Minutus

How much experience do you have with the LMs?
Hahnemann died a year after he completed the sixth edition, and it wasn't published until 1921, and so we may assume then that it missed entirely the golden age of homoeopathy spanning the last half of the 19th cenetury, and so from this we can see that all published practitioners of that era, such as Kent, Clarke, Von Lippe, Herin, Allen . . in other words, what would appear to be 100% of the profession, were using fifth edition posology.
Hahnemann says,
PARA 246
"If the disease is somewhat chronic, however, a single dose of the appropriately chosen
homoeopathic medicine does sometimes complete the good that that remedy can
according to its nature accomplish in the case, but slowly, over a period of 40, 50, 60, or
100 days. Now, for one thing, this is very rarely the case, and, secondly, it must be a
matter of great importance to the physician and to the patient to reduce this period by half
or three-quarters or more, if possible , so as to obtain a far more rapid cure.
As the most recent and frequently verified experiments have taught me, this can be
accomplished very felicitously if the following conditions are fulfilled: firstly, if the
medicine is very carefully selected so that it is accurately homoeopathic; secondly, if it is
highly potentized, dissolved in water, and given in suitably small doses at intervals that
experience has shown to be the most appropriate for the speediest possible cure. But the
degree of potency of each dose must be somewhat different from that of previous and that
of the following dose, so that the vital principle, which is to be diverted to a similar
medicinal disease, is never roused and incited to untoward reactions, as always happens
when unmodified doses are repeated, especially at short intervals.a
a. What I said in the fifth edition of the Organon in a long footnote to this
paragraph, with the purpose of preventing these untoward reactions of the vital
force, was all that my experience permitted me to say at the time. But for the last
four or five years thanks to the modifications by which I have perfected previous
procedures, all these difficulties have been completely removed. The same well chosen
medicine can now be given daily, even for months if necessary. In the
treatment of chronic diseases, if the lower degree of potency is used up in one or
two weeks, one proceeds in a similar way to the higher degree. (In the new
method of dynamization, to be explained later, the medicine is administered
beginning with the lowest degrees.)"
PARA-247
"It is inadmissible to repeat, even once, exactly the same dose of medicine without
modifying it,a let alone many times (and at short intervals, because one does not want the
cure to be delayed).
"The vital principle does not accept such identical doses without opposition, i.e., without
bringing out other symptoms of the medicine, symptoms not similar to those of the
disease being treated. The previous dose has already completed the transformation of the
vital principle expected of it, and a second, unmodified dose of the same medicine
identical in degree of dynamization is consequently no longer able to work exactly the
same effect upon the vital principle. Now the patient can only be made sick in a different
way by such an unaltered dose, basically more sick than before, because now the only
symptoms left to act are the medicinal ones that are not homoeopathic to the medicinal
ones that are not homoeopathic to the disease. Therefore no progress toward cure but
only a real aggravation of the case can result."
Now, if the response here is this is what Fibonacci posology does, then my response to you is, are you telling me, that by experience, you have found it to be superior to Hahnemannian 6th edition posology? And, do you have the case reports to back this up?
How is it then that I am supposed to accept novel serial posologies when I find little evidence of mastering the old?
Benneth

I have used the LMs for 10 years, taught by David Little.

I have found them very useful, easy to use, but slow and not giving me the depth of resolution, the "total cure" I was and still am after.
The great usefulness for me was to be exposed to the multiple dilution glasses technique that can be adapted to every posology and is integrated in the Fibonacci series methodology.

I have now used the F series exclusively for 7 years and as of yesterday have prescribed them 976 times.
There is NOTHING contradictory between the F series and what Hahnemann wrote, which you would know if you had read the 2 books, as it is explained in detail.....but you have repeatedly indicated that you expected me to copy/paste their full content over here and are not willing to go through the painful process of acquiring them, so you will not be able to find out will you?

I must say that I find it strange, weird and bizarre that you are not willing to read a reference when given it but expect everybody else to provide you with answers.....

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

Used them enough to prove they are third best in the areas in which I worked.
Too slow for the fast chronic I had in mind and C was too much kick in the pants at the higher potencies needed to be stronger than a disease. So it all fell between the cracks.
Hands down best is Fibonacci potencies - covers all bases, fast slow, high., low, and in-between.

Are you saying you do not know how to use them yet?


Do catch up with this century:-) It will soon be yet another new y ear......
Yeah and he never did settle on what potency was best. See his Paris case books - lots of C again.
He was TRYING to find the natural law behind potency selection potencies but never quite got there.

Fibonacci is needed.

Namaste,
Irene

PS Dr J's book on somatostructural....,,, I liked it. I just can not memorize the name.
REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Hey Joe, cool down a little. No need to get mad when you're getting more than even, which is what you're doing here with me, aren't you? I'm willing to accept prima facie that 976 cases could be overwhelming proof of the effectiveness of your method, and the possibility that it is a refinement of Hahnemannian serially ascending posology. But Hahnemann left in his wake more than 100 times your number in case notes (and a widow half his age , and I have seen little evidence that novel practitioners defer to him or have even read the Organon, which is so magnificent, so brilliant, and of such genius that it should be required reading of all physicians and distributed by the Gideons in motel bedside drawers. It certainly is more helpful to Mankind than what they're putting there now by King James, which could and should be boiled down to 2500 words from Matt. 5,6 and 7, put in a greeting card and just mailed to everyone once every Christmas.
Now I am not suggesting you have not read the Organon, and I know Little is a devout student of Hahnemann and has been one of the great teachers of Hahnemannian homoeopathy, I am sure, but I am inclined to be suspicious of anything that presumes to improve on Hahnemann, even though he died a year after completing the sixth edition, and, in that he was of an advanced age, serial posology appears to so easily aggravate that it may be suspect in his death, and you . . yes you Joe, if my faltering memory serves me right, have said something about an extreme aggravation you suffered in formulation of the F series? Out of those 976 cases, how many have aggravated?
And speaking of Little, who when it comes to practice appears to has dropped off a cliff on the SE side of Maui, and, like Vithoulkas and the rest of "homeopathy" was in total denial of the pre-clinicals 14 years ago.
This may not seem important to anyone but me, but along with putting a sock in the mouth of homeopathy bashers, the pre-clinicals may have some relevance to serial posology in that botanical, zoological and biochemical tests show an anomalous action of stimulus and inhibition below Avogadro. and above it, beyond the ionic threshold, show a regular sinusoidal curve in the inorganics. In the biochemicals it alternates, some potencies inhibiting and others stimulating, which in all suggests that here may be a further refinement in your F series.
But what's the use in discussing the pre-clinical evidence for homoeopathy when most people appear not to have read the seminal work of the doctrine? Both of these subjects bring in an objective authority that threatens to overrule novel speculation by self appointed authorities. Who even knows the difference between homeopathy and homoeopathy . . or cares?
BTW, what does Little think of your F series?
Benneth
In a message dated 11/27/2013 2:02:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jroz@ihug.co.nz writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

In a message dated 11/27/2013 6:06:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, furryboots@icehouse.net writes:
I raised the potency of Capsicum in one case from 30c to 48c (exponential 6, 12,18,30,48 . . ) and appeared to have proved the remedy, caused my patient to be bed ridden for weeks, as if her back was broken, although at the end of it, the back pain disappeared and a previously crippling hip condition was much improved, and to date she has not needed a previously scheduled hip replacement . . before treatment she would scream in pain going up the stairs, now she still does it with difficulty but little discomfort. Nevertheless, given the extreme aggravation I am gun shy to repeat the experiment.
So to answer your question more directly I would say yes, not knowing the potencies you're using, their frequency or indication, I do not know what your scheme is for the use of ascending sequential potencies, i.e. I do not know how to use them yet and would be eager to learn. If it proves to be what you and Rozencwajg say is true, then I suspect it may be the greatest development in medicine since the 6th edition, and trust I would not hesitate to say so, hat off hailing Rozencwajg,
Benneth

There are way more cases than that. Many people have been using the F series exclusively. My first article published explaining what happeed when I changed to them, is here if you are interested, it is from way back in 2009, I changed to them pretty much at the first unveiling:


Really. I was not aware that the number of case notes had anything to do with efficacy of anything. I doubt Hahnemann would have agreed with you, he had a great scinetific approach. He was a typical egotistical Sulphur type wanting all the kudos and attention, but he was also a thoroughly brilliant inventor Sulphur type.
He never quit trying to find a better potency system, buit he did NOT get there. His PRINCIPLES are incontrovertible, but their implementation can certainly be improved upon as he was doing continuously himself.
If he could set aside his ego a while and was here, he'd agree to the continued research BASED on his principles, and he'd agree even with adding new principles that mesh with the existing ones naturally. As I say - Sulphur ego aside
It is not possible to improve on homeopathy without first understanding it in depth and a lot BETTER than most - so your observation makes no sense to me at all.

You are - and it looks rude from here.
I differ with Joe on this (and am glad to be other side the world from the hereby expected fallout), as I think Joe messed up with the way he experimented on himself. It has changed his personality. For example we were good friends but he has not spoken to me since I criticized his views on cortisol, and the last words I got were no joke.

Despite all that, I fully support all his discoveries and especially the F series. He also does not advocate that others experiment as he did. At least I have not seen that anywhere.

F series aggravations happen but WAY less often than any LM or C aggravations and they are fast to counter.
I have seen them only 3 times since starting to use them in 2009, so hardly a drop in the ocean as an issue. They happen when potency is raised too soon, or the dose amount is too great in a super-sensitive individual and if they happen, they take a long time after a dose to show the aggravation according to potency (eg four hours after a dose of 55C raised too soon from 34C), in my experinece. Aggravation lasted half hour if a drop of RR was used.

