Minutus

From: Bob&Shannon
Could I ask why we still using High potencies? Someone (Vithoulkas) says he could cure quickly with them. But is it real? As long as I could read in past experiences, from Hahnemann himself to Kent, every one who has experimented high potencies ends died. And the worse is those die shouldn't had happened.

Most masters today teach "high" potencies, in a weak scientific methodology, based in his "deep" experience. But What could we think if they even don't know when they are curing?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Miguel,

I don't understand your question. Some prescribers use all or mostly high;
some use all or mostly low; and some (including myself) use either
comfortably. Each has its advantages, depending on the needs of the
particular case.

Most of my experience, tho (both as prescriber and as patient) has been with
high potencies, and I haven't found them prone to causing problems, at least
not with the conservative method that I was taught (infrequent dosing, and
careful evaluation of the results of each dose!!!) I would not want to do
without *either* end of the scale (high or low).

Shannon
on 6/25/04 2:52 AM, Miguel F at floresmikael@yahoo.es wrote:

in each individual case was what i was taught. and i agree with shannon.
both high and low
potencies have value when used appropriately. i have seen pts with such
sensitivity that
a 6c is almost too strong, and others who can handle 200c and 1 M's with no
problem.

tanya

In einer eMail vom 27.06.04 14:56:38 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt
tamarque@frontiernet.net:

<< in each individual case was what i was taught. and i agree with shannon.
both high and low
potencies have value when used appropriately. i have seen pts with such
sensitivity that
a 6c is almost too strong, and others who can handle 200c and 1 M's with no
problem.
tanya

Dear...

Shanon:

Sorry if my English is not as good as yours (I'm Spanish native).

I don't know what "high" means to you, but master Hahnemann was proving LM when died; and Kent was proving 200 and higher when died; and so on with Farrington and others.

That I mean is there is a lot, very, very lot of people using sometimes 1M, 5M, but almost all the time 10M, 50M because "his" teacher said "if strong enough, can support". Then next time they ask: "How do you feel? And if there is some amelioration but an "bad" then repeat in "higher" potency. That sound me like your doctor who don't even told you what your medicine was.
Tanya:

What do you mean with "handle 200c and 1 M's with no problem"? V. g. there was a young woman who's teacher give 10M based on mental, a month after abrupt a horrible skin disease appeared. Mental still, teacher didn't know what to do, and did nothing (that was right), but woman (who never before has had something like that) was very fright. She was proving the medicine!
VBlues:

I agree with spoil part; in the use of potencies it sounds like my teachers [I'm not proud of them, they are all ill, for using high potencies (>10M) must I say]. Could I say that your sentence "only with a very SURE, PRECISE, diagnosis" must be accentuate not only in 1M but even in <6c because all medicines are potenticed and stronger than any natural disease?

Please: Any correct any english (or doctrinary) mismatch. Thanks.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Miguel,

I guess I'm not sure what to say; it's hard to talk "in the abstract",
without specific examples of what was given (how high, to what patient,
repeated when, etc.) and what happened.

Looking again at your original post, I'll add a couple of thoughts:
I use high potencies because I find them to be more efficient and effective
in many cases. I have not seen problems with them, *but* I repeat *very*
conservatively (for most chronic cases would not repeat a 200c for 6 months
or more, and much longer for anything higher). I do hear of people using
lots of repetitions of high potencies and I do know that can cause problems
in certain instances. I wonder if the cases you've seen were just extremely
over-medicated???
Why should it be less real than a cure with low potencies? I'm confused...
If I begin a case with low potency, I will usually finish it with a single
high potency dose when/if that seems feasible, because then you have a
longer lasting result. Maybe the same could be achieved by repeating low
potencies over a longer time, I don't know.
Well, we all die, don't we? My experience has been that folks using
homeopathy live longer and better, tho.

Since everyone does die, I assume your remark meant that they were killed by
a remedy? I don't think this is the case, but would love to hear just what
you're referring to and what your source is?
based in his "deep" experience. But What could we think if they even don't
know when they are curing?

???
Have you studied with some of these masters using weak scientific
methodology, or do you infer this because of unsuccessful or harmful
clinical work you have seen? Would you like to say more about what you
have studied or seen, that concerns you?

Julian -- can you speak to Miguel's assertion that Hahnemann and Kent and
Farrington were proving remedies when they died? (If I'm understanding you
right, Miguel?)

