At 11:17 PM 8/15/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>dear all,

Dear Homoeolist,

I have already dealt with many of the questions raised in this post in
my article "Sanie on the LM Potency" but I wish to take on a few of the
ideas below.

>
>let me summarize all the major / historic/ common arguements against LMs:-
>1)andre saine had once mentioned that he has nothing to do with 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.

As I said in my post "Sanie on the LM Potency" there are a few who
tested the LM potency in the 1950s but did not integrate them in the
general practice. There were also others like Drs. Choudhury who used these
potencies for over 30 years. These days there are many well seasoned
homoeopaths who have years of experience in the LM potency. It is no longer
a case of what someone said in the 1840 or 1950s. In the year 2004 we have
ample cases histories from a number of sources that show the effectiveness
of the LM potency.

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

The 3c is the mother of all potencies! Once Hahnemann introduced the 3c
potency he proved remedies like Arsenicum and wrote his work, What are
Medicines? What are Poisons? The high potency Cs and LMs must all pass
through the 3c level. This makes very little sense. You cannot come up with
a equivalency by comparing the amount of original substance found in the LM
and C potency. The 1/50, 000 dilution ration and 100 succussions makes a
very deep acting remedies power with fewer dilutions than the 1/100 and 10
succussions use to the make the C potencies. The LM potency has a different
medicinal quality than the C potency. In fact, they are complementary
opposite that greatly expand the potential of the homoeopathic pharmacy.
The only way to understand this is to test the C and LM side by side in the
clinic. One must get some actual experience with the LM potency to
understand this. Just looking at numbers on paper and making prejudice
judgements will not help.

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

This was Dudgeon's statement in relationship to Psora, which was seized
on by those who could not digest Hahnemann's advanced teachings on the
miasms, high potency Cs, exceeding small doses, etc.. It was an amazingly
unkind and ignorant thing to say. All the eyewitness accounts of Hahnemann
in Paris while the Founder was in his 80s clearly state how physically and
mentally agile he was in his old age. An American doctor named Hull visited
Samuel in 1840 and published a detailed report of Hahnemann’s activities in
the Homœopathic Examiner. Hull’s eyewitness account makes fools of those
who imagine that Hahnemann’s revisions of the Organon were due to his
senility.

"I had anticipated many exhibitions of the progress of age in the
physical condition of Hahnemann. But his firmness of figure, activity of
movement, and unimpaired sight and hearing are characteristic of the
perfect health he enjoys, and form no slight or inconclusive commentary
upon the excellence of the homœopathic regimen he has so scrupulously and
so long observed. His mental faculties seem also in the judgment of all who
have known him long to retain the vigor of former days: and if I may be
allowed to judge by the masterly criticisms and powerful arguments I have
heard fall from his lips, the apostle of modern Germany has not succumbed
to the ordinary ravages of time, but in manhood and strength of intellect
is in his green old age, “Lord of the lion heart and eagle eye”.

I would suggest saving this quote for those who say Hahnemann was
"senile". I wonder how many of his critics will live and work until they
are 88! As Hering said we all must go further in the theory and practice of
homoeopathy than Hahnemann but shame on those who defame the name of
Founder. He was a great genius that towers over his micro-cephalic critics.
Although he was not without his faults he is the Father of Homoeopathy and
one of the greatest persons that ever lived.

>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.(this is also part of andre saine's view).

Yes, the LMs were experimental in nature in 1843 but in the year 2004
they are not. The collective experience of all those who have used them is
now is very, very vast. It is no longer an experimental method because of
the collective work of a good number of homoeopaths. Hahnemann was not
"dogmatic" in everything he said. That is as foolish as it is ignorant. He
certainly was called dogmatic about feeling that homoeopathy is inherently
superior to allopathy. He was also called dogmatic over his demand not mix
to homeopathy with allopathy! Nothing upset him as much as the half
homoeopaths who mixed up his teachings with the old school. Hahnemann
wanted homoeopaths to practice by the principles of homoeopathy. If the
Founder, and the pure Hahnemannians, did not protect the infant system it
would have been lost. If this is dogmatic - so be it!

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

Hahnemann's final methods are certainly more sophisticated then just
throwing a random number of pills under a patient's tongue and telling them
to come back in one month. It takes some time to learn the methods of the
adjusting the dose, but once it is understood, it has the potential to
speed the cure of slow moving cases greatly. Some cases that are not
curable under the methods of the 4th Organon resolve with the methods of
the 5th and 6th edition. This makes it worth the difficulties of learning a
new method. Once the methods are mastered it becomes easy and natural to
think in terms of adjusting the dose and repetition. The use of the C and
LM potency in medicinal solution is an advanced level of individualization
that is more artistic and effective. It is only too difficult for those who
resist change and are attached to what they are doing.

>6) the cures by LM in the paris case books of hahnemann are not that
>impressive. hahnemann did not have much of an experience with LMs.
>(andre saine and others)

Hahnemann is the Founder of Homeopathy. What one sees in the Paris
casebooks is the beginning not the end. Hahnemann's C and LM cases show
some successes, some mixed results and some failures. What can be said of
the LM cases can also be said of the C cases. This is basically Saine
again. He made it sound like the LM cases were somehow worse than the C
cases, which is not true. As to how long Hahnemann used the LM - I have
already refuted the dis-information passed on by those who try to use the
"too little experience" canard. Besides that there are now many who have
significant years of experience. Dr, Choudhury used them since the 1950s! I
have used them since the early 1980s. If you take the collect years of all
of us who use the LM potency it runs into 100s of years.

>7) a list of very famous and learned homeopaths (both living and dead)
>who, if not strongly against the LMs, atleast do not strongly feel it's
>need. many are dead against LMs. ( i did not find anything on LMs from
>vithoulkas. he uses 12x in cases of pathology)

Who are these folks?? How many of them tested the LM potency for a
sufficient time in the clinic? How many of these folks are like Dr. Saine
in that they have absolutely NO clinical experience with the LM potency?
There are now many very well known and very learned homeopaths who used the
high C potencies for many years and have now integrated the LM potency in
their practice. This type of negativity is not valid to say the least. We
have the clinical experience while most the nay sayers do not. Positive
facts speak louder than negative words.

>8) many learned homeopaths would like to finish their cases with a high
>centesimal , even after the whole course of LMs is run, as LMs are low
>potency. (rajan sankaran also does this)

I think the "many" is certainly an overstatement. A few use this method
to finish up the case. There are MANY that do not. We have many seasoned
practitioners using the LM potency in the traditional manner and we can
provide many, many cases that were brought to complete cure with the LM
potency alone.

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

This stands contrary to the facts. I just looked at another case where a
1M potency has terrible aggravated a person for over a month. They have
really suffered and know what to do. Is this a rapid, gentle cure???
Aggravations with the LM potency do not last that long IF THEY ARE USED
PROPERLY. They usually wear off very quickly. Those that give the LM in the
daily dose mechanically for weeks and months on end do cause unnecessary
aggravations and have given the LMs a bad reputation in some circles. I
used the Kentian potencies for around 10 years before I gained sufficient
experience with the LM potencies. I have never had an LM cause the
prolonged aggravations like I saw with dry doses of the 1M, 10M, etc. I
must admit at that time I was also giving a random number of dry pills. If
you use the medicinal solution and keep the size of the dose very small the
high potencies Cs are also cause less aggravations.

>10) the deep misams need a burst of energy to remove them. this can only
>be provided by the (high) centesimals. LMs are given repeatedly and are
>like gentle waves that are lapping at the shore. ( this is from verspoor)

This person has little to no true experience with the LMs. Most of his
experience is based on ST's combination medicines which can cause strong
aggravations and accessory symptoms. Once again, the nay sayers statements
are based on mental concepts while those who have used the LM potency for
years are basing their statements on the clinical facts. The LMs work very
well on chronic miasms and we have the case histories to prove it. They can
not prove a negative that doesn't exist.

Hahnemann developed the LM to specially treat the chronic miasms. Acute
disease develop very quickly and reach their acme in a short period of
time. Chronic diseases develop insidiously and gradually increase over a
long period of time. The aggravations of acute disease are violent and
quick while the aggravation of chronic disease come on at the end. If you
look at the nature of acute and chronic disease you will see that the LMs
with their gradual ascending scale and aggravation at the end of treatment
are more similar to chronic miasms than the high C potencies with their
quick aggravations and radical jumps in potency.

