dear all,

let me summarize all the major / historic/ common arguements against LMs:-
1)andre saine had once mentioned that he has nothing to do with LMs and that they are a kind of very low potencies. he had further stated that
he rejects them because the respectable pierre schimdt and p.sankaran (the elder sankaran) had tried them and rejected them.
2) LMs are made from 3C and as such they are low potencies.
3) Hahnemann was senile / insane in old age.
4) Hahnemann had the tendency to be dogmatic about everything that he said. whenever he said something - he said that was final and later revised his own opinion. as such, the LMs are just experimental stuff.
(this is also part of andre saine's view). the whole text of andre saine may be seen at http://www.homeopathy.ca/articles/2_how_to_become.html )
5) LM dosing is diffcult to work out with the patients.(p sankaran and others)
6) the cures by LM in the paris case books of hahnemann are not that impressive. hahnemann did not have much of an experience with LMs
(andre saine and others)
7) a list of very famous and learned homeopaths (both living and dead) who, if not strongly against the LMs, atleast do not strongly feel it's need. many are dead against LMs. ( i did not find anything on LMs from vithoulkas. he uses 12x in cases of pathology)
8) many learned homeopaths would like to finish their cases with a high centesimal , even after the whole course of LMs is run, as LMs are low potency. (rajan sankaran also does this)
9) LM is more problematic stuff and produces more aggravations.
10) the deep misams need a burst of energy to remove them. this can only be provided by the (high) centesimals. LMs are given repeatedly and are like gentle waves that are lapping at the shore. ( this is from verspoor)
11) = merely mouthing history of homeopathy does not help. we need high centesimals to cure patients. who has the time to work out all this low potency problematic LMs with patients ?
= don't get involved with LMs, all the patients will run away.
= i see 100 - 200 patients in 1 day. i don't have time for all this. i do clinic as well as teach students. i have years of experience.
12) see the wonderful experience of nash, skinner and others. just give one dose and relax !!!

and the truth, as it is :-

1) read all the material on david little's http://www.simillimum.com
(check the 'little library' - not very little though !! ). the whole website is a masterpiece. most of the people who are using LMs have learnt directly or indirectly from david little.

2) i have found an excellent article on LMs. this article starts with andre saine's views and discusses them threadbare. this presents the facts as they are minus the confusion.
http://www.marlev.com/homeo/Study%20...ibraryLMs2.htm

3) read the book on 50 millesimal potencies by the legendary classical homeopath from calcutta, dr harimohum chowdhury. this has been published by b jain and is in EH of radar as well.
read dr chowdhury's book on miasms. (his other works are in bengali. they may be consulted)

4) apart from the personal experience of many patients and healers we have more than 75 years of combined experiece in LMs by very reliable and very experienced classical homeopathic teachers such as late dr harimohun chowdhury, dr dhananjoy roy (both from calcutta) and david little. (i must be leaving out many others, i am sure). this collective testimony means a lot. hahnemann may have worked only for a few years with LMs but these people have worked tirelessly for years.
incidently, all the three persons named above have worked / are working in india and here the ground realities test the validity of all theories !!

5) read the 6th organon of hahnemann.

now after the facts, i do have an emotional note.
it is a matter of deep shame and pain to abuse our most respected and beloved master, the father of homeopthy - hahnemann. people have publicly called him insane and senile (due to LMs) and had the audacity to peddle their own half baked, groundless theories in lecture circuits.
this has confused many students and seasoned practitioners alike.
we have many "new " and so called "correct" theories being developed by some homeopaths, here in india. this has created much confusion amongst the students as all their basic ideas of organon / case taking -goes for a toss, after a few such seminars. and who will bell the cat ?

we need to learn from our master and at the same time be respectful.

it is interesting to note that the author of the article on LMs, referred to above (http://www.marlev.com/homeo/Study%20...ibraryLMs2.htm) has titled the article as
" honoring hahnemann ". that's right.

aude sapre

dr manish agarwala




Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partneronline.

At 11:17 PM +0100 8/15/04, dr manish agarwala wrote:
I'm really baffled by that one. It sounds very dogmatic, but... it is Andre...

>2) LMs are made from 3C and as such they are low potencies.

And all the other potencies pass through a 3C too! ALL items that are
made as trits MUST be 3C before they can go higher. To me, that one
is not an argument.

>3) Hahnemann was senile / insane in old age.

Ah... Dr. Hughes speaking... he was talking about the Misam theory
and it being a product of an elderly mind...

>4) Hahnemann had the tendency to be dogmatic about everything that
>he said. whenever he said something - he said that was final and
>later revised his own opinion. as such, the LMs are just
>experimental stuff.

Yup. He was. They are. BUT... a good number of people tested them and
had results. Is that NOT the information we want?

>5) LM dosing is diffcult to work out with the patients.(p sankaran and others)

could be...

>6) the cures by LM in the paris case books of hahnemann are not that
>impressive.

MANY of Hahnemann's cures were not that impressive-- even those NOT
done with LMs.

>7) a list of very famous and learned homeopaths (both living and
>dead) who, if not strongly against the LMs

different strokes for different folks. Most of the learned *dead*
homeopaths did not know about the LMs.

>9) LM is more problematic stuff and produces more aggravations.

Maybe-- especially when used improperly. Hahnemann says that when
they are used correctly the aggravation comes *at the end* and not at
the beginning.

All one can do is to do what they do, as best as they can. Cure can
happen with any potency-- from low to high.

JW

Regarding LM potencies and objections raised against them:

>LMs and that they are a kind of very low potencies. he had further
>stated that he rejects them because the respectable pierre
>schimdt and p.sankaran (the elder sankaran) had tried them and
>rejected them.

I have heard it discussed frequently whether LMs are to be regarded as
high or low potencies. This is a meaningless question since in order to
answer it you would have to compare the LM scale to the C scale, which
is impossible. What do you compare? The final dilution? The number of
succussions? The ratio succussion/dilution?

An LM1 has about the same dilution as a 5C but corresponds to a 13C in
terms of succussion strokes. An LM12 is similarly diluted as a 31C, its
succussions, however, are those of a 123C. In terms of succussion to
dilution ration the LMs clock in at a 100 succussion per dilution step
whereas C potencies come in at 10. There simply is no coherent
correspondence between those two potency scales, and it would be totally
wrong to conclude that an LM1 is a low potency simply because it has the
same dilution as a 5C. If you are going to use LM potencies, you have to
think in LM potencies, which is quite different from C potency thinking.

I have been using LM potences in all chronic cases and about 50% of
acute cases for the past 7 years or so. There are too many differences
involved in a C pososlogy scheme and the LM potencies that anyone can
just "try out" LMs for a while and then make a well founded comment
about his experience. Fact is that by introducing LMs to homeopathy
Hahnemann has evolved homeopathy further in the direction of
individualization. Instead of just picking an individual remedy and
otherwise stick to a pretty standard way of administration (e.g., "Take
3 pellets of a 1M once and see me again in four weeks.") LMs demand a
much higher degree of individualization: you have to decide on the size
of the dose, the number of succussions between doses and their
repetition. In that manner they are like taylor made suits versus buying
one ready made off the rack. The difference is that a well managed LM
case has no initial aggravation, is moving forward at a faster pace, can
be managed more easily in case a change of remedy is required, and
involves the patient more deeply in the whole process.

>2) LMs are made from 3C and as such they are low potencies.

This is a nonsense argument. How can you disregard the potentization
steps following the 3C trituration?

>3) Hahnemann was senile / insane in old age.

I thought we were discussing the merit of the methodology and not
Hahnemann's alleged state of mind. I can look back to a wealth of
successful cases over the past 7 years that have been treated with LMs.

>4) Hahnemann had the tendency to be dogmatic about everything that
>he said. whenever he said something - he said that was final and
>later revised his own opinion. as such, the LMs are just
>experimental stuff.

Hahnemann was dogmatic about homeopathy in general and kept evolving it
throughout his lifetime. He also was very careful in what he published,
disseminating only those results which he (and close confidantes) had
tried out extensively over long periods of time. There are 13 years of
experimentation between the 4th and the 6th edition of the Organon
during which Hahnemann developed all elements of posology which he then
subsumed in the 6th edition and LM posology. I would call that a pretty
thorough and careful approach as opposed to premature and experimental.

I find it amazing that everyone reads the 6th edition of the organon but
99% of homepathy practice according to the 4th edition (i.e., give a
couple of dry pellets in a single dose and wait until it has completely
expired its action). All the 6th edition talks about when it comes to
case management is LM potencies. Why do people ignore this fact so
stubbornly?

> >5) LM dosing is diffcult to work out with the patients.(p
> sankaran and others)

LM dosing is about as difficult as preparing a cup of tea. I haven't
met a SINGLE patient in the past 7 years who rejected LMs because of
this. In my experience, it has been helpful to most patients to involve
them more deeply in their process of healing.

>6) the cures by LM in the paris case books of hahnemann are not that
>impressive.

I can't comment on that. All I can say is that in my experience LM
potencies can move an otherwise stalled and frustratingly slow case
(when managed by C potencies) forward at a faster pace with no noticable
aggravations.

>7) a list of very famous and learned homeopaths (both living and
>dead) who, if not strongly against the LMs

It is appalling to see how ignorant most homeopaths (even many of the
revered "gurus") are when it comes to the correct use of LM potencies.
The pinnacle of ignorance was one well known homeopath who gave his
patients a bottle of dry LM12 pellets, told them to shake the bottle 5
times before each dose and take 5 pellets dry under the tongue once a
day. Virtually no one has apparently read the 6th edition of the
Organon carefully and followed Hahnemann's instructions. As long as you
don't do that you really shouldn't comment on LM potencies.

>9) LM is more problematic stuff and produces more aggravations.

Not true in my experience. On the contrary! They produce much fewer
aggravations IF USED CORRECTLY!

Best, -- Chris.

>> don't get involved with LMs, all the patients will run away <<

If I hadn't found the LMs, I have at least two dogs who would not have been
treated any longer with homeopathy, as their cases were taking too long and
they were constantly having aggravations. I even wrote an article during
those years and titled it, "Is Your Vet a Sadist, or just a Homeopath?".

The LMs are what kept me using homeopathy, because I was able to see cures
PROGRESS MORE RAPIDLY and MORE GENTLY. It's not that LMs are like little
lappings at the shore and you need a high potency dry dose to "blast" the
way to cure - it's that LMs work very deeply without exciting an
aggravation, and respond well to appropriate repitition (although I have
seen good cures with little or no repetition).

I went through a phase of almost exclusively using LMs, and have gone back
to using a wide variety of potencies. But far from driving patients away,
LMs can bring patients back who are tired of waiting YEARS to cure an animal
who has a lifespan of only 10-15 years in the first place, or who are tired
of being told that their animal's complaint getting worse is "a good sign."
A dog's life is too short to waste it on unneccessary aggravations and "wait
and see" after giving a dry dose.

Christie Keith
Caber Feidh Scottish Deerhounds
Holistic Husbandry since 1986
http://www.caberfeidh.com

At 05:13 PM 8/16/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> >> don't get involved with LMs, all the patients will run away <<
>
>If I hadn't found the LMs, I have at least two dogs who would not have been
>treated any longer with homeopathy, as their cases were taking too long and
>they were constantly having aggravations. I even wrote an article during
>those years and titled it, "Is Your Vet a Sadist, or just a Homeopath?".
>
>The LMs are what kept me using homeopathy, because I was able to see cures
>PROGRESS MORE RAPIDLY and MORE GENTLY. It's not that LMs are like little
>lappings at the shore and you need a high potency dry dose to "blast" the
>way to cure - it's that LMs work very deeply without exciting an
>aggravation, and respond well to appropriate repitition (although I have
>seen good cures with little or no repetition).


Dear Chris,

I really enjoyed your post especially the article you wrote - Is Your
Vet a Sadist, or just a Homeopath?" (grin) The idea of "no-pain no-gain"
seems to have crept into homoeopathy with the ultra high C potencies and
the Kent's idea that the size of the dose does not matter. This is
something Hahnemann refused to accept. His ideal of cure is one that is
rapid, gentle and permanent and he worked his whole life to attain this
goal. This was reached when he perfected the methods of the 1840s.

>I went through a phase of almost exclusively using LMs, and have gone back
>to using a wide variety of potencies. But far from driving patients away,
>LMs can bring patients back who are tired of waiting YEARS to cure an animal
>who has a lifespan of only 10-15 years in the first place, or who are tired
>of being told that their animal's complaint getting worse is "a good sign."
>A dog's life is too short to waste it on unneccessary aggravations and "wait
>and see" after giving a dry dose.

I remember my high potency dry dose years and telling those poor
patient it was all a positive cleansing crisis! I was never really
comfortable with this and always worried inside. I did not find that one
could just give a single dose of a high potency and relax very easy. I
never felt very relaxed with the patient suffering at home! For this
reason, I jump on the chance to make changes in my practice. Do you use the
C and LM potency both in medicinal solution like Hahnemann did in his last
years? What makes you decide to use one potency or the other?

Sincerely, David Little

---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

At 11:17 PM 8/15/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>dear all,

Dear Homoeolist,

I have already dealt with many of the questions raised in this post in
my article "Sanie on the LM Potency" but I wish to take on a few of the
ideas below.

>
>let me summarize all the major / historic/ common arguements against LMs:-
>1)andre saine had once mentioned that he has nothing to do with LMs and
>that they are a kind of very low potencies. he had further stated that
>he rejects them because the respectable pierre schimdt and p.sankaran (the
>elder sankaran) had tried them and rejected them.

As I said in my post "Sanie on the LM Potency" there are a few who
tested the LM potency in the 1950s but did not integrate them in the
general practice. There were also others like Drs. Choudhury who used these
potencies for over 30 years. These days there are many well seasoned
homoeopaths who have years of experience in the LM potency. It is no longer
a case of what someone said in the 1840 or 1950s. In the year 2004 we have
ample cases histories from a number of sources that show the effectiveness
of the LM potency.

>2) LMs are made 3C and as such they are low potencies.

The 3c is the mother of all potencies! Once Hahnemann introduced the 3c
potency he proved remedies like Arsenicum and wrote his work, What are
Medicines? What are Poisons? The high potency Cs and LMs must all pass
through the 3c level. This makes very little sense. You cannot come up with
a equivalency by comparing the amount of original substance found in the LM
and C potency. The 1/50, 000 dilution ration and 100 succussions makes a
very deep acting remedies power with fewer dilutions than the 1/100 and 10
succussions use to the make the C potencies. The LM potency has a different
medicinal quality than the C potency. In fact, they are complementary
opposite that greatly expand the potential of the homoeopathic pharmacy.
The only way to understand this is to test the C and LM side by side in the
clinic. One must get some actual experience with the LM potency to
understand this. Just looking at numbers on paper and making prejudice
judgements will not help.

>3) Hahnemann was senile / insane in old age.

This was Dudgeon's statement in relationship to Psora, which was seized
on by those who could not digest Hahnemann's advanced teachings on the
miasms, high potency Cs, exceeding small doses, etc.. It was an amazingly
unkind and ignorant thing to say. All the eyewitness accounts of Hahnemann
in Paris while the Founder was in his 80s clearly state how physically and
mentally agile he was in his old age. An American doctor named Hull visited
Samuel in 1840 and published a detailed report of Hahnemann’s activities in
the Homœopathic Examiner. Hull’s eyewitness account makes fools of those
who imagine that Hahnemann’s revisions of the Organon were due to his
senility.

"I had anticipated many exhibitions of the progress of age in the
physical condition of Hahnemann. But his firmness of figure, activity of
movement, and unimpaired sight and hearing are characteristic of the
perfect health he enjoys, and form no slight or inconclusive commentary
upon the excellence of the homœopathic regimen he has so scrupulously and
so long observed. His mental faculties seem also in the judgment of all who
have known him long to retain the vigor of former days: and if I may be
allowed to judge by the masterly criticisms and powerful arguments I have
heard fall from his lips, the apostle of modern Germany has not succumbed
to the ordinary ravages of time, but in manhood and strength of intellect
is in his green old age, “Lord of the lion heart and eagle eye”.

I would suggest saving this quote for those who say Hahnemann was
"senile". I wonder how many of his critics will live and work until they
are 88! As Hering said we all must go further in the theory and practice of
homoeopathy than Hahnemann but shame on those who defame the name of
Founder. He was a great genius that towers over his micro-cephalic critics.
Although he was not without his faults he is the Father of Homoeopathy and
one of the greatest persons that ever lived.

>4) Hahnemann had the tendency to be dogmatic about everything that he
>said. whenever he said something - he said that was final and later
>revised his own opinion. as such, the LMs are just experimental
>stuff.(this is also part of andre saine's view).

Yes, the LMs were experimental in nature in 1843 but in the year 2004
they are not. The collective experience of all those who have used them is
now is very, very vast. It is no longer an experimental method because of
the collective work of a good number of homoeopaths. Hahnemann was not
"dogmatic" in everything he said. That is as foolish as it is ignorant. He
certainly was called dogmatic about feeling that homoeopathy is inherently
superior to allopathy. He was also called dogmatic over his demand not mix
to homeopathy with allopathy! Nothing upset him as much as the half
homoeopaths who mixed up his teachings with the old school. Hahnemann
wanted homoeopaths to practice by the principles of homoeopathy. If the
Founder, and the pure Hahnemannians, did not protect the infant system it
would have been lost. If this is dogmatic - so be it!

