeated this same refrain even though I showed them examples of
several LM prescriptions and remedies other than Sulphur prescribed before
the date April, 1842. They turned a blind eye to this data.
For some April, 1842 is somehow some sort of "cut off date" for the 6th
Organon but this is not the case. The charts in the Adlers new study
clearly show that Hahnemann did NOT use the LM potency systematically in
the lowest degrees like 0/1, 0/2, 0/3 until AFTER this date. On this basis,
the Alders opine that Hahnemann altered the 6th Organon after April, 1842
to include this new information. It is only natural that Hahnemann would
have continued to update his manuscript with this latest experiences in the
last three quarters of 1842 and the first two quarters of 1843.
I am glad to see that the research of Alder and Little is "coming
together" rather than getting further apart. When two independent peers
come up with the same material it is a good sign we are on the right track.
I hope those who continued to ignore accurate information will come to
their senses as it is very obvious that 886 prescription of 14 different
remedies before April, 1842, and 1886 prescriptions in 35 remedies in
total, was amble experience for Hahnemann to speak about the LM potency.
One must also understand that Hahnemann was 86 years old in April,1842
so he must have known that he did not have a lot of time left on this
earth. This is all the more reason why he tried to publish the 6th Organon.
It was very important for him to get his latest ideas to his students and
colleagues before he died. He wrote both Boenninghausen and Hering about
his new Organon in 1842 and sent Boenninghausen two LM case histories for
his instruction in 1843. Let us view the situation with compassion and
knowledge. The idea that Hahnemann had little experience with the LM
potencies has been proven untrue. The Alders and my research should put an
end to such thoughts once and for all!
As to my statements on how Hahnemann used the LM potency in the clinic.
These statements will be fully documented with letters, eyewitness accounts
and translations of the Paris casebooks done by my team and will be placed
in the public domain at the appropriate time. I have submitted examples of
our translations, digital images and data to the Robert Bosch Foundation in
Stuttgart, Germany (who own the original casebooks) and have been granted
permission to publish this information in books, articles and on my
website. For this honor I am deeply grateful.
Similar Minimus
Sincerely, David Little
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines." - Samuel Hahnemann
Homoeopathic Online Education (H.O.E)
Visit David Little's website:
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2006
Hahnemann's experiments with 50 millesimal potencies: a further review of
his casebooks. Adler UC, Adler MS.
Homeopathy Postgraduation Program, Jundiai School of Medicine, Av. Moema,
170. Cj 52., 04077-020 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. ubiadler@uol.com.br
BACKGROUND:
A review of Hahnemann's clinical records at the Institute for History of
Medicine of the Robert Bosch Foundation in Stuttgart shows that until the
end of his life, Hahnemann continued to refine his clinical method, based
on clinical cases. His "most perfected method" motivated him to write the
sixth edition of the The Organon of the Healing Art, proposing solutions
controlling the side effects he observed with repeated doses of homeopathic
medicines. Unfortunately, this was published many years posthumously. The
sixth edition of The Organon introduced the fifty-millesimal scale.
OBJECTIVES:
To identify the clinical cases treated with fifty-millesimal potencies and
analyze Hahnemann's use of them.
RESULTS:
1836 prescriptions of fifty-millesimal potencies were found, between1837
and 1843 in three phases: initially sporadic; later compared regularly to
centesimal dynamizations; and finally systematically. Thirty five medicines
were identified in fifty-millesimal prescriptions, seven in potencies
higher than 10 and only 3 (Sulphur, Mercurius solubilis and Rhus
toxicodendron) used in the 30th degree. This accords with Haehl's
information about the remedies in Hahnemann's case of
fifty-millesimal potencies.
CONCLUSIONS:
Hahnemann probably decided to write the sixth edition, in 1840, to
incorporate his latest experience with the repetition of potentized doses
and periodically modified potencies. He must have revised it after February
1842 to include his latest findings with fifty-millesimal potencies in
ascending degrees. Hahnemann's conception about the superiority of the
fifty-millesimal in comparison with the centesimal dynamization was based
on a significant number of experiments with the
two scales.
------------------------------
Dear students and colleagues,
I have been in touch with U. Adler and he had sent me his full article
with some digital images and additional information, etc. I must commend
his wife and he on their latest statistical research of Hahnemann Paris
Casebooks. It is interesting to note that the Adlers new research confirms
exactly what I have been saying for several years. There are many more LM
cases in the Paris casebooks than he noted in his first article in 1995. My
first criteria for confirming an LM notation is that the notations in
Hahnemann's Paris casebooks match the notations found on the vials in
Hahnemann LM remedy chest recovered by R. Haehl. Haehl noted that the LM
remedies in his remedy chest were "designated as medicaments aux globules
with 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc." Haehl noted that some of the remedies were
potentized up to the 30th degree. Therefore if the remedy notation is in a
vertical stack with a single 0 and Arabic numbers 1 through 30 this is
direct evidence that the notations is an LM potency.
Haehl's eyewitness testimony agrees perfectly with the eyewitness
account of Reverend Everest. When speaking of the new potencies Everest
said Hahnemann "put them into a tube in his medicine chest, well corked;
these he labeled 0/1". Everest also wrote; "The preparation so made were
called medicamens au globule (which is the meaning of the 0), to
distinguish them from the old ones, which are marked with a small cross
(x), and called medicamens a la goutte (medicine of the drop)". My second
criteria for confirming the LM potency is the context in which the notation
appears. If the notations are in harmony with other proven LM cases in
Hahnemann's casebooks, the posology and case management found the 6th
Organon, and with first hand accounts like that of Everest, Croserio and
Boenninghausen, it adds confirmatory evidence.
On this basis of the above criteria I have been saying that Hahnemann
made many more than 681 LM prescriptions. Alder has now counted around 1886
LM prescriptions in the Paris casebooks demonstrating 35 remedies. My
research shows that in the years 1840 and 1841 Hahnemann often begin cases
with higher LM potencies like the 0/5, 0/7 even 0/10, etc. After April,1842
Hahnemann began to systematically use the lowest degrees like 0/1, 0/2, 03
in the manner suggested in the 6th Organon. U. Adler has confirmed the fact
that in 1840 and 1841 Hahnemann would often begin with higher potencies
(0/6, 0/6, 0/7, etc.) but that after 2/1842 he began to methodically use
lower potencies like 0/1, 0/2, 0/3. Adler offered charts that show this
pattern. Adler quotes one of my articles in his work in which I stated
that one of the reasons Hahnemann lowered his potencies to the 0/1, 0/2,
0/3 was aggravations being caused by starting cases with higher potencies
in the early years.
For some time, I have been saying that the version of the Organon
recovered by Haehl in 1920 may not be the same as the copy he sent to the
publishers in 2/1842. Adler also has come to a similar conclusion. Why are
we been saying this? One reason is because the way Hahnemann used the LM
potency up to April, 1842 is different than the way he used it in the
second half of 1842 and 1843. It is during these later dates that Hahnemann
systematically applied the LM potency in the "lowest degrees" as stated in
the footnote to aphorism 246 of the 6th edition. It has been my opinion
that Hahnemann would have continued to add his latest experiences to his
personal manuscript so that it was completely up to date by the time he
passed away in 6/1843. The Adlers agrees. They makes it clear with their
charts and commentary that the footnotes which introduced the use of the
lowest degrees had to be added after April, 1842 because at this date
Hahnemann had NOT developed that method yet!
I have been saying for a long time that Hahnemann made many more than
27 prescriptions before the date April, 1842 when he attempted to publish
his early draft of the 6th Organon. I made public 33 prescriptions as
examples. The Adlers now point out that Hahnemann used the LM potency
around 884 times before this date! He includes fprescriptions I published
on the WWW. In U. Adler's first article he said that all 27 LM
prescriptions made before 2/1842 were of Sulphur. I have been saying for
years that I had seen other remedies besides Sulphur before this date and
published a few examples on the WWW. The Adlers have now confirmed that
indeed Hahnemann did use remedies other than Sulphur. These remedies
include Hep-s., Lyc., Bell., Sil., Rhus-t., Nux-v., Merc., Graph., Bry.,
Alum., Caust., and Calc.
Adler's new research article confirm several things that I have been
saying for many years. There are those who have been using the incomplete
information in U. Adler's first article as a basis to say that Hahnemann
did not have "much experience" with the LM potencies, etc. Some act as if
he should not have even tried to publish the 6th edition. There are those
that have repeated this same refrain even though I showed them examples of
several LM prescriptions and remedies other than Sulphur prescribed before
the date April, 1842. They turned a blind eye to this data.
For some April, 1842 is somehow some sort of "cut off date" for the 6th
Organon but this is not the case. The charts in the Adlers new study
clearly show that Hahnemann did NOT use the LM potency systematically in
the lowest degrees like 0/1, 0/2, 0/3 until AFTER this date. On this basis,
the Alders opine that Hahnemann altered the 6th Organon after April, 1842
to include this new information. It is only natural that Hahnemann would
have continued to update his manuscript with this latest experiences in the
last three quarters of 1842 and the first two quarters of 1843.
I am glad to see that the research of Alder and Little is "coming
together" rather than getting further apart. When two independent peers
come up with the same material it is a good sign we are on the right track.
I hope those who continued to ignore accurate information will come to
their senses as it is very obvious that 886 prescription of 14 different
remedies before April, 1842, and 1886 prescriptions in 35 remedies in
total, was amble experience for Hahnemann to speak about the LM potency.
One must also understand that Hahnemann was 86 years old in April,1842
so he must have known that he did not have a lot of time left on this
earth. This is all the more reason why he tried to publish the 6th Organon.
It was very important for him to get his latest ideas to his students and
colleagues before he died. He wrote both Boenninghausen and Hering about
his new Organon in 1842 and sent Boenninghausen two LM case histories for
his instruction in 1843. Let us view the situation with compassion and
knowledge. The idea that Hahnemann had little experience with the LM
potencies has been proven untrue. The Alders and my research should put an
end to such thoughts once and for all!
As to my statements on how Hahnemann used the LM potency in the clinic.
These statements will be fully documented with letters, eyewitness accounts
and translations of the Paris casebooks done by my team and will be placed
in the public domain at the appropriate time. I have submitted examples of
our translations, digital images and data to the Robert Bosch Foundation in
Stuttgart, Germany (who own the original casebooks) and have been granted
permission to publish this information in books, articles and on my
website. For this honor I am deeply grateful.
Similar Minimus
Sincerely, David Little
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines." - Samuel Hahnemann
Homoeopathic Online Education (H.O.E)
Visit David Little's website:
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2006