[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 37507
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on null
Minutus • Water dose question
Page 1 of 2

Water dose question

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:56 pm
by Shannon Nelson
I'm finding that the more I've read about water doses with Cs, the more
confused I've become... Can anyone describe the likely practical
difference between: One poppy seed of a 200c in a 2 oz dropper bottle,
succus, (few drops to the tongue? few drops into Tablespoon of water?
or ?) versus one poppy seed into 8 oz water (or is there a better
amount?), succus, and 1 tsp or so for a dose? The latter is what I've
done in the past and have been happy with, but the former seems more
convenient--maybe the difference in effect is not much?

Why do I *still* have trouble with the idea that a single drop would be
sufficient... But *is* it???
This is for someone who's fairly (but not extremely) reactive, and
may(?) need to repeat fairly often.

Sheepishly confused and still stuck in "dry",
Shannon

Re: Water dose question

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:03 pm
by Caro
I was wondering the same thing about the drop this morning.
What I do is dissolve the 200C pellet in a bottle with 4 oz water, succuss
put a spoonful of that into cup with 4 oz of water, stir, have the patient
take 1 spoonful. If no rection, take 2 spoonfuls. Then I refill the bottle
with 1 spoonful of water.
I've done it with the dropper of 2 oz and then putting 10 drops on a cup of
water, stir, take 1 spoonful. I've liked the 4 oz bottle reactions better.
It might be purely coincidential.
I think more water is better than the drop, in theory, cause it reaches a
larger surface of the inside of mouth or skin and thus more nerves.
Caro.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Water dose question

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:20 pm
by Shannon Nelson
Hi Caro,
Yes, I was remembering the part about reaching more nerves. And I
guess that would be reason for putting the (one drop or ten or
whatever; more so with one) into a spoonful of water, rather than right
on the tongue--tho Hahnemann seems to be saying that "right on the
tongue" would be a *milder* dose, compared with the (larger but) more
diluted one.

Can you say what you liked less well with the 2 oz bottle's effect--too
aggressive, or not strong or lasting enough, or ? And (pickin' those
nits to death) have you by any chance compared the effect of versus ? Shannon

Re: Water dose question

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:24 pm
by VR VR
I've been working for the most part with 3 oz in 4 oz water, and have been seeing some aggravation from that, so I'm moving into the recommended 4 and 6 oz in a larger bottle. Another thing I've seen aggravation from several times is if the patient needs a second bottle of the same remedy in the same potency. If the bottle isn't given roughly the total number of succussions the previous bottle went through (i.e. all the succussions from all the doses taken from that bottle), it's as if you've gone down, however marginally, in potency, and I've seen the aggravation too often to think it's just a one-off.
I have made up some of the "mini-solutions" as 20ml in a 30ml (1oz) bottle. I've used it in olfaction and it seemed quite effective, and I've used it with a drop dose. In those cases it's been one drop in one cup of water and to take a tsp or half a tsp as the dose. I didn't see any aggravation from this form, just that the remedy either helped or did nothing. I recently gave a patient a dose with olfaction from a "mini-solution" and there has been some progress without aggravation.
When I double checked with David Little's article on his site (Solutions Large and Small), he gives the drop being stirred into a cup containing a tbs of water, something I'd overlooked. I have recently given patients drop doses with these instructions - I'll see how they compare with the patients given drop doses in full cups for dilution.
Hope this is of use,
Regards,
Vera

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
Hi Caro,
Yes, I was remembering the part about reaching more nerves. And I
guess that would be reason for putting the (one drop or ten or
whatever; more so with one) into a spoonful of water, rather than right
on the tongue--tho Hahnemann seems to be saying that "right on the
tongue" would be a *milder* dose, compared with the (larger but) more
diluted one.

Can you say what you liked less well with the 2 oz bottle's effect--too
aggressive, or not strong or lasting enough, or ? And (pickin' those
nits to death) have you by any chance compared the effect of versus ? Shannon
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, you can simply change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a single daily digest.
SPONSORED LINKS
Alternative medicine Alternative therapies in health and medicine Complementary and alternative medicine Complementary alternative medicine National center for complementary and alternative medicine
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "minutus" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Water dose question

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:39 pm
by Caro
Hi Shannon,
The effect of the 200C pellet in the 2 oz bottle was a little too aggressive
compared to the 4 oz.
Yes! I did try the 8 oz dilution in two different ways:
One was taking one tablespoon directly out of the 8 oz bottle. It worked
very well with a patient's first dose.
On the same patient, different remedy, further ahead, we did the same 8 oz
dilution, one teaspoon (no dilution in water cup) and the reaction was too
strong. I assumed the dilution was responsible for the extra strength, so I
didn't try diluting one tablespoon in a cup of water. We tried with the 4 oz
and the reaction was milder (altho 200C always seem to show a strong
reaction no matter what; some remedies seem to express this with more
intensity, it seems to me) and got, strangely, more enduring good effects.
Not very scientific but it's all I got. Have you tried diluting the lower
Cs?
Caro.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Water dose question

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:29 pm
by David Little
At 11:26 PM 12/1/2005, you wrote:

Dear Shannon,

The differences between the above methods are one of frequencies,
harmonies and ranges. Different size delivery systems have difference
resonances. It is every hard to make exact comparisons only on sizes of the
bottle or drop, etc. There seem to spectrums of medicinal energies rather
than exact mathematical equivalencies. I will try to share my experience.

My advice is to keep it "simple" and used the method of the Chronic
Diseases and Organon as your baseline protocol. This provides one with a
standard, which can then be adjusted to suit the patient, time and
circumstances. Hahnemann mostly used the 7-8 tablespoon ( 100ml to 120ml)
medicinal solution as his standard medicinal solution. Sometimes, he used a
14 to 16 tablespoon solution but it is fairly rare. Hahnemann seems to have
used 1, more rarely 2 pills to make up this solution. In the 1837 Paris
edition of the Chronic Diseases he did not mention the use of a dilution
glass and leaves on with the impression that he is giving the C potency
directly from the bottle. The 1837 Paris casebooks, however, show that he
was using a dilution glass in the clinic. So I guess this leaves the area
open to experimentation in either direction. I personal use the dilution
glass with both my C and LM potencies.

In the 1837 Paris edition of the Chronic Diseases Hahnemann also
introduced the dropper bottle method. Here he suggest that a solution be
made in a small vial with 200, 300, or 400 drops of solution made with 1/2
water and 1/2 French brandy. The size of the solution is too be varied on
wither one what the solution "weaker or stronger". This vial is then
succussed and 1, 2, 3 or several drops "according to the irritability and
the vital force of the patient" are dropped into a cup with containing a
spoonful of water, stirred and given to the patient. In sensitive patients
he speaks of giving only half of this solution. He also mentions using a
second small vial that is succussed instead of a cup. The Paris casebooks
show that Hahnemann also used a combined method of a small dropper bottle
and a full dilution glass with 8-10 tablespoons of water given in spoonful
doses. So one has a few options.

So this leaves use with two basic methods.

1. The 7-8 tablespoon solution with or without a dilution glass for the Cs
and always with the dilution glass for the LM potency. As I said, Hahnemann
did not mention a dilution glass in the 1837 preface but his casebooks show
that he did introduce the dilution glass method in this period and used it
with the C potencies. The Hahnemann always used a dilution glass with the
LM potency.

2. The 200, 300, 400 drop dropper bottle solution with 1, 2, 3, etc. drops
place in a spoon and the patient was given all the spoonful or parts
depending on sensitivity, etc. The Paris casebooks also used the dropper
bottle in a full dilution glass with the patient being given spoonful
doses. This is a combination of the smaller and larger solution methods.

Hahnemann normally started with the smallest amounts and then increased
in increments the amount until he elicited a good reaction. So we can see
that Hahnemann varied his solutions large and small according to the
sensitivity of the patient and their vital force. He offered a spectrum of
options rather than suggest on fixed standard. The principle of adjustment
is more sensitive - larger solutions, more dilution in water, smaller
doses, single doses (common) or infrequent repetition. More hypo-sensitive
- smaller solutions, less dilution in water, larger doses, single doses
(rarer), more rapid repetition. Medium sensitivity baseline solutions,
average doses, average dilution in water, and single doses, moderate
repetition.

It is my experience that the dropper dose is a little more active than
the larger medicinal solutions in a bottle. The smaller the medium of the
dropper dose the strong the action. For example the 200 drop is stronger
than the 400 drop. The same may be said with the medicinal solution, i.e.
the 8 tablespoon solution is stronger than the 16 tablespoon solution.

It is also my experience that it is best to start with the minimal dose
like 1 teaspoon of the large medicinal solution and 1 drop of the dropper
bottle dose and work up in increments if more action is required over time.
I find this more rapid and effective than starting with the largest doses,
causing aggravations, and then reducing the dose. It is better to start
small and increase as needed. By going slow in the beginning one often
finds that the cure is more rapid and gentle in the end.

I have tried many different equivalent ratios in clinical trials. For
example, I reasoned that using a 2 oz bottle and taking 1/2 teaspoon should
be the same as using a 4oz bottle and taking 1 teaspoon. Well, to my great
surprise I found that the 2oz solution produced strong accessory symptoms
in several patients! It was much worse than normal. I was shocked. I had to
re-dose everyone of those patient with the standard 4oz solutions to
regularize their cases. This range was just not very smooth although it was
a mathematical equivalent.

This taught me that it is not just a matter of mathematical
equivalents, but rather it was about frequencies, spectrums and harmonies.
I have done other experiments also and in the end I always came back to
Hahnemann's basic protocols! For this reason, I use mostly the 7-8
tablespoon solutions and the 1, then 2, then 3 teaspoons if needed method.
I must say that I prefer to use the dilution glass to taking the remedy
straight from the bottle. I also use the 1, then 2, then 3 if needed method
from the dilution.

For this reason, I suggest the 7-8 tablespoon range be the minimum
standard for the full bottle solution method. This size can be increase for
sensitive patients. This really dose seem to modify the dose. I like to use
larger bottles (if necessary) rather then a series of dilution glass as it
is convenient. Sometimes, I might use 2nd dilution glass with a sensitive
but if I need more I increase the size of the medicinal solution instead.
When I use the dropper bottle dose I ALWAYS start with 1 drop. I have
only had to give more than this in a few cases. If your remedy and potency
are decent 1 drop usually acts. If you really need more drops just increase
them slow 1 drop increments until you see the action you require.
No, 1 drop has worked with most of my patients. It is my experience that
the minimal dose that is harmonic with the patient causes the longest and
most enduring healing action. Larger than needed doses don't do anyone any
good. Many times 1 drop will cause a strikingly progressive amelioration
that last over a long period of time. Trust the minimal dose! I will speak
about dose, potency, primary actions and secondary action when I can. There
is much food for thought here.
The dry dose and the 4th Organon method is effective. I would rather be
in the hands of a careful single dry dose wait and watch prescriber than a
pseudo-5th and 6th Organon prescriber who gives the C or LM potency to
everyone in medicinal solution daily for weeks and months on end!!! The 4th
Organon is the basis of the 5th and 6th edition. It is very hard to
understand the later editions without understanding the wait and watch
method. The best 5th and 6th Organon prescribers are often (not always)
those who mastered the 4th Organon first.

Some persons seem to think they can give liquid remedies mechanically
daily without paying attention to the first sentence of aphorism 246 of the
5th and 6th Organon. It clearly says that anytime during treatment there is
a noticeably progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration, it is a
sign not to repeat the remedy as long as this state lasts. This is when to
wait and watch! If the remedy only produces a slow amelioration then the
remedy may be repeated at suitable intervals to speed the cure. This is
when to observe and act. Knowing when to wait and watch and when to observe
and act are part of the method of the 5th and 6th Organon.

Hahnemann even wrote about using 1 pill of the LM potency dry in the 6th
Organon. There is no shame in using the dry dose! When a dry dose causes a
strikingly increasing long enduring curative action nothing can do any
better! These cases are wonderful but what do we do when the single dry
dose only causes a slow amelioration over 30, 60 or 100 days? What do we do
if repeating the dry dose before a clear relapse of symptoms only causes
relapses, aggravations and accessory systems? What do we do if every time
we give the dry dose it causes a long aggravation without much
amelioration? I went through this for the first 8 years of my practice when
I only used the dry dose. This is when the dry dose method and the 4th
Organon paradigm needs to be transcended. That is when Hahnemann's advanced
methods and the use of the medicinal solution can make the difference
between success and failure. I know these new more sophisticated methods
take time to learn but it is worth al the work in the end.

Similia Minimus
David Little
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Re: Water dose question

Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:05 am
by cbwillis9
10 years of experience on aqueous vs. dry:
For the first 5 years of working with homeopathy, I did
the aqueous preparation religiously. Then I had some acute situations
where there was no time to dissolve a pellet, so just took the
dry dose directly, and it worked fine. In the 2nd five years,
I have used dry dose, with no different effects from aqueous in
the 1st five years, using mostly 30C potencies given
infrequently, watch and wait.