Best,
Shannon
on 6/28/04 9:58 AM, Miguel F at floresmikael@yahoo.es wrote:

In einer eMail vom 28.06.04 15:45:04 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt
floresmikael@yahoo.es:

10M) must
I say]. Could I say that your sentence "only with a very SURE, PRECISE,
diagnosis" must be accentuate not only in 1M but even in <6c because all medicines
are potenticed and stronger than any natural disease?
Please: Any correct any english (or doctrinary) mismatch. Thanks.
29.6.4.
Hi, thanks. Yes, well, but the potential damage to be done with a potency
higher than C1000 is much worse than the one with C6 or so, this is what I meant.
I gave you a few examples - in all of them C1000 or more was used. Real kicks.
Kind regards, Dr.medic.Viorel V. Bucur ( www.dr-bucur.com).

Hi Shannon:
Thanks. To me high potency is over 200c; 1M and over v.g. was found affect easy and quickly the patient. The difficult: it is so strong that almost always affect the patient even it is not his medicine, in most of the cases shadowing its symptoms. Then doctor thinks or say, "You see, you're better!" After that, when artificial ill vanish, doctor repeat in higher potency.
About the sources you could find references in Kent's "Talks on MM", Vithoulkas' "Talks on Classical MM", Sankarans "soul of remedies" and y this David Little library, Hahneman's diary (on Little Library are some excerpts) and 6ª edition of Organon. All them recommend High potencies, and Hahaneman inclusive encourage constant repetition.

I've read a lot and watch, observing there is weak methodology to take cases (taking to much common symptoms or too few characteristics), then weak observation (no rules, no parameters to repeat dosis).
Perhaps Guadalajara it to small, our teachers to ignorant, but hen I read some of old and new teachers I found the same weak (you could found lots of cases in http://www.homeoint.org/english/index.htm).
I think homoepathy is great. I can cure illness that are incurable to allopathic doctors, who amaze them; I'm proud of Kent, Hahneman, Boerick, Gatak, Hering, Allen, and anyone who helps us to find ways to curing. But even then I should observe weakly points to find how skip over. Because there are puzzling persons who's ill are reluctant to common remedies. Maybe I don't study or read the best teachers, but surely I try.
And yes, Julian, I tried to said that. We're in debt with so great men who give their lives to save ours.
Hi, Vblues:

Thanks for that address. Unfortunately I can't read German yet (but I'll start my German classes in a month, so I hope I can read them in a year).

I agree with you that a High potency is much more dangerous not usually for killing (but really a artificial disease can kill?Yes) but for misleading the case.
By the way ¿What's the best book you can recommend on Materia Medica? I've read Kents MM, part of Herings and Allen Encyclopedia, half book of Vithoulkas first volume on MM viva (and 5 other books), Pharmacoinamics of Huges, Vijnosky's MM, translated to spanish Hahneman MM pura, Sankarans soul of Remedies, and a lot from Hom School Argentina. I use strict single doses, only one time (usually), 30c- 200c potencies.

I repeat this question in the list group. Thanks for your help.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In einer eMail vom 28.06.04 18:11:45 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
shannonnelson@tds.net:

>
30.6.4.
Sorry for mixing up but for C200 6 months or so is to far away. Tuberculinum
C200, for ex., works around 3 months and that's maximum as far as I know.
The rest, with some exceptions like the quick and/or superficial ones, have a
range of 4 to 6 weeks most of them - they should be repeated but of course
ONLY if needed. Quite often 1 globulus does it, if the similarity fits.
Kind regards, Dr.medic.Viorel V. Bucur ( www.dr-bucur.com).

In einer eMail vom 30.06.04 06:27:19 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
floresmikael@yahoo.es:

<< By the way ¿What's the best book you can recommend on Materia Medica? I've
read Kents MM, part of Herings and Allen Encyclopedia, half book of
Vithoulkas first volume on MM viva (and 5 other books), Pharmacoinamics of Huges,
Vijnosky's MM, translated to spanish Hahneman MM pura, Sankarans soul of Remedies,
and a lot from Hom School Argentina. I use strict single doses, only one time
(usually), 30c- 200c potencies.
I repeat this question in the list group. Thanks for your help.
30.6.4.
Good things you wrote above. There is no ONE Materia Medica being the best.
The knowledge comes from all of them plus your own, meticulous, experience.
Then mix them up.You' ll get a very juicy thing. You' ll be astonished.
Kind regards, Dr.medic.Viorel V. Bucur (www.dr-bucur.com).