Are you saying it's a sweeping statement to say that most homeopaths start their cases with 200C, 1M or 10M? In the United States, that is certainly the case, and it's probably the case world-wide.

Also, I don't believe I quoted, per se, from the Organon. Didn't I just say that Hahnemann said to start each chronic case with the lowest dose? And doesn't he say to use water and succuss before each dose in order to prevent a proving?
Don't we agree here? But again, and here goes my sweeping statement, most homeopaths seem unaware of Hahnemann's emphasis here.

Snoopy

Hallo to all
If we quote Hahnemann by saying: start every chronic case with the lowest potency, then we quote from the 6th edition of the organon, which is solely concerned with LM-potencies.
The last references Hahnemann made to the C-potency scale were in the book of the chronic diseases second edition, where the last part was published 1839.
At this stage he adviced and often started with the highest dynamization, which could be 30c or 200c and if repetition was needed worked his way down in the potency scale.
It is well for homeopaths propagating low c-potencies to bear in mind, that a lot of proving symptoms were brought out by the higher attenuations. Using the lower potencies would therefore limit the use to the few symptoms brought out in the provings with low potencies. As examples might suffice: Nat-m, which in the lower attenuations brought out hardly any valuable symptoms, or the symptoms listed under Wolffs reproving 1856 of thuj in a 1M potency, which turned out to be some of the most valuable ones.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Hans,

Are you saying Hahnemann didn't mention the C potencies in the 6th ed. of the Organon? Look at this (para. 270, footnote f.):

"...But with so small a diluting medium as 100 to 1 of the medicine, if many succussions by means of a powerful machine are forced into it, medicines are then developed which, especially in the higher degrees of dynamization, act almost immediately, but with furious, even dangerous violence, especially in weakly patients, without having a lasting, mild reaction of the vital principle."

Snoopy

Snoopy

From your second posting on this thread:

Yes, you did mention the 6th ed. specifically!

Sweeping statement it is. I am on quite a few mailing lists and I see many, many homoeopaths (from the USA, too), who use the LM scale. As it becomes more widely used, and successfully so, it becomes better understood and more and more homoeopaths are reverting to it.

David Little's site has certainly encouraged many of those who were not taught correctly from the 6th ed. at their colleges.

I agreed about the potency, without plussing, being a proving. As I said, however, it is not always clear to those who request help from this BB that they must "plus" the remedy before re-taking it. True, more so now than in the past, but not always.

I thought that one of the premises of this BB, as it is so popular with the general public, was to inform and educate.

Hopefully, this discussion will also enlighten.

[ 05 June 2002, 10:43: Message edited by: Simone ]

__________________
Regards,<br /><b>Simone H</b><br /><br /><i>Aude Sapere</i><br /><br />"Never be a passive listener or learner" ~ Christian Gottfried Hahnemann

Hallo Snoopy
This footnote indeed refers back to the old times previous to the LM’s and outlines the difficulties arising from the procedure of making them.
But now, and this is the consensus of this footnote and the whole aphorism, these problems are overcome with the new potency scale referred to in the sixth edition of the Organon.
So—the 6th edition is primarily concerned with the LM or Q potencies, and if there is reference made to other potency scales, then this is clearly marked and specified in the text.
Otherwise it goes without saying, that all recommendations, not marked, are automatically relating to the LM’s and not to the C’ in the Organon 6th ed.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

The section of Footnote f in Aphorism 270 quoted above is in relation to Hahnemann's concern about using potentizing MACHINES that mechanically force too much energy into the solution because he felt they produced unsuitable remedies.

I feel it is a misrepresentation to suggest that this is purely a criticism of high Centesimal potencies, or that Hahnemann from the time of the 6th edition Organon had altogether abandoned Centesimal potencies in favour of LM's.

I have yet to review one single case of Hahnemann's where he suggested to start every chronic case with a 6C X 3 times a day with 10 good hard succussions in a rote manner.

I agree that the 6th edition Organon is primarily concerned with LM administration and that Hahnemann predominantly used Centesimals for acutes and LM's for chronic cases. However Hahnemann did not do this routinely or exclusively either. He always seems to me to more flexible than pedantic.

There is a case in Hahnemann's Lesser Writings taken 6 months prior to his death which shows that Hahnemann did NOT completely abandon his Centesimal potencies in chronic cases but APPLIED THE CENTESIMAL REMEDY IN A DIVIDED DOSE, that is, the same way in which LM doses are administered.

Here is a condensed version of the case.
January 14th, 1843.
O-t, an actor, 33 years of age, married.
In this case Hahnemann used BOTH the Centesimal and LM potency on the same patient.
"O-t, an actor, 33 years old, married.
History of frequent sore throats.
Present symptoms - sore throat with prickling sensation, feeling of contraction and excoriation on swallowing.
When the throat is not sore he suffers from violent excoriating and constricting pains in the anus, only with great difficulty can he pass a stool, swollen haemorrhoidal veins protrude.

Hahnemann gave Belladonna 30c in a 6 oz medicinal solution, one teaspoon into a 6 oz glass of water and gave a spoonful dose to the patient on January 15th.
The interesting thing is that he prepared the centesimal potency exactly the same way he gave the LM potencies.

January 16th, sore throat gone and the anal affections resurface with anal fissure.
Under Hahnemann’s questioning the actor confesses that he had contracted syphilis eight years before that was treated by caustics. This confirmed that he was treating a case of active secondary syphilis (which he was able to cure in 3 months!).
Merc. Viv. LM1 to the patient.
Hahemann - "Merc. Viv. one globule of the lowest new dynamization. (which contains a vastly smaller amount of matter than the usual kind), prepared in the same manner, and to be taken in the same manner as the Belladonna (the bottle being shaken each time), one spoonful in a tumblerful of water well stirred."

Hahnemann then repeated the dose of Merc LM1 and LM2 rapidly until January 30th when the throat became inflamed again.
Hahnemann then used a placebo solution for seven days until February 7th.
By then the anus was better but the sore throat was still lingering.
Hahnemann uses anti-psoric Sulphur LM2 and repeated the dose until February 13th.
Note that he uses LM2 as 'the lowest degree', not LM1.

February 13th Hahnemann returned to Merc. Viv. at exactly the potency he left off, LM2 in repeated doses.

February 20th, the sore throat is completely gone and the anus once again becomes inflamed and hemorrhoidal. Placebo for 13 days.

March 30th, the patient experienced blind piles that protruded at stool, but the pains were much better. He then gave Nitric Acid, not in solution, but by OLFACTION of the remedy. As well the patient was given milk sugar in medicinal solution as a placebo to keep his under control. According to Hahnemann " He remained perfectly cured".
Hahnemann used three anti-miasmatic remedies in this short period, Merc viv., Sulphur., and Nitric Acid.

This case demonstrates that Hahnemann was using both the centesimal and LM potency in chronic cases up until the end of his 50 years of practice.