>5) LM dosing is diffcult to work out with the patients.(p sankaran and others)

Hahnemann's final methods are certainly more sophisticated then just
throwing a random number of pills under a patient's tongue and telling them
to come back in one month. It takes some time to learn the methods of the
adjusting the dose, but once it is understood, it has the potential to
speed the cure of slow moving cases greatly. Some cases that are not
curable under the methods of the 4th Organon resolve with the methods of
the 5th and 6th edition. This makes it worth the difficulties of learning a
new method. Once the methods are mastered it becomes easy and natural to
think in terms of adjusting the dose and repetition. The use of the C and
LM potency in medicinal solution is an advanced level of individualization
that is more artistic and effective. It is only too difficult for those who
resist change and are attached to what they are doing.

>6) the cures by LM in the paris case books of hahnemann are not that
>impressive. hahnemann did not have much of an experience with LMs.
>(andre saine and others)

Hahnemann is the Founder of Homeopathy. What one sees in the Paris
casebooks is the beginning not the end. Hahnemann's C and LM cases show
some successes, some mixed results and some failures. What can be said of
the LM cases can also be said of the C cases. This is basically Saine
again. He made it sound like the LM cases were somehow worse than the C
cases, which is not true. As to how long Hahnemann used the LM - I have
already refuted the dis-information passed on by those who try to use the
"too little experience" canard. Besides that there are now many who have
significant years of experience. Dr, Choudhury used them since the 1950s! I
have used them since the early 1980s. If you take the collect years of all
of us who use the LM potency it runs into 100s of years.

>7) a list of very famous and learned homeopaths (both living and dead)
>who, if not strongly against the LMs, atleast do not strongly feel it's
>need. many are dead against LMs. ( i did not find anything on LMs from
>vithoulkas. he uses 12x in cases of pathology)

Who are these folks?? How many of them tested the LM potency for a
sufficient time in the clinic? How many of these folks are like Dr. Saine
in that they have absolutely NO clinical experience with the LM potency?
There are now many very well known and very learned homeopaths who used the
high C potencies for many years and have now integrated the LM potency in
their practice. This type of negativity is not valid to say the least. We
have the clinical experience while most the nay sayers do not. Positive
facts speak louder than negative words.

>8) many learned homeopaths would like to finish their cases with a high
>centesimal , even after the whole course of LMs is run, as LMs are low
>potency. (rajan sankaran also does this)

I think the "many" is certainly an overstatement. A few use this method
to finish up the case. There are MANY that do not. We have many seasoned
practitioners using the LM potency in the traditional manner and we can
provide many, many cases that were brought to complete cure with the LM
potency alone.

>9) LM is more problematic stuff and produces more aggravations.

This stands contrary to the facts. I just looked at another case where a
1M potency has terrible aggravated a person for over a month. They have
really suffered and know what to do. Is this a rapid, gentle cure???
Aggravations with the LM potency do not last that long IF THEY ARE USED
PROPERLY. They usually wear off very quickly. Those that give the LM in the
daily dose mechanically for weeks and months on end do cause unnecessary
aggravations and have given the LMs a bad reputation in some circles. I
used the Kentian potencies for around 10 years before I gained sufficient
experience with the LM potencies. I have never had an LM cause the
prolonged aggravations like I saw with dry doses of the 1M, 10M, etc. I
must admit at that time I was also giving a random number of dry pills. If
you use the medicinal solution and keep the size of the dose very small the
high potencies Cs are also cause less aggravations.

>10) the deep misams need a burst of energy to remove them. this can only
>be provided by the (high) centesimals. LMs are given repeatedly and are
>like gentle waves that are lapping at the shore. ( this is from verspoor)

This person has little to no true experience with the LMs. Most of his
experience is based on ST's combination medicines which can cause strong
aggravations and accessory symptoms. Once again, the nay sayers statements
are based on mental concepts while those who have used the LM potency for
years are basing their statements on the clinical facts. The LMs work very
well on chronic miasms and we have the case histories to prove it. They can
not prove a negative that doesn't exist.

Hahnemann developed the LM to specially treat the chronic miasms. Acute
disease develop very quickly and reach their acme in a short period of
time. Chronic diseases develop insidiously and gradually increase over a
long period of time. The aggravations of acute disease are violent and
quick while the aggravation of chronic disease come on at the end. If you
look at the nature of acute and chronic disease you will see that the LMs
with their gradual ascending scale and aggravation at the end of treatment
are more similar to chronic miasms than the high C potencies with their
quick aggravations and radical jumps in potency.

>11) = merely mouthing history of homeopathy does not help. we need high
>centesimals to cure patients. who has the time to work out all this low
>potency problematic LMs with patients ?

Understanding the history of homeopathy is essential to being a good
homeopath. Those that do not dig down to the roots usually don't have a
good foundation. Hahnemann claimed that his advanced methods for the C and
LM potency as stated in the 5th and 6th Organon can speed the cure of slow
moving cases to 1/2 to 1/4 the time it takes with the single dry dose and
the 4th Organon method. This claim has been tested by many serious
practitioners for many year now. Those who have not tried the method for a
sufficient amount of time under an experienced tutor who teaches them the
correct way are not in a position to comment on these clinical realties.

>= don't get involved with LMs, all the patients will run away.

Do these folks have any idea of how many people have run away from
homoeopathy because of the misuse of high potency Cs and the strong
aggravations they have caused? I have used the LMs for around 20 years in
the West and East and I have had only a few patients that did not find the
instruction easy enough to follow. These person would have messed up
anything as it was part of their mental symptoms! In truth the problems do
not lay with the patient - they lay with the homeopath's psychic resistance
and inability to make changes in their life. They have run away from the LM
potencies not their patients.

>= i see 100 - 200 patients in 1 day. i don't have time for all this. i do
>clinic as well as teach students. i have years of experience.

100 to 200 patients a day only applies to those who do the most extreme
from of volume practice in India. When I do volume practice in India I have
a compounder who makes up the medicines and explains to the patient how to
take them. I also have a assistant that helps with the follow ups. This
works just fine. Most in the West and under normal conditions have plenty
of time.

>12) see the wonderful experience of nash, skinner and others. just give
>one dose and relax !!!

Yes there are wonderful results but you must also read the aggravations
accepted as normal in many high potency C prescribers. When I read some of
Kent's aggravations with the ultra high potencies I shuddered. So did he!
That is why he stopped giving the 50M, etc. at the start of his cases and
began to work up from the lower ranges first. Yes, they all did some great
work. I did some great work when I only used these methods but I also had
my problems. Everything was very dramatic in my dry dose high potency C
days. The cures were dramatic, the aggravations were dramatic, and the
negative reactions and side effects were dramatic. Everything was very
dramatic. TOO DRAMATIC!!!

I used to mimic like a monkey that aggravations are a good sign, the
symptoms are a cleansing crisis, an increase of symptoms is a necessary
part of healing, etc. While I was professing the "no pain - no gain" policy
I was actually always worried inside. It just didn't seem right that
healing such involve so much suffering. Then I final read the Organon
correctly and I was shocked and relieved by what I read! There was another
way and I took the time to learn it and I have never looked back.

I give a single test dose at the start of most my LM cases and have I
witnessed this cure acute and chronic conditions more than once. I have
also seem a few infrequent doses cure chronic disorders. More commonly the
person may need the remedy every 2, 3, 4 to 7 days depending on the
condition. As I said in my post about Saine's comments - the reason we do
what we do is to benefit the patient - not to make life easy for ourselves.
During this process I am relaxed so what's the problem? Having all those
aggravations did not help my stress level at all! If you are willing to
offer a little bit more energy to benefit the suffering patient then don't
let the comments of nay sayers get in your way! Test Hahnemann's advanced
methods in the clinic.

>
>and the truth, as it is :-

In my opinion the truth is.....Hahnemann used the C and LM potency
together in the clinic side by side as needed. This greatly expands the
therapeutic potential of the homoeopathic pharmacy. There are cases in
which the C potency works better than the LM and cases where the LM potency
works better then the C potency. Both potencies produce less aggravations
when used in medicinal solution with the methods of adjusting the dose WHEN
DONE CORRECTLY. For some hints about the different natures of the C and LM
potency refer to my article. A Comparison of the C and LM Potency on my
website. Although it is not always easy to know which potency system to use
in which cases in advance there is no teacher like trial, error and
success. May article offers some hints into which cases are suitable for
each potency.

Similia Minimus,
Sincerely, David Little

---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Hi Christie,

I'd love to hear more about the dogs who were having constant aggravations
on C potencies. Had you tried using low Cs, and if so can you make any
comparison between that and LMs? (I was initially taught that low potencies
usually wouldn't take the person all the way to cure; but then I was also
taught that they wouldn't reach into the M/E plane, and *that* I have found
to be quite in error!)

Shannon

>> > I really enjoyed your post especially the article you wrote - Is
Your Vet a Sadist, or just a Homeopath?" (grin) <<

LOL, thanks, David!

>> Do you use the
C and LM potency both in medicinal solution like Hahnemann did in his last
years? <<

I always use LMs in medicinal solution, and almost always use Cs in
medicinal solution for chronic cases. I rarely use dry dose Cs other than
for acute prescribing. If I want to repeat a C, I always, always plus it, or
go up in potency. I never repeat the same potency of a dry dose.

>> What makes you decide to use one potency or the other? <<

I originally was taught only to use LMs on very old or weak animals, or
animals who had a lot of aggravations. I was taught to give the remedy daily
UNTIL I had an aggravation, then stop and wait. However, LMs were presented
to me as a "lesser" method of dosing, used as a last resort and and needed
only very, very rarely. So I first started using dry dose Cs, then began
using them in medicinal solution to try to mitigate aggravations. I also
tried giving remedies by olfaction, which has only once really been
successful for me, possibly because it's kind of hard to get animals to take
a remedy by olfaction <G>.

Later, when I began to use LMs more routinely, not just in weak animals or
old animals but in many chronic cases, I realized that I'd been taught only
a tiny bit about LMs and how they can work. When I realized how much faster
you can move a case by using them, I was hooked. And I freely confess that
for the first couple of years I used them almost exclusively. I felt I'd
found a miracle. Eventually I began to reintroduce the Cs, in medicinal
solution and also to use dry doses again, mostly in acute cases, but not
always.

I find that young, vigorous animals, especially those who are the offspring
of parents who were raised naturally and treated with homeopathy, or wild
animals, can be given almost any potency of the right remedy and do well.
This is especially true with treating an acute injury or illness. So I will
sometimes choose the potency and dosing that is most convenient for the
owner/caregiver, rather than always stopping to consider what might be
"best" in absolute terms.

For more complicated cases or less vigorous animals, I usually treat with
LMs or with low dose Cs in medicinal solution. I usually go on my gut
instinct as to what potency to start with on a dog. For cats, I virtually
always give LMs, except for cancer or really deep chronic problems in old
cats, when I use lower potency Cs in medicinal solution. Cats respond quite
brilliantly to LMs.

I always give one dose and then talk to the owner, or of course, if it's my
own animal, wait to see what happens, the next day. If there's great and
immediate improvement, I don't repeat even the LM. I have had cases cured
with a single LM remedy. I only repeat when the improvement slows down a
great deal, or stops. I probably err on being a bit too slow, a leftover
from my more 4th Organon days.

I will sometimes switch to a C if I don't feel I've gotten the response I
want from the LMs, and one thing that I have found that surprises me is
this: Contrary to what I was taught, it is sometimes the very feeble animal
who CANNOT be helped with LMs, and who needs low potency Cs in medicinal
solution. It's not always possible to know if this is an aggravation-prone
animal who needs LMs to avoid aggravations, or a very weak animal who needs
the more direct action of the Cs. Since I'd rather waste a day or two than
risk an aggravation with a very weak animal, I usually start with LMs and
switch to a C if I don't get what I want but am confident of the remedy
selection. I almost never start with a C and switch to an LM, but I would do
that if the animal aggravated from a C.

Christie Keith
Caber Feidh Scottish Deerhounds
Holistic Husbandry since 1986
http://www.caberfeidh.com

This is a re-send as my previous attempt did not make it to the list.

Shannon wrote:

>> I'd love to hear more about the dogs who were having constant
aggravations
on C potencies. <<

I can think of one with allergies and arthritis symptoms who had hellish
itching, really unbearable, from C potencies. As in scraping her muzzle raw
on the bricks of the fireplace, and gnawing big gaping holes in her flank.
On the LMs, she was cured of allergies and her arthritis was greatly
mitigated, without any further aggravation of her itching. She did have
bilateral hip dysplasia and the degeneration of her joints was so bad it was
not possible to really cure this, although with massage, being kept very
lean, and glucosamine supplementation, she did really well for her very long
life. And we didn't go far at all with her on the scale, just to LM 2
believe it or not. Once the LMs were introduced the case was easily managed.

