paragraph 161, Org.:

When I here limit the so called homeopathic aggravation, or rather the primary action of the homeopathic medicine, that seems to increase somewhat the symptoms of the original disease, to the FIRST or FEW FIRST hours, this is certainly true with respect to disease of a more acute character and of recent origin; but where medicines of long action have to combat a malady of considerable or of very long standing, where no such apparent increase of the original disease ought to appear during treatment and it does not so appear if the accurately chosen medicine was given in proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat modified with renewed dynamization –par.:247. such increases of the original symptoms of the chronic disease can appear only at the end of treatment when the cure is almost or quite finished.

If you follow the advice of par.; 161 you can cut out possible mistakes.

First: use LM,s: this cuts out the possibility of unnecessary aggravations in chronic cases resulting from C-potencies.

Second: call a homeopathic aggravation only strictly a hightening of the original disease-symptoms within the first few hours after applying the remedy.
Needless to say, that despite of this hightening, you observe independent improvement signs as listed in par.; 253.

This leaves you with all the cases where other symptoms are brought out, not contained in the original disease-picture, or where there is aggravations longer than the first few hours, or where the improvement signs are missing.

These cases are not ‘’homeopathic aggravations’’ No, they are: ‘’worsening’’.

Hahnemann refers to this situation in par.: 249-250

Worsening means: your selection of the remedy was faulty and needs replacement with a better one as soon as possible. Leaving it act on is at the least a waist of time and at the most bring your patient into great danger.

I think that far too many worsening’s are camouflaged as homeopathic aggravations nowadays by the homeopaths.

Do homeopaths adhere to the use of C-potencies, so they can blame the problems on the potency rather than on their incapacity to prescribe the accurate remedy and remain paralysed when action is needed?

Is there a list of original symptoms in every case established, where one can compare the now threatening symptoms with? –If not—How can anyone state that this is a homeopathic aggravation?

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Hans, it is good to see that you have posted a new topic on this discussion.
My question - since LMs were introduced in the 6th version of Org., long ago, why aren't they used more often? And/or if the prescriber feels more comfortable with hi potency, why not just use LM4 or higher. With the obvious problems of stocking/supplying the number of remedies, not to mention the almost infinite number of remedy/potency combos, wouldn't a LM standard be best? Especially if LMs produce less agg - and it appears that everyone agrees that the most important homeopathic decision is remedy, not potency or dosage amount. So, wouldn't that obviously lead to simplification and reducing the choices to LM?

RDS, you said that the dosage and potency are not as important as selecting the right remedy. That is not really true. If it were, it might be easier to practise. Using the LM's one is able to adjust the potency gradually (to suit the patient). One can do that to a degree with C potencies, but the changes are not as gradual as with LM because the potencies jump from 30 - 200 - 1M, and so on.....

Lisa

[ 15. October 2002, 05:58: Message edited by: LisaAnnan ]

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

In the back of Vithoulkas' 'The Science of Homeopathy', he shows several graphs of one month remedy reactions. One of them shows a prolongued aggravation lasting almost a month after taking the remedy. He states that this may occur in cases with deep pathology.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Dear Hans,
Then how can I know if its an aggravation or a worsening? Thru the amatuer's eye, can you simplify it a bit further e.g. would this be correct and sufficent?
Aggravations:
acutes---->increase symptoms of 1st disease/recent nature.
chronic----->no symptoms only at end of treatment if remedy correct& dosage correct.
Everything else considered worsening?
i.e.para. 253 "When there is an ever-so-slight beginning of aggravation, the patient will demonstrate the opposite of this, exhibiting a more self-conscious, more helpless state of emotional mind, of the spirit, of the whole behavior and of all attitudes, positions and performances--a state which draws more pity on itself." After reading this I can't tell the difference between aggr. and worsening?
Aggravate--->to make worse
worsening--->in poorer health, more severe, to make or become worse.
very cyclical, catch-22 idea?
more confused than ever.
mia

Dear Mia
I cannot simplify this matter, as this is already the most simple way.
Your interpretations don,t help it either.
You can gather from that, that it is neccesary to be under the care of an experienced homeopath in order to avoid problems arising from the wrong course of action.
Homeopathic treatment is by far more complicated than lashing out a few rounds of Antibiotics or Cortizone.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Lisa,
Somewhere I have read a proposal that 'compares' the potency of LMs to C remedies. But, it appears to me that if they primary reason LMs are better than C remedies is the progressive nature of them, then C remedies could be mixed accordingly, i.e. 6c, 8c, 10c, ... there must be something else to explain the difference?
Still not sure I agree that the remedy isn't the most important issue, since it would appear if the remedy selection is incorrect and given in any potency/dose, it would not lead to cure. At least, if the remedy is correct, it has a chance at cure. Right?

RDS,

A few different people have tendered comparisons between the two scales of potency. The one I find most relevant is in relation to Aphorism 281 and can be found at this link, if it interests you.

http://www.simillimum.com/Thelittlel...nsitscale.html

For me, the right remedy selection is the first most important aspect in posology. The second most important aspect is matching the dosage to the individual's susceptibility, that is, high/medium/low sensitivity, and to the nature of the disease itself against our knowledge of the action of the remedy.

If the primary action of the remedy is too weak, the secondary action of the vital force in the patient will not be stimulated enough to overcome the disease. Patient leaves treatment thinking homoeopathy doesn't work. If the primary action of the remedy is way too strong, it will overcome, aggravate, and temporarily prevent the vital force from completing the curative response. Patient leaves treatment wishing they'd never heard of homoeopathy. So, on either end of the scale you may have - the right remedy but administered in too weak a dose to improve the case, or right remedy but administered in too strong a dose thereby transplanting a medicinal disease on to the primary symptoms - worst case scenario resulting in permanent damage to the constitution.

Of course the Centesimals can be raised or lowered gradually outside of Kent's 'octaves' or 'harmonies' I can't recall what he called them at the minute. It's just that most homoeopaths don't stock that many different potencies. Hahnemann would often begin cases at 30C and descend 28C, 24C, 18C down to 6C. I've never personally seen one of his cases that began with 6C 3 X day, for weeks on end. He would use what he considered his higher potencies from 30C to 198C in ascending order. He ascended by degrees in the LM potency scale too. Hahnemann considered the LM (or Q) potency to be high and deep acting, but without the immediate 'punch' of Centesimals. This latter effect, noted by many, is the reason why Centesimals are often suited in acute, rapid onset, dramatic situations needing a fast acting sharp response. However, from my correspondences and studies of cases with other LM prescribers, the LM scale of potency can be just as readily applied with great effect in acute cases too.

For anyone interested here is link to the David Little Library which describes the various remedy reactions and what they mean.

http://www.simillimum.com/Thelittlel...reactions.html

Chris

RDS, I didn't mean to infer that the selection of the remedy is not important. But, potency is a 'close second' in importance for the reasons Chris stated. Chris has explained what I think beautifully, so I'll leave it at that.
Best wishes,
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Hi chris
I just saw your post and the following caught my eye:

>>If the primary action of the remedy is too weak, the secondary action of the vital force in the patient will not be stimulated enough to overcome the disease.<<

What is a too weak primary action and how does it show directly after administrating the remedy?

My understanding and experience is:

If the primary action of the remedy in the proving is the same thing as the homeopathic aggravation in the case of application of remedies in sick people ,--par.: 161--, then no homeopathic aggravation would mean, that the primary action is too weak, and following your comment, the secondary action of the vital force in the patient will not be stimulated enough to overcome the disease.

This is not so.

The dose of the appropriately chosen Remedy cannot be made too small, that it would not affect cure. Hahnemann refers in par.: 279 to this experience. Smallness of the dose is seen on the background of material doses.

I have come across your opinion in one of Kent’s articles and many modern homeopaths, following this advice, welcoming a homeopathic aggravation because of this opinion.

My own experience is, using LM.s, that I have rarely any homeopathic aggravations, but the liveforce is stimulated gently to perform one of the great miracles of live effecting gentle, rapid and lasting cure.

Just a comment in passing on C-potencies:
There is no exact instruction how to make C-potencies, and every producer can do it as long as they follow the 1 to 100 rule and the succussions.
It is a huge difference, whether a remedy is made by hand in alcohol, or it comes from a potentising machine, using one or more glasses and water for the intermediate steps.
I have seen better and more lasting effects from a 30C potency produced by hand, than from a 10M Flux- potency.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath