Minutus

Kerry,

It is well documented that allopathic medicine causes increased mortality and morbidity. The 3rd cause of death in US is due to hospitalization.

Do you know where it is written that multiple dry doses given daily can "screw up" (we don't have your definition of your health)a person's health, or does anyone have this information that they can relate to this person's treatment? Or is it merely your opinion because you are so angry.

PS(I know H talks about a single dose and waiting)

Regards,
Bill G

__________________________________________________________________
Kerry wrote:
It wasn't a single homeopathic remedy Bill; it was multiple remedies
given dry dose daily. And I disagree with regards to me being dead
with most lousy allopaths: all allopaths are lousy, but many people live
long lives with impaired health from their meddling. The fact that I am
alive is no consolation for having my health screwed up. There was no
need for it to happen if the so called homeopath had bothered to read
the Organon and follow Hahnemann's directions.
____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL214 ... AYQAAAAAA=

I take it that the Organon isn't on your bookshelf.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Let me guess: you are one of the 'homeopaths' that doesn't bother to
follow Hahnemann's teaching?

Kerry

Bill, if you have the sixth edition, take a look at §§ 161 and 247 (including footnote 133). I think you'll find that they make it clear. And we've seen cases described here that mystified their practitioners but were clearly due to overlooking of this exact point.
Hahnemann's advice about homoeopathic aggravations in chronic illness is unmistakeable: "where medicines of long action have to combat a malady of considerable or of very long standing, [there] no such apparent increase of the original disease ought to appear during treatment and it does not so appear if the accurately chosen medicine was given in proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat modified with renewed dynamisation. Such increase of the original symptoms of a chronic disease can appear only at the end of treatment when the cure is almost or quite finished" (§ 161). [I've corrected the word "where" in the Dudgeon/Boericke 6th ed. to "there", without which correction that sentence makes no sense.]
Hahnemann also, incidentally, cautions against even a single repetition in unchanged potency -- at all, but especially in dry pellets -- and one of his strongest reasons was exactly the induction of unnecessary medicinal symptoms.
This is the message of Aphorism 247.
It is the message of footnote 133 to Aphorism 247.
And it is the message of Aphorism 161.
Cheers!
John
2009/12/2 Kerry

Kerry,

I am a classical Homeopath.

Regards,
BG

____________________________________________________________
Criminal Lawyer
Criminal Lawyers - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL214 ... AiFgAAAAA=

If you are a homeopath that follows Hahnemann's teachings (the title
Classical unfortunately means very little nowadays) then you will fully
understand the problems of giving dry doses and multiple remedies daily!

Kerry

Bill, if you have the sixth edition, take a look at §§ 161 and 247 (including footnote 133). I think you'll find that they make it clear. And we've seen cases described here that mystified their practitioners but were clearly due to overlooking of this exact point.
Hahnemann's advice about homoeopathic aggravations in chronic illness is unmistakeable: "where medicines of long action have to combat a malady of considerable or of very long standing, [there] no such apparent increase of the original disease ought to appear during treatment and it does not so appear if the accurately chosen medicine was given in proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat modified with renewed dynamisation. Such increase of the original symptoms of a chronic disease can appear only at the end of treatment when the cure is almost or quite finished" (§ 161). [I've corrected the word "where" in the Dudgeon/Boericke 6th ed. to "there", without which correction that sentence makes no sense.]
Hahnemann also, incidentally, cautions against even a single repetition in unchanged potency -- at all, but especially in dry pellets -- and one of his strongest reasons was exactly the induction of unnecessary medicinal symptoms.
This is the message of Aphorism 247.
It is the message of footnote 133 to Aphorism 247.
And it is the message of Aphorism 161.
Cheers!
John
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.88/2538 - Release Date: 12/01/09 07:59:00

Resending this message as it didn't come through to my box:
Thanks John, you saved me finding the time to write this up this morning
– as time is short at the moment it is much appreciated.

I am sure that Hahnemann didn’t write all this for the fun of it on a
rainy day, despite what some ‘homeopaths’ seem to think, and any
homeopath who has bothered to pay attention to the reactions of remedies
in his patients will have seen the importance of his words.

Kerry

Hi All,
just a heads up here on :
"standing, [there] no such apparent increase of the original disease ought to appear during treatment and it does not so appear if the accurately chosen medicine was given in proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat modified with renewed dynamisation. Such increase of the original symptoms of a chronic disease can appear only at the end of treatment when the cure is almost or quite finished"
applies only to LM potencies. The 6th edition is the manual for LM's only.
compare 5th ed:
§ 161 Fifth Edition

When I here limit the so-called homoeopathic aggravation, or rather the primary action of the homoeopathic medicine that seems to increase somewhat the symptoms of the original disease, to the first or few hours, this is certainly true with respect to diseases of a more acute character and of recent origin, but where medicines of long action have to combat a malady of, considerable or of very long standing, where one dose, consequently, must continue to act for many days, we then occasionally see, during the first six, eight or ten days, the occurrence of some such primary actions, of the medicine, some such apparent increase of the symptoms of the original disease (lasting for one or several hours), while in the intervening hours amelioration of the whole malady is perceptible. After the lapse of these few days the amelioration resulting from such primary action of the medicine proceeds almost uninterruptedly for several days longer.

