Dear all,
I'm not a practitioner, just a fan, read Minutus every day, am interested in the repetition-of- potency argument. I treat myself (I know, fool for a doctor), and use kinesiology/muscle-testing to see if I need another dose of what I recently took. I use mostly pillules (sometimes liquid potencies -- shake before using). When I test pillules or liquid, sometimes it's "yes," sometimes "no." As a result, I'm not at all convinced that repeating a potency is a bad thing. I'm working on my kidneys right now, having good results w berb vul 30c, have repeated a number of times, don't need it today, feel pretty darn good back there.
Repeating potencies is a mystery not yet solved but muscle-testing sure helps, imo.
Best,
Margaret in Boston
Repetition of potency
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Repetition of potency
Hi, Margaret --
Surely there will be many occasions on which the odd repetition, even within a generally inadvisable period (variable with the remedy and the pace of the illness, but in chronic illness at least a few weeks; Hahnemann seemingly indicated ever and, before lighting upon incrementing potency, avoided such repetition using intercurrents and other tactics), won't strengthen the original symptoms.
On occasion, it is probably done without harm though the medicine is most homoeopathic to the patient.
Yet the risk is unnecessary. No benefit is to be obtained by failing to change potency between doses; and everything is to be lost, including occasional accidental antidoting of the previous dose.
Moreover, an additional risk inheres about which routinists remain ever silent and most others are too tactful (a term I clearly don't know the meaning of) to mention aloud: that of imposing a dissimilar medicinal illness upon the patient -- such routinists infrequently obtaining a prescription sufficiently close to stimulate a secondary response.
If either problem -- medicinal aggravation of similar symptoms, or medicinal imposition of dissimilar ones through sheer weight of repetition -- occurred in many of the cases described here (including the "cure" discussed under the "twice in a row" topic), it would go completely unrecognised by the practitioners involved, because their priority is not to check whether their first prescription could be improved, but looking only for confirmation of their own ideas as to what is occurring.
The "homoeopathic" suppression that occurs as part of the imposition, through repetition, of a dissimilar medicinal state is merely one peak of the iceberg that routinists blindly run aground upon daily through the wilful ignorance that arises from investing too much in their mistakes. Such investment is not the lot of people like you who continue to seek the most useful answers with an open mind; for that reason, with one small and costless decision you can choose never to risk the confusion that arises through the oft unrecognised imposition of medicinal symptoms -- similar or dissimilar -- and leads, in routinists to whom the cost of changing their ways has become insupportable, to compounding the incorrect treatment.
Though the fourth edition of the Organon is effectively superseded by the fifth and sixth, it remains entirely up-to-date in respect of its methods' payment of attention to whether the initial prescription has been the best possible. This is what routinists routinely deprive themselves of by imposing their imagination upon the process to define all medicinal change as curative and charging blithely on regardless of the consequences. It applies as much to routinist homoeopaths as it does to any routinist allopath, and with less excuse.
Cheers!
John
2009/12/10 >
Surely there will be many occasions on which the odd repetition, even within a generally inadvisable period (variable with the remedy and the pace of the illness, but in chronic illness at least a few weeks; Hahnemann seemingly indicated ever and, before lighting upon incrementing potency, avoided such repetition using intercurrents and other tactics), won't strengthen the original symptoms.
On occasion, it is probably done without harm though the medicine is most homoeopathic to the patient.
Yet the risk is unnecessary. No benefit is to be obtained by failing to change potency between doses; and everything is to be lost, including occasional accidental antidoting of the previous dose.
Moreover, an additional risk inheres about which routinists remain ever silent and most others are too tactful (a term I clearly don't know the meaning of) to mention aloud: that of imposing a dissimilar medicinal illness upon the patient -- such routinists infrequently obtaining a prescription sufficiently close to stimulate a secondary response.
If either problem -- medicinal aggravation of similar symptoms, or medicinal imposition of dissimilar ones through sheer weight of repetition -- occurred in many of the cases described here (including the "cure" discussed under the "twice in a row" topic), it would go completely unrecognised by the practitioners involved, because their priority is not to check whether their first prescription could be improved, but looking only for confirmation of their own ideas as to what is occurring.
The "homoeopathic" suppression that occurs as part of the imposition, through repetition, of a dissimilar medicinal state is merely one peak of the iceberg that routinists blindly run aground upon daily through the wilful ignorance that arises from investing too much in their mistakes. Such investment is not the lot of people like you who continue to seek the most useful answers with an open mind; for that reason, with one small and costless decision you can choose never to risk the confusion that arises through the oft unrecognised imposition of medicinal symptoms -- similar or dissimilar -- and leads, in routinists to whom the cost of changing their ways has become insupportable, to compounding the incorrect treatment.
Though the fourth edition of the Organon is effectively superseded by the fifth and sixth, it remains entirely up-to-date in respect of its methods' payment of attention to whether the initial prescription has been the best possible. This is what routinists routinely deprive themselves of by imposing their imagination upon the process to define all medicinal change as curative and charging blithely on regardless of the consequences. It applies as much to routinist homoeopaths as it does to any routinist allopath, and with less excuse.
Cheers!
John
2009/12/10 >