Years and years ago, I had a really interesting aggravation in a dog of
mine, which is actually very funny because the "aggravation" was more
humorous than serious. My vet prescribed Lycopodium in C potency - I think
it was only a 30 C, actually - to a two year old deerhound of mine, Lillie.
She became a puppy again, in the sense that she forgot how to walk. She was
all coltish and wobbly on her long skinny legs, like a young puppy. She
tried to lie down in the cat basket as she could when she was a puppy. (This
is a hundred pound giant breed dog.) She tried to get in our laps like she
did as a puppy. She also reverted to some behaviors of puppyhood, such as
crying when she wanted to go out (instead of using the dog door), or crying
when she wanted a drink of water. It lasted about a day and a half. While it
was really very cute and funny, it was also a memorable reminder of the
power of homeopathy!

Another one that sticks in my mind is a dog who had a recurrence of a
life-threatening pnuemonia from a dose of Bryonia 200C. This is one of those
things where it was supposed to be "a good thing" because it was an old,
suppressed pneumonia. Problem is, the reason the owners suppressed the
pneumonia in the first place is that the dog was DYING of it, and they gave
him antibiotics to save his life. And of course, he then almost died of the
aggravation. This is the kind of thing that drives pet owners away from
homeopathy, and if this was really the best we could do, I would advise them
to run as fast as they could! You can't cure a dead dog, and calling it a
healing crisis doesn't change that.

A friend of mine, whose dog was under treatment of a veterinarian who
practiced homeopathy, cautioned her that the dog had severe dog aggression
problems and specifically asked her not to risk an aggravation. The dog was
diagnosed with rabies miasm, probably correctly (I never knew this
particular dog), and was given a remedy, I'm not sure which nor does the
owner remember. The dog became so incredibly aggressive and reactive that
she had to be euthanized. If only the vet had known more about other options
in dosing, perhaps this dog could have been helped. :(

>> Had you tried using low Cs, and if so can you make any
comparison between that and LMs? (I was initially taught that low potencies
usually wouldn't take the person all the way to cure; but then I was also
taught that they wouldn't reach into the M/E plane, and *that* I have found
to be quite in error!) <<

I think I kind of went over this pretty much in the post that DID go
through. My experience is that some animals do better on low Cs in medicinal
solution, and others do better on LMs, and I can't usually tell the
difference until I try a test dose of whichever one seems right to me. But I
agree with you completely, that low Cs, at least in medicinal solution and
prescribed and repeated appropriately, can affect the individual very
deeply.

If I had to characterize the difference, I'd say that low potency Cs seem
less disruptive to the overall well-being of a very weak, feeble, old animal
with longstanding, or deep and complicated, chronic disease. LMs can still
aggravate these animals, but the low potency Cs in medicinal solution seem
to usually make them feel better right off. Since I want them to feel better
the whole time I'm treating them, and my goal is to relieve their suffering
and not increase it, I like this.

On the other hand, in highly reactive animals, LMs work pretty much as I was
taught they were back in the very beginning, by moving around the edges of
their reactivity and sneaking in and moving the case along. The thing is,
you can't repeat the LM routinely (as I was first taught), or you'll just
end up with the same aggravation you were trying to avoid in the first
place, AND with a case that's so disordered you often can't figure out what
on earth to do next. Many of these dogs have done best with Traditional
Chinese Medicine practicioners, btw. This more hands-on, direct form of
healing can work very well on these extremely reactive animals who you don't
want to try any more homeopathy on.

Christie Keith
Caber Feidh Scottish Deerhounds
Holistic Husbandry since 1986
http://www.caberfeidh.com

Thanks Christie, very interesting!
Can I explore some questions here? Might all be ground you've gone over and
found irrelevant, but let me ask:

I suppose that size-of-dose was not the issue with any of these? I was
initially taught that "size of dose doesn't matter" with Cs, and was
eventually persuaded (thanks, David L. and co!) that this is untrue.
Looking back I realized that the *ONLY* two serious aggravations I have seen
both happened in a sensitive child who had taken an entire "single dose
tube" (aka "at least a hundred doses!") on each occasion. On other
occasions she had had only a few poppyseed pellets, and on those occasions
had no aggravations either. My h'th insisted that was only coincidence,
but...

Also wonder whether the potencies given may have been too high for the case?
E.g., I've seen that giving high potency to someone with a severe skin
ailment can cause horrendous aggravation, so with skin conditions I was
taught to start low.

And re the return of "suppressed" pneumonia -- do you recall what the
potency given was, and was there anything in the case that (maybe in
retrospect) might have suggested that lower potency would be better? I
realize this is a big academic, since we can't *know* what would have
happened had potency or dose size been changed, but I am curious...

Thanks,
Shannon