potency & dosage
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2002 5:18 pm
Dave suggests that in favor of pursuing a generic rule, learned in an academic circumstance should be set aside in favor of "assessing individual sensitivity; then selecting potency appropriate to
sensitivity vs. severity of complaint." And further that, "I think it reasonable to assume that 1M might be gentle in comparison to10M". Ultimately he concludes, "What is important is matching the dynamic of the remedy with what is needed in your individual case."
And Rochelle asserts that "A 200 works faster than a 1M!!"
Robyn shares with us an instruction from,
"Parimal Banerji has found that Arn 3c in repeated doses is the potency that
acts best when the injury is very recent and the symptoms are very acute
and painful. He says that "when the acute symptoms of the injury are not
there, then Arn. 3 is much less effective than Arn. 200" ie., the effects
of an injury sustained long ago...." and robyn continues,...
"without needing to take into consideration the sensitivity or susceptibility of the
patient, then what kind of scholar would I be to stick to what i have been
taught, without trying this approach, and assessing the outcome (as Dave
did mention)?"
There is then the further assertion by Robyn that," Wouldn't it be nice, if the overwhelming clinical evidence of some practitioners led to the easy selection of a remedy and potency without
having to worry about sensitivity and susceptibility?"
She concludes with,
"We should leave the "How does the diluted remedy work" questions to the
physicists and chemists and get on with treating people in a direct and
successful manner."
Finrod expresses the idea that, "There is a need to match the patient with the potency...I think there is a general rule (based on the provings) that the higher one goes in potency the greater the effect on mental and emotional levels."
I asked originally, "Would you think it a fair inquiry to wonder if the higher potency would
attend to find reflection in a different component of functional medicine
and/or tissue reflection than a lower potency?"
The dynamics, the energetic presentation of all Life, renders it an impossibility to render an assessment, a diagnosis, in the absence of the elements of sensitivity & susceptibility. Such application is performed by allopathy and has demonstrated failure.
The question of 'how' things work stands in contrast to the 'why' things work. I would suggest that 'why' is asked by the allopath and 'how' is asked by homeopathy and oriental medicine. Why seeks to obtain through linear analysis an 'answer', while how seeks to obtain an indentified 'response'. An answer is fixed and conveys the feeling of being static, while a response conveys the feeling of a more fluid environment of possibility.
The practice of healthcare is not easy because there is no one path to pursue. There are many many choices and whatever protocol is chosen must be based upon some diagnosis. A diagnostic assessment must be based not merely upon clinical findings, rather, upon rules. These rules find their foundation upon much clinical observation from which some of our colleagues have generated theory and/or principles that allow the rest of us to use as guiding lights along our paths as physicians.
I think that finrod got it right too in saying better than I that potency has some relationship in affecting the terrain between the body and the mind. In TCM we refer to this as the three treasures, the mind, the chi(VF), and the body.
Allopathy has defined functional medicine in a manner that address identifiable terrains of tissue of the body, and I would suggest that this too is a venue that allows for a translucent sifting of homeopathy, as in sensitivity and susceptibility.
Remedies are not stronger or weaker in the absence of assessing sensitivity and susceptibility, and protocol cannot find standing in the absence of a diagnosis which interprets the terrain affected and in what manner.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sensitivity vs. severity of complaint." And further that, "I think it reasonable to assume that 1M might be gentle in comparison to10M". Ultimately he concludes, "What is important is matching the dynamic of the remedy with what is needed in your individual case."
And Rochelle asserts that "A 200 works faster than a 1M!!"
Robyn shares with us an instruction from,
"Parimal Banerji has found that Arn 3c in repeated doses is the potency that
acts best when the injury is very recent and the symptoms are very acute
and painful. He says that "when the acute symptoms of the injury are not
there, then Arn. 3 is much less effective than Arn. 200" ie., the effects
of an injury sustained long ago...." and robyn continues,...
"without needing to take into consideration the sensitivity or susceptibility of the
patient, then what kind of scholar would I be to stick to what i have been
taught, without trying this approach, and assessing the outcome (as Dave
did mention)?"
There is then the further assertion by Robyn that," Wouldn't it be nice, if the overwhelming clinical evidence of some practitioners led to the easy selection of a remedy and potency without
having to worry about sensitivity and susceptibility?"
She concludes with,
"We should leave the "How does the diluted remedy work" questions to the
physicists and chemists and get on with treating people in a direct and
successful manner."
Finrod expresses the idea that, "There is a need to match the patient with the potency...I think there is a general rule (based on the provings) that the higher one goes in potency the greater the effect on mental and emotional levels."
I asked originally, "Would you think it a fair inquiry to wonder if the higher potency would
attend to find reflection in a different component of functional medicine
and/or tissue reflection than a lower potency?"
The dynamics, the energetic presentation of all Life, renders it an impossibility to render an assessment, a diagnosis, in the absence of the elements of sensitivity & susceptibility. Such application is performed by allopathy and has demonstrated failure.
The question of 'how' things work stands in contrast to the 'why' things work. I would suggest that 'why' is asked by the allopath and 'how' is asked by homeopathy and oriental medicine. Why seeks to obtain through linear analysis an 'answer', while how seeks to obtain an indentified 'response'. An answer is fixed and conveys the feeling of being static, while a response conveys the feeling of a more fluid environment of possibility.
The practice of healthcare is not easy because there is no one path to pursue. There are many many choices and whatever protocol is chosen must be based upon some diagnosis. A diagnostic assessment must be based not merely upon clinical findings, rather, upon rules. These rules find their foundation upon much clinical observation from which some of our colleagues have generated theory and/or principles that allow the rest of us to use as guiding lights along our paths as physicians.
I think that finrod got it right too in saying better than I that potency has some relationship in affecting the terrain between the body and the mind. In TCM we refer to this as the three treasures, the mind, the chi(VF), and the body.
Allopathy has defined functional medicine in a manner that address identifiable terrains of tissue of the body, and I would suggest that this too is a venue that allows for a translucent sifting of homeopathy, as in sensitivity and susceptibility.
Remedies are not stronger or weaker in the absence of assessing sensitivity and susceptibility, and protocol cannot find standing in the absence of a diagnosis which interprets the terrain affected and in what manner.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]