dear david little,

1) you have mentioned in your posts that hahnemann opened 1 case (in one post you mention this as 2) with 0/21. you have mentioned this as a cinnabaris case.
kindly tell me what kind of case was this and why do you think hahnemann was compelled to open with 0/21 ?

2) you have also mentioned the concept of 'octaves' on your website.
how does one understand this concept scientifically ? is this concept a part of the organon / hahnemann's writings ? does the founder mention the ocatves in the paris case books or is this octave concept the result of some statistical research study (done by you) of paris case books or hahnemann's opening potencies of the LM cases ?
how does one see / use the octave concept clinically ?

3) the organon (6th ed - aphorism 248 footnote) mentions that the remedy solution is to be put in the dilution glass and "stirred thoroughly" and then a dose is to be given to the patient. does hahnemann explain this "stirred thoroughly" or mention the time duration in the paris case books or elsewhere ?. I am curious. I have noticed some homeopaths specifically mentioning to their patients and/or also on their websites "stir for 10 seconds" etc. that made me think on this, otherwise I never paid attention to this stirring of the dilution glass. does this make any difference or is it just hair splitting ? what does your experience say ? is something there in the paris books on this ?

thanks for spreading the correct knowledge about using the LMs -

regards,
dr manish agarwala

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Manish 1) you have mentioned in your posts that hahnemann opened 1 case (in one post you mention this as 2) with 0/21. you have mentioned this as a cinnabaris case. kindly tell me what kind of case was this and why do you think hahnemann was compelled to open with 0/21 ?

This material is found in the case of Thomas Everest DF-14, which spans the years 1842-1843. I have worked on this case for a number of years as it shows Hahnemann treating a tri-miasmatic complex disorder. The patient was an psoric patient who had many symptoms dating back to his earlier years when he was in India. Hahnemann was treating him quite successfully with Sulphur in the LM potency from 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc., and when he contracted gonorrhea while under treatment in Paris.
Hahnemann used Cannabis for the primary gonorrhea symptoms and Thuja for the underlying sycosis.This treatment worked very well. The patient also had some syphilitic symptoms in the background which Mercury acted upon. The seem to be a point in the case where there were still some lingering venereal symptoms when Hahnemann suddenly gave made a synthetic prescription by combining two symptoms from the repertory. One side of the rubric was itching in the anus - Sulphur AND the other side of the rubric was made from XXX. Samuel made a bracket embracing the remedies Mercury from one rubric and Sulphur from then rubric pointing to Cinnabaris (Red Sulphide of Mercury) in the 0/21.

The T. Everest casebook entry was an example of an experimental synthetic prescription using the two rubrics from Boenninghausen's Alphabetical Repertory, Part One, Embracing the Remedies which are Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisyphilitic. This is also commonly called the Repertory of Antipsoric Remedies. Hahnemann clearly makes up a composite rubric from the symptoms of Sulphur + Mercury equaling = Cinnabaris, which is not in the repertory. This remedy aggravated the patient's anger but then removed the remaining venereal tendencies. Secondly, he gave this experimental synthetic remedy in the 0/21 potency as an opening potency. This were the basic circumstances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Manish 2) you have also mentioned the concept of 'octaves' on your website. how does one understand this concept scientifically ? is this concept a part of the organon / hahnemann's writings ? does the founder mention the ocatves in the paris case books or is this octave concept the result of some statistical research study (done by you) of paris case books or hahnemann's opening potencies of the LM cases ? how does one see / use the octave concept clinically ?

The use of the term "octave" is just an analogy or image not a scientific explanation nor a quote from Hahnemann. It just suggests there are around 7 opening potencies. Such things are sometimes helpful in getting a "handle" on a fact nothing more. The ideas of tone, temperament, tuning, mistuning, overtones, undertones and retuning are commonly used terms in Pythagorean, Hippocratic and homeopathic medical texts. This is philosophy rather than hard science but does have some empirical observation behind. This type of material is more in tune with archetypal psychology than hard physics.

Hahnemann tested a wide range of opening potencies during his testing of the LM potencies in 1840. Some cases he open with 0/1 and others with 0/10. He settled down to mostly using the 0/1 to 0/7 range. Most of his cases were started between 0/1 and 0/5 by 1843 but he would occasionally venture higher. Most of his case were opened between 0/1 and 0/3. This is the important part of the message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Manish 3) the organon (6th ed - aphorism 248 footnote) mentions that the remedy solution is to be put in the dilution glass and "stirred thoroughly" and then a dose is to be given to the patient. does hahnemann explain this "stirred thoroughly" or mention the time duration in the paris case books or elsewhere ?. I am curious. I have noticed some homeopaths specifically mentioning to their patients and/or also on their websites "stir for 10 seconds" etc. that made me think on this, otherwise I never paid attention to this stirring of the dilution glass. does this make any difference or is it just hair splitting ? what does your experience say ? is something there in the paris books on this ?

In the 1828-1833 Hahnemann put a tiny pill or two in a glass of water and stirred it well and gave the patient a single teaspoons, or more as needed. By stirring the glass the potency was altered slightly so the patient never received the exact potency twice in succession. This remedy glass could be used for three days in acute and crisis or as a divided dose over three days in a chronic case. The remedy glass was made up fresh for each single dose in a chronic case. This was the early medicinal solution. In 1837 Hahnemann began to take a bottle and use a one, rarely two pills in a minimum of 7 tablespoons of water with brandy with the addition of a dilution glass with water that was stirred. This delivery system is suitable for acute and chronic treatment as it can be kept over a longer period of time.

The stirring of the glass has three levels gentle, moderate and vigorous. This is similar to Hahnemann's instruction on olfaction. It is most important in those who are low (200-300) and those high (750-1000) on the sensitivity scale. Those were are very hypersensitive only need gentle stirring while those who are hyposensitive do well on vigorous stirring. Those in the middle (400-600) have moderate sensitivity and need moderate or average stirring. It is another level of adjusting the dose. When it matters it matters. It is all relative.

Best, David Little

Dear Members

To see it as factual, that Hahnemann by the repertorisation alone has made a decision in favour of Cinnabaris is misleading, as we have no confirmation of that in the casebook, and we don’t know if he actually read up the relating symptoms in the MMP. He might have compared also remedies such like Hep-s or Nat- sula.

Whatever the case may have been – sticking to the facts without personal interpretations avoids unnecessary confusion.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

dear david little ,

thank you for your post on paris case books.

I searched your website and your posts. you mention the LM ocatves as
first - 0/1 to 0/7
second - 0/8 to 0/10
third - 0/11 onwards...

1) the octaves for LM 0/11 are not mentioned. do you have any insights for the octaves for higher LMs ?

2) are these ocatve concepts the result of any statistical survey of hahnemann's starting potencies ?

3) are the different octaves for the different levels at which they work (pathological, physical , mental , spiritual ......or ... ?)

4) did hahnamann give any / many single dose LM (1 poppy seed as a single dose ) as per aph 272 ?

what would you prefer, if asked to choose and are given only 2 choices - using the higher centesimals as per 4th organon or using the LMs as a single dose, as per 4th organon ?

regards
dr manish agarwala

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Manish 1) the octaves for LM 0/11 are not mentioned. do you have any insights for the octaves for higher LMs ?

As I said the idea of octaves is only symbolic not scientific. Sometimes I try to give an image that helps someone remember an idea like that fact that Hahnemann had a wide range of opening potencies from 0/1 to 0/7. At other times I wish I never tried to use any parables or analogies because they suit one person and not another who doesn't like it. So I wouldn't take the idea of octaves too seriously. It just means most of the time one opens between 01/ to 0/3 up to 0/6 or 0/7. The rest of the potencies are on the next higher register.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Manish 3) are the different octaves for the different levels at which they work (pathological, physical , mental , spiritual ......or ... ?)

There are many interesting theoretical points about such things but today I don't have time to share ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Manish 4) did hahnamann give any / many single dose LM (1 poppy seed as a single dose ) as per aph 272 ?

I have not seen any single dry doses in the Paris casebooks. Hahnemann liked to give single doses by olfaction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Manish what would you prefer, if asked to choose and are given only 2 choices - using the higher centesimals as per 4th organon or using the LMs as a single dose, as per 4th organon ?

I am not going to answer this hypothetical question! There ARE C and LM potencies!!! I use them BOTH.

Best, David

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans To see it as factual, that Hahnemann by the Repertorisation alone has made a decision in favour of Cinnabaris is misleading, as we have no confirmation of that in the casebook, and we don’t know if he actually read up the relating symptoms in the MMP. He might have compared also remedies such like Hep-s or Nat- sula. Whatever the case may have been * sticking to the facts without personal interpretations avoids unnecessary confusion.

I am merely reporting exactly what is written in the casebooks. I did not say he only used the repertory BUT he did use two different rubrics from A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies, Part 1, Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisphylitic Remedies by Boenninghausen to help him think of Cinnabaris. This is not in the repertory. Then he most likely look it up in the Materia Medica Pura since it is not present in the Chronic Diseases.

The Following quote is taken from the case of Thomas Everest, Hahnemannn's Paris Casebooks, DF 14. The French text was produced by David Little and translated by J. C. Ravalard, MD and edited by Jill Gittins. The German rubrics were taken from the German edition of the A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies, Part 1, Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisphylitic Remedies supplied by Chris Gillen and translated by Oda Schiller of Germany. This material is protected by copyright laws by David Little and HOE 2004 in agreement with the RBI in Germany.

March 25th, 1843

25 = night of 22/23 still eructation and cutting pain in epigastrium has been forced to get up at night - the appetite had gone away - today the appetite came back - anal itching better - almost completely stopped - still does not sleep well - abdomen and epigastrium better - since the 22nd itching and sensitiveness of ears increased - fears a new attack

[German rubric: Juecken in den Ohren] Itching in the ears; Sulph.
[German rubric: Juecken am After] Itching at the anus; Merc.

} Cinn. [These two rubrics are joined by a bracket after which is written Cinnabaris]


Prescription

Cinn 21/0 - 7 ½ - 1 tablespoon - glass - to take 1, 2 teaspoon [Cinnabaris 0/21 in a 7 ½ tablespoon solution, 1 tablespoon into a dilution glass, to take 1, then 2 teaspoons] (French: 1 c. a b. v. pr. 1, 2 p. c.)

Commentary

This is exactly what is written in the Paris Casebooks. Hahnemann made a bracket that embraces the Itching in the ears; Sulph. and the Itching at the anus; Merc. } and then wrote Cinnabaris. The Sulphur and Mercury can be found under these rubrics in A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies, Part 1, Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisphylitic Remedies.

1. A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homœopathic Remedies, First Part, Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisyphilitic Remedies lists the following remedies under the rubric:

Ears and Hearing, In the ears, Itching (Gr. Oren und Gehoer, In den Ohren, Juecken): Agar. (3), Alum. (3), Amm. (4), Bar. (3), Bell. (2), Bov. (3), Calc. (2), Carb. veg. (2), Caust. (2), Coloc. (2), Con. (3), Daph. (2), Graph. (2), Hep. s. c. (2), Kali. (3), Lyc. (3), Mur. ac. (2), Natr. mur. (2), Nitr. (2), Nit. ac. (2), Petr. (2), Phosph. (3), Phosph. ac. (2), Plat. (2), Rhod. (2), Sassap. (3), Sep. (3), Sil. (3), Stann. (2), SULPH (4), Zinc. (2).

A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homœopathic Remedies, First Part, Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisyphilitic Remedies lists the following remedies under the rubric:

Anus: Itching (Gr. After: Juecken): Agar. (2), Alum. (3), Amm. (2), Bar. (4), Bell. (3), Calc. (3), Carb. veg. (2), Caust. (3), Con. (2), Euphorb. (3), Graph. (2), Kali. (4), Lyc. (2), Mur. ac. (2), Natr. (2), Nit. ac. (3), Petr. (2), Phosph. (3), Phosph. ac. (2), Plat. (3), Sassaap. (3), Seneg. (2), Sep. (4), Stann. (3), Zinc. (4). - MERC. (4).

The first component Hahnemann wrote down was Sulphur, which is found in the rubric ^itching in the ear.* The second component Hahnemann selected was Mercury, which is found in the rubric *itching at the anus*. Then Hahnemann connects them with a bracket } and writes down Cinn, Red Sulphide of Mercury, which is composed of Sulphur and Mercury. Hahnemann most likely studied Cinnabaris and other remedies in the Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. Nevertheless, the Paris casebooks show the above synthetic repertorization with Sulphur and Mecury } Cinn. are carefully marked in the prescription. These are the basic historical facts and you may interpret these facts as you like.

Sincerely, David Little

dear david little
I sincerely thank you for your reply.
the notes on the t.everest 0/21 case are interesting.
regards
dr manish agarwala