Snoopy posted the following to me - and below (in a new post) is my response. I move this to a new thread - to leave Hans thread in case he wants to get back to the Herscu discussion.

posted 18. October 2002 03:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Austin,

I would have liked to have responded sooner to your post but there is so much to respond to, it can't be done in a matter of minutes. Yes I agree, there is much confusion in the Organon about dose and I too wish there had been a glossary. I have margin notes that say, "Hahnemann means material doses here", which later have been crossed out to read, "Hahnemann means potentized doses"; so, you see, even I have been back and forth with some of this!

Even so, you made a flat out misstatement regarding para. 276, one of the most important paragraphs in the Organon, which I must address. You said, "Snoopy, ... he [Hahnemann] was not saying, 'the worst scenario is high potencies with frequent repetitions (275, 276).'" Yes he was, Austin, here's what you left out:

"For this reason a medicine, although homeopathic to the case, does harm when it is given in overdose. In strong doses the more homeopathic the medicine and the higher its potency the more harm it does." And then he goes on to say it's even worse if there are frequent repetitions of this--that's the part that YOU quoted, but you omitted the part about high potency being a factor in "overdose"; and I would have to wonder why, because it would seem rather disingenuous or convenient, so to speak, to do so.

"Too large a dose", you are claiming, means too much physical material, which would tend to mean, given that most of our remedies are poisons, a toxic dose. Then, reconcile that with what Hahnemann says in 275:

"A medicine given in TOO LARGE A DOSE [Hahnemann's emphasis], though completely homeopathic to the case AND IN ITSELF OF A BENEFICIAL NATURE [my emphasis, because a toxic dose could not be of a beneficial nature as it would cause suffering, so LARGE cannot mean toxic], will still harm the patient by its quantity [amount of water or pellets--a factor in "dose"] and unnecessarily strong action [potency--the other factor in "dose"; when he says "strong action", he means power]."

So, not surprisingly, the dose consists of the amount of water or pellets, and the potency. Then in 276 he says, "overdose" coupled with frequent repetitions, is the worst of all--the worst case scenario.

You seem to be wanting to acknowledge that a potency like 1M is indeed a high potency--meaning powerful--but at the same time you want to be able to say that it's "a small dose" because of the absence of physical material. I forget exactly what Avagadro's number is--12C? 24C? Some relatively low number; but your point is, past Avagadro's number, the dose gets smaller and smaller and hence gentler and gentler because there's less and less physical material in it, and my question is, once you hit zero (zero molecules of original substance) at 12 or 24C, how can you get any smaller and smaller ? How can 30C be a smaller dose than 12C, and 200 be a smaller dose than 30 and 1M be a smaller dose than 200...? You hit zero way back at 24, it can't get any smaller than zero so how does it get gentler and gentler the higher you go if it got as high as it can go back at 24C?

In proof, you only have to stay around the BB long enough and wait and watch the high potency victims write in, and you can always tell who they are because their topics generally begin with "Please Help!", (and RDS is only just our latest example, though he's been a very good sport about it), and compare that with the people I help who never aggravate. Even just recently, the Nat-sulph case, the child with diarrhea, the mother chose to give a 6C, and had given 3 doses when she wrote back to say the remedy worked; frankly, I would have suggested a 30C, but the 6C was her idea. When we give a 200 when a 6C would have worked, what have we done?

We can understand that a person needs a shove when they're in harm's way; and that's good. But if they're shoved too hard, they have a new problem, recovering from the unnecessary use of force. This is what Hahnemann is saying in the last part of 276: Sure, they've been saved from their disease, he says. That was accomplished when they were hit with an overdose of medicine; they no longer suffer from the natural disease; but now they're even sicker from the medicinal disease caused by the practitioner's unnecessary use of force.

Snoopy

[ 18. October 2002, 04:17: Message edited by: Snoopy ]

Snoopy,
I was told recently that this point about the terms used – ‘small, large, dose, too-strong-dose, too-large-dose’, etc – is often incorrectly understood. I attempted above, to define the terms as they were told to me. Not for the sake of argument or disagreement, but for the sake of learning. I’m claiming no finite understanding here; I’m fluid and open on this subject at this point! I’m realising not all is so easy, in respect of the terms used – to understand in the context of each statement/aphorism. I’m also realising some other things in this discussion so I’m pleased we are having it.

I will try to concentrate on some of the things you posed to me for thought:

You said Yes, a 1M (for e.g.) is a high[er] potency.
But, I was not saying it is a small dose. That is why I was talking about the definitions of high, low, crude, small, too strong dose, too large dose. It is confusing if we’re trying to make it too simple and not working with the same meanings!!
To reiterate –small dose: a medicine that is dynamically prepared (above avgadros number as I understand this)– i.e. not crude and the amount of medicine administered (this includes succussions – frequency given – amount – granule, tablet, spoon, etc).

Where does ‘high’ potency begin and low potency leave off? I would think (and maybe I misunderstand this) the dividing line would be between where one is able to detect a measure of substance (low potency) and where one is no longer able to detect a measurable amount of substance (high) – i.e. above avgadros number (I can’t remember if it is 20c or thereabouts, either Snoopy!!) Does anyone else have a different understanding? If so do share tell us.

I forget too, Snoopy – I thought it was somewhere around 20c. Maybe someone else will remember and set us straight on that point.

No, I didn’t mean the DOSE gets smaller past Avgadro’s number – I meant the amount of crude substance is ‘smaller’ or less – as the potency gets higher. Smaller, in this context, means higher potency.

What did Hahnemann mean by high potencies?
Remember, this is the 6th edition – he was introducing LM/Qs.

Mostly he was cautioning against using the old scale along with crude substances (allopathic prescribing). He talks throughout the Organon about the fallacy of using crude substances as opposed to using homeopathically/dynamically prepared medicines.

In §276, I think he was referring to the use of the ‘previous scales of potencies (C, X)’ commonly used at the time he wrote the 6th edition, when he referred to ‘the higher the potency’ mentioned therein.

I don’t believe §275/6 was advocating the use of low potencies on the C/X scale – the way that some interpret this aphorism. I think he was saying we need to carefully select the potency – match it to the case – don’t give it too high for the case at hand or it could be more harmful than an equally large dose of an unhomeopathic medicine.

I think he was making the point that since his new scale [LM/Q] was more dilute – therefore less crude – i.e. more dynamic – than the C/X scales, that it was much safer and gentler (from his experience and experiments).

One might even argue that the higher C potencies are safer than the low C potencies because they are more dynamic – further away from the crude substance, given that he was introducing the LMs at the time. So, I think possibly he was distinguishing, in this aphorism, between LM’s and the previous potency scale/s.

If we digress back to §275:
Are you saying ‘smallness, of the dose’ means low-potencies??
I don’t think that is correct. If anything he is advocating using a different scale to his previous experience – that of LM/Q’s. Afterall, they are further diluted without succussions beyond a certain point. More dilute is less substance. Throughout the Organon he talks about minute doses – smallest possible dose (I could look up more examples). Is it not apparent he means more dynamic – less crude? Isn’t it clear that more dynamic – smallest dose – means higher potency/amount (in a general sense)?

‘Smallness of the dose’ is giving the least amount of medicine required to nudge the vital force into action. What does he mean by ‘smallness of the dose?’
A general statement meaning we have to carefully select which potency is suitable to a case and then ascertain as best we can, how much we should give (including how dilute we make it – how many successions, etc) and how often we [may] repeat. But it certainly doesn’t mean low-potencies and that’s the end of it.

In O’Reilly’s edition – if you look to the left of §275 – the side notes say:
“The most appropriate medicine for a given case of disease is the one which is the most homeopathically selected and which is administered in the correct dose.”

There is no mention of high or low potency there. This does not support what you have been saying. It is merely a caution to carefully select the potency to suit the case! Keeping in mind, Hahnemann was introducing LM/Q.

In O’Reilly’s edition – I looked up ‘dose’ in the glossary:
Dose: Gabe [GERMAN, a giving], Dosis [from GREEK, a giving]. That which is given or administered. Dose refers to the amount of a medicinal substance that is administered. This includes both the medicine’s potency (higher potencies having less material and therefore being considered as smaller doses) and the number of globules given. ‘Small dose’generally refers to a small quantity of a potentized substance; ‘large dose’generally refers to a large quantity of a crude (i.e. unpotentized) substance. In some passages Hahnemann also refers to a large dose (or quantity) of a potentized medicine (fn 276a, fn 282). A ‘too-strong dose’ is one which is too large and therefore makes a too-strong impression on the life force. Hahnemann almost always uses the German word Gabe. In two intstances - §276 (strong doses) and fn 282 of the Synopsis (all-too-large-doses) – he uses Dosis. For a brief history of….

§275 Cont’
Here again, a general statement about giving an inappropriate (too strong) dose and how it can harm (who says remedies are harmless – especially when they are homeopathic to the case??!!!).
But, here he uses the term ‘too strong a dose’ which I take to mean: one which is not dynamic enough – too large/crude/low and therefore makes too strong an impression on the life force. But, again, I think it was his advocacy of using LM/Qs over the other scales which were less dilute.

Boericke §276 first paragraph:
This first part of the sentence is making a general statement about doses that are too large. Too large means large quantity of a crude substance – low[er] potencies. I also think there is a distinction between LM/Q (being more dilute) and C/X.

§276 cont’:
The continuation of the sentence is then focusing on another scenario (Hahnemann being the king of run-on sentences – I know, I know it was the of his era J ).
If we give strong doses (repeat too frequently) when the remedy is very homeopathic to the case AND it is given in a higher potency then it does more harm than an equal dose of a remedy that is allopathic to the case.

This seems to be making the point that one must be careful when choosing how to dose –individualizing – with a warning that remedies are at risk of harming when they are homeopathic to a case (and repeated too frequently), as opposed to those that are allopathic to a case.

It is not some blanket statement that we should not ever use high potencies. He seems to be saying if you frequently repeat a highER potency – any potency on C scale could be too high merely because the scale is different – that it could be dangerous. I wonder if one can go too high – with the same risk on the LM/Q scale. But, that is another discussion!

LM/Qs are deeper acting because they are more dilute ---- less sharp because they have less succussions – therefore less likely (when given appropriately and individually suited to a given case) to produce problems in the average patient (I’m not including hyper-sensitive patients in this discussion). This is how LM/Q was explained to me.

Larger doses does mean crude/low. And he says in plain language above that ‘either they chose the low dynamizations’ (previous scale?), or the medicines were not homeopathic or imperfectly prepared. It is known that he commonly used 30c – being above avgadros number. So, I don’t understand how one can surmise that he is advocating the use of low potencies (c scale) – repeated daily – those below avgadros number. The §’s on dosing – are about LM/Q – in this edition. Perhaps we need to peek at previous editions to see more on low-high potencies in the c scale – especially those below 30? We have other sources to check on high potencies – and I believe, if I’m not mistaken – Hahnemann was well aware of how Bonninghausen was using the higher [C] potencies (or was it X?).

Boericke 2nd paragraph §276:
I guess one will interpret this second paragraph dependant upon their interpretation of the first paragraph in this same aphorism.

I think the overall message in §275/6 is we need to carefully select our potencies, the amount, and frequency to match the case at hand. And, we are cautioned that an unhomeopathic remedy is less harmful than a high most-similar remedy that is repeated too often which makes a medicinal disease that is very difficult to destroy [as a rule].

So, this is my understanding for today:
What I’m coming to realise is that throughout the Organon – individualizing in each case is paramount. Routine prescribing is dangerous – more so in some cases than others – but that is part of the message I’m getting out of this.

When dosing:
We should be careful to match the potency to the case.
We should be careful how much medicine we administer (how many pellets, granules, tablets, spoons from a liquid dosing – including which glass we give from – 1st, 2nd, etc, etc) in whatever potency we have chosen that we feel best suits the case.
We should be careful about how often we repeat.

