At 12:33 PM 8/22/2004 +0100, you wrote:

>dear david
>
>you wrote :-
>
>-This may be what makes the Cs so effective
>in crisis, acute diseases and the during the primary symptoms of the
>chronic miasms. The C potencies are also quite effective in chronic
>diseases that start with a crisis and then progress fairly quickly into
>
>functional states and the first states of pathology-
>
>- i did not understand the above lines clealry.

OK.

>- i think LMs work fine in acute crisis and also chronic miasmatic
>states. why say C is better here ? ( i am not against C potency and do
>understand the need to use all available poslogy strategies - LM as
>well as C. just want to understand what you mean)

I did not say the Cs worked "better". I said in these conditions the Cs
are very "effective", if giving in a proper small dose of a reasonable
potency. Also I did not say in "miasmatic states". I said in primary
symptoms of the chronic miasms and those that start with a acute-like
crisis and progress to functional disease and the early states of pathology
quickly. These are precise statements about specific conditions. They are
NOT that effective in chronic diseases and miasms that develop slowly, are
one-sided and have heavy organic pathology. He they aggravated far too
easily in too many cases. I was merely trying to show how the nature of the
C and LM potency are different.

Even the most staunch LM prescriber must admit that the 4th Organon dry
dose of the high potencies has produced some wonderfully striking cures.
The method of using the Cs in solution found in the 5th Organon and the
1837 edition of the Chronic Diseases works even better and produces less
aggravations. One cannot take away their successes although one can suggest
refinements and more options.

>- dr harimohun chowdhury did ONLY LMs and he had no problems treating
>sooo many cases in the 25 or so years of his practice. he did all
>acutes / chronic etc with LMs.

Yes, I use LMs in acute and chronic cases. Hahnemann used both the C and
LM potency in the 1840s. Where I use the Cs the most is in those patients
who are too sensitive for the LM 0/1. I like to use 6c to 30c on these
patients. Why? Because the LM potency aggravates some of these patients and
delays the cure even if stirred through a number of dilution glasses. I
find it easier to use the low potency Cs than line up a great number of
dilution glasses and still get reactions.


>- i would use low potency Cs (6C, 12 C, 30 C) only if a LM 0/1
>aggravates as LM0/1 is more strong than 30C. apart from this is do not
>see any need for Cs.
>i do keep 30C remedies in my travel kits.

Yes, this is good. That is basically what Hahnemann did, and what I do.
There are, however, a few cases that do better on the higher Cs. You shared
one where the LM did not do much and the 10M cured, didn't you? That was
one of those exceptions to the general rule. My only suggestion is when
your not satisfied with the LM - try the Cs.

Sincerely, David Little


>dr manish agarwala
>
>
>--
>dr manish agarwala
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>dr manish agarwala's Profile:
>http://www.otherhealth.com/members/dr-manish-agarwala.html
>View this thread: LMs and C potencies
>
>