Dear friends

Regarding some postings and comments about LMs :

When I learned early on about the LM potencies I was very enthgusiastic about it. My enthusiasam has never decreased but I am more practical. I have no idea how it works in other countries but in the US I learned very quickly that LMs are not for everyone. Patients here are not used to observe very well, certainly not the way we want! In spite of me saying to them when i had a striking response, not to repeat, people did anyway and aggravated of course. People are so used to take medications daily in a reginenrted way and every good homeopath knows that there is NEVER mechanical repetition in spite of some teachers giving bottles of remedy along and tell the patient to come back when it is empty. There is still so much to change in homeopathy. That Vithoulkas and Schroyens state such things: I am amazed! First thing I would ask : How did you give these LMs? You would be surprised how many deviations from the 6th edition are done. I respectfully disgafree with these two gentleman. I have seen Vithoulkas at work with high potencies (dry!) , having no result or aggravations. I respect him for the hard times he has gone through but I am disappointed he is quite stubbornly hanging on to the 4th edition.

Practically, I quickly learned that I could almost all chronic cases start with 6C (quoting Hahnemann in CD, "the first ,mistake most homeopaths make is to think that the smallest dose will not work) but of course I always prefer LMs for strong patrhology especially when often suppressed by allopathic meds and for cases that hover on the brink of incurability. I read from people who finally discover LMs here in the US , these are potencies that never aggravate and I really would like to see that. LMs are for hypersensitives but I would advise every student to work with 6C split method before they dive into LMs. THe 5th and 6th edition have a lot more in common with each other than the 4th and 5th and it is incomprehensible that most homeopaths are stuck in the 4th edition. And then there are those that claim to use the watery dooses. I just received such prescription of a wellknown MD homeopath: "He gave 10M Ignatia (a chronic case) , told her to dissolve 20 pellets (sic!) in a 4 oz bottle and take 1 dropper full (after shaking well-not succussions!) morning