View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12th September 2007, 01:45 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Andre Saine exposes LM potency fallacy "I donít think they are what Hahnemann wanted them to be"

A well presented viewpoint about the LM hoopla, aka, the LM bubble!

Q: How about LM-potencies?
A.S.: This is a very delicate question. I do not want to offend any of your readers but the question must be exposed and discussed openly. For a moment, letís briefly review Hahnemannís personal evolution regarding posology. What we find out is that he was constantly trying to improve on posology. First, he started to dilute the remedies, in
order to make them less toxic. He started with dilutions of one in five hundred; then he did one in ten thousand and so on. Then he went to make successive dilutions by changing vials. Eventually, he systematically adopted the centesimal dilutions without succussion at first and later on with succussion. He experimented with the number of
succussions from a hundred down to two, and up again. Then in his last eight years, he started using higher and higher potencies. By 1840, he was commonly using the two hundredths. At the beginning of 1841, he started to experiment with the fifty millesimal. In total, he had only about a dozen remedies prepared in this way and the highest was
Sulphur LM 20. He experimented with these for about two years. In the later part of 1842, he made fewer prescriptions. In 1843, he barely practiced. He made his last patientís entry in his case book in early May 1843. By that time he was preparing the sixth edition of the Organon for publication. Apparently, he felt that he had enough experience to authoritatively recommend the LM potencies to his colleagues. I have read in Hahnemannís case books almost every case in which he used the LM potencies. Truly, it is very difficult to be satisfied with his success.

When we study Hahnemann as a person as well as a scientist, we soon find out that he tended to be very dogmatic in his writings by rendering his last experiment as the ultimate way. This approach of his is contrary to the great scientific mind he had. When we read his works in a chronological order, at each step of its evolution he impresses
upon the reader that the method has now been developed to absolute perfection and, that is it. Period. Then comes the next work, and now he tells us that further experiments are now permitting him to negate what he had previously said with such great certainty and that the method has now reached a new state of perfection, and so on. If we read any work of Hahnemann, including the sixth edition of the Organon, we may ourselves get stuck in his dogmatism and not go beyond the last work just read. I would think that we would do greater honor to Hahnemann by further developing homeopathy, and medicine in general, through understanding and adopting the inductive method which is the basis of his achievements, rather than by adopting his dogmatism and repeating his mistakes. Wouldnít we be fools not to learn from his mistakes? In my mind, the real Hahnemannian is not the one who does as Hahnemann said to do but the one who proceeds with the positive aspect of his approach, the
inductive method. That is
the real Hahnemannian, not a follower, but one who understands.

It is likely that if the sixth edition of the Organon had been published earlier the question of potencies would have evolved differently. Perhaps fortunately, as soon as Hahnemann died Boenninghausen started to systematically prescribe Lehmanís two hundredths. Later
on, the Hahnemannians, especially in America, started to experiment with the high and higher potencies. Since our most reliable prescribers have consistently abided by them for over one hundred and fifty years, starting with Hahnemann himself, followed by Boenninghausen, Lippe, Hering, Dunham, Skinner, Nash, etc., the higher potencies have
been proven and are here to stay. I am not sure if we could achieve similar results if we would limit ourselves to the lower potencies, and in reality the LM are very low potencies. I have stayed away from them, first because I did not need to use them, second because it is too complicated (in keeping in mind the second paragraph of the Organon: "... on easy comprehensible principles") and third a few reliable authors, such as Pierre Schmidt and P. Sankaran (the father), have tried them only to later abandon them. It does not mean they donít have a role to play but I donít think they are what Hahnemann wanted them to be, the ultimate homeopathic preparations. We cannot deny the incredible
success we have had with the higher potencies on which, unfortunately, we do not have Hahnemannís experience. I do not want to take any credit away from the LM potencies but things have to be considered in a broad perspective. Hopefully, the perfection of our potencies will continue to evolve. Like Hahnemann, our aim should be to always try to perfect our method, including the potency question. Like him, we should favor change, positive changes.
Reply With Quote