Minutus

David I like reading your posts. You are obviously one of the
brighter stars in the homeopathic galaxy and a true scholar. I am
interested in what you say about your experience with LMs etc,
especially as my experience is different to yours. One of my
fascinations with what we do has always been the different ways
of doing things and how it is possible that so many homeopaths
work in so many ways and yet all get results they are happy with.
Having worked most of my time in the UK I had contact with a
large variety of methodologies. There is probably a more varied
range of influences there than in many countries.

I consider I have become quite good at using the centesimal
scale over the last 25 years or so. That is to the extent that my
several attempts at using LMs fizzled out because each time I
realised I was more comfortable at managing C (and
sometimes X) potencies. I use low potencies more than most
other classical homeopaths because of certain influences early
on in my career. For many years I have given people repeated
doses of 6c and 12c over periods of weeks at a time (always
with instructions to contact me if things are not going well),
without experiencing undue problems and have had overall good
results. What is more I cant remember when I last had a phone
call from someone experiencing a bad aggravation. I could write
reams about all this but the point of all this is this: to what extent
do you think that our beliefs determine what happens in our
practice? You see one of the chief differences between us is
that I was never a big admirer of Hahnemann. At least no more
than a modern day aeronautical engineer may respect the Wright
brothers. I never treated the Organon as some sort of holy book
of unbreakable maxims and I never had a fear of doing harm
with homeopathy. It seems to me that people who are serious
Hahnemann scholars with strong beliefs about how things
should and shouldnt be done experience the action of remedies
in a different way to people like myself who, although serious
and conscientious in my approach, take the rules and
regulations somewhat with a pinch of salt. The people I have
met who get the most aggravation from their prescriptions are
people who fear aggravation most. That goes for patient and
practitioner. The homeopaths that can produce the most number
of cases of homeopathic suppression are invariably those who
most fear the possibilty of suppression happening. Im sure you
understand what I am getting at. What are your thoughts?
Robin Logan MCH RSHom FSHom
www.robinlogan.co.uk

I hope I may be excused chipping in on the point about aggs and belief??
- I do not entirely disagree with the gist of Robin's comments but do
not wholly accept the arguement that those that get aggs are those that
expect or fear it etc, the implication being, surely, that their
fear/belief CAUSES the fear//beliefs outcome? It seems to me that this
is no more than another belief! (How we define 'causes' is another
matter). So I do not accept the arguement that those that get aggs are
only the ones who expect it. (if that is the arguement - it may not
be!)

I suspect that those practitioners who get/believe in/fear aggs more
than others do so due to several reasons:

- One is what I call the new car syndrome. When you get a new car you
see it everywhere, while you never noticed it previously. i.e when you
fear or believe something your awareness is placed upon it and
therefore you take more notice of it.

- another is that some practitioners adhere to earlier editions of the
organon and have the belief that one should prescribe in order to
deliberately cause an agg, as this , to them, signifies the point of
healing. That is their belief.

- another is that others see the above without understanding the
(erroneous) protocol behind it and react to the above practitioners
belief system with fear, thus we have a fear of aggs. develop. (in Pxs
and practitioners)

- another is that the public at large have adopted , who knows from
where, the belief that you 'get worse before you get better'. We
attract patients that resonate with us, hence we attract Pxs with fears
of agg, if we have fear of aggs. ourselves (hence the self fulfilling
part of the arguement if we only use limited prescribing strategies))

-another is that practitioners with limited experience are more prone
to fear of aggs, They may get more aggs despite their fear as they
prescribe bravely as they have been taught despite their fear. yet they
get the aggs because they don't have the experience to prescribe to
avoid them.

- another is that the real fear is not aggs as such , but of the effort
involved for timid practitioners having justify their prescription,
homeopathy, and themselves to aggravating Pxs.

-another is that we do lean toward, and attract, those with similar
attributes to ourselves. Hence a sensitive practitioner may well find
they have a high proportion of sensitive patients. There is nothing
odd about this - as John Cleese pointed out in his book 'families and
how to survive them', if you put two groups of complete strangers
facing each other and ask them to pair off, the points of similarity
each resulting pair will have subconsciously perceived will be uncanny.