Carol Willis
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/willis_protocols
Article archive, not a discussion group

Re: Water dose question

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:45 am
by robin9168
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "cbwillis9" wrote:
This is very interesting to me. Months ago I brought something like
this up here but it all went wrong and it seemed like I was attacking
peoples beliefs. I have similar experience to Carol. This is
especially true of my very extensive treatment of skin disease. I have
used LMs, Cs and Xs in water and Cs and Xs in dry doses over a period
of 20+ years in a very busy practice. I settled on Cs in dry doses as
I found they work as well as anything else. I have no particular
problems with aggravation, provings, suppression or lack of reaction
using the C scale in dry doses. I put that down partly to the extent
to which I have used them. The 6c and 12c potencies in particular are
like friends to me and I know how to handle them. This is definitely
NOT to say that what anyone else does is wrong or inferior, but I have
always found it interesting how our experience differs and have spent
quite a lot of time trying to understand why.

Re: Water dose question

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:29 am
by muthu kumar
Mostly I have never used aqueous doses all of my practice has been with
dry doses... for one thing I was more afraid of the pipe water (
heavily chlorinated) that gets supplied. I have never had any
aggravation that I would consider related to this than the constitution
and make up of the individual..

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "cbwillis9" wrote:

Re: Water dose question

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:51 am
by David Little
Hello all,

There is no doubt that the methods of the 4th Organon wait and wait
method is effective. I don't think there is any question that the dry dose
is effective and has cured many cases. It has also been shown that the low
potency Cs like the 6x and 6c can be repeated dry within reason without
producing a great number of aggravations and problems. I have tested this
method. It can cause aggravation if over used in a sensitive patient but
they don't last long if the remedy is stopped.

This said, I have received many reports from persons that used the dry
method that have found, in general, the medicinal solution more effective
due to series succussions and precise dose adjustments. Many well known
homoeopaths of the past who used the dry dose in chronic patients still put
the remedy in water for acute diseases because it was easier to repeat the
remedy this way rather than dry. Even Kent did this at times.

The problems of the dry dose are intensified as the potencies moved
through 30c to 200c, 1M, 10M, 50M, etc.These higher potencies have been
documented to produce a decent number of aggravations, some of which have
been quite prolonged. Hahnemann clearly wrote, and experience confirms,
that the higher the potency the more the size of the dose becomes
important. In fact, Hahnemann introduced the medicinal solution to control
the power of his remedies when the potencies reach 30c and beyond up to the
50th, 100th, 200th, 1000th and higher.

There is no doubt that method of the 5th (C) and 6th Organon (LM),
which include the wait and watch and the act and observe spit-dose method
is effective. Now it is a question of how to utilized all our assets and
understand the differences of these methods and where these difference may
be exploited. There is little doubt that the method of the medicinal
solution is more flexible than the dry dose. This is because the one can
not succuss the dry remedy to alter the potencies nor adjust the size of
the dose in such a precise manner. This certainly can be helpful in some
cases. I have cured several cases with the medicinal solutions with the
same remedy and base potency that was used dry and failed.

The cases in which the extra small doses of the medicinal solution fail
are those that need a much larger dose. If one still feels they wish to use
the serial succussions and dose adjustment on such patients they can use
several pills in the medicinal solution. I have found that these persons
usually will react to dropper bottle dose in a small volume like 200 drops
of 1/2 water and alcohol which is succussed 10, 12 or more times. When
giving each dose the number of drops can be increase until the is
sufficient medicinal action.

Just putting a remedy in water is not the aqueous method. One has to
know how to apply the adjustments succussions, size of the dose, and the
repetition, which includes a number of potential customizations. Those who
say they have never serious tested the medicinal solution have little room
to comment. I would ask those who have never used the medicinal solution or
say they saw no difference between wet and dry doses to test the method
again side by side in a clinical trial using *Hahnemann baseline protocols*
and its adjustments EXACTLY as written.

Take a percentage of cases and use the dry method and percentage and
use the liquid method. Do this for a minimum period of 1 year and then
review all the cases. If you still think there is no differences in these
methods and the solution never provides any advantages then please return
to the dry dose in all cases.

Sincerely, David Little