I honestly cannot see how anyone is interpreting this aphorism as some sort of hook to hang an argument on, which says high potencies are bad; low potencies are the way to go [because they are safer]. It would seem to me, that saying such a general statement is too simple and too misleading and could lead to routine prescribing. It seems too boxed in.
I will ask again, for further clarification, next time I have a chance – to double check. Maybe I got it wrong after all. Maybe we’re both right in different respects. I just want to understand it all . Thanks for reading this. Austin

Remaining out of this discussion but.....Avogardro's Number (6.023 X 10 [to the 23rd power])- the number of molecules contained in one mole of a substance. (Hey, this is interesting because I treat moles upon occasion.) Approx equivalent to 24X level of dilution.

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.

take a look at the footnote 'a' of para 276.

this clarifies hahnemann's meaning of 'dose'.

he states that one of the reasons some homoeopaths deploy 'larger doses' is because 'they continue to use low potentizations.'
so - he was meaning that such practitioners keep stuffing their patients with the remedy [overdose - too many applications of too many pills - like an allopathic protocol that those practitioners were mostly used to.] hahnemann had observed that the lower potencies had more limited effect and were more prone to require repetition = larger doses.

dose just means number of pills ingested, which is increased either by the amount of pills given at once or by repetition.

when composing the 6th ed, hahnemann's experience led him to be averse to large doses - hence the minute poppyseed granule that is all the dose in a patient's LM remedy bottle.

avagadro's number is not likely to be useful when considering hahnemann's meaning of the dose getting smaller, and whether that refers to potentization above 12c, because i don't think* hahnemann knew about avagadro's number. although avagadro was a contemporary of hahnemann, his theory of molecular finitude was not widely known or accepted until around 1860 when cannazzini [?] promoted it - after hahnemann's death.
perhaps chris could confirm whether we know if hahnemann knew of avagadro's work.

the reason you have to be careful not to overdose with the similimum is because the patient has a disease X, and the similimum is a similar disease energy X1. by administering X1 in a big dose, you do eliminate X, but X1 is too great a challenge for the vitality to overcome [after all, the vitality is susceptable in the X/X1 type symptom picture or disease X wouldn't have showed up in the first place in that individual.] then you have a drug disease - which is harder to cure than a natural disease that you started out with.

for hahnemann, in centessimals: mid potency was 30c, high 200c. LM's are not comparable in this way, but were a far smaller dose as far as H was concerned.

May I add to this that a great amount of the confusion over the term "dose" can be attributed to James Kent and the particular way Swedenborgian philosophy was adapted to homoeopathy in this regard. The Swedenborgs believed in a forth state of matter called "the simple substance". This is discussed in Kent's Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy Lecture VIII. In Kent's view, the dynamic potency cannot be quantified (measured), it can only be known by its quality (degree of fineness, dynamization).

He believed that the Vital Force, and all causes of disease were comprised of this same simple substance. The more dynamic (higher potency) - the more 'spiritual' and less material the remedy became. Everything in terms of disease symptoms, vitalism, the hierarchy of symptoms and cure in Kentian homoeopathy is defined in this way.

This is why to Kentian homoeopaths a *small* dose is defined by its highly dynamized 'spiritual' (least material) quality. They will often say it doesn't matter whether in one dose you give one pill or a hundred pills, it is still only one dose of 'simple substance'. Hahnemann did not view this matter in the same light. Hahnemann quantified (number of pillules, amount of liquid, number of spoonfuls, number of repetitions) AND qualified the dose (potency level), as Austin has already said.

Dear Austin and others,

Someone give me Lachesis after this is over! Austin, the only thing that bothers me about your post is the assertion that the higher you go, the gentler the dose, presumably because there's less and less crude substance, and as I said before, the crude substance stops at 24X (thanks, gpm!), and you can't get lower than zero; so the idea that you get way up to, say, 1M, and there's even
less (?) crude substance, making it more gentle than the 200, which must consequently be more gentle than the 30, and so on, just doesn't fly on the face of it.