What I have seen though is that practitioners who only use single or
multiple dose high potencies in the same potency get more patients with
aggs. than those with a more flexible approach.

My personal experience of homeopathy as a patient (who did not fear or
'believe in' aggs) has been one with several of aggs, some quite
spectacular. (always from high potency prescriptions)
-The one that had me completely floored for months did make me
fearful, not OF homeopathy, just very fearful! ( and no it didn't do me
any good eventually either)
-The one that caused every point of contact with tobacco on and in my
body to inflame and discharge was pretty spectacular and uncomfortable
to say the least, but not fear inducing. (nor did it give rise to an
expectation of aggs in me)

I neither expected nor feared aggravations for any prescriptions that
caused them, I accepted them openly. The above examples were from
different homeopaths incidentally, the first was from a SOH registered
strictly 'classical' homeopath , the second from a very unclassical
homeopath. I don't know what THEIR beliefs about aggs were but I don't
think I had a belief or fear about aggs, except that they are a
POSSIBILITY in some cases. I mention this to illustrate that aggs may
occur without a predisposing belief or fear.

I also know now that they can be completely avoided by judicious
prescribing or reasonably be anticipated and borne in certain
circumstances.

I don't accept that judicious prescribing constitutes a fear BTW, there
is a big difference between prescribing intelligently and fear.

There are many variations on the above themes and whether they are pin
point accurate or not, I hope I have portrayed my general point that
the 'get what you believe in' (fear) is a phenomenon which is
multifaceted but rationally explicable. i.e the arguement that people
may experience that 'they get what they believe in' is too simplistic
a statement, too often bandied about without sufficient thought or
understanding behind it.
Simon
If you want to do what you love it will be easy - Courtney Pine

I dont disagree with anything you say Simon.
I probably gave the wrong impression by oversimplifying through
wanting to be brief. I know how to cause aggravations and one of
my main reasons I use the methods I do is because I like to
avoid them. I am interested in how Davids experience if
repetition and mine differ however. I the only way I can begin to
understand is that he has different beliefs about the use of dry
doses to me.

Yes it should be interesting to counterpoint the differing views on
repetition of dry dosing-
looking forward to that.
If you want to do what you love it will be easy - Courtney Pine

Simon, what an intelligent post!
--- Simon King wrote:

=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

Second that--thanks, Simon!!!

Hello Robin,

In order to understand your statements better could you please clarify your
prescribing methods. Do prescribe more than one rmemedy at a time? Are the
remedy/ies prescribed on a clinical basis i.e. on basis of pathology, even
if characteristics are used? Do you see aggravations as a good sign, in
that the more the better (i.e. bringing out disease) or vice versa?

regards,
Paul Booyse

Hi Robin,

I am re-posting this email. Please note I am not trying to criticize any
method you are using. However, without understanding how you prescribe, one
cannot discuus the issue of aggravations.

Regards,
paul
your
the

please clarify
at a time?
Very rarely, sometimes alternate a nosode and the 'indicated'
remedy eg in Cancer cases.

Are
pathology,
very very rarely

Do you see aggravations as a good sign, in
versa?
aggravations are sometimes a good sign - if they are not
overwhelming and are followed by an amelioration. There are
circumstances where they are too strong and where they are not
followed by amelioration but that rarely happens in my practice
now. Aggravations can be avoided most of the time and can
usually be managed when they occur. There are exceptions to
EVERYTHING in homeopathy however.
Read my book if you want to know what I think or at least what I
thought 6 years ago. It hasnt changed much. Im not saying this
to make money as I make about 98 pence per book . I spent a
long time writing it - a lot longer than I can spend on here.

Hello,
Can you tell me what the book's title is and where to get it? I did a
search a Minimum.com and he has no books there.
Thanks,
Lorry

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "robin9168" wrote: