Regarding LM potencies and objections raised against them:

>LMs and that they are a kind of very low potencies. he had further
>stated that he rejects them because the respectable pierre
>schimdt and p.sankaran (the elder sankaran) had tried them and
>rejected them.

I have heard it discussed frequently whether LMs are to be regarded as
high or low potencies. This is a meaningless question since in order to
answer it you would have to compare the LM scale to the C scale, which
is impossible. What do you compare? The final dilution? The number of
succussions? The ratio succussion/dilution?

An LM1 has about the same dilution as a 5C but corresponds to a 13C in
terms of succussion strokes. An LM12 is similarly diluted as a 31C, its
succussions, however, are those of a 123C. In terms of succussion to
dilution ration the LMs clock in at a 100 succussion per dilution step
whereas C potencies come in at 10. There simply is no coherent
correspondence between those two potency scales, and it would be totally
wrong to conclude that an LM1 is a low potency simply because it has the
same dilution as a 5C. If you are going to use LM potencies, you have to
think in LM potencies, which is quite different from C potency thinking.

I have been using LM potences in all chronic cases and about 50% of
acute cases for the past 7 years or so. There are too many differences
involved in a C pososlogy scheme and the LM potencies that anyone can
just "try out" LMs for a while and then make a well founded comment
about his experience. Fact is that by introducing LMs to homeopathy
Hahnemann has evolved homeopathy further in the direction of
individualization. Instead of just picking an individual remedy and
otherwise stick to a pretty standard way of administration (e.g., "Take
3 pellets of a 1M once and see me again in four weeks.") LMs demand a
much higher degree of individualization: you have to decide on the size
of the dose, the number of succussions between doses and their
repetition. In that manner they are like taylor made suits versus buying
one ready made off the rack. The difference is that a well managed LM
case has no initial aggravation, is moving forward at a faster pace, can
be managed more easily in case a change of remedy is required, and
involves the patient more deeply in the whole process.

>2) LMs are made from 3C and as such they are low potencies.

This is a nonsense argument. How can you disregard the potentization
steps following the 3C trituration?

>3) Hahnemann was senile / insane in old age.

I thought we were discussing the merit of the methodology and not
Hahnemann's alleged state of mind. I can look back to a wealth of
successful cases over the past 7 years that have been treated with LMs.

>4) Hahnemann had the tendency to be dogmatic about everything that
>he said. whenever he said something - he said that was final and
>later revised his own opinion. as such, the LMs are just
>experimental stuff.

Hahnemann was dogmatic about homeopathy in general and kept evolving it
throughout his lifetime. He also was very careful in what he published,
disseminating only those results which he (and close confidantes) had
tried out extensively over long periods of time. There are 13 years of
experimentation between the 4th and the 6th edition of the Organon
during which Hahnemann developed all elements of posology which he then
subsumed in the 6th edition and LM posology. I would call that a pretty
thorough and careful approach as opposed to premature and experimental.

I find it amazing that everyone reads the 6th edition of the organon but
99% of homepathy practice according to the 4th edition (i.e., give a
couple of dry pellets in a single dose and wait until it has completely
expired its action). All the 6th edition talks about when it comes to
case management is LM potencies. Why do people ignore this fact so
stubbornly?

> >5) LM dosing is diffcult to work out with the patients.(p
> sankaran and others)

LM dosing is about as difficult as preparing a cup of tea. I haven't
met a SINGLE patient in the past 7 years who rejected LMs because of
this. In my experience, it has been helpful to most patients to involve
them more deeply in their process of healing.

>6) the cures by LM in the paris case books of hahnemann are not that
>impressive.

I can't comment on that. All I can say is that in my experience LM
potencies can move an otherwise stalled and frustratingly slow case
(when managed by C potencies) forward at a faster pace with no noticable
aggravations.

>7) a list of very famous and learned homeopaths (both living and
>dead) who, if not strongly against the LMs

It is appalling to see how ignorant most homeopaths (even many of the
revered "gurus") are when it comes to the correct use of LM potencies.
The pinnacle of ignorance was one well known homeopath who gave his
patients a bottle of dry LM12 pellets, told them to shake the bottle 5
times before each dose and take 5 pellets dry under the tongue once a
day. Virtually no one has apparently read the 6th edition of the
Organon carefully and followed Hahnemann's instructions. As long as you
don't do that you really shouldn't comment on LM potencies.

>9) LM is more problematic stuff and produces more aggravations.

Not true in my experience. On the contrary! They produce much fewer
aggravations IF USED CORRECTLY!

Best, -- Chris.