Minutus

I've studied and used Robin Murphy's approach for the last decade. He
taught high-potency treatment for years until he became convinced
American homeopaths misread Hahnemann's work. Lowest possible dose means
low potency, not low amount of active substance or high potency.

Murphy routinely uses 30C for acute conditions and 6C for chronic
conditions. The lower potencies are more useful in today's world because
they are repeated more often. A cup of coffee doesn't knock out a
month's work if you are going to get another dose in a few hours.

In recent years, he has moved primarily to LM potencies, which Hahnemann
used almost exclusively towards the end of his life. This low potency
approach is designed to eliminate aggravations and dramatically shorten
cure times.

In my own experience, Murphy's approach works as advertised. I rarely
use even 200C except for severe chronic conditions for a short period
and really acute problems.

Jeff Sutherland

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:09:52 +1300
From: "Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD."
Subject: RE: Re: Arndt Schulz Law

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".

>American homeopaths misread Hahnemann's work. Lowest possible dose

Not either/or -BOTH

Minimum dose means pretty much what it sounds like it might mean...
Smallest *amount* of the lowest potency that is sufficient to provoke
homeopathic healing response.
Potency & Posology are parts of an equation, & cannot exist without one
another.
You can ignore part of the equation, but - If you don't take them both into
account, you risk aggravation.

Match the equation of potency x posology to the pace & progression of the
disease; the sensitivity of the client, and the nature of the Rx and you
have minimum dose.
-whether that be a single dry dose of 30c, or 6c in liquid posology, an LM,
or some other.
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

Hello all -
possible dose means
potency.

an, unfortunately common, un-clarity of some authors -

it is a standard topic that I find of value to address
in any course -

The term 'Dose' requires information on
- quantity
- frequency
- potency
to be clearly defined

'Small'/'Large' - refers to size / quantity - how many
pellets, drops, tee-spoons., sniffles, ..... at each time
of taking remedy -

'Low' / 'High' - refers to potency

and frequency is self-explanatory -

to say 'a low dose', or 'a high dose', or 'small potency'
..... all makes little sense, at least to me, in the context
of use of those terms in the English language

A client stating they have taken previously ' some '...low
doses of Ars alb' ..... are you going to write it down and
leave it at that ?
or would not, hopefully, every homoeopath inquire further as
to ' ... what exactly do you mean with 'some low
doses'....?? ' !!?

listening to many student's questions, I would say the
in-consistent
use of these terms, our homoeopathic technical language,
creates quite some confusion and even mis-understanding many
times -

'low dose' - does the speaker mean
low potency, as in below avogadro? or
low as in only one pellet instead of five? or
a really high potency, because there is less molecules
(which would make a 'low' dose..... which such statement
would in itself not make sense beyond 12c/24x anyway) ? or
even
low as in ' well ... I only took it once .... ' as in
'low-impact' ....

all and any of these have been termed 'low dose' by various
people -

It is less confusing in the German of Hahnemann -
still, I say 'less' because even in the German text there do
remain a few sentences in which the dosage-terms are not
completely and un-mistakably clear and obvious -
Yet, a generalized statement such as
(in Hahnemann....)
potency...'

would need to be looked at specifically in the context of
exactly the sentence of the German original it refers to -
and then compared with other sentences that this topic
appears -
it is not a simple ' one same interpretation for all text
locations ' -

.... and if Boenninghausen did not seem to read it that way
......
(at least I do not remember any mention in his readings to
that intent)

I know, I'm a stickler with words sometimes, but if *we*
aren't clear and precise about our own terms ..............

best
peter

Hi Jeff,

I'd be interested to hear more of what you've experienced using Robin's
approach. Can you tell us a bit more about what you will usually see, do,
expect? E.g., I realize that "how often" and "how long" can be extremely
individualized, but would you can you say how often, or within what range,
you would most likely be repeating repeating 6c's for a chronic condition?
I assume that over time you'd find that 6 begins to work less well, and then
increase the potency, etc.?

How high are you likely to need to go, e.g. for a long-term, deep-seated
chronic case?

Personally, I've very seldom had problems with high potency single doses
being "knocked out", or aggravations, or any such thing. But there
certainly are cases where having more "control" is useful, and for those I
do use low repeated (tho I've more often used 12s than 6s). But I'm curious
about how/why one might choose that method for a case where there's no worry
re aggravation, antidoting, etc.?

Thanks!
Shannon

on 12/12/02 4:16 PM, Jeff Sutherland at jeff.sutherland@spamcop.net wrote:

>............. If the dose is low,

.... repeat/see post from 13 Dec ......

what is meant with
' ... dose is 'low'...?!?

- low *potency* ? or
- *small* dose as in not much quantity of pellets/drops....
or
- *high* potency as in 'low'/small/less number of
molecules ...... ?!?!?

and with
'... dose is 'big'... ?!?!?
- *large* dose as in lots of *quantity* drops/pellets/ in
whichever potency ?? or
- low *potency* as in lots of molecules to make a 'big' dose
..... ?!?!

and
' ... potency is 'small' ...?!?!?
- *low* potency as in 'small' numerical as in number 3 is
'smaller' than number 200.... ???
- *high* potency as in a 'high' number results in a less
material/'smaller' potency....?!?!?!

if we present a statement such as

we may assume to know what is meant , but it is far from
being clear and precise homoeopathic terminology ....

This is a not-so-major example, yes -
still, if we are sloppy with the basics we oughtn't be
surprised at the sloppiness that abounds these days in other
more fundamentally important aspects of homoeopathic theory
and principles .....
please, no offence intended!
just my personal little rant.....
especially as I just posted this same thing two days
ago.....


take care
peter

Dear Jeff,

Potency and the dose are inversely proportional. If the dose is low,
potency is high and if the dose is big, potency is small. I hope it was
Master Boenninghausen in his Lesser Writings saying like such. He also said
that what Hahneimann meant from minute dose was a higher potency as
compared to the derangement of the dynamis. Take care.

Sincerely,
Zaidee

Message: 9
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:16:01 -0500
From: "Jeff Sutherland"
Subject: RE: Low potencies
I've studied and used Robin Murphy's approach for the last decade. He
taught high-potency treatment for years until he became convinced
American homeopaths misread Hahnemann's work. Lowest possible dose means
low potency, not low amount of active substance or high potency.

I think the confusion is this:
The below statement
is true, *if and only if* we are comparing doses of physical substance
contained in equivalent amounts of carrier substance, e.g. in a single
pillule.

A single pillule of low potency contains a larger "dose" of substance than a
single pellet of high potency (in fact, the single pillule of high potency
contains none).

However, in the context of homeopathy that line of thought quickly becomes
not so useful, because you can give larger or smaller doses (more or fewer
pellets or drops) of any potency (different sizes of dose having potentially
different effects).

And, more, in homeopathy, the physical substance is *not* what exerts the
major effect (else higher potencies would be, well, less potent). Thus,
physical substance is not what we measure to determine "size of dose" (Thank
God, said the non-mathematician! .

What exerts the major effect is "energetic substance" (sorry for the
oxymoron!), and we guage "dose" according to amount of carrier -- number of
pills, drops, etc.

Zaidee, does this explanation work for you, or does it contradict??

Best,
Shannon

Shannon,

Murphy's goal (and he argues it was Hahnemann's objective)is to
achieve a cure of a specific chronic condition in a few months with
LM potencies, using the lowest possible potency and avoiding all
aggravations. He finds this to be 2-3 times faster than older
approaches.

He typically starts with LM1 in water and gives a client a teaspoon
in a cup of water at least once a day and often several times a day,
adjusted based on the client's response. In fact, he teaches people
to adjust the dose themselves. When LM1 starts losing effect, he goes
to LM2, etc.

Previously to his focus on LM potencies, he was using 6C in the same
way. Use in water and succuss the bottle before taking. Go up a
potency when 6C is no longer working.

As to where to start, 9C, 12C, etc. may be appropriate depending on
the case. Jacques JOUANNY, MD, for example, has a few excellent texts
where he makes extensive use of 9C for various conditions. Following
his example, has worked well for me.

I use Murphy's approach and raise the potency by emptying the bottle,
filling it again and succussing, to drive the potency up 1C or 2C.
This is not the approach that Murphy recommends but is fast, easy,
and effective for me.

If an acute condition intervenes, the low potencies are stopped, and
the acute condition treated, typical at 30C. Low potencies are
restarted when the acute condition is resolved.

This solves a major problem Murphy had when teaching and practicing
the Kentian approach using high potencies. The practice was not
treating the patient for an acute, in order to not affect the long
term impact of a single high potency remedy (1-10M). Not stopping and
treating an acute he currently views as abusing a patient.

At to going to higher potencies for chronic conditions, I think the
plussing approach at 200C is extemely valuable for a severe condition
like cancer, as in:

A Homeopathic Approach to Cancer
By Catherine R. COULTER, BA, MA, Dr. A.U. RAMAKRISHNAN

In addition, Ramakrishnan's comprehensive statistics on success for
various tumor types are far better than those of any oncologist I
know.

Jeff Sutherland

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert&Shannon Nelson
wrote:
Robin's
see, do,
extremely
range,
condition?
and then
seated

:):)...yes Shannon...this does !!! Take care.

Sincerely,
Zaidee

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 08:23:52 -0600
From: Robert&Shannon Nelson
Subject: Re: RE: Low potencies
I think the confusion is this:
The below statement
is true, *if and only if* we are comparing doses of physical substance
contained in equivalent amounts of carrier substance, e.g. in a single
pillule.
Zaidee, does this explanation work for you, or does it contradict??
Best,
Shannon

Hi Jeff,

(Sorry for my delay!)
Thanks for this explanation. Could I ask how long your experience has been
with this approach -- low Cs and/or LMs repeated so frequently -- on chronic
conditions? I'm curious whether, in your and/or his experience, there winds
up being no need of using high potencies "ever", or whether it's beneficial
at some point (when the patient has stabilized?) to follow up with a high
potency?

I'm also curious about the idea of repeat an LM more than daily. I did work
briefly with a h'th who suggested this, and did it myself with no problem --
but it turned out the rx was wrong anyway, so... But overall my experience
with LMs is not much, but I was greatly helped by following David Little's
suggestions to repeat the dose only when *needed*, according to return of
symptoms. However, I made this change at the same time as I reduced the
size of dose (in my then-toddler son) by about 3/4; never tried using the
reduced dosage on a daily (or more) repetition, so maybe there would have
been no more aggravations once the size of dose was more appropriate.

I'm just curious whether, in your (and others') experience the more frequent
repetition (e.g. more than daily) does in fact speed the cure?

Would this approach be more apt to suit a case where there are many chronic
problems but the "overall constitutional" is elusive, or not really...

Thanks,
Shannon
on 12/16/02 9:52 AM, Jeff Sutherland at
jeff.sutherland@spamcop.net wrote: