LM v Cs
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:48 pm
Dear Shannon and the list
We are once again discussing LMs and Cs - so I thought I just remind you of
David Little's submission which in my view paints a perfect picture.
"[Hahnemann never said "don't use Cs anymore - only use the LMs".]"
Rgds
Soroush
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:14:13 +0530
From: David Little
Subject: [H] Saine on the LM Potency
Dear Minutus,
I would like to deal with A. Saine's comments on the LM potency. There
are several historical inaccuracies in his interview. I have reviewed the
microfiches of he Paris Casebooks and have documented proof of what I am
saying.
Dr, Saine begins by saying that Hahnemann commonly used the 200th
potency by 1840 and that by the beginning of 1841 he started experimenting
with the LM potency. He also says Hahnemann only had 12 LM remedies with
Sullphur prepared only to the 0/20. He says that Hahnemann only
experimented with the LMs for around 2 years and used them less in 1842 and
by 1843 he barely practiced. Saine rather sarcastically says that Hahnemann
"apparently" though this was enough experience to authoritatively recommend
the LM potencies to his colleagues. Then he says he has read almost every
LM case and it was truly "very difficult" to be satisfied with the results.
I did not get the impression that he used the LM less in 1842 than 1841 and
he worked very hard in 1843 until he became sick with his final illness.
The idea that Hahnemann was "commonly using " the 200C by 1840 is a bit
of an overstatement. The truth is that Hahnemann *occasionally* used
potencies like the 191, 192, 193, 199 and 200. He almost never used the
200C for some reason. He preferred to use potencies in the 190 range rather
than 200c. Is this because he found that what some called the "great
aggravator" (the 200c) was not the smoothest potency? Did he find the
190-199 better? By 1840-1843 Hahnemann, however, did have a good amount of
experience with potencies up to the 200c, and according to Melanie, he also
tested the 1M.
To say Hahnemann only had 12 remedies in the LM potency is totally
false. In 1920 Haehl found 70 LM remedies in Hahnemann's medicine kit and
much of the contains of the box were missing. We don't really know the
final number. Some of these remedies were potentized up to 0/30. The first
documented LM prescription was made in 1838, which coincides with the 6tn
Organon where said he experimented with the new method for 4 or 5 years. I
have copies of the 1838 LM prescriptions for proof. There are also LM cases
in the early1840. The 5 year period is also the same time he develop the
full medicinal solutions and split-dose, which are an integral part of the
method. Why say he had only 12 remedies and used the LMs for two years in
only a few cases? Why use false information to imply that Hahnemann should
not have suggested anything with so little experience behind it?
I have also read Hahnemann's LM cases, and just like his C cases,
there are some success and some failures. What can be said for the LMs can
be said for the Cs. The way Dr. Saine portrays the LM cases makes it sound
like his C cases we somehow much better. This is an untruth. One must
remember that Hahnemann is the Alpha of Homoeopathy - not the Omega. What
one sees in the his German and French casebooks is the birth of Homeopathy.
His repertories and materia medicas only contained around 125 remedies. A
major reason for Hahnemann's difficulties (in his own words) was the
limited number of well proven remedies. It is not a matter of the C versus
the LM potency. It is a question of how to use both potency systems to the
best advantage.
Then Dr. Saine accusses Hahnemann of being dogmatic and says this is
because he always though his latest experiments were the ultimate way. He
points out that reading Hahnemann's works in their chronological order he
always tired to impression upon the reader that the method was developed to
its "its absolute perfection, and, that is it. Period". Then in the next
work he negates what he said and states the next method has now reach a new
state of perfection, etc. He claims that
when we read any edition of the Organon, including the 6th we may get stuck
in his "dogmatism" and not go beyond his last word. He behoves us to go
beyond this dogmatism and not repeat the Hahnemann's mistakes and be open
to change. He say the only thing that really matters is Hahnemann's
inductive method.
To call Hahnemann "dogmatic" because he said his final methods were
his "most perfected" is not really warranted. Of course, he felt each work
was better than the last one because, in general, they were! He NEVER said
any of his methods were "absolute perfection- period". No such statement
exists in any published works. These are the words of Saine alone!
Hahnemann often spoke of the limitation of his new system and kept on
experimenting and improving his methods. He often pointed out what he had
done wrong in the past in various editions of the Organon and Chronic
Diseases. He also took on the methods of others if they were better than
his. For example, Hahnemann got the idea of using a downward succussion on
a hard but elastic surface from Jenichen. Before this he only used a
downward jerk of the arm.
Where Hahnemann was really accused of "dogmatism" was in relationship
to his feeling that Homeopathy was inherently superior to allopathy and the
two should not be mixed. When people mixed his new system with the old
school he did become very upset and demand absolute loyalty to pure
homeopathy. He wanted to protect his new system because he was afraid it
would be swallowed up by orthodox medicine to the point it would be lost as
a pure science. In my opinion, he was quite right. If he did not defend his
new system it would have been destroyed by the half-homeopaths and
allopaths.
Dr. Saine also said that if the 6th edition of the Organon had been
published in 1843 the question of potencies would have evolved differently.
He makes it sound good that the 6th edition was not published so the higher
potency Cs could develop. He says it was fortunate that as soon as
Hahnemann died Bnninghausen started to use the 200th regularly and that
later on, especially in America, they started to experiment with the
highest potencies. He claims based on 150 years of experiments by
Hahnemann, Bnninghausen, Lippe, Hering, Dunham, Skinner, Nash, etc., "the
higher potencies have been proven and are here to stay."
Hahnemann never said "don't use Cs anymore - only use the LMs". His
only negative statement about the Cs in the 6th Organon was about remedies
that were made on machines that gave too forceful succussions!!! Samuel
continued to use the C and LM potencies side by side until his death. Saine
is making it sound like Hahnemann said we should reject on the Cs and never
used them again. Hahnemann continued to use 6c to 200c along with the LM
potency even in his last year. What he was doing was offering homoeopathy
two complementary opposite potency systems that greatly expanded the
therapeutic horizons of Homoeopathy. This is well worth testing out in the
clinic! I feel it was a great loss not a good thing that the 6th Organon
was not published until 1920. Yes, Homeopathy would have developed
differently and been much better because it would have had two potency
systems.
There is no doubt that the high potency Cs have done lot of good and
done a lot of damage. I constantly receive emails from people who have
never been well since they were given random numbers of pills of higher
potency Cs. It is not really the Cs that are problem. It is the way they
are being given. Too many dry pills of too many high potencies too many
times. Most of these problems can be avoided if one uses the method of the
1840s. As long as people continue to use the high and ultra high C
potencies by the methods of the 4th Organon (which were only used with the
30c and lower) these problems will remain. Hahnemann first developed
olfaction and the medicinal solution during the period he was testing the
high potency Cs! When he was using the dry dose he tried to limit the
potency to 30c. He changed his mind when he started using olfaction and the
medicinal solution to control and modify the power of potencies above the
30c. That is why he supported the use of high potencies up to the 300th in
the 5th Organon. Unfortunately, too many homoeopaths have not taken the
time to review the historical realities and have not bothered to tested
these methods. They think aggravations are good and that the patient
getting worse is a good sign! When they do not recover they just ignore the
whole matter.
Dr. Saine said he was not sure if we could achieve similar results if
homeopathy was limited to the lower potencies. Then he says "in reality the
LM are very low potencies." It is very obvious that this statement comes
from a person who has NEVER used the LM potencies. One can not equate the
LM potency scale with very low potencies like the 6c. Boenninghausen tested
the LM potency and stated they acted like the higher C potencies!
Unfortunately, when Melanie became very upset with him for discussing the
LMs, he left his experiments behind. She told him not to speak about the
LMs until the 6th Organon was published so he let it all go. Unfortunately,
the 6th Organon was not published in his lifetime. The LM 0/1 acts like a
much higher potency than the 30C!!! Hahnemann's lower potencies where the
30c to 3c and his higher potencies were the 50c to 200c and the LM
potencies 0/1 to 0/30. His lowered the degree of his low potencies (30c,
24c, 18c, 12c, 6c) and raised the degree of his high potencies like 191,
192, 193 and 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc. These methods and potencies are
complementary opposites.
You can not compare the C and LM potencies by the amount of the
original medicinal substance in the potency degree because their medicinal
qualities are very different. The 1/50, 000 dilution ratio makes a much
deeper acting remedy than the 1/100, and therefore, it does not need a
great number of dilutions to attain deep acting remedial power. The LM
potency provides many of the best qualities of the low and high potencies
in the same preparation. They are deep acting but also repeatable if and
when necessary. Some have found that the LM potency is "too powerful" and
seems to cause more aggravations than the Cs. This is true if one tries to
give them daily or on alternated days for weeks and months to everyone in a
mechanical fashion. They are far too powerful to be used like a 6c or 12c.
Hahnemann tended to start his cases by giving a single dose by
olfaction followed by placebos or short series of 3 to 7 doses. Then he saw
the patient in one week so he could make proper adjustments. After he was
more sure of his remedy, potency and dose he would have the patient come
back in two weeks. Hahnemann constantly alternated active doses with
periods of placebo and waiting and watching. He did this to control the
power of the LMs There are NO daily doses for days, weeks, months and years
on end in the Paris casebooks. It is obvious that the idea that the LMs are
a low potency are the words of someone who has no clinical experience with
the remedies.
Dr. Saine then says he has always stayed away from the LM potencies
because first of all he "does not need to use them". Where is the
experimental spirit of Hahnemann in this idea? This is the person who said
we should always be open to changes? Is it right be so self satisfied that
one does even need to test all the methods Hahnemann introduced before
criticizing what one never tried? I have never felt satisfied and neither
did Hahnemann! I am constantly experimenting with remedy selection,
delivery systems, dose, potency and repetition. There is always room to do
better! Some cases do better on the C potencies and some cases do better on
the LM potencies. Why not broaden one's horizons enough to at least test
Hahnemann's methods of the 1840s? Why stay with the methods of the 1820s
when Hahnemann only used the 30c with high potencies that Kent said were so
powerful they can potentially kill the patient? Hahnemann develop his new
method to help control the power of the high potency Cs. He was honest
enough NOT to be satisfied with strong aggravations and the like. On the
one hand, we are told that homeopathy must evolve and we must be open and
on the other hand Saine says "I do not need".
Dr. Saine continues by say the second reason to reject the LM potency
is the method "is too complicated" keeping in mind the second paragraph of
the Organon which speaks of practicing on "easy comprehensible
principles". Hahnemann used the medicinal solution and split-dose method
with the C potencies from 1837 onwards. Saine say we must be open and then
rejects all the new changes Hahnemann made in the 1830s and 1840s without
testing them! Who is being dogmatic here? Certainly not Hahnemann! He never
became attached stubbornly to one method his whole career. He constantly
changed his ways. Sanie is still practicing like 4th Organon. This is
moving forward?
The method of the 5th Organon (1833), the 1837 Chronic Diseases, and
the 6th Organon (c. 1843) ARE based on easily comprehensible principles.
These ideas are merely an expansion of his pervious methods into new
territory that involves the medicinal solutions and split-dose when
necessary. The idea that the delivery system and the size of the dose are
important was not new to Hahnemann. Those who still think the size of the
dose does not matter can see no reason for making any changes in their
methods. I challenge them to test the methods of the medical solution and
adjusting the size of the dose of the C and LM potency in clinic before
they make up their minds. That is the only fair way. To criticize methods
without even trying them does not reflect the true spirit of investigation.
The "I don't need" attitude does not go very far.
Hahnemann used the exact same methodology with the Cs before he
experimented with the LM potencies. When he said the 6th Organon was his
most perfected method he was also referring to the medicinal solution and
his new middle path method in which he used for the C and LM potency side
by side. This includes the single dose when there is a "strikingly
progressive and increasing amelioration" and the repetition of the remedy
at suitable intervals to speed the cure in cases that are only "slowly
improving", This is the best of both worlds. To not want to bother because
its "too complicated" certainly is not being very open. What about the
first paragraph of the Organon which says our only motive should be to
*heal the patient!* To improve one's method does take more effort and
initiative but it is for the benefit of the patient. What is best for the
patient is much more important than what is easy for ourselves. When I hear
people say "its too much hassle" I feel sad. To walk that extra mile, to go
that extra distance, to take on a little bit more for the benefit of the
suffering patient is the essence of being a healing artist. To avoid
experimentation, to avoid a little more effort, to not want to be bothered,
does not square with aphorism 1.
Dr. Saine's third reason for rejecting the LM potency is that a few
reliable authors, such as Pierre Schmidt and P. Sankaran tried them and
abandoned them later on. He states the LMs may have a role to play but they
are not the ultimate homoeopathic preparations Hahnemann wanted them to be.
He continues to say one cannot deny the incredible success attained with
higher potencies but never speaks of all the aggravations and problems they
have caused. There were a few who did test the LM potencies on their own in
the 1950s and did not continue any further. At the same time, there were
many like Dr. Choudhury that continued to use them life long. Many of these
individuals were in West Bengal, India and Bangladesh. This was at a time
when almost no one in the West was using these potencies.
Over the last 50 years a tremendous amount of clinical experience has
been gathered. It is no longer a case of the opinion of a few persons. The
LM potencies have proved their value in the clinic. Hahnemann tested the
200c and 1M and he was not completely satisfied with them in all cases.
These are probably the most used high potencies today. After he developed
the LM potency he did not stop using the C potencies. The new method is the
middle path between the exclusive single dose wait and watch method and the
mechanical repetition of the remedy. This is what is really important. If
one does not understand this then they cannot make the best use of the C or
LM remedies in any potency. Dr. Saine is a great homoeopath who I respect
and can learn a lot from. Nevertheless, he has just trodden into an area in
which he has NO experience. He also has passed on several historical
inaccuracies to make his points. I am quite surprised and saddened by this.
When I first started speaking about the differences of the 4th, 5th
and 6th Organon very few had any idea of what I was taking about. One could
not even buy the LM potency in the USA and many other countries. At that
time, those with experience in using the C and LM potency in medicinal
solution in the West was limited to a few. Today, there are many who now
have 5, 10, 15 and 20 years of experience. Many of these people used the
high and highest C potencies for many, many years and now they have found a
place in their practice for the LM potency. This is no longer just an
untested area of homoeopathy. Before someone criticizes Hahnemann's
advanced methodology and the LM potency they should at least test it for a
decent period first! To do otherwise is disingenuous.
Similia Minimus,
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little ) 2000
We are once again discussing LMs and Cs - so I thought I just remind you of
David Little's submission which in my view paints a perfect picture.
"[Hahnemann never said "don't use Cs anymore - only use the LMs".]"
Rgds
Soroush
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:14:13 +0530
From: David Little
Subject: [H] Saine on the LM Potency
Dear Minutus,
I would like to deal with A. Saine's comments on the LM potency. There
are several historical inaccuracies in his interview. I have reviewed the
microfiches of he Paris Casebooks and have documented proof of what I am
saying.
Dr, Saine begins by saying that Hahnemann commonly used the 200th
potency by 1840 and that by the beginning of 1841 he started experimenting
with the LM potency. He also says Hahnemann only had 12 LM remedies with
Sullphur prepared only to the 0/20. He says that Hahnemann only
experimented with the LMs for around 2 years and used them less in 1842 and
by 1843 he barely practiced. Saine rather sarcastically says that Hahnemann
"apparently" though this was enough experience to authoritatively recommend
the LM potencies to his colleagues. Then he says he has read almost every
LM case and it was truly "very difficult" to be satisfied with the results.
I did not get the impression that he used the LM less in 1842 than 1841 and
he worked very hard in 1843 until he became sick with his final illness.
The idea that Hahnemann was "commonly using " the 200C by 1840 is a bit
of an overstatement. The truth is that Hahnemann *occasionally* used
potencies like the 191, 192, 193, 199 and 200. He almost never used the
200C for some reason. He preferred to use potencies in the 190 range rather
than 200c. Is this because he found that what some called the "great
aggravator" (the 200c) was not the smoothest potency? Did he find the
190-199 better? By 1840-1843 Hahnemann, however, did have a good amount of
experience with potencies up to the 200c, and according to Melanie, he also
tested the 1M.
To say Hahnemann only had 12 remedies in the LM potency is totally
false. In 1920 Haehl found 70 LM remedies in Hahnemann's medicine kit and
much of the contains of the box were missing. We don't really know the
final number. Some of these remedies were potentized up to 0/30. The first
documented LM prescription was made in 1838, which coincides with the 6tn
Organon where said he experimented with the new method for 4 or 5 years. I
have copies of the 1838 LM prescriptions for proof. There are also LM cases
in the early1840. The 5 year period is also the same time he develop the
full medicinal solutions and split-dose, which are an integral part of the
method. Why say he had only 12 remedies and used the LMs for two years in
only a few cases? Why use false information to imply that Hahnemann should
not have suggested anything with so little experience behind it?
I have also read Hahnemann's LM cases, and just like his C cases,
there are some success and some failures. What can be said for the LMs can
be said for the Cs. The way Dr. Saine portrays the LM cases makes it sound
like his C cases we somehow much better. This is an untruth. One must
remember that Hahnemann is the Alpha of Homoeopathy - not the Omega. What
one sees in the his German and French casebooks is the birth of Homeopathy.
His repertories and materia medicas only contained around 125 remedies. A
major reason for Hahnemann's difficulties (in his own words) was the
limited number of well proven remedies. It is not a matter of the C versus
the LM potency. It is a question of how to use both potency systems to the
best advantage.
Then Dr. Saine accusses Hahnemann of being dogmatic and says this is
because he always though his latest experiments were the ultimate way. He
points out that reading Hahnemann's works in their chronological order he
always tired to impression upon the reader that the method was developed to
its "its absolute perfection, and, that is it. Period". Then in the next
work he negates what he said and states the next method has now reach a new
state of perfection, etc. He claims that
when we read any edition of the Organon, including the 6th we may get stuck
in his "dogmatism" and not go beyond his last word. He behoves us to go
beyond this dogmatism and not repeat the Hahnemann's mistakes and be open
to change. He say the only thing that really matters is Hahnemann's
inductive method.
To call Hahnemann "dogmatic" because he said his final methods were
his "most perfected" is not really warranted. Of course, he felt each work
was better than the last one because, in general, they were! He NEVER said
any of his methods were "absolute perfection- period". No such statement
exists in any published works. These are the words of Saine alone!
Hahnemann often spoke of the limitation of his new system and kept on
experimenting and improving his methods. He often pointed out what he had
done wrong in the past in various editions of the Organon and Chronic
Diseases. He also took on the methods of others if they were better than
his. For example, Hahnemann got the idea of using a downward succussion on
a hard but elastic surface from Jenichen. Before this he only used a
downward jerk of the arm.
Where Hahnemann was really accused of "dogmatism" was in relationship
to his feeling that Homeopathy was inherently superior to allopathy and the
two should not be mixed. When people mixed his new system with the old
school he did become very upset and demand absolute loyalty to pure
homeopathy. He wanted to protect his new system because he was afraid it
would be swallowed up by orthodox medicine to the point it would be lost as
a pure science. In my opinion, he was quite right. If he did not defend his
new system it would have been destroyed by the half-homeopaths and
allopaths.
Dr. Saine also said that if the 6th edition of the Organon had been
published in 1843 the question of potencies would have evolved differently.
He makes it sound good that the 6th edition was not published so the higher
potency Cs could develop. He says it was fortunate that as soon as
Hahnemann died Bnninghausen started to use the 200th regularly and that
later on, especially in America, they started to experiment with the
highest potencies. He claims based on 150 years of experiments by
Hahnemann, Bnninghausen, Lippe, Hering, Dunham, Skinner, Nash, etc., "the
higher potencies have been proven and are here to stay."
Hahnemann never said "don't use Cs anymore - only use the LMs". His
only negative statement about the Cs in the 6th Organon was about remedies
that were made on machines that gave too forceful succussions!!! Samuel
continued to use the C and LM potencies side by side until his death. Saine
is making it sound like Hahnemann said we should reject on the Cs and never
used them again. Hahnemann continued to use 6c to 200c along with the LM
potency even in his last year. What he was doing was offering homoeopathy
two complementary opposite potency systems that greatly expanded the
therapeutic horizons of Homoeopathy. This is well worth testing out in the
clinic! I feel it was a great loss not a good thing that the 6th Organon
was not published until 1920. Yes, Homeopathy would have developed
differently and been much better because it would have had two potency
systems.
There is no doubt that the high potency Cs have done lot of good and
done a lot of damage. I constantly receive emails from people who have
never been well since they were given random numbers of pills of higher
potency Cs. It is not really the Cs that are problem. It is the way they
are being given. Too many dry pills of too many high potencies too many
times. Most of these problems can be avoided if one uses the method of the
1840s. As long as people continue to use the high and ultra high C
potencies by the methods of the 4th Organon (which were only used with the
30c and lower) these problems will remain. Hahnemann first developed
olfaction and the medicinal solution during the period he was testing the
high potency Cs! When he was using the dry dose he tried to limit the
potency to 30c. He changed his mind when he started using olfaction and the
medicinal solution to control and modify the power of potencies above the
30c. That is why he supported the use of high potencies up to the 300th in
the 5th Organon. Unfortunately, too many homoeopaths have not taken the
time to review the historical realities and have not bothered to tested
these methods. They think aggravations are good and that the patient
getting worse is a good sign! When they do not recover they just ignore the
whole matter.
Dr. Saine said he was not sure if we could achieve similar results if
homeopathy was limited to the lower potencies. Then he says "in reality the
LM are very low potencies." It is very obvious that this statement comes
from a person who has NEVER used the LM potencies. One can not equate the
LM potency scale with very low potencies like the 6c. Boenninghausen tested
the LM potency and stated they acted like the higher C potencies!
Unfortunately, when Melanie became very upset with him for discussing the
LMs, he left his experiments behind. She told him not to speak about the
LMs until the 6th Organon was published so he let it all go. Unfortunately,
the 6th Organon was not published in his lifetime. The LM 0/1 acts like a
much higher potency than the 30C!!! Hahnemann's lower potencies where the
30c to 3c and his higher potencies were the 50c to 200c and the LM
potencies 0/1 to 0/30. His lowered the degree of his low potencies (30c,
24c, 18c, 12c, 6c) and raised the degree of his high potencies like 191,
192, 193 and 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc. These methods and potencies are
complementary opposites.
You can not compare the C and LM potencies by the amount of the
original medicinal substance in the potency degree because their medicinal
qualities are very different. The 1/50, 000 dilution ratio makes a much
deeper acting remedy than the 1/100, and therefore, it does not need a
great number of dilutions to attain deep acting remedial power. The LM
potency provides many of the best qualities of the low and high potencies
in the same preparation. They are deep acting but also repeatable if and
when necessary. Some have found that the LM potency is "too powerful" and
seems to cause more aggravations than the Cs. This is true if one tries to
give them daily or on alternated days for weeks and months to everyone in a
mechanical fashion. They are far too powerful to be used like a 6c or 12c.
Hahnemann tended to start his cases by giving a single dose by
olfaction followed by placebos or short series of 3 to 7 doses. Then he saw
the patient in one week so he could make proper adjustments. After he was
more sure of his remedy, potency and dose he would have the patient come
back in two weeks. Hahnemann constantly alternated active doses with
periods of placebo and waiting and watching. He did this to control the
power of the LMs There are NO daily doses for days, weeks, months and years
on end in the Paris casebooks. It is obvious that the idea that the LMs are
a low potency are the words of someone who has no clinical experience with
the remedies.
Dr. Saine then says he has always stayed away from the LM potencies
because first of all he "does not need to use them". Where is the
experimental spirit of Hahnemann in this idea? This is the person who said
we should always be open to changes? Is it right be so self satisfied that
one does even need to test all the methods Hahnemann introduced before
criticizing what one never tried? I have never felt satisfied and neither
did Hahnemann! I am constantly experimenting with remedy selection,
delivery systems, dose, potency and repetition. There is always room to do
better! Some cases do better on the C potencies and some cases do better on
the LM potencies. Why not broaden one's horizons enough to at least test
Hahnemann's methods of the 1840s? Why stay with the methods of the 1820s
when Hahnemann only used the 30c with high potencies that Kent said were so
powerful they can potentially kill the patient? Hahnemann develop his new
method to help control the power of the high potency Cs. He was honest
enough NOT to be satisfied with strong aggravations and the like. On the
one hand, we are told that homeopathy must evolve and we must be open and
on the other hand Saine says "I do not need".
Dr. Saine continues by say the second reason to reject the LM potency
is the method "is too complicated" keeping in mind the second paragraph of
the Organon which speaks of practicing on "easy comprehensible
principles". Hahnemann used the medicinal solution and split-dose method
with the C potencies from 1837 onwards. Saine say we must be open and then
rejects all the new changes Hahnemann made in the 1830s and 1840s without
testing them! Who is being dogmatic here? Certainly not Hahnemann! He never
became attached stubbornly to one method his whole career. He constantly
changed his ways. Sanie is still practicing like 4th Organon. This is
moving forward?
The method of the 5th Organon (1833), the 1837 Chronic Diseases, and
the 6th Organon (c. 1843) ARE based on easily comprehensible principles.
These ideas are merely an expansion of his pervious methods into new
territory that involves the medicinal solutions and split-dose when
necessary. The idea that the delivery system and the size of the dose are
important was not new to Hahnemann. Those who still think the size of the
dose does not matter can see no reason for making any changes in their
methods. I challenge them to test the methods of the medical solution and
adjusting the size of the dose of the C and LM potency in clinic before
they make up their minds. That is the only fair way. To criticize methods
without even trying them does not reflect the true spirit of investigation.
The "I don't need" attitude does not go very far.
Hahnemann used the exact same methodology with the Cs before he
experimented with the LM potencies. When he said the 6th Organon was his
most perfected method he was also referring to the medicinal solution and
his new middle path method in which he used for the C and LM potency side
by side. This includes the single dose when there is a "strikingly
progressive and increasing amelioration" and the repetition of the remedy
at suitable intervals to speed the cure in cases that are only "slowly
improving", This is the best of both worlds. To not want to bother because
its "too complicated" certainly is not being very open. What about the
first paragraph of the Organon which says our only motive should be to
*heal the patient!* To improve one's method does take more effort and
initiative but it is for the benefit of the patient. What is best for the
patient is much more important than what is easy for ourselves. When I hear
people say "its too much hassle" I feel sad. To walk that extra mile, to go
that extra distance, to take on a little bit more for the benefit of the
suffering patient is the essence of being a healing artist. To avoid
experimentation, to avoid a little more effort, to not want to be bothered,
does not square with aphorism 1.
Dr. Saine's third reason for rejecting the LM potency is that a few
reliable authors, such as Pierre Schmidt and P. Sankaran tried them and
abandoned them later on. He states the LMs may have a role to play but they
are not the ultimate homoeopathic preparations Hahnemann wanted them to be.
He continues to say one cannot deny the incredible success attained with
higher potencies but never speaks of all the aggravations and problems they
have caused. There were a few who did test the LM potencies on their own in
the 1950s and did not continue any further. At the same time, there were
many like Dr. Choudhury that continued to use them life long. Many of these
individuals were in West Bengal, India and Bangladesh. This was at a time
when almost no one in the West was using these potencies.
Over the last 50 years a tremendous amount of clinical experience has
been gathered. It is no longer a case of the opinion of a few persons. The
LM potencies have proved their value in the clinic. Hahnemann tested the
200c and 1M and he was not completely satisfied with them in all cases.
These are probably the most used high potencies today. After he developed
the LM potency he did not stop using the C potencies. The new method is the
middle path between the exclusive single dose wait and watch method and the
mechanical repetition of the remedy. This is what is really important. If
one does not understand this then they cannot make the best use of the C or
LM remedies in any potency. Dr. Saine is a great homoeopath who I respect
and can learn a lot from. Nevertheless, he has just trodden into an area in
which he has NO experience. He also has passed on several historical
inaccuracies to make his points. I am quite surprised and saddened by this.
When I first started speaking about the differences of the 4th, 5th
and 6th Organon very few had any idea of what I was taking about. One could
not even buy the LM potency in the USA and many other countries. At that
time, those with experience in using the C and LM potency in medicinal
solution in the West was limited to a few. Today, there are many who now
have 5, 10, 15 and 20 years of experience. Many of these people used the
high and highest C potencies for many, many years and now they have found a
place in their practice for the LM potency. This is no longer just an
untested area of homoeopathy. Before someone criticizes Hahnemann's
advanced methodology and the LM potency they should at least test it for a
decent period first! To do otherwise is disingenuous.
Similia Minimus,
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little ) 2000