Hi All,

A question that came up in the context of wet-dosing was, to me and perhaps some others on the list - in the face of seemingly (seemingly because I just do not know) wholly different kinds of experience, was:
Could Hahnemann have been plain wrong in what he said?

(Those of you who consider this idea blasphemy, please just hit the delete button:-)

IMO this is easily possible.

***

First the facts:

In the year of 1830, 85 percent of Hahnemann's prescriptions were those of Sulphur, and a lot of the rest Hepar Sulphuris. (Casebook D 34)

I do not know whether he kept this up in Germany and whether he had done so for any length of time before, because the respective casebooks have not yet been published.

In any case, he seems to have kept up this kind of prescribing, although not to the same extreme degree, in Paris. David Little might know more about this.

All I know is from casebook DF 5. In it his preseription were: 210 of Sulphur, 73 of Hepar sulph, 520 of the others together - so approx. one third of Sulph and Hep. sulph. together (An article by Michalowski/Sander/Sauerbeck in the Journal of the Bosch Foundation)

According to my own research, which was partly based on this article and partly on an article by Ubiratan Adler: at the time of the publication of the 6th Organon, Hahnemann had used LM-potencies practically only for Sulphur. (David's research may show different.)

If my assumption turns out to be true, Hahnemann has generalized from his experiences with Sulphur to ALL remedies.

These are the facts. The rest is speculation.

Possibly such generalzation cannot be done. Possibly other remedies work differently.

Regards

Luise

Hi Luise,

Was the one where he gave sulphur for 85% of cases before or after the one where sulphur was one-third of the total? I'm just curious. (I don't know what D 34 and DF 5 mean.) In saying that at time of writing of 6th ed. he had used LMs "practically only for sulphur", does that refer to the 85%, or the 33%, or a different percentage?

Also, refresh my memory--which are the seemingly wholly different kinds of experience--do you mean whether or not remedies can/should be repeated daily, or ?

Thanks,
Shannon

Still curious

Luise, do you practice homeopathy or just pontificate?

Sheri

If you had asked in a halfway civil way I would have answered that question for the umptieth time on that list.

As it is - if you are curious: either grow out of it or look in the archives.

Luise

Hi Shannon,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon Was the one where he gave sulphur for 85% of cases before or after the one where sulphur was one-third of the total?

Before - while he was still in Germany.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon I'm just curious. (I don't know what D 34 and DF 5 mean.)

The "D's" are the German casebooks, the "DF's" are the Paris ones (DF for deutsch/französich)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon In saying that at time of writing of 6th ed. he had used LMs "practically only for sulphur", does that refer to the 85%, or the 33%, or a different percentage?

In Paris he still used other potencies besides the LM's. In February 1842 he had finished writing his Organon - at least that is the date he sent it to his German publisher. The copy he sent is lost - what we have is his work-copy.

It seems that up to Feb. 1842 he had practically used the LM's only
for Sulphur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon Also, refresh my memory--which are the seemingly wholly different kinds of experience--do you mean whether or not remedies can/should be repeated daily, or ?

Yes -perhaps you remember that we discussed this before. In Germany, at least when I was studying and working as a homeopath, they were prescribed to be taken once a day or even twice a day in the starting potencies of LM 6 (some homeopaths) or 12 or 18 (others) with no bad experiences, from all I have ever heard. IF very rarely there was some aggravation, most homeopaths (perhaps all) would pause for the duration of the aggravation and then start again - possibly at longer intervals or less drops.


Regards

Luise

Hi Luise,

It looks like you really want to stir up the coop!

I don't think many people on this list would like to declare Hahnemann infallible, so I think the question Could Hn have been plain wrong in what he said has to be answered affirmative. It is always a posibility.

I was aware that Hn used Sulhur and Hepar Sulph an awful lot, but did not realise the percentage was that high. It is not uncommon though that certain homeopaths use a limited range of remedies much more than other homeopaths, and certainly in the early days of homeopathy the range of remedies was very limited, so such a high percentage should not be that surprising.

Also, Hn might have generalised rules for the use of LMs on the basis of Sulphur (like you I don't know if this is the case), but the fact is that a lot of people who use his rules (either as interpreted by David Little, or different interpretations) get very good results. This points to the possibility that Hahnemann's rules of using LMs were right, even if they are based on only a small sample.

Of course, a lot of C prescribers (both high as well as low potency) also claim very good results.

It doesn't seem to matter that much which theory you follow, as long as you try to be as good as possible at what you are doing.

This post probably reads a bit more permissive than I really intend to, but I think this list is plagued enough by people who are very black and white about a range of issues.

I really believe that the success rate of a homeopath depends more on the practitioner himself than on the methods he is using. On the other hand, I also believe that a homeopath has to try as hard as he can to become as good as possible, and part of this is an openness to new perspectives, but within a coherent system.

I might be talking myself here into a muddle, but I don't see homeopathy as a free for all, anything goes system, but I also would hate to see it reduced to just one very narrow definition.

What it boils down to, Hahnemann could have been wrong an a lot of different issues, but the results when you follow the rules he laid down have been consistently good for a huge number of practitioners, so I would always be inclined to give Hahnemann the benefit of the doubt. If his methods would not stack up in my practice though, I would not hesitate to look a bit further afield.

Jon van Hoffen

Thanks, yes I do remember, and it's interesting!
It *could* be simply that you have a hardier (less over-reactive) population, or maybe the higher potencies have a softer action. I guess over time I'll be able to test it out...

Thanks,
Shannon

Hi Jon,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon van Hoffen It looks like you really want to stir up the coop!

I want to do nothing of the kind.

All I have been doing is post some data I have come across while doing research into various aspects of homeopathy. Most of the data are there for everyone on the list to verify or falsify - more data are there for those who can read French, all are there for those who can read German.

I have also drawn some conlusions and given my reasons for them.

If those data stir up more than the desire to have a look at the evidence I present or to find flaws in my reasoning - well, too bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon van Hoffen I was aware that Hn used Sulhur and Hepar Sulph an awful lot, but did not realise the percentage was that high.

In the French casebook I referred to Hahnemann prescribed or considered 157 different remedies.


Otherwise I fully agree with all you say above.

Regards

Luise

Crikey, for a person who cannot establish if mercury is the second, third, fourth or fifth most toxic substance on the planet, you sure love to fling around the insults.

caio
Graeme

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon van Hoffen Also, Hn might have generalised rules for the use of LMs on the basis of Sulphur (like you I don't know if this is the case), but the fact is that a lot of people who use his rules (either as interpreted by David Little, or different interpretations) get very good results. This points to the possibility that Hahnemann's rules of using LMs were right, even if they are based on only a small sample.

Hello,

I must say I never have used Sulphur like Hahnemann although I do pay attention to the miasms in my cases. Hahnemann only used the LM potencies for 3 years extensively while I have used them for over 20 years. I follow the principles introduced by Hahnemann as best I can but I have had to modify the clinical methods ]to suit my clients and my experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon van Hoffen Of course, a lot of C prescribers (both high as well as low potency) also claim very good results.

Hahnemann continued to use the low and high C potencies after he introduced the LM potency to the clinic. He never stopped using the C potency. Why should he? Some cases to better on the Cs and some on the LMs. Isn't it best to know how to use both? That is what Hahnemann did in the clinic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon van Hoffen It doesn't seem to matter that much which theory you follow, as long as you try to be as good as possible at what you are doing.

Homeopathy works on several levels and can be applied in a number ways. The methods of the 4th, 5th and 6th Organon all work on there own levels. The dry dose and the medicinal solution both work. Person's using the Therapuetic Pocketbook and 125 remedies do good work. People using Kent's Repertory and methods do good work. Some pathological prescribers do good work. Some mental prescribers do good work. Some folks also do some questionable work if they are not well grounded in the basics. It is a matter of what works best for who, when, why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon van Hoffen This post probably reads a bit more permissive than I really intend to, but I think this list is plagued enough by people who are very black and white about a range of issues.

The basic principles are like cures likes, the minimal, the single remedy and the potentized medicine. These are what make one a homeopath. On this ground grows many different approaches and schools of thought. I think it is good to study the best of all these methods and integrate what seem most important according to one's own experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon van Hoffen What it boils down to, Hahnemann could have been wrong an a lot of different issues, but the results when you follow the rules he laid down have been consistently good for a huge number of practitioners, so I would always be inclined to give Hahnemann the benefit of the doubt. If his methods would not stack up in my practice though, I would not hesitate to look a bit further afield.

Hahnemann opened the door and pointed the way, It is for every generation to follow the path a bit future.

Sincerely, David Little