So, 5th ed is centessimal, in dilution (4th ed is dry dose). You get an aggravation in the beginning and amel after.
In 6th ed it is LM's, You get steady improvement, with aggravation near the end, once too much remedy has affected the vital force, and a sign you are at the end of treatment. Take a break and you should see improvement. If thereafter symptoms reappear, start treatment again.
And, by the way, lest anyone thinks LM's do not produce an aggravation, I have found that some patients can aggravate even after one or two doses, which is a sign to change dilution, frequency etc. All the normal guidelines for observing the effects of dose on the vital force.
And then you must tie this up with aph 246:
an excerpt as it is quite long:
5th ed:
" .....

And this may be very happily affected, as recent and oft-repeated observations have shown, under three conditions: firstly, if the medicine selected with the utmost care was perfectly homoeopathic; secondly, if it was given in the minutest dose, so as to produce the least possible excitation of the vital force, and yet sufficient to effect the necessary change in it; and thirdly, if this minutest yet powerful dose of the best selected medicine be repeated at suitable intervals,1 which experience shall have pronounced to be the best adapted for accelerating the cure to the utmost extent, yet without the vital force, which it is sought to influence to the production of a similar medicinal disease, being able to feel itself excited and roused to adverse reactions."

i.e you don't want to excite the VF too much. (Vitalists who swear that the vital force is healing and must be stimulated - the polypharmacists who think just give immune boosters etc. - are you listening !!). Why not? Because (the coup de grace):

§ 247 Sixth Edition

It is impractical to repeat the same unchanged dose of a remedy once, not to mention its frequent repetition (and at short intervals in order not to delay the cure). The vital principle does not accept such unchanged doses without resistance, that is, without other symptoms of the medicine to manifest themselves than those similar to the disease to be cured, because the former dose has already accomplished the expected change in the vital principle and a second dynamically wholly similar, unchanged dose of the same medicine no longer finds, therefore, the same conditions of the vital force. The patient may indeed be made sick in another way by receiving other such unchanged doses, even sicker than he was, for now only those symptoms of the given remedy remain active which were not homoeopathic to the original disease, hence no step towards cure can follow, only a true aggravation of the condition of the patient. But if the succeeding dose is changed slightly every time, namely potentized somewhat higher (§§ 269-270) then the vital principle may be altered without difficulty by the same medicine (the sensation of natural disease diminishing) and thus the cure brought nearer.1

(You've got love hahnemann)
i.e. if you give too much remedy you start to disrupt the VF with a MEDICINAL disease (iatrogenic type), just like we accuse allopaths of doing. And this I have seen in some patients. You need top recognize it in patients who are on a remedy from another homeopath as well as in your own patients if you have made an error of judgement.
Regards,
Paul
(P.S. John I think "where" makes perfect sense)

Hi, Paul --

Yes, I think you're saying three things here: (1) that Hahnemann's instructions in the 6th edition apply only to LM (Q) potencies; (2) that using such potencies, you won't experience due to high dosages the aggravations early in chronic treatment that he describes in § 151 of the fifth; and (3) that the sentence I corrected makes sense uncorrected.

I can see why you've received the impression you have about item (2) in light of your impression of item (1), but actually if you look, in the 6th, at footnote 136 to § 249, at §§ 275–276, and at § 282 (in relation to chronic treatment) and at §§ 161 (in relation to acute treatment), you'll find that he very clearly exhorts the practitioner to use the smallest possible doses to avoid exactly those aggravations.

So either (1) Hahnemann's observations in the sixth edition do after all compass C potencies as well as Q ones -- and there is nothing to suggest that he means to exclude them -- or (2) the Q potencies too are susceptible to overdosing. In either case, his cautions must logically apply to Q potencies.

With regard to item (3), the uncorrected "sentence": if you parse the sentence as it stands uncorrected --

"When I here limit the so-called homœopathic aggravation, or rather the primary action of the homœopathic medicine that seems to increase somewhat the symptoms of the original disease, to the first or few first hours, this is certainly true with respect to diseases of a more acute character and of recent origin; but where medicines of long action have to combat a malady of considerable or of very long standing, where no such apparent increase of the original disease ought to appear during treatment and it does not so appear if the accurately chosen medicine was given in proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat modified with renewed dynamisation" --
you'll find that you have nothing after "but" except two dependent clauses. To make this obvious, let me replace a few of the more complex parts of the sentence by simpler equivalents (italicised):
"When this, this is true of that; but where the other, where no such aggravation should arise and it does not arise if doses are small enough."
And you can now see, I hope, the second part makes absolutely no sense, and that's because "where" should say "there".
Now read it with "there":
"When this, this is true of that; but where the other, there no such aggravation should arise and it does not arise if doses are small enough."
The part that I've squeezed down to "no such aggravation should arise and it does not arise if doses are small enough" is the main clause -- the independent clause -- of the second part of the sentence (after the semicolon), and the earlier clauses are merely limiting conditions on that clause.
This mistranslation of "there" to "where" would be a very easy mistake to make, in such a difficult sentence, from many European languages, in which the words for "where" and "there" (as are the words for "what" and "that", and for "when" and "then") are commonly very similar or even identical -- and that may well be the case for the old high German or whatever it was that Hahnemann was writing in, though it doesn't appear to be the case for modern German.
Cheers!
John
2009/12/2 Paul Booyse >