Minutus

I have a question which is directed mostly at those with knowledge about
using low potencies, particularly of endocrine sarcodes. I don't know very
much about this methodology, so please correct me if I've made any wrong
assumptions.

The Arndt Schulz law seems to be used as the framework for the posology --
small doses stimulate, moderate doses regulate, larger doses inhibit -- and
this is transferred to homeopathic potency, such that eg. a 4C is used to
stimulate, a 7C to regulate and a 9C to inhibit the activity of the
endocrine gland in question.

However, what puzzles me about this methodology is that the Arndt Schulz law
was derived from observations about material doses, such that a small dose
contains less of the substance than a moderate or large dose. However, in
homeopathic potency, a 4C contains a greater material amount of the
substance than a 7C or 9C, so in effect this would produce a reversal or
mirror image of the dose-response curve derived from the Arndt Schulz law.

Can anyone either throw any light on this, or point me in the direction of
where I can read more?

Regards
Wendy

My personal way of understanding it..............

When you look at a graph of action vs quantity, the Arndt-Schultz Law is
apparently working at the lower end of the graph, with small amounts of
material dose. It has been neglected in most of the pharmacology books
as a "fluke" or as being irrelevant anyway because of the amount of
substance that is below the threshold of what would be used in
conventional pharmacology.

In organotherapy, we use potentised remedies where a low POTENCY is
going to stimulate by presenting to the organ a physical template (the
material amount in the remedy) with more, but little, info from the
potentisation. With higher potencies there is less physical template and
more energetical information, hence the moderation of the activity of
the organ; but you will never be able to shut down an organ completely
with a homeopathic remedy.
The intermediate potencies act as amphoteric remedies, able to do either
depending on what the disturbance is.
In real life, if you need to depress the function of a gland and you
give a higher potency, it will still work (been there, done that) as
eventually the purpose of the treatment and the effect of the remedy is
to restore normality.
It seems that the French homeopaths who have used this technique have
had better, quicker results when using the "appropriate" potency for the
appropriate indication; that is why we use their experience.

Does that make sense???

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

I often use low potencies and have not seen any problem.

Why would they become deactivated? I do not understand your reasoning?

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

Dear List,

Referring to this mail and some valuable mails regarding 4C, IMHO, lower
potencies have worked well in the past...say some 70 years past...when the
food was pure and there were less mental and economical tensions. The life
was not as mechanised as it is today. All these negative forces do not tend
the lower potencies to be de-activated??? Any comments would be
enlightening for me. Thanks and take care.

Sincerely,
Zaidee

Message: 20
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:16:38 -0000
From: "Wendy Howard"
Subject: Re: Arndt Schulz Law
I have a question which is directed mostly at those with knowledge about
using low potencies, particularly of endocrine sarcodes. I don't know very
much about this methodology, so please correct me if I've made any wrong
assumptions.
The Arndt Schulz law seems to be used as the framework for the posology --
small doses stimulate, moderate doses regulate, larger doses inhibit -- and
this is transferred to homeopathic potency, such that eg. a 4C is used to
stimulate, a 7C to regulate and a 9C to inhibit the activity of the
endocrine gland in question.

Hi Zaidee,

Maybe you're thinking of speculation about why Hahnemann seemed to get such
mileage out of 30c, whereas we now seem to need higher potencies for chronic
cases? (One of my teachers mused that perhaps he stretched the reach of
those 30c's by having his patients avoid a long list of "medicinal"
substances -- some footnote in the Organon, can't remember which --
including e.g. fragrant flowers, salads, and a truly stunning list of other
things... The other thing he did, of course, when 30c's were not enough,
was develop the LM scale.)

But as far as low potencies not working, I too do not see that to be the
case. I often use 12X, 6c, 12c, and in their place, they work just fine.
Usually they would not be enough to *finish* a case, tho.

Shannon
on 12/11/02 5:09 PM, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD. at jroz@ihug.co.nz wrote:

Dear Shannon,

Then my humble experiences seem to be unique ones , not always but
mostly, lower potencies always aggravated. I would like to quote one
special "disease" and that is rheumatism where lower dilutions have always
aggravated. 30c has been safe and when the case has improved, ( not cured)
I tend to go higher. Or is it that I repeat the lower preparations more
frequently and avoid it in 30s. Generally when I used to give 6c, these
were two or three doses in five days and if 30c it is one dose after three
days or more that I repeat, if I have to. Didn't the Great Master told to
repeat lower potencies more and not the higher ones. You and Dr. J also
says he has been using low potencies safely and comfortably. I use 6X
preparation only for the Biochemics and not for any other remedy. If I get
any aggravation from 30c or higher, it never lasts for long and is soon
over. Is it the climate or different way of living here? Homoeopathy has
universal principles and how it is that we are having different results
from low potencies.

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:58:08 -0600
From: Robert&Shannon Nelson
Subject: Re: Re: Arndt Schulz Law
Hi Zaidee,
Maybe you're thinking of speculation about why Hahnemann seemed to get such
mileage out of 30c, whereas we now seem to need higher potencies for chronic
cases? (One of my teachers mused that perhaps he stretched the reach of
those 30c's by having his patients avoid a long list of "medicinal"
substances -- some footnote in the Organon, can't remember which --
including e.g. fragrant flowers, salads, and a truly stunning list of other
things... The other thing he did, of course, when 30c's were not enough,
was develop the LM scale.)
But as far as low potencies not working, I too do not see that to be the
case. I often use 12X, 6c, 12c, and in their place, they work just fine.
Usually they would not be enough to *finish* a case, tho.
Shannon

Hi Zaidee,

It's very interesting, I wonder why the difference...
I will definitely keep in mind your experience re rheumatism (which I have
so far not treated at all).
I have occasionally used 6 to begin treating a chronic case (maybe twice,
and more often 12c), but regardless of the potency I do judge the schedule
of re-dose according to the patient's response, rather than by something
pre-determined. In one case the 6c needed repetition on every fourth day
(she found it very easy to notice when re-dose was needed), and I have read
cases where (incredible tho it sounded to me!) a single 6c dose lasted very
well, for months! So it seems *possible* that over-dosing caused the
problems you saw????

On the other hand, I've used 6c for acutes where it was repeated 3-4 times
daily, without any trouble. (But again on an "as needed" basis, rather than
by schedule.)

As far as repeating lower potencies more frequently, that's definitely been
my experience, also -- but *how* frequently seems to be surprisingly
variable! E.g. I may start a person with 12c (or 6) daily or every few
days, depending on response. If we feel that the remedy is working well and
the patient would like single dose, I might then move to 200 or 1M, and
expect that dose to last MUCH longer -- many months, rather than a few days.
(If it doesn't, I will figure that my remedy is wrong after all.)

So I think that when we compare the "how often" of various potencies, it
needs to be compared within the same set of circumstances (ideally within
the same patient!), not as an absolute thing...

Thanks for the thought-provoking observations!

Best,
Shannon
on 12/15/02 2:57 PM, Zaidee at insan@gjr.paknet.com.pk wrote: