Hi All,

Barb posted a question on another thread that I would like to address here.

"and a question for the Kentians - what do you say to Hahnemanns sixth edition? How can low potencies not be as effective as High if Hahnemann said they were more effective at the end of his long research?"

As many of you who have seen my frequent postings in the last few weeks may have surmised, the dog days of summer at the end of August is a slow time at our clinic. So, now, while I have time on my hands, is a perfect time to take up this very involved and controversial subject.

Some of the things I say will probably offend many people on the BB, but I don't mean disrespect toward anyone.

1. To begin with, the 6th edition was published after Kent's death and there is really no way of knowing how his ideas would have changed if he had been able to read it.

2. There has been some controversy over the LMs to the effect that they were more the work of Melanie than Samuel. I don't know and I'm just throwing that thought out there to muse over.

3. While Hanemann was a genius, he is not God and just because he says something does not mean that his is the last word on the subject (go ahead and beat me up!).

4. I believe that the most important thing is to assist our clients in their strivings for wholeness and health; and that regardless of which method of potency is the best objectively, a practioner will have the best results with the one he feels most comfortable with and is able to best evaluate the nuances of response in the client.

I came to homeopathy as an anthroposophist, which has many similarities in philosophy to Swedenborgianism, which is what Kent was. It has a whole different way of looking at the human being.

For ease of expression, when I speak of the human being, I will use the term 'body'. This is really not necessarily a body in the way we think of our bodies, but more a catch all phrase to describe a system of organization, such as in the use of the term 'a body of knowledge'.

Everything on earth has matter. We will call this the physical or material body. Rocks have a physical body, plants, animals and man all have physical bodies. When we speak of the mineral or inanimate world, all we can speak of is the material body.

The next level up is the plant world. Plants have an additional level of organization which is living. We call this the life body. Animals and man also have a life body or in homeopathic terms, a vital force.

The next step up in organization is feelings and thinking based on sense perception, desires and aversions. Animals have this in common with man. In anthroposophical terms, this is the astral body, but you're welcome to call it anything you want, since the term astral brings up a lot of negative reactions in many people.

The final process that belongs solely to man is the ego, another term which often has a negative connotation. But by ego, I am speaking of self consciousness and a sense of spiritual awareness.

Now, homeopathy sees the vital force as being the 'puppet master' of the other bodies. However, each of these bodies can influence any of the others through the vital force. And we can affect any of the bodies through any of the others if we know what we are doing. We see this in emotional trauma that later comes out as physical illness.

Kent, realizing that a 30C no longer posessed any material substance, surmized that it could not therefore act on the material body. Since he was a Swedenborg, he understood that each of the subsequent bodies was finer or less corporial than the one below it. He invented the Kent potentizer so he could develope ever higher potencies, the idea being that the highest bodies would respond to the highest potencies. Also because the higher bodies were more important to the development of man than the lower, he surmized that if the highest body could be healed, the subsequent bodies would also be healed.

Kent was not a pure Hahnemannian homeopath! Using Kentian methods, I've often seen physical cases cure when the remedy had none of the physical rubrics, but was a perfect match at the higher level. I've also seen a few cases where the mental/emotional cleared and nothing happened at the physical level. Maybe a non-Kentian approach would have been better.

Now to the original question. Just as Kent did not have the advantage of knowing about the LM potencies, Hahnemann did not have the advantage of knowing about the ultra high potencies of Kent.

I don't believe Hahnemann was saying that the low potencies were more effective than the high potencies. I think what Hahnemann was saying was that the LMs were stronger than the low potency Cs. This certainly makes sense, as the LMs are much more dilute than the Cs and therefore, according to Kentian philosophy would address the finer or higher bodies.

Now, everyone is welcome to take their pot shots at me for the next week or so.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Dear Shirley,

You've given us a lot to think about--and hopefully a lot to write about.

To me, this is a no-brainer. Why would we want to hurt our patients?
Why give them an aggravation when we can just as easily, by lowering our potency, give them a feeling of well-being as their first response to a remedy? (All it takes is just one irate parent of a child who's aggravating on your remedy to just ruin your peace of mind! My sister's cat aggravated on Rhus tox 30C, and I still haven't heard the end of it!)

I have heard many conference presenters say, in response to the question "Why didn't you give a high potency?", "Because I didn't want my patient to have a bad experience with homeopathy." Of course, it makes so much sense.

There are those who will say, "You can't treat a mental case with low potencies." I would invite people to read Contenta's thread
on this BB. This case is significant because Contenta's husband, with MS, not only has a horrible disease, he's one of the worst mental cases you'll ever see! He becomes disoriented, he doesn't know where he is some of the time, he can't figure out how to open a strange tube of toothpaste, and he thinks his wife is trying to kill him! "The Absent Minded Professor", as Contenta calls him, responded immediately and favorably on all levels, to Plumbum 12C daily in water, with no aggravation! Now he's on a 200C and so far, nothing! Of course I'm hoping that at some point the 200C kicks in; but, according to the high-potency prescribers, this should be in reverse: The 12C should have done nothing--especially on the mental plane.

The other thing is "antidotes". High potency prescribers are constantly worrying about antidotes. "Do you think I antidoted my remedy? I forgot and had some coffee ice cream today! What should I do?"

Then, high potency people get sick or have an injury and they're afraid to treat it. If they do treat it, they lie to their homeopaths about it because they know the homeopath will be hopping mad. We low potency prescribers don't have this problem. We insist that our patients buy a home remedy kit and an acute prescribing book so they can take care of themselves. Why would we want homeopathy to be known as the medical system that tells people they have to suffer with acutes?

High potency prescribers agonize over when to repeat the remedy. If you repeat too soon, you can cause all your good work to disintergrate before your eyes. The low potency prescriber knows exactly when he's going to repeat the remedy--tomorrow!

Hahnemann, in the Organon (161) says, Don't cause an aggravation in chronic disease!

I think it's entirely appropriate to prescribe high potencies in acute complaints. Acutes tend to be high-energy events and I believe it makes sense to meet force with force.

If you start a case on daily low potencies in water, succussing before each dose as it explains in the Organon, what you will get is an initial improvement on the mental and emotional plane, as per Hering's Law, instead of the initial response being an aggravation--which can last for days, even weeks!

I think Contenta's thread should be watched carefully as it will take this discussion out of the theoretical realm; I think it's already been very instructive.

Snoopy

Dear Snoopy,

My experience has been that the 200Cs have the greatest aggravations. When I go higher than that, I seldom get much of an aggravation. I always let the client know what to expect and often talk on the phone with someone new to homeopathy three or four times over the first few days, so I don't tend to get any irate clients.

Usually what happens with a well selected high potency is that after a short (less than a day) aggravation, the symptoms entirely disappear and never return or in the case of a long standing chronic, the symptoms gradually improve and never return to their previous state.

While it's true that we want to wait a month or more to re-evaluate the case, if I don't see some results in a few days, I can be pretty sure I have the wrong remedy.

As for animals, I was taught that because they do not have ego bodies (see above) that the most appropriate potency for them is a 6C.

Also, if I'm not completely sure or if there is a chance that they will antidote, I give a low potency multiple times a day. However, on a well selected remedy, they usually don't antidote it. The exceptions would be people who are repeatedly exposed to an antidote, such as massage therapists using aromatic oils on a daily basis.

Likewise for a serious physical illness, like MS, regardless of the mentals, I would give a low potency. Kent gave high potencies for acutes and for strong mental/emotional states when there was no physical pathology.

Some of what I do is based on the type of clients I see. I work at a holistic clinic and the bulk of people we get are low grade chronic problems where they have seen multiple doctors for years with no results or we get the people on Prozac. I checked my records a while back to get a handle on what I was seeing and almost half were allergies (Cincinnati is known as "sinus valley"). I also have a high percentage of fibromyalgia, depression, adults on Prozac and kids on Ritalin. I very seldom see acutes. There is another homeopath in town who is a wonderful family doctor and has all the families with kids. He thrives on the "get in and get out" type cases and I like the real involved (3 hour case studies) constitutional work.

Some of knowing what potency to use if there is both severe physical illness and mental/emotional problems comes from an understanding of the four bodies and how they are balanced in an individual. This of course is Anthroposophical rather than homeopathic, but I think it's critical to determining the potencies.

As I said before, with the right remedy, there is seldom an antidote. However, when that does happen, either the remedy reaserts itself within a few days or I repeat it. There's no problem repeating a high potency as long as it's been antidoted. The problem comes when it's still working. That's when you get the big aggravations. People on the high potencies often tell me they can feel when it quits working. I know I can.

As for people getting sick or injured while on a high potency, my clients know to call me. I treat what's "up". The most important thing is to help the person become well, not to prove that homeopathy works. Once the acute is over, I retake the case and either repeat the high potency or go to a different remedy. As a person works toward cure, all of the illnesses he's had in the past and suppresed with allopathic treatment will come up in one way or another. Our job as homeopaths is to recognize what is happening and treat it appropriately, so it is cured and no longer supressed. This may involve frequent changes of remedies or staying with a remedy for a long time. Each case is individual.

I also encourage people to get low potency home kits and a good book. I'm also available by phone if they need help in their self-treatment of acutes.

I also don't agonize over when to repeat. Again it's very individual and it may be in 15 minutes or it may be in a year, but either way, using Hering's Law as a tool and the person's own assessment of how they are doing, it's not too difficult to tell when it's time to repeat.

It's actually best in chronics to not cause any aggravation of the main illness. Often, if I go to the ultra high potencies, there is a very slight and very short aggravation of some less significant symptom, but the serious complaints are not usually not aggravated.

The doctor I trained under was the son of one of Kent's students. Some of his earliest memories as a pre-schooler in Chicago were listening to his father and Kent discuss cases around the dinner table! I'm mentioning this because I think a lot of peole who call themselves Kentians learned out of books and maybe the books can't accurately depict the nuances of how one should practice Kentian homeopathy. And Kent's books can't give one the grounding in Swedenborg philosophy necessary to understand how the remedies interact with the more subtle bodies of man. Anthroposophical studies expands this knowledge even more and is an invaluable tool to understanding potency and how it relates to illness at the various levels.

As you can see, I'm not a pure Hahnemannian homeopath.

Shirley

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Hi, with due respect from "Not a Doctor,"

Plumbum is a heavy metal. I think the metals have deep problems that can be cured with low potencies, since it is a physical cause. Aurum is often given low for depression, for example, and works wonderfully. Aluminum given low can help memory, etc. However, I am not too sure that low works well in all other types of remedies for mental/emotional problems. Maybe Snoopy has more information on that? Does it always work? Or do they wait as they ascend in potency.

__________________
Kescah

Dear Shirley, Snoopy, Debbie ....

The most difficult and controversial aspect in homoeopathy....Which is the ideal potency for what and for whom!!

It has confused me many times, and I'm afraid I have just done what is convenient on many occassions. ie. stick to the middle...30,200,1M and differentiate between them acc to the susceptibility, though I have had a good share of exceptions (where I had to apply some more thought and energy!).

I agree entirely with Shirley. Hahnemann was no God, and he himself evolved in his technique over the years. So one needs to be constantly searching for the ideal response, ideal potency individual to the case, constantly inproving one's knowlege on the basis of our results.

Each individual case is a different balance of the emotional, physical and spiritual. Each reaction is at a different level of susceptibility (guaged on the above balance and other symptom expressions) and each susceptibility requires a DIFFERENT POTENCY/REPETITION to SATISFY it,... onwards...to a "simple homoeopathic ammelioration". IF we do anything other than that even with the similimum, we would have various problems and different reactions to the remedy!! This then requires a furthur analysis.

An interesting discussion!
doctorleela

[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Hallo to all
good discussion!
I want to add a bit of my own theories to the potency discussion. if I take the view from the liveforces stand, acute diseases are pretty static disturbances, Sankaran described it as a thorn stuck in the liveforce. A pretty static form of remedy would be sufficient to solve thye problem, such as a c-ptency in a single dose.
In my experience LM's were of no adventage in those cases. it is a different thing with the chronic miasmatic diseases, such as psora. these have a ''live ''to themselves, a sort of a self-containing energy, and ability to change their outside appearence like a chamellion. Those are much better matched by the LM's, who seem to be much more dynamic, as the strength and frequency of the remedy can be exactly matched to the case at hand. and indeed, in chronic disease, I got much quicker the desired result, than using C-potencies, dry in single doses.
It also has to be borne in mind , that a lot depends on the producer of remedies as well. It seems to me, that my handsuccused 30' and 200' work faster and more definite, than over the counter bought 200C' , 1M'.
And last--Hahnemann had potencies up to 500C, Handmade, and boenninghausen up to 1M.
It would fill a page alone to discuss Kents philosophy in full, so I wont start it today.
greetings from Ireland, Hans

__________________
cure by symptom similarity!<br /><a href="http://www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/" target="_blank">www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/</a>

&lt;&lt;4. I believe that the most important thing is to assist our clients in their strivings for wholeness and health; and that regardless of which method of potency is the best objectively, a practioner will have the best results with the one he feels most comfortable with and is able to best evaluate the nuances of response in the client.&gt;&gt;

These are also my thoughts and I have to say that I appear to prescribe like Shirley although I would like to add that I have also had agg with 30C but IME not with a 1M or 10M. When I give Carc. I often give 30, 200, 1M in 24 hours as I find that this alleviates agg as well.

If I have a patient who is on allopathic medication which can't be stopped immediately like anti depressants and steroids I wil prescribe 1M + 6C to take daily to boot the Rx in. The patient often stops the 6C on their own as if they know when.

If an agg does come up that is not acceptable to ignore I will treat it as an acute. If it is part of the remedy not the patient's symptoms I will go to a lower potency and then find a more suitable rx. This doesn't happen very often I am pleased to say. If an acute turns up I will treat this and then go back to the original rx if it is still showing.

I am not over bothered about anti doting with coffee, mints occasionally as I believe that once the Rx has got in and it is a good nothing will antidote it!!

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

Dear Sirley,

You said Kent was a "Swedenborg" COuld you explain?

Rickey,
Thanks really helpful insights.

Hans,
I agree with you about the producer of medicnes. THe no. Of sucussions and style of preparation make a difference. This is a common problem encountered here in India.

Regards,
doctorleela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Ricky, I've often thought in reading your various posts to the BB that your perscribing methods are the closest to mine of anyone on the BB!

Leela, Emanual Swedenborg was scientist/mystic of the 17th century. He was, in many ways, similar to Rudolf Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, in the 20th century. Many of the early homeopaths were readers of Swedenborg's writings.

If you are interested in more detail about Swedenborg and his ideas, try http://swedenborg.newearth.org/.

If you are interested in Kent's connection with Swedenborg, try the first chapter on The Deists at David Little's site on Kent http://www.simillimum.com/Thelittlel...aths/kent.html.

Shirley

[ 27 August 2001: Message edited by: sreischman ]

__________________
Shirley Reischman