Minutus

Hi All.

somewhere in this discussion we - I include myself, as you see - we
went off the track of facts.

It is in the 6th edition only that Hahnemann instructs the homeopaths
to use liquid doses - and that applies only to the remedies made
according to his "new perfected method" - i. e. to the Q resp. LM
potencies.

In the 5th edition he only says that it **might** be done. He never
even found this idea worthy of an aphorism of its own - he put it into
a mere footnote.

Therefore homeopaths using the dry method most likely are still
practicing by the 5th edition. In order to find out whether they are
or not, one would have to compare the 4th and 5th editions as far as
other differences between the two are concerned.

It is very probable that many of the "old masters" in the USA
practiced by the 5th edition. After all, it was published in 1833 (or
thereabouts) and soon after translated into English. It seems
reasonable to suppose that the homeopaths then bought it and took into
account what new items Hahnemann had added. Kent certainly did.

We do not know how many of them tried out the liquid dosing and
considered the dry doses better, for whatever reason.

Anyway: the 4th Organon was published in 1829, the 5th in 1833. There
is only a time difference of 5 years. It is rather silly to assert
that a homeopath using the method suggested in the 5th (watery "C"
potencies) is closer to Hahnemann than one using the method of 5 years
before.

One can*not* mix up the wet-dosing of the C-potencies and the
wet-dosing of the Q-potencies. C and Q potencies are made by a totally
different method.

One cannot take Hahnemann's assertions in the 5th and extend them to
the Q's - Hahnemann at that time had not even started on them.
Likewise, one cannot take Hahnemann's assertions on the Q potencies in
the 6th and apply them to the C-potencies. Hahnemann himself stressed
their basic difference!

This is where David Little and Luc de Schepper are making their very
basic mistake!

This applies most of all to Hahnemann's instructions on how to dose
the Q-potencies. He just does NOT say to wait and see!! He says to
dose them on a pre-set schedule! Anyone, just anyone who can read at
all is bound to read the instruction that way! There is not the
slightest leeway for doubt.

This does not mean that the "wait and see" approach is wrong. It may
be the better way - but Hahnemann did not say so!!!;-)

Regards

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

A lot of footnotes are critical to homeopathy:-)
I interpret the 5th ed comments as relevant to aqueous dosing and not
only the 6th edition.
What counts for me the most is that H's Paris casebooks up to his
death, show he used aqueous dosing for C potencies and LM (aka Q)
potencies, and that he used both C and LM in his cases, sometimes
both in one case.
[David Little has details on the Paris casebooks.]

Namaste,
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 Luise,

The pre-set schedule is only for those cases where improvement is small
and/or slow. He does also specifically say that when improvement is
rapid and progressive, you do *not* keep mechanically dosing. So in
that way "watch and wait" is sometimes called for as well.

Best wishes,
Shannon

Q potencies, I take it, means MT
Jeff

Q potencies are the same as LM potencies.
Mother tinctures are indicated by the Greek Capital letter Phi which is O with a line going through it.
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jtikari@vsnl.com
Sent: 29 June 2008 06:14
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] 4th and 5th edition
Q potencies, I take it, means MT
Jeff
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.2/1523 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:00 AM

Hi Shannon,
Ok, tell me where he says that in the 6th. I am always open to
correction.

So in that way

I did not argue about that. I am just interested in the "historical
truth": did Hahnemann say so or not:-)

Regards

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

Hi Irene,
Right - the instructions in the 5th are relevant for the aqueous
dosing of C potencies, the instructions in the 6th are relevant for
the Q's
I have read all the published Paris case books and in detail studied
the 5th. So I know that. I never said otherwise.

He used them on a pre-set schedule, however. Not on a wait and see. He
would prescribe e.g. "1 globule in so much carbonated water, of this 1
teaspoon (or French equivalent) daily. This the patient was supposed
to take until the next appointment.

David Little's writing about them has the problem that he does not
specify where I can find the cases he refers to. If he says: this
patient in the 13th casebook - it would mean going to Stuttgart and
spending hours before I can find the respective patient to check what
he asserts. I have asked him several times to give the page, which
should be no problem. If I had the page I could ask the staff in
Stuttgart to send me a Xerox copy and check.

You probably know even better than myself that the references in
scientific/scholarly books concerning the places where to find the
items the author discusses are crucial.

If the above is no longer true and David does reference exactly -
please let me know where and I'll look it up.

It's really stragne: People on this list seem to expect me to take
David's interpretations above what I have read with my own eyes
without being able to check the base of his interpretation.

Regards

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

Hi Luise,

Happily Sheri has saved me the trouble of looking that (reference to
the "strikingly progressive" improvement etc.) in one of her recent
posts, quoting David Little quoting and commenting on:

Aphorism 246

"Every perceptible progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration
during treatment is a condition which, as long as it lasts, completely
precludes every repetition of the administration of any medicine
whatsoever, because all the good the medicine taken continues to effect
is now hastening towards its completion."

1. Hahnemann clearly says that when there is a "perceptibly
progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration" is a condition that
"COMPLETELY PRECLUDES" any "REPETITION" of the remedy whatsoever. This
is because the good effect of the remedy is now "hastening" towards its
completion. Although single dose and infrequent dose cures are not the
majority of chronic cases but they do take place in a significant
minority. This is more often in very sensitive patients, in functional
diseases and in the early states of pathology. There are occasions,
however, where advanced pathological states of several years duration
is cured by single doses or infrequent repetitions of the LM potency.
Under these condition the repetition of the remedy is counter indicated
because the remedy is already heading for cure very quickly and the
repetition of the remedy under these conditions runs the risk of
slowing down the cure and causing aggravations and antagonistic counter
actions of the vital force. When their is a dramatically increasing
amelioration it is always best to leave well enough alone!

"This is not infrequently the case in acute diseases, but in more
chronic diseases, on the other hand, a single dose of an appropriately
selected Homoeopathic remedy will at times complete even with but
slowly progressive improvement and give the help which such a remedy in
such a case can accomplish naturally within 40, 50, 60, 100 days."

2. Single dose cures are often the case in acute diseases but in
chronic diseases a single dose usually only produces a "slowly
progressive improvement" that will accomplish what it can naturally
within 40, 50, 60, 100 days. This is, however, but rarely the case; and
besides, it must be a matter of great importance to the physician as
well as to the patient that were it possible, this period should be
diminished to one-half, one-quarter, and even still less, so that a
much more rapid cure might be obtained."

There is a great difference between a "strikingly increasing
amelioration" and a "slowly progressive improvement". Hahnemann makes
it clear that "anytime" during treatment there is a strikingly
increasing amelioration. the remedy should be stopped as long as this
lasts. [etc.]
o---------------------------------------------

If Hahnemann did actually have people repeat doses mechanically, I
don't know how he took this into effect--unless his verbal instructions
added some "if...then" to his written ones??

Shannon

____________________

§ 246
Jede, in einer Cur merklich fortschreitende und auffallend zunehmende Besserung ist ein Zustand der, so lange er anhält, jede Wiederholung irgend eines Arznei-Gebrauchs durchgängig ausschließt, weil alles Gute, was die genommene Arznei auszurichten fortfährt, hier seiner Vollendung zueilt. Dies ist in acuten Krankheiten nicht selten der Fall; bei etwas chronischen Krankheiten hingegen, vollendet zwar auch bei langsam fortgehender Besserung, zuweilen Eine Gabe treffend gewählter, homöopathischer Arznei die Hülfe, die dieses Mittel in solchem Falle seiner Natur nach auszurichten im Stande ist, in einem Zeitraume von 40, 50, 60, 100 Tagen. Aber theils ist dies sehr selten der Fall, theils muß dem Arzte, so wie dem Kranken viel daran liegen, daß, wäre es möglich, dieser Zeitraum bis zur Hälfte, zum Viertel, ja noch mehr abgekürzt und so weit schnellere Heilung erlangt werden könnte.

Und dieß läßt sich auch, wie neueste, vielfach wiederholte Erfahrungen mich gelehrt haben, recht glücklich ausführen, unter folgenden Bedingungen: erstens, wenn die Arznei mit aller Umsicht recht treffend homöopathisch gewählt war - zweitens, wenn sie hoch potenzirt, in Wasser aufgelöst und in gehörig kleiner Gabe in, von der Erfahrung als die schicklichsten, ausgesprochenen Zeiträumen zur möglichsten Beschleunigung der Cur gereicht wird, doch mit der Vorsicht, daß der Potenz-Grad jeder Gabe von dem der vorgängigen und nachgängigen Gaben um Etwas abweiche, damit das, zur ähnlichen Arzneikrankheit umzustimmende Lebensprincip, nie zu widrigen Gegenwirkungen sich aufgeregt und empört fühlen könne, wie bei unmodificirt erneuerten Gaben, vorzüglich schnell nach einander wiederholt, stets geschieht *).
* Was ich, um diese widrigen Reactionen der Lebenskraft zu verhüten, in der fünften Ausgabe des Organons zu diesem Paragraph in einer langen Anmerkung sagte,war alles, was meine damalige Erfahrung mir gestattete; seit den letzten 4, 5 Jahren aber, durch mein, seitdem abgeändertes, neues, vervollkommtes Verfahren, sind alle diese Schwierigkeiten völlig gehoben. Dieselbe wohlgewählte Arznei kann nun täglich und zwar Monate lang, wo nöthig, fortgebraucht werden; und zwar so, daß wenn der niedre Potenz-Grad binnen einer oder zweier Wochen verbraucht ist, (denn bei der, nachstellend gelehrten, neuen Dynamisations-Weise, fängt der Gebrauch mit den untersten Graden an) man bei Behandlung chronischer Krankheiten, in gleicher Art zu den höheren Graden übergeht.