Of course if you use guesswork instead of reading the book you can expect to see alll kinds of aggravations from not understanding the system and how potencies are related to each other and how they compare with C ones for example. If you assume 55C in a F series has any similarity to any currently available C potency or old series, you'll mess up for sure.

Every system worth its salt has a correct way to use it.
This one is indeed a major breakthruogh. In my book, any other potency approach belongs in the realms of a flat earth society - no doubt becasue the old systems are based on guesswork, not on natrure. The Law of Similars works becasue it is based on nature and not a manmade invention - so too the F series.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Then, if you want to learn, READ THE BOOKS!!!
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Incredible!
This coming from someone who has a hissing fit when anybody posts anything even remotely private or is in the slightest disagreement.........

Yes, my personality has changed, as I explained in the post to John Benneth: I could not care less, not about the cortisol stuff, but the insulting and disparaging way it was written. I do not accept or tolerate this type of behaviour, I do no need this in my life, so as I wrote in my last email to her, "good bye" and that is it.

And please do not ask more, it is none of anybody's business. Just for the record, at that time I was in a horrific state of grief, sorrow and mourning; and that is all that will be said.

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

I don't need to cool down, I am not overheating, and that is a result of my (almost) full treatment....but I need to repeat one more time, and I will do in capitals, so that maybe it will get through to you: READ THE BOOKS!
All the questions you have been asking, including the aggravations, have their answers there.
As for my own aggravation/proving, it is also explained but simple to understand if you had read the books: I was designing a totally new approach, by trial and errors especially when dealing with the miasmatic aspect, as explained in the books, with nobody to guide me, to help me or to watch for unexpected events as a practitioner does with his patients.

I am very far form Hahnemann's age at his death and I definitely plan to do better....and he also experienced very serious aggravations, as did his friends and family on whom he experimented...I do not see you discarding his experience because of that. On the contrary, by having had to go through the wringer, I know what not to do with my patients, I can warn my colleagues in the books and I can also warn the patients about some side-effects, hence making them more tolerable when expected. As a matter of fact, in the last few weeks a new pattern has emerged through some patients that made me review an old case and then test the new theory on myself, again in a very aggressive way....not sure what, if anything, is going to come out of it.

As for the Organon, my first copy was given to me by a retiring homeopath in Durban; it took me a few years to realise it was a reprint of the first or second edition.....since then I have gone through the 4th, 5th, the comparative 4th-5th and a few times through the 6th, while following the interlinear translation of Lois Hoffer on the email list "Hahnemaniacs"....and yes I have read the classics too.

"Presuming to improve" in your post read like an insult or a dirty word. Newtonian physics improved through Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg and others; their own work was improved by the like of Hawkins and the quantum physicists; nobody ever denigrated their predecessors.
On the contrary, if you had read the books, you would have realised that most of my work and research has confirmed what H wrote, translating it in 21st century vocabulary and science that was not available to him.

And I do not know what happened to David Little, never had the opportunity to discuss the F series with him as my last contact was over 10 years ago when I asked him what was happening with the book he kept promising to write (he even asked some of us to pledge that we would buy it, so that he could be financially safe); since then I have not heard from him any more.

The great gift my self-treatment has given me is to put me in a better state of physical and mental health:
- chronic back pain for 30 years, gone
- others, gone
- now in a situation where aggressions and attacks like yours and others leave me totally indifferent, despite the fact that I keep answering....years ago I would have been foaming and fuming, not sleeping over night while ruminating for revenge.
If you have seen the cartoon movie "The Lion King", it is best expressed by the Swahili sentence "aguna matata": those things are unimportant and irrelevant.....so I now eliminate those annoying persons from my life as they have no relevance to what I am doing and no impact on me, no matter how important and extraordinary they believe they are....I will keep doing what I do and offer it to my colleagues and patients. The F series is now mature enough to stand on its own, has been adopted in NZ, Australia, Canada and the US and will make its way, slowly but surely, whatever your or anybody else's objections are.

So, if you have more questions, READ THE BOOKS!

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

and
(New definition of indifference.)

Joe I had no idea you were in any grief, you did not say. I am sorry.

You used to sign your emails :

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
I know a lot about cortisol. I live with its effects. I merely shared (expecting an open mind) what is not just theory and science for cortisol, but also experience confirming the theory and science. I know nobody who survived high cortisol this long (16 yrs to date, 2 being max per Mayo clinic), to know as much from experience as I learned by school of hard knocks. My writing was factual. You were the one tossing insults. If grief was the cause, then it is understandable - but why was it not resolved six months later if that WAS the cause and not a personality change cause. Do you value longterm friends so little as to toss them out now on a whim?

The old Joe had compassion, caring, patient explanations of things, wisdom, calmness, not internet "shouting" with a claim of indifference, and telling peope to go away.

I would not want to undergo a homeopathy treatment that did that to my personality - I know wh y you did it but I wish you had not. I think that it is important to know about that personality change effect, so people can make an informed choice whether to use the entire approach described. That much I feel is appropriate to write here.

Namaste,
Irene
REPLY TO: > only
--
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."