I purchased HAHNEMANN REVISITED by Luc De Schepper, which I'm about to quote from, because of a rave review it got in the journal, SIMILLIMUM, which said among other things, "By its sheer scope and detail, the text recommends itself as one of the best modern textbooks on the subject that is currently available. ... Indeed, if a student only purchased this book, a materia medica and a good repertory, it is hard to see how they could not soon become an excellent practitioner. ... It seems destined to become a favorite in the colleges and to become a classic text in the field for many years to come."

With that introduction, I would like to "introduce into evidence", so to speak, what Luc De Schepper has to say on potency. Under the heading, HELP IN POTENCY, DOSAGE AND REMEDY SELECTION he writes:

"As will be discussed in the next chapter on potency, low potencies (LM and 6C) must be used where there is advanced pathology....High potencies could cause a severe aggravation from which the patient's system could not rally. High potencies overwhelm the Vital Force, already struggling with the disease state, to such an extent that the Vital Force, in its weakened state, cannot rouse a secondary curative reaction."

In the chapter on Potency, he writes:

"Some homeopaths believe that there needs to be an aggravation in order to procure a healing....Nothing could be further form the truth. Some homeopaths feel that an aggravation lasting several months is acceptable. How does this follow Hahnemann's concept of a gentle cure, which he emphasized by placing it right at the beginning of the Organon?"

He then quotes from Kent's LESSER WRITINGS:

"Keep the MILD potency as long as it works. It is not well to jump degrees. The best action is the slight aggravation. The ideal one is the one that does not aggravate but ameliorate. We do NOT seek to produce an aggravation, that is not the best, not the longest curative effect. You encourage the patient to become oversensitive by using the highest potencies instead of going low to begin again."

Under DISADVANTAGES OF HIGH POTENCIES, he says:

"Although an immediate aggravation after the administration of the remedy can occur with low potencies, there is a great difference in the intensity of the aggravation. The aggravation after a high potency can be so acute that it lands the patient in the hospital. ... Or the aggravation can be long-lasting (up to several months or more...) Either way, the patient is likely to give up on homeopathy forever. With low potencies, the aggravation will rarely last longer than a few hours, a day or two at the most if the remedy intake is stopped the moment the aggravation appears. The aggravation is also usually milder than with high potencies."

Under RECOMMENDED USAGE FOR SOME COMMON POTENCIES, he has, under 6C:

"This is a relatively low potency, somewhat comparable to LM's (only in that it can be used daily for chronic cases). I recommend it to my students when they are first working with chronic cases, until they have mastered case management well enough to work with LM's."

He goes on to say that prescribing 6C is also appropriate when "prescribing for someone long-distance who can only get a 6C....[also] a patient who may not be able to remember or follow the instructions for LM's." It goes on. Please don't think this means that he never recommends high potencies or doesn't think they have a place!

About the author, I should probably add this brief paragraph from the introduction:

"I have been fortunate enough to study Hahnemann's casebooks from his last years in Paris. The more I read of Hahnemann's writings, the more I am convinced of his genius. On every page of his casebooks are brilliant obvservations and cures. I call this book Hahnemann Revisited because I believe he has answers and guidance highly relevant for us today, although sometimes inaccessible because they are couched in his old-fashioned language. I have also been greatly inspired by the master homeopaths of the past, like von Boenninghausen, Hering. Lippe, Kent, Dunham, Grimmer, Tyler, Wright-Hubbard, and Schmidt; their wisdom fills these pages."

You, too, can own this book!

Snoopy

I'm gonna go take a nap

__________________
Man, do not pride yourself on your superiority to animals. For they are without sin and you in your greatness defile the earth by your appearance on it and leave traces of you foulness after you. Dostoyevsky

gpm,
Thanks for clearing up avagadro's number!

