Minutus

At 01:35 PM 6/26/2007 -0500, you wrote:

Hahnemann would reduce the dose or stop the repetition of his remedies as
soon as he observed definite medicinal reactions
That's why he used placebo

this goes to the Minimum Dose principle

You don't repeat the remedy if there is a medicinal reaction

That actually is something I learned in school also
Kind of like a pendulum - it starts moving - if you push it again while it
is moving will throw it off.
Not a very good example I suppose.

Once you see a medicinal reaction you don't repeat automatically in a
certain amount of time - especially something like every 15, 20, 30 minutes.
In acutes if there looks to be a slight worsening of symptoms, not the time
to repeat the remedy as this is the medicinal reaction.

Sheri
http://www.simillimum.com/education/lit ... eat-homoeo
paths/ham/article05.php

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes - next one May 9, 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones fall 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
fall 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

Re Sheri’s example of the working remedy being like a pendulum in motion.
Henny Heudens-Mast (at the NCH conference in Denver) used a similar but for me clearer example, saying that the (chronic) remedy is like a child’s top. She described the kind with the pump mechanism I had when I was little so the example really stuck with me. I do remember how, when that top was spinning and you wanted to give it just one more little push, touching it to do so brought it to a grinding halt. That’s what she said can happen to the chronic simillimum if the dose is repeated while it is still…spinning. But then, she does not use aqueous potencies, I believe. And maybe it is different in an acute? Teresa (Northern VA, USA)
________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sheri Nakken
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:55 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Repetition?? The Potency of the Remedy (How Strong?) and the Repetition of the Dose (How often?)
At 01:35 PM 6/26/2007 -0500, you wrote:

Hahnemann would reduce the dose or stop the repetition of his remedies as
soon as he observed definite medicinal reactions
That's why he used placebo

this goes to the Minimum Dose principle

You don't repeat the remedy if there is a medicinal reaction

That actually is something I learned in school also
Kind of like a pendulum - it starts moving - if you push it again while it
is moving will throw it off.
Not a very good example I suppose.

Once you see a medicinal reaction you don't repeat automatically in a
certain amount of time - especially something like every 15, 20, 30 minutes.
In acutes if there looks to be a slight worsening of symptoms, not the time
to repeat the remedy as this is the medicinal reaction.

Sheri
http://www.simillimum.com/education/lit ... eat-homoeo
paths/ham/article05.php

----------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes - next one May 9, 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones fall 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
fall 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

Thanks, Teresa!
I'm going to muse over this... On the one hand yes, I'm very familiar
with the "don't repeat until the action of the remedy is exhausted"
(standard 4th ed.). But at the same time, there are these other
practices that seem to work well. E.g. when I am using repeated low
potency doses for a chronic case (different from the situation that
began this discussion, but I'll go along ), under some
circumstances I will repeat the dose *just before* the action of the
prior dose would fall away--(or perhaps it is after the action has
stopped, but before relapse has become apparent??)--not a method I
invented, and one I have never heard of (nor seen) any problems from.
Adding, again, the caveat that this is *supervised*, and altered as
appropriate in response to changes in the patient.

Also the practice of using a low potency to "take the edge off"
overreaction (aggravation) by a high potency. I've heard people offer
all sorts of theories about what "would" happen--it "would" antidote;
it "would" aggravate... But in practice, it simply takes the edge off
of overreaction (aggravation). How does this fit with Henny's ideas?
Dunno.

Sheri wrote:

That's the same thing I've always done with dry doses, when using
low/repeated doses; and the same idea on a speeded-up timescale for
using dry doses to treat a severe acute. But why would "no response"
be more obvious with water potencies?
Shannon

Shannon wrote: "using a low potency to "take the edge off"
overreaction (aggravation) by a high potency. [...] in practice, it
simply takes the edge off
of overreaction (aggravation). "

It makes perfect sense, if we accept that homeopathy is vibrational,
that one vibration would override another. In practice, indeed, if the
indicated remedy causes an aggravation, selecting a more suitable
potency extinguishes the overreaction (but the more suitable potency may
be lower as well as higher, or from a different scale (e.g. C to LM)).

Re the comments that plussed Rxs in acutes may need to be given
frequently: can add that in my experience some fast-moving acutes may
initially need repetition as often as every five minutes. After two
hours, the case would have moved on a long way (maybe to A&E...). E.g.
allergic reactions, children in the middle of a croup attack etc. Where
the initial dose didn't provide enough stimulus, then if further doses
are given in quick succession even severe acutes can be curtailed very
quickly.

Suse
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
obvious
top
it
next

May be true - or may be not.

I have yet to read an in-depth study of his practice where that
feature was analyzed over many randomly selected cases in his journals
to find out whether that is true.

It is, hoewever, very unlikely.

He would sometimes give the same remedy on and on over weeks, only
changing the dilutions or potencies without any placebos interspersed.
I cannot imageine that in the meantime he had not seens any definite
medicinal reactions. Besides: since he always re-took the case at each
appointment, and there were changes at least quite often, it would
mean that he then always gave placebo. Well, he did NOT.

Also: he prescribed a remedy to be taken at fixed intervals until the
next appointment, which generally was a week later.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free from doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi Suse,
But in that case it's not a matter of "more suitable potency", because
the initial high potency dose also does continue working. This is a
method I learned from a lecture of Roger Morrison's some years back. I
only remember using it once (I only treat a few people, and have seen
almost no aggravations anyway), but that one was notable. I'd given a
200c to someone with fairly severe asthma, and that turned out to be
"too high", in that he went into a substantial aggravation of the
asthma, which turned out to last about two weeks. During that time he
used doses of the same rx in 12c as needed, which calmed things down
enough that he could continue simply waiting it out. For most of that
time, if I remember right, he was needing a 12c dose on average almost
once daily (sometimes more, sometimes less). I'd initially hoped that
it would *stop* the aggravation, but no such luck. However, thru all
of this he felt so excellent in every other way that he waved aside my
offer to try to antidote (which BTW I have never done in any case,
don't even know if it would have worked), and chose to wait it out with
the help of the 12c doses. After two weeks (roughly) the asthma
stopped, and improvement in every other area continued to be rapid.
That single dose continued its action for quite a few months, so very
clearly the 200c dose had not been antidoted in any way of the many 12c
doses.

If I were handling his case today, I would certainly have used LMs, but
at that point it did not even occur to me as an option.
Shannon

Shannon wrote: "in that case it's not a matter of "more suitable potency", because the initial high potency dose also does continue working. This is a method I learned from a lecture of Roger Morrison's"

Hi Shannon,

Interesting case of yours. There is no question that the question of potency is a huge field and there are as many opinions as there are practitioners I think. Seeing an aggravation and keeping it in check with a much lower potency repeated sounds quite suitable, if all else is proceeding well & you have the wherewithal to stay in close touch with the patient. Why the lower potency did not keep the aggravation down is hard to say without a close analysis of the case; it is possible that another potency might have had a different effect.

I was taught that 'antidoting' is basically changing a 'not-quite-simillimum' for the simillimum. This means, in my understanding, that the correctly-indicated remedy will antidote the action of the aggravating remedy, or where the remedy is definitely indicated then the correct potency & dosing will antidote the action of the potency that caused the aggravation. In my experience the statement that 'the initial high potency also does continue working' does not bear out. But as we can see on this site, there are many views on this. I can only go by my own observations/experience and how they make sense of the homeopathic philosophy, while being open to seeing my conclusions challenged by further experience.

Suse
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

Hi Suse,
Actually he made all of those choices on his own; I have found that it
doesn't take long for (many? most in my experience) patients on
repeated doses to become excellent judges of when it's time to re-dose.
(I can easily think of possible exceptions, but this is my experience
so far.) I keep in touch in general, but once the patient feels they
know how to proceed, I let them!

All of mine are friends and family, so I have no choice as far as
"staying in touch"... Sometimes the "touch" comes via inquiry
from *my* side, if I haven't heard from them when I expected to--and I
will aim to do the same whenever I have a "real" practice. I think it
helps to "train" the patient (Oh, you mean you *really* want to know
how I'm doing??), and also--I have observed--there are times when the
ill person should not be responsible for deciding when they need to
check in--they may not know! I think that's one of the big advantages
of a small practice, that one has *time* to follow up and stay in touch
this way, when it is needed. But I don't know how one would manage
that, in a large one.
In my observation, 12c *usually* has a short-ish period of action--one
to four days in a chronic case, and "less" ("how long is a rope?"
) in an acute one. I realize this *can* be dramatically different, but
that's been the range I've seen so far. So holding aggravation at bay
for a day or so is actually pretty respectable in that context... (I'm
thinking aggravation is energetically closer to an acute than to the
chronic case overall?) (OTOH I used to have a toddler patient who
several times threw a pretty violent belladonna acute--glazed eyes,
flushed face, dopey and sleepy, burning hot--which was, at least twice,
quickly and *completely* eliminated by a single dose of Bell. 12c!
Surprised me.
I assume that 30 would have had similar end result, but without the
aggravation. But of course I'll never know!

Antidoting can be *done* that way, but that's not the way I understand
the meaning of the word. I've understood it to simply mean stopping
the action of the remedy; common antidotes being camphor, coffee,
menthol--tho nothing will work for every case. But as I say, I have no
experience with that, anyway!
Yes, by replacing it.
Perhaps, again by replacing it.
In my case (and the ones Roger used to describe the method and its
reasons) that is not what happened. But I'm remembering an instance
where I got an aggravation in my son by giving him a 200c when he
*ought* to have had 10M (he does well with high potencies, and had all
the indications for needing high potency--no doubt LM could have done
fine too). After the 200c dose, there was some improvement, but it was
very slow, and he was just fussy, cranky, out-of-sorts, and things were
moving soooooooooo slowly. After I think a month of this--I was trying
to be patient and let things sort out --I gave him 10M, and
things dropped right into place. So in that instance I guess you could
say that the uncomfortable action of the 200c was antidoted by the
10M--but in the sense that it was *replaced* by the smoother, stronger
action, *not* in the sense that all remedy action stopped.
Why? Then what would your explanation be for the case I gave--how
would you describe what happened?
Thanks,
Shannon

>

May be true - or may be not.

I have yet to read an in-depth study of his practice where that
feature was analyzed over many randomly selected cases in his journals
to find out whether that is true.

It is, hoewever, very unlikely.

He would sometimes give the same remedy on and on over weeks, only
changing the dilutions or potencies without any placebos interspersed.

Dear Luise,
Is there any cases in which Hahnemann has given the same remedy without changing the potency?
Rgds,
Nader

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
Seeing an aggravation and keeping it in check
... I think it

You're right, many patients are sensitive and sensible enough to know what they need and when. What is s.t. observed, where s.o. has been told to take a dose at certain intervals - they may 'forget' more and more often to take it; later indications are identified which show that less frequent doses were needed. (On the other hand, there are some people who operate on a 'more is more' principle on all levels and take too much.)

Have got no experience with the 12 - in my case definitely a legacy of initial Kentian training, where he based the C potency steps on the octave (I can't pretend to understand how and I can't remember where he said this), so 6-30-200-1M-10M-50M-100M was meant to be the ideal sequence. I usually work with 30 and higher and with LMs. From what I can see, the duration of remedy action is individual. Does anyone know how the 'durations' lists (e.g. Boger) were put together? It's s.th. I've always wondered about.

In that sense you are right - there is a difference between antidoting-by-overriding and antidoting-as-stopping-remedy-action. But usually one would want a curative reaction to replace the aggravation rather than simply stopping all medicinal action, so that's why I equate antidoting with inicated remedy/potency.

Antidoting with material substances is hit-and-miss, in my experience. Some patients, some remedies are more susceptible to antidoting than others. Mostly it is accidental antidoting that comes up for me - say the indicated remedy isn't acting and it turns out they washed their hair with a nice tea tree shampoo. While someone else can drink gallons of coffee from morning till night and the rx continues to act beautifully. Etc.

So I might try a material antidote but would not fully trust such substances to stop a remedy unless I knew that in this patient it happened before (though in the case of some remedies you can be pretty sure it'll work, e.g. Nux-v or Sepia). Or maybe I just haven't learnt a good method for material antidoting? Any tips out there?

where the remedy is definitely indicated then the correct potency &
Yes, this is what I mean: the indicated potency (here 10M) overrides/replaces the mistuned vibrations (here 200) - analogous to the way the 'artificial disease' of a potentised similar remedy overrides/replaces the natural disease of the mistuned vital force. In the case where you used the 12C to keep the 200 agg under control/in check, I would assume that the 12 took the edge off the 200 agg but was not the indicated potency (not most similar to the intensity & pitch of the patient's sufferings), ie from this standpoint one would assume the right potency will stop the agg, and if the 12 at the given dosing rate does not achieve this, one would re-assess and try a different potency level or dosing frequency.

Regards, Suse