Minutus

When a homeopath goes too high in the remedy...will going down to a 30c
mitigate too much intensity and continue the benefit of the higher dose? I say
yes....but what if the remedy is not exactly the right remedy..there might be
a better remedy..but in the meantime..would going to the 30c be the route to
go until one has gathered enough information for a new remedy?

In my opinion yes:-)
...Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi, Carol.

This is a very complex issue!

First, if someone is getting an aggravation due to too high a potency,
giving a different potency of the same remedy can help to smoothe out that
reaction.

But second, as you say, the remedy might not be quite the right one. In
that case, you have to evaluate the features of the aggravation.

Often a new symptom dominates, one that is not a strong symptom of the
remedy that has been given. In that case, it's important to look at the
case again to see -- as often happens -- whether the person's vital force
has reacted to the first remedy by basically telling you what the needed
remedy is. Then the best strategy is to switch to the newly indicated
remedy. If the aggravation was a healing one, it can be pretty bad for a
while (if due only to too high a potency), but it will dissipate relatively
quickly if the remedy isn't repeated. At that point, the person will start
to feel much better, and will be on the road to cure. A healing aggravation
generally produces symptoms that are key ones in the remedy, and doesn't
result in the person feeling depressed or lacking in energy.

These are just a few observations of how to interpret a strong and
unpleasant reaction. The first thing to do is tell the person not to repeat
the remedy, and to observe for 2-3 days. If it's been a single dose, at a
reasonable potency, a "similar" aggravation (due to right remedy wrong
potency, and consisting of non-energetic symptoms that are strongly
indicated with that remedy) will modulate, giving way to healing.

Rosemary

In one case my patient used 12c of a remedy that had aggravated rather
badly in 200c, with some benefit; it didn't completely stop the
aggravation, but took it from worrisome (the agg. was to his asthma) to
not-too-bad, repeating 12c as needed, usually 1-3 times daily for a
week or so. But if his aggravation had been something less worrisome
than severe asthma, I'd have had him just wait it out...

Shannon

When I first took up study of homeopathy about eight years back,
obviously I was looking for the remedy for me. Sulphur screamed from
every MM and repertory. And I took a standard 30 c dose and then 200c.
Nothing happened. Then I tried other remedies. The homeopaths who
examined me also gave some Rx. But nothing worked.

A year and half back I had a bout of Chik Kun Gunia fever , though not
in its violent form. At the end of the episode, I felt so sapped out,
I took a sulph 6c. Lo and behold ! The stool which was for two decades
in a loose form, suddenly was evacuated in a formed way and has
remained so ever since. My weight also increased from a just below
ideal to just ideal and slightly above.

I wonder whether the 6c was the right potency for me . Also I had a
doubt the fever removed some obstacle for the Sulphur to act. But
nevertheless, I now respect the value of lower potencies. In another
instance, my wife who aggravated badly on Silicea 200 c fared superbly
on a 6x (bio) single dose which lasted for more than a month.

Regarding the giving of low after a high- I have read Dr Luc write
that the lower ones always antidote the highs.

Venkat

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers wrote:

Venkat,
I'm fascinated by your and your wife's experiences with responding so
much better to low potency! Very interesting...

But, re Dr. Luc's statement that "lower ones always antidote the
highs", that is just simply not true. Many homeopaths have given low
potencies to modify or support the action of a single high potency
dose, and find it to do just that, *not* to antidote.

I have only one example of it, because usually I'm using either low
*or* high, but in my one instance where 12c was used to calm the
over-action of a 200c, once the aggravation had passed, he stopped the
repetition of 12c, and the action of the 200c continued for many
months, very satisfactorily.

Best wishes,
Shannon

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

=====================================================================

Shannon,

Here too the low is used to moderate the force of the high. In other words, don't you think some of the effects are antidoted ?

In minutus too, I have heard suggestions to give the low daily after a prescription of a high. Taking another view , can we say, the low and high have different pathogenetic action ?

Venkat

Many years ago together with some fellow students I was observing the case of a patient.
He was suffering from a great lack of confidence and even agoraphobia - he had been brought to the clinic with a lot of coaxing.
He was prescribed Lyc 30C
After a month he came back reporting that he had been much better (The improvement was visible in the way he sat, talked and presented himself - he had come to the clinic on his own), but that over the past few days he had sensed that the improvement had stopped.
A decision was made that as there had been a great improvement Lyc was the correct remedy and needed to be repeated.
That 200 C (1 dose) was a good choice noting that the 30C had only worked for about 24-25 days.
At this stage the teacher also added that he was going to give LYC 12C was to be taken daily to support the 200.
I protested and said that the 200C would do its job on its own and needed no support from 12C. And that in fact the body would react to the last remedy given which would be 12C. I expressed my concern that the patient will not do well under this regime.
I even consulted with Sheilagh Creasy who confirmed my stance.
Sadly no one listened and we never saw the patient again - what we heard was that they could not get him to leave his house again!
========
When there are boils etc, a low potency Hepar 6 will cause the pus to come out, whereas 30 C will not do it!
Posology is another difficult part of homoeopathy and needs care and attention and a good master to teach one the ins and outs of it.
========
I was taught by one of my teachers that in the case of severe agg, to go down in potency in stages and see what happens before the next step.
That is to say from 200 C go to 30C - observe the reaction and if necessary go to 18C, then similarly to 12C and 6C.
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J.venkatasubramanian
Sent: 03 August 2008 07:15
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: mitigating too high a remedy
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

=====================================================================

Shannon,

Here too the low is used to moderate the force of the high. In other words, don't you think some of the effects are antidoted ?

In minutus too, I have heard suggestions to give the low daily after a prescription of a high. Taking another view , can we say, the low and high have different pathogenetic action ?

Venkat
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1587 - Release Date: 8/2/2008 5:30 PM

Hi Soroush,
I share your skepticism that 12c is in any way necessary, but
How do you reconcile your last statement--that the body will react
(only?) to the last remedy (potency) given? In practice this is not
seen to be the case.

While I have enormous respect for Sheilagh, i have similar respect for
Roger Morrison, who has frequently used 12c doses along with high
potencies, with apparently fine result.

I also have at least substantial respect for my own experience, which
has similarly *not* shown a low potency undoing a prior high potency.

How would you explain this difference in opinion, and how how do you
reconcile my observations of my own (and Roger's) patient's experience,
with this viewpoint you're expressing?

Best wishes,
Shannon

Hi Venkat,
I guess you could say that the *over*-action was "antidoted", but to me
this is an awkward and confusing use of the word. I have not seen
anything to suggest that the lower potency doses in any way shortened
or lessened the *appropriate*, curative action of the high potency
dose, only that it steadied out (gentled) the *initial* response.

When people say that low potency antidotes high potency, they
are--always?--saying this in the context of it not being a good thing,
and *interfering* with the action of the high potency. But my
(limited) observation, and the (much larger) body of others'
experiences, seems to say that it does not interfere, and does not
lessen, but simply gentles the initial action.

You mean for certain, specific reasons? I would not see any reason
for doing that in most circumstances.

(Personally, in situations where I feel high potency might be for any
reason problematic, I simply use low potency in the first place--or now
perhaps water dose; I do not understand why one would *plan* to use
high potency "supplemented" by low.)
What do you mean by "pathogenetic action"? They do evidently have
different pacing and duration; those are the only differences that *I*
have observed, but I realize that is not the last word!

Shannon