>11) = merely mouthing history of homeopathy does not help. we need high
>centesimals to cure patients. who has the time to work out all this low
>potency problematic LMs with patients ?

Understanding the history of homeopathy is essential to being a good
homeopath. Those that do not dig down to the roots usually don't have a
good foundation. Hahnemann claimed that his advanced methods for the C and
LM potency as stated in the 5th and 6th Organon can speed the cure of slow
moving cases to 1/2 to 1/4 the time it takes with the single dry dose and
the 4th Organon method. This claim has been tested by many serious
practitioners for many year now. Those who have not tried the method for a
sufficient amount of time under an experienced tutor who teaches them the
correct way are not in a position to comment on these clinical realties.

>= don't get involved with LMs, all the patients will run away.

Do these folks have any idea of how many people have run away from
homoeopathy because of the misuse of high potency Cs and the strong
aggravations they have caused? I have used the LMs for around 20 years in
the West and East and I have had only a few patients that did not find the
instruction easy enough to follow. These person would have messed up
anything as it was part of their mental symptoms! In truth the problems do
not lay with the patient - they lay with the homeopath's psychic resistance
and inability to make changes in their life. They have run away from the LM
potencies not their patients.

>= i see 100 - 200 patients in 1 day. i don't have time for all this. i do
>clinic as well as teach students. i have years of experience.

100 to 200 patients a day only applies to those who do the most extreme
from of volume practice in India. When I do volume practice in India I have
a compounder who makes up the medicines and explains to the patient how to
take them. I also have a assistant that helps with the follow ups. This
works just fine. Most in the West and under normal conditions have plenty
of time.

>12) see the wonderful experience of nash, skinner and others. just give
>one dose and relax !!!

Yes there are wonderful results but you must also read the aggravations
accepted as normal in many high potency C prescribers. When I read some of
Kent's aggravations with the ultra high potencies I shuddered. So did he!
That is why he stopped giving the 50M, etc. at the start of his cases and
began to work up from the lower ranges first. Yes, they all did some great
work. I did some great work when I only used these methods but I also had
my problems. Everything was very dramatic in my dry dose high potency C
days. The cures were dramatic, the aggravations were dramatic, and the
negative reactions and side effects were dramatic. Everything was very
dramatic. TOO DRAMATIC!!!

I used to mimic like a monkey that aggravations are a good sign, the
symptoms are a cleansing crisis, an increase of symptoms is a necessary
part of healing, etc. While I was professing the "no pain - no gain" policy
I was actually always worried inside. It just didn't seem right that
healing such involve so much suffering. Then I final read the Organon
correctly and I was shocked and relieved by what I read! There was another
way and I took the time to learn it and I have never looked back.

I give a single test dose at the start of most my LM cases and have I
witnessed this cure acute and chronic conditions more than once. I have
also seem a few infrequent doses cure chronic disorders. More commonly the
person may need the remedy every 2, 3, 4 to 7 days depending on the
condition. As I said in my post about Saine's comments - the reason we do
what we do is to benefit the patient - not to make life easy for ourselves.
During this process I am relaxed so what's the problem? Having all those
aggravations did not help my stress level at all! If you are willing to
offer a little bit more energy to benefit the suffering patient then don't
let the comments of nay sayers get in your way! Test Hahnemann's advanced
methods in the clinic.

>
>and the truth, as it is :-

In my opinion the truth is.....Hahnemann used the C and LM potency
together in the clinic side by side as needed. This greatly expands the
therapeutic potential of the homoeopathic pharmacy. There are cases in
which the C potency works better than the LM and cases where the LM potency
works better then the C potency. Both potencies produce less aggravations
when used in medicinal solution with the methods of adjusting the dose WHEN
DONE CORRECTLY. For some hints about the different natures of the C and LM
potency refer to my article. A Comparison of the C and LM Potency on my
website. Although it is not always easy to know which potency system to use
in which cases in advance there is no teacher like trial, error and
success. May article offers some hints into which cases are suitable for
each potency.

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