Anna,
Thank you for clarification of fn276a/161. Ouch, was I spelling avgadro's number wrong all this time - and it is really avAgadro [img]redface.gif[/img] ?
I wasn't intending to claim H knew about avagadro's number; it was only a reference point. Isn't it interesting, though, what H's observations yielded without knowing this?!

Chris,
Do you think Kent was correct? Or that he muddied things beyond reason? I'm beginning to think Kent got some things wrong. That worries me from the angle that we're taught Kent( in some colleges) without these subtle differences being pointed out - AT LEAST as food for thought! Though, it's enough trying to decipher the Organon, I suppose. Seriously, though, is there a conflict - such that the two 'schools of thought' are irreconcilable, is I guess, what I'm now asking?

Snoopy,
I don't understand: "the crude substance stops at 24X, and you can't get lower than zero; so the idea that you get way up to, say, 1M, and there's even less (?) crude substance, making it more gentle than the 200, which must consequently be more gentle than the 30, and so on, just doesn't fly on the face of it."

That isn't what I was talking about. I guess this is in line with Kent's philosophy which Chris distinguishes above. And, it seems to me that Kent might have been a little off on this point of simple substance - which might mislead us to thinking the amount of a remedy doesn't matter....which seems to be in conflict with what Hahenmann wrote. sigh sigh sigh
You quote Luc - who quotes Kent...must be along the simple-substance line of thinking.... I'm in bad need of chocolat now.

I'm just realizing how important dosing is and that it is not that simple with a set-starting-point. Which makes it more exasperating - the thought of getting a patient's dosage right and the fact it's different in every case. Listen, thanks for Luc's take on this, but I'm trying to decipher H's words/works . Who is to say who is right amongst the contemporary homeopaths? I think I'll take H's words for now (if I can crack the 'code') and check on Luc and others later (it'll be good to understand them all - yeh baby, as if the Organon isn't enough to swallow). This is what adds what I call the frustration-factor of Homeopathy. So, have that dose of Lachesis if you feel you need it. I need something after all this, myself (chocolat is screaming to me now, baby). Just make sure you don't overdose like Hering did . Or was it an overdose - repeated too low too often ? Maybe the potency was too high? Just kidding. Listen, it might affect your mojo - so tread carefully. Mojo is important. I've found chocolat to be ok.

I'm seeing §275/6 more as a general statement that we have to carefully consider/select potency, amount and repetitions with each case, rather than a blanket statement banning high potencies or advocating low potencies as such; with two warnings:
-of the harm that repeated low potencies can do
-along with the damage that can ALSO be done if the dose is too strong in higher potencies that are repeated too often. Much like Anna's 'overdose' explanation I guess - just different words. Did I just repeat myself? Maybe there is nothing to expand on. Have I at least got some understanding here? I'm going in circles now. Better get in my car and drive in a straight line for the moment. And I'm taking chocolat with me. Beglian...lots of it...eating it all.. Austin.

Whoops....Avogadro.. not whatever on earth way I spelled it. Sorry.

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.

Like Anna said, Avagadro (for some reason I keep saying Avocado) was a contemporary of Hahnemann, but I don't know either if Hahnemann was aware of his work. Would it have mattered to Hahnemann? He was a vitalist and always ahead of his time, not a mechanistic materialist.
Austin, for me, it's vital to know where the differences lie. For instance, if your view is that cause and effect can only be known or predicted within a linear reality, read Kant. If you view cause and effect as being a relative, systemic, holistic, often synchronistic phenomena that are recognizable by their patterns in all of nature and life, there are plenty of post-Hahnemann philosophers and homeopaths who can bring the work up to date. In my experience you may cure the disease by treating its effects thereby eradicating the cause, or in another case you may prescribe straight by the NWS symptoms and cure the patient. The problem as I see it is when one method of thinking completely denies the other. Say a woman with a sore knee seeks treatment. One homoeopath gives Arnica, pain vanishes. Another homoeopath might find out the pain first started when the woman entered a violent relationship, Nat mur given, woman leaves the unhealthy relationship and the pain vanishes. Middle path for me, depending on the individual case.
Chris