Please excuse me if this is the most basic thing you can learn in homoeopthic training.
I'm preapred to make a fool of myself, in my quest for knowledge!

In respect of going down in potency. Say for example a 30c is given and then it seems better to give a 6c. What are the implications of giving a lower potency?

One homoeopath I spoke to told me it was dangerous and could cause a 'proving'. Another told me that it was the best way to antidote a remedy quickly, and was obviously unperturbed by the 'proving' idea.

Do others have any views on this? Also, as a 'by the way', what about going up? I read in one book that say giving a 6c followed by a 30c followed by a 200c was more gentle, less aggravation. I noticed in another post that Lisa said that it was not a good idea with regard to Carsinosin, it may lead to a proving. So is this a variation that has to be learned remedy by remedy or is there a general rule??

Ahem, excuse my insatiable curiousity , all responses greatly appreciated..

Deb

Hey Deb-

I was just going to ask the same question.

And would like to add...
From what I understand to reduce a potency does lessen or antidote the remedy, but could someone explain the energetic dynamic that causes this to occur?

Hi Deb, Barb,

Giving a reduced potency after any other potency can act in a way which lessens an aggravation from the first, higher-potency dose. Here's why:

in order to effect cure, it is not enough to choose the most similar remedy; it has to be given in the most similar potency, as well. You have to be able to judge the dynamic or vitality in the patient as well as the potency--so, for example, a patient whose vitality is so high requires a higher potency. You also must take into consideration the vitality and aggressiveness of the disease vis a vis the defense/symptom manifestation you see in your patient when you choose potency as well. So, for example, consider a patient who needs belladonna--the bright red facial colouring, the high fever, and the delusional/mania tendency all indicate a very forceful illness--as well as a highly vital patient (think about what a strong immune system response a high fever is)...so in acutes which require the Belladonna it is not unusual to see 200c used as a first prescription potency. On the other hand, consider the patient who needs Gelsemium: the illness comes on very gradually, so the body weakens considerably before it actually produces an acute symptom--and then the fever is not so spiky. We see a lot of evidence that the body is just drained by the illness--great chills, great exhaustion, extensive joint pain, and utter sleepiness. There is less of a need to prescribe a 200c or more--usually a 30 is fine in an acute, to bring about greater resistance and vitality. Of course, both of these examples I'm giving refer to the remedys' acute ailments--but they are also both constitutional remedies, too. There, things would change: supposing you had a Gelsemium patient who was displaying his keynote symptom: diarrhea and fear before any ordeal--and he's about to make an important presentation when he feels this....there it may be a good idea to choose a higher potency (as that fear reaction is quite dynamic). A belladonna patient who suffers from ovarian cysts she's had for many years would most likely do better with a 12c potency (or lower) that can be repeated a number of times) or with a 30c--something which will work to quickly eliminate the cysts without causing undue pain or complication of the existing condition.
The trick is to gauge the vitality of both the patient and the dis-ease and try to come as close as you can with your potency--or, most desirably, just a tad more potency in your remedy than the dynamic expressed by the disease. This way, the lesser dynamic of the natural disease will be cancelled out by the greater dynamic of the remedy--and you will have cure, with little or no aggravation.

So, when a high potency causes aggravation, but the remedy has been well-chosen, a lesser potency which more closely matches the patient's own vitality level will act on the vitality and dynamic of the natural dis-ease, curatively. All aggravations then stop.

When a well chosen remedy works well and needs to be repeated, it is a good idea to raise the potency--as now the patient's own vitality has been strengthened too. Raising the potency will keep any risk of a proving in check while advancing the case toward cure. I've not yet seen a higher potency halting the aggravation caused by a lower potency--I've actually seen it turn aggravations into outright provings, so it is not something I would do. If using a lower potency to halt the aggravation doesn't work, I will look for an antidote to the remedy by using a "relationships of remedies" table and my own observations--as the aggravations will often come with a few new symptoms which will help you to select which of the antidote remedies to use.

As for the carcinosin idea--I have heard this but I have also heard that carcinosin is a remedy just like any other--and it bears repetition when it is called for, according to the patient and case.

This morning I read that a new book has just become available which provides a greater insight into the potency issue--so it should be quite a highly requested book, as this was pretty necessary stuff for us to leave undiscussed! I can't remember the name of the book but I do know you can find it at Homeopathic educational services--a bookstore in California run by Dana Ullman. They have a website at: http://www.homeopathic.com and you can write to Dana at mail@homeopathic.com.

Thanks Divina, Barb

Great to get some insight into these things!

Deb

Divina

You say that giving a higher potency after a low potency does not stop aggros but I have often seen GM do this saying "we need to go higher". I know there is bad blood between you but could you explain why one homeopath would do thid where another wouldn't. What does Hahnemann say in regards to this?

Hi Barb,

In my experience, I have never seen a higher potency antidote the painful effects of an aggravation caused by a lower potency. I'm not ruling out that it would work if applied correctly--perhaps in an odd number of instances--I've just not seen it.

I suppose I would have cause to think that a 6c or 12c seemed to have a far too physical effect on a patient--I think I might go up to the next potency just to see if it could clear up the painfulness. But, as I said, I can usually see some signs of the need for an antidote remedy--and in every case, that has removed the pain and allowed the healing to take place beautifully. So I've never had to resort to that potency increase.

