I would like to have any opinion about dr.Harimohon Choudhury work (Millesimal Potency in Theory and Practice) and his use of LM's scale.
I would be pleased to know in detail which objections exist about his suggestion to leave the 5th edition of Organon in favour of the 6th.
In his work i can see only the pros, not the cons (if any).
Thanks

Check simillimum.com

Thank you, i have already read something there, but :-( i'm still confused.
I'll try to better understand.

did not read that book - explain your confusion - would like to clarify/like to learn

------------------
paty

With pleasure, but today i'm too busy!
I'll try to work on my confusion (and with my english) and to give you an answer tomorrow
See you soon

OK: i'm here, lay on a couch and be ready for...sleeping!
H.Choudhury has been practising for about 40 years in India and Bangladesh and estabilished an homeopathic school in Calcutta for teaching LM's use (so the book says).
He writes (1994) that the 6th edition of Organon is a revolution in the homeopathy field.

He advice to use the procedures described in the 6th, becouse Hahnemann claimed it was the "most perfect method" and from 1957 in India and Bangladesh some researchers started succesfully to experiment it.

He analizes the main problems Hahnemann had in using the C scale, comparing it with LM's; the latter:
- don't give aggravation: it can only happen at the end of the treatment (no more the "violence" of the C scale),
- could speed the cure to 1/2 or 1/4 the time,
- are increased in power (and mildest in action),
- can be repeated to speed the cure (and we could only wait with the C scale)

This analysis is shared in part (not for the last point) by D.Little (simillimum.com), but Choudhury affirms we shoud abandon the use of C scale and this is the main topic in the book, while D.Little says that the first dose "should be a single unit test dose (C!!!or LM)"...why? (and eminent homeopaths are still using C).

In the simillimum.com there is also a comparative table between C and LM (did Hahnemann talk about?): in my country i have been told to use a 200c if i could not find a 06/LM (LM6); the comparison is different (but the source of my information is very reliable: where is the true?).

If LM is a new scale -and we should use only it- it should work with the same law of C: low, medium,high potencies. In D.Little i found: "it's a great mistake to think that the LM 0/1 is a low potency" (my confusion is high!)

Choudhury distinguishes three situations (Org.6th ed., aph.248):
- emergency: we have to use the remedy every hour or more often (every 5,10,20,30 minutes)
- acute: repetition every 2-6 hours
- cronic: every day - 2 days
D.Little says it's a dangerous mistake: LM will slow down the cure or cause aggravation the same (!!!) as the centesimal (and, i suppose this is for Hering's law).

As i have only "theories" in my hands and not direct experiences (only a few on myself and family) i don't know what is better. More: i have seen different methods on using potencies:
- in this board people mainly use D (X) or C potencies and someone use LM's to manage an aggravation (did Hahnamann speak about this?),
- in my country homeopaths that are able to use LM scale, use it for constitutional treatment and give C (6c, rarely 30c) during an acute phase or an aggravation (and for 15 years i have been treated with this method. I have no claims.)

From Choudhury work it seems we have to use always LM's. But if we can "integrate" the two scales (Hahnemann didn't say that!) which principes should we use?

I had the impression that somebody reserve th LM only for hypersensitivity, low vitality...but others are very worried to use it in presence of low vitality and prefers to use lower potency (200d-6c).
I lost the scales: should i mix d/c/LM?IT doesn't make sense! I don't think that anyone would start with 200d, going on 30c and finishing with LM 0/6.
If we have to use c,d,LM scales separately, where is the law to apply: who is the person that need d or c or LM?

Last thing Choudhury said is we must not "jump" from one potency to another (from 0/6 to 0/30 LM), but we should go slowly higher (0/1-0/2..if we start with 0/1; 0/4-0/5 if we start with 0/4): i never saw this method applied, i saw jumping from 6c to 30c to 200c,to 1000c and from 0/6LM to 0/30LM.

My conclusion is that the work i read is very logic, but people - more and more eminent than me - uses LM in very different ways: i can't understand, yet.
If you could be so kind to teach, i'll be very glad to learn.

Now i'm going to abuse of your kindness: i would like to know more (theory, not only criticisms) about Korsakow potency (1832) and the use of it: in my country they are widely used.

May i wake up you now?

I'll be away for a couple of days: please, don't harry up with your reply...if you still like to answer.

Seems like you are referring to my metodes, well, i am not rigid locked in one scale, what i have found, is that its best to start low, because in most cases, there is no way of knowing if the remedy is rigth chosen, and a second thing, is that it seems to be levels in the disease/layers that one potence is not able to hit, i have seen people getting reocurrences several years after, and then, they did not react to the same or higher potences, but lower, or inbetween potences.All this, that leads me to think that all potences is usefull. Even they treated with LM shows this.

LM i use mostly, if the case is difficult to manage, aggravation, slow reactions, low lifeforce, skinmanifestations etc, and combining with plussmetode. If you have a toolbox, you use what tool fits at the moment.
So, if you learn to use Lm, it will give you lesser aggravations, but also lesser experience with other potences, and them you may need at some point.
You dont use LM or others, when its sufficient with cellsalt, or d1-15, as a organ supplementative/pallative( in some chronic cases you are left with this alternative).
One does not shoot sparrows, with a anti-aircraft gun, or a rocket.

Dear dany,

Am still there - will take time to answer.

Hahnemann says in the organon that you give a c scale potency for verification of the right remedy and then you go into LM. Just like any other potency, you do not repeat till improvement has stopped. H gives plenty hints that such is only allowed when necessary, for it will either palliate or aggravate. All potencies are useful in situations that call for them, witness the fact that H. used all, till his last days of practice. LM does cure much faster, as I have noticed, yet I find that preliminary work with the C scale has its usefulness.

Korsakoff, made his follow up potencies in the same bottle, while Hahnemann used a clean one for every potency. Korsakoffs method is less wasteful. The sinus curves of the energy of a 200K and a 200C are slightly different, but their action is virtually the same.

Thank you to all for replying: i'm still reading and more i read and more i think all it's very difficult. Now i'm trying to have a deeper understanding of the scale of sensitivity.

To GM: yes,i was referring to your method, but also to others i sow during this years.
Could you please give me an advice about a source for reading more on D potency?

By myself i use only 5 or 6 c, and i think it's more than enough, but i had some situations where it didn't work: with the advice of my homeopath i used higher potency of the same remedy, that didn't give any effect in lower potency. How could i understand that the potency was too low...if it was for me i would have changed the remedy (i'm referring to an acute episode).

To Ben Rozendal: sorry, but i couldn't understand what you want to mean with "less wasteful"...less dangerous? Are the Korsakoff potency lower? Would you compare them with LM or are they closer to C potencies?

To all: any book to suggest on this subjects? It is very tiring to read on the net.

Again: thank you for teaching me