________________________

Hahnemann says that it is possible to give doses of the remedy daily and for months, WHEN NECESSARY. He does not say, "You must dose every day in every case." People who started using Q potencies in the middle of the 20th century must have noticed that daily dosing was not good in all cases and they used Hahnemann's warning "When necessary".
This is what Schepper and Little meant in their explanations. They try to teach people to think creatively, not rigidly. Otherwise homeopaths will try Q potencies in daily dosing on several people and after several aggravations they will think that it makes no sense and they will return to their Cs.

Michael
--- On Sat, 28/6/08, Luise Kunkle wrote:
________________________________

CHRONIC DISEASES

PREFACE
CONCERNING THE TECHNICAL PART OF HOMŒOPATHY [1]

Since I last [*] addressed the public concerning our healing art, I have had among other things also the opportunity to gain experience as to the best possible mode of administering the doses of the medicines to the patients, and I herewith communicate what I have found best in this respect.

A small pellet of one of the highest dynamizations of a medicine laid dry upon the tongue, or the moderate smelling of an opened vial wherein one or more such pellets are contained, proves itself the smallest and weakest dose with the shortest period of duration in its effects. Still there are numerous patients of so excitable a nature, that they are sufficiently affected by such a dose in slight acute ailments, to be cured by it if the remedy is homœopathically selected. Nevertheless the incredible variety among patients as to their irritability, their age, their spiritual and bodily development, their vital power and especially as to the nature of their disease, necessitates a great variety in their treatment, and also in the administration to them of the doses of medicines. For their diseases may be of various kinds: either a natural and simple one but lately arisen, or it may be a natural and simple one but an old case, or it may be a complicated one (a combination of several miasmata), or again what is the most frequent and worst case, it may have been spoiled by a perverse medical treatment, and loaded down with medicinal diseases.

I can here limit myself only to this latter case, as the other cases cannot be arranged in tabular form for the weak and negligent, but must be left to the accuracy, the industry and the intelligence of able men, who are masters of their art.

Experience has shown me, as it has no doubt also shown to most of my followers, that it is most useful in diseases of any magnitude (not excepting even the most acute, and still more so in the half- acute, in the tedious and most tedious) to give to the patient the powerful homœopathic pellet or pellets only in solution, and this solution in divided doses. In this way we give the medicine, dissolved in seven to twenty tablespoonfuls of water without any addition, in acute and very acute diseases every six, four or two hours; where the danger is urgent, even every hour or every half-hour, a tablespoonful at a time; with weak persons or children, only a small part of a tablespoonful (one or two teaspoonfuls or coffeespoonfuls) may be given as a dose.

-----

[1] This preface was prefixed to Vol. III, of the "Chronic Diseases," published in the year 1837. -Tr.

[*] In the beginning of the year 1834 I wrote the first two parts of this work and although they together contain only thirty-six sheets, my former publisher, Mr. Arnold, in Dresden, took two years to publish these thirty-six sheets. By whom was he thus delayed? My acquaintances can guess that.

----------

In chronic diseases I have found it best to give a dose (e.g., a spoonful) of a solution of the suitable medicine at least every two days, more usually every day.

But since water (even distilled water) commences after a few days to be spoil, whereby the power of the small quantity of medicine contained is destroyed, the addition of a little alcohol is necessary, or where this is not practicable, or if the patient cannot bear it, I add a few small pieces of hard charcoal to the watery solution. This answers the purpose, except that in the latter case the fluid in a few days receives a blackish tint. This is caused by shaking the liquid, as is necessary every time before giving a dose of medicine, as may be seen below.

Before proceeding, it is important to observe, that our vital principle cannot well bear that the same unchanged dose of medicine be given even twice in succession, much less more frequently to a patient. For by this the good effect of the former dose of medicine is either neutralized in part, or new symptoms proper to the medicine, symptoms which have not before been present in the disease, appear, impeding the cure. Thus even a well selected homœopathic medicine produces ill effects and attains its purpose imperfectly or not at all. Thence come the many contradictions of homœopathic physicians with respect to the repetition of doses.

But in taking one and the same medicine repeatedly (which is indispensable to secure the cure of a serious, chronic disease), if the dose is in every case varied and modified only a little in its degree of dynamization, then the vital force of the patient will calmly, and as it were willingly receive the same medicine even at brief intervals very many times in succession with the best results, every time increasing the well-being of the patient.
This slight change in the degree of dynamization is even effected, if the bottle which contains the solution of one or more pellets is merely well shaken five or six times, every time before taking it.
--- On Sat, 28/6/08, Luise Kunkle wrote:
________________________________