I do have to restate, though, that when I have seen this done, it has always made things much worse for the patient--more pain and new proving symptoms. Could be that in those instances, the wrong potency was chosen again--or all the signs to antidote the first remedy were not seen (or ignored).

Hahnemann says this about the topic:

Aphorism 276


"A too strong dose of a homepathic medicine does more injury than the same dose of an unhomeopathic medicine"--Wenda Brewster's summation

For this reason, a medicine that is homeopathically appropriate to a given case of the disease, but that is given in too large a dose, does much more damage than an equally large dose of a medicine that is allopathic to the disease. In strong doses, the more homeopathic the medicine is to the disease state, and the higher its potency, the more damage it will do--much more than an equally large dose of medicine that is unhomeopathic, bearing no relation to the disease state.

As a rule, all-to-large doses of an apt, homepathically selected medicine give rise to great misfortune, especially if these too large doses are frequently repeated. not seldom, they engender the patient's life or make his disease almost incurable. Too-large doses certainly do extinguish the natural disease for the feeling of the life principle--the patient suffers no more from the original disease from the moment the all- too-strong dose of the homeopathic medicine acts upon him--but the patient is more strongly sick from the quite similar, only far more violent, medicinal disease which is very difficult to expunge.

(this is what I have seen happen to patients, as I wrote in the previous post--Divina).

Aphorism 277

For the same reason, since a well dynamised medicine whose dose is properly small becomes all the more curative and helpful--almost to the point of wonder--the more homeopathically it was searched out, it follows that a medicine whose apt selection has been homeopathically hit apon must also be all the more curative the more its dose descends to the appropriate degree of smallness for gentle aid.

In Brewster's notes--the largeness of a dose depends both on the potency and on the repetition of the dosage (in other words, 1M could be a large dose, as could a 6c--if it was repeated enough times in the inappropriate potency). Hahnemann's ideal dose was always an LM--because these were low potency remedies diluted to a different dilution ratio than the X, C, or M potencies, which became "dangerous" as described above through repetition. LMs never have to be repeated in the same potency while the patient advances toward cure--they are gradually increased in potency when the need arises to do this.

Divina

Divina -

First of all you were in my dream last night - we were at a funeral and there were huge tables of food that we were eating....

Anyway, thanks for clearing thing up, BUT again I wonder why all homeopaths don't use lm's since this was Hahnemanns preferred method as discussed in the 6th edition. Also, what about giving remedies via olfaction? Wasn't this a preferred method as well?

SURELY I was in that dream eating with ya ..lol..just kidding ....it wasn't by any chance, errr- uhmm...cheescake, was it , lol?

Barb, As far as LM's and C's - there are benefits to using both - depending on each case.

If someone is extremely sensitive - the LM's are definitely the way to go. People that can tolerate the other scales of potencies are the people who are not as sensitive to the remedies (stronger vital prinicple?). That is partly why C's are still used. I'm sure another reason why C's are still used is because some colleges don't teach using the 6th edition. I posted about this a while back and realised later that I'd made a mistake - my college DOES use the 6th edition - ONLY, so that was a kind of relief to me, as I'd really like to learn along the lines of the 6th edition in addition to learning the other scales of potencies in prescribing.

I don't think one potency scale is THE ONLY way to go. It depends on the patient, their case and probably some other varying factors (others with heaps more education than me, could expand on this ).

The downside to LM's is the chore of taking them daily (not to mention preparation when they are unable to purchase them ready-to-take) - and monitoring the changes that take place - knowing when to stop and take a break - go up in potency or simply resume after a break, etc..... So, one needs to work rather closely with their Homeopath to ensure the remedy IS working along the right direction of cure (Hering's Law) and this depends on proper dosing!

Usually, BECAUSE sensitive patients are so sensitive - they tend to be more aware of every change that takes place - and in some ways can handle the chore of LM's - especially when they can see the positive changes of cure taking place!

I don't have a 'preference' per sé - it's far too early in my studies to draw any forgone conclusions. But, since we've seen the LM's being used more and more in the last few months - it has really pushed me to read the Organon more. I personally like the Kunzlé, Naude, Pendleton translation. Less bother to wade through...and so easy to read and understand. I like the Brewster as well and it's nice to have the two to compare in their translations. (not to mention good old Boerick's translation ).

Anyhow, if you get the good old book out - and just start at page one...esp since you're so interested - I think you'll find you might not be able to put it down . I've been reading and studying it fairly intensely for a few weeks now and really, it is amazing how much more I'm getting out of the Organon compared to the 1st and the 2nd time I read it.

Lisa

Hi

I haven't got a copy of the Organon,as you might have guessed! So I'll ask one more question. Perhaps you have the answer to this Lisa. If going down the potencies can sometimes antidote the aggravations of a remedy what would you do if a patient reacted badly to an LM potency?

I did see in Barb's thread on sensitivities that some of you had seen patients aggravate on an LM.

This question is hyperthetical, it hasn't happened to me nor do I intend to give anyone an LM, at least not until I have started my training.

Deb

Hi Deb,
From what I gathered reading up on Lm's at D Little's site...You can simply adjust how many pillules are dissolved . OR, you can lessen the amount of succussions just before each dose.

So, if one starts out with 10 succussion with an LM1 - then they could drop that to 5 and see if that helps - even all the way down to one.

There is probably more that others could add to this..but this is what I thought of off the top of my head...

Have a look at D Little's site and you can read up on LM's there .

Lisa