Some on the list mentioned the possibility of using other potencies rather than the 30, 200, 1M jumps. I found that when I gave a 100C potency to a patient where I thought the jump from 30 to 200 too sharp, the aggravations were so bad that the patient almost left homeopathy for good, after very good progress previously. Any other experience with the 100C potency?

David Little mentioned homeopathic aggravation at the end of treatment in his postings on the LMs - what kind of aggravation can be expected? how is it clear that it is aggravation and not relapse? At what point in treatment is an aggravation likely? I would appreciate any info on this.

Vera

I often use intermediate potencies, 100c 500c, whatever seems
appropriate
You can use ANY potency.

re: aggravations you might find this helpful
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/homeopath/Theory/FAQ%27S/
aggravations.html>

regards


Simon King LCPH MARH

ps
also
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/homeopa...ravations.html - might be relevant

regards


Simon King LCPH MARH

At 12:53 PM 8/21/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Some on the list mentioned the possibility of using other potencies rather
>than the 30, 200, 1M jumps. I found that when I gave a 100C potency to a
>patient where I thought the jump from 30 to 200 too sharp, the
>aggravations were so bad that the patient almost left homeopathy for good,
>after very good progress previously. Any other experience with the 100C
>potency?

Dear Vera,

Hahnemann used the 100c at various times in his potency experiments. I
didn't notice that it aggravated his cases particularly Maybe the jump to
100c was too much for this person? What did you do after this aggravation.
Do you think the 200c would have been better than the 100C? This may have
been a case where changing from the 30c to the LM 0/1 might have been
beneficial.


>David Little mentioned homeopathic aggravation at the end of treatment in
>his postings on the LMs - what kind of aggravation can be expected? how
>is it clear that it is aggravation and not relapse? At what point in
>treatment is an aggravation likely? I would appreciate any info on this.

The best treatment is one with absolutely no aggravation. We are not
seeking aggravations in the beginning, middle or end of treatment.
Nevertheless. the LM potency has a tendency to cause a slight aggravation
at toward the end of treatment as a sign that the patient is nearly
complete cure. By this time, the patient symptoms are usually almost if not
all gone and their vitality is complete restored. In may experience it is
not usually an aggravation former particular symptoms, although this can
happen. It usually the aggravation of the general symptoms or a feeling of
slight malaise where the patient feels as if some symptoms are going to
come on. Hahnemann discusses this situation and it case management
procedures in aphorisms 280 and 281 of the 6th Organon. The way to see if
this is the aggravation late in the treatment is a relapse or a sign the
cure is approaching is to wait and watch for a few days. This type of
aggravation passes of very quickly and is follow by a state of feeling
totally well. If it is a relapse the patient will continue to decline.

The aggravation of the patient at the end of the treatment is a slight
that the cure is almost attained or is complete. When one stops the
medicine it should wear off quickly. If the patient improves when the
medicine is stopped but later begins to show symptoms this is a sign that
they still need a little more medicine but the intervals of repetition
should be slow down. This on again off again method is continued until
there are no relapses showing the patient needs no more medicine.

There is a great difference between the aggravation seen at the start of
treatment with the C potency and the aggravation at the end of treatment
cause by the LM potency. An aggravation at the start of treatment is
experienced when the patient is feeling ill, the vital force is deranged
and the vitality is compromised. If there is organic pathology present a
strong aggravation can be potentially dangerous and drain too much precious
vitality. The LM aggravation near or at the end of treatment takes place
after the pathology is removed and the vitality is restored. This does no
pose any danger to the patient. It is simple the appearance of a few
remedial symptoms in areas where the patient was ill.

When you use the C potency in medicinal solution it modifies the
tendency of the remedy to aggravate at the start of treatment.
Nevertheless, the C potency still has this tendency to aggravate earlier
even with a control small dose. This may be what makes the Cs so effective
in crisis, acute diseases and the during the primary symptoms of the
chronic miasms. The C potencies are also quite effective in chronic
diseases that start with a crisis and then progress fairly quickly into
functional states and the first states of pathology. For more on this read
A Comparison of the C and LM Potency on may website.

Sincerely, David Little


>Vera
>
>

dear david

you wrote :-

This may be what makes the Cs so effective
in crisis, acute diseases and the during the primary symptoms of the
chronic miasms. The C potencies are also quite effective in chronic
diseases that start with a crisis and then progress fairly quickly into
functional states and the first states of pathology

- i did not understand the above lines clealry.

- i think LMs work fine in acute crisis and also chronic miasmatic states. why say C is better here ? ( i am not against C potency and do understand the need to use all available poslogy strategies - LM as well as C. just want to understand what you mean)

- dr harimohun chowdhury did ONLY LMs and he had no problems treating sooo many cases in the 25 or so years of his practice. he did all acutes / chronic etc with LMs.

- i would use low potency Cs (6C, 12 C, 30 C) only if a LM 0/1 aggravates as LM0/1 is more strong than 30C. apart from this is do not see any need for Cs.
i do keep 30C remedies in my travel kits.

dr manish agarwala

dear all

i see some posts with concern about "palliating".

i can share my experience.

i found that in some cases where i was trying toooo hard to work out a perfect posology what i was actually doing is to minimize the aggr with a remedy that was not perfect similia.

with LMs i find they are too strong and unforgiving - i cannot think of giving a LM 0/6 for if that is not simila - it will be eventful. i can expect much more trouble with LMs than with Cs, as LMs are much more powerful.

i tell myself to check whether the remedy is perfectly homeopathic before going into posology adjustments. i tell myself to ensure that the remedy is perfect similia, before i think about *anything* related to posology - be it the issue of palliation or anything else.

dr manish agarwala

Hi Simon!
Do you have any observation about the "jumps" between potencies, whether it
is gentler (or different or whatever) to go to an intermediate potency
versus "the usual"?
Shannon

on 8/21/04 5:50 PM, Simon King wrote:

> I often use intermediate potencies, 100c 500c, whatever seems
> appropriate
> You can use ANY potency.

At 12:33 PM 8/22/2004 +0100, you wrote:

>dear david
>
>you wrote :-
>
>-This may be what makes the Cs so effective
>in crisis, acute diseases and the during the primary symptoms of the
>chronic miasms. The C potencies are also quite effective in chronic
>diseases that start with a crisis and then progress fairly quickly into
>
>functional states and the first states of pathology-
>
>- i did not understand the above lines clealry.

OK.

>- i think LMs work fine in acute crisis and also chronic miasmatic
>states. why say C is better here ? ( i am not against C potency and do
>understand the need to use all available poslogy strategies - LM as
>well as C. just want to understand what you mean)

I did not say the Cs worked "better". I said in these conditions the Cs
are very "effective", if giving in a proper small dose of a reasonable
potency. Also I did not say in "miasmatic states". I said in primary
symptoms of the chronic miasms and those that start with a acute-like
crisis and progress to functional disease and the early states of pathology
quickly. These are precise statements about specific conditions. They are
NOT that effective in chronic diseases and miasms that develop slowly, are
one-sided and have heavy organic pathology. He they aggravated far too
easily in too many cases. I was merely trying to show how the nature of the
C and LM potency are different.

Even the most staunch LM prescriber must admit that the 4th Organon dry
dose of the high potencies has produced some wonderfully striking cures.
The method of using the Cs in solution found in the 5th Organon and the
1837 edition of the Chronic Diseases works even better and produces less
aggravations. One cannot take away their successes although one can suggest
refinements and more options.

>- dr harimohun chowdhury did ONLY LMs and he had no problems treating
>sooo many cases in the 25 or so years of his practice. he did all
>acutes / chronic etc with LMs.

Yes, I use LMs in acute and chronic cases. Hahnemann used both the C and
LM potency in the 1840s. Where I use the Cs the most is in those patients
who are too sensitive for the LM 0/1. I like to use 6c to 30c on these
patients. Why? Because the LM potency aggravates some of these patients and
delays the cure even if stirred through a number of dilution glasses. I
find it easier to use the low potency Cs than line up a great number of
dilution glasses and still get reactions.


>- i would use low potency Cs (6C, 12 C, 30 C) only if a LM 0/1
>aggravates as LM0/1 is more strong than 30C. apart from this is do not
>see any need for Cs.
>i do keep 30C remedies in my travel kits.

Yes, this is good. That is basically what Hahnemann did, and what I do.
There are, however, a few cases that do better on the higher Cs. You shared
one where the LM did not do much and the 10M cured, didn't you? That was
one of those exceptions to the general rule. My only suggestion is when
your not satisfied with the LM - try the Cs.

Sincerely, David Little


>dr manish agarwala
>
>
>--
>dr manish agarwala
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>dr manish agarwala's Profile:
>http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7294
>View this thread: LMs and C potencies
>
>

'The usual' doesn't exist for me.
I pitch the potency at whatever I feel the patient needs, irrespective
of convention

regards

regards


Simon King LCPH MARH

dear david little

it is always nice to hear more from you.

i patiently wait to read your reply on the other posts ( no. of doses per bottle issue and the other post on the "sadist" aggravations even with LMs.)

my friend wants me to ask you if she will get cancer because of taking carc. recklessly.

she does not trust my reply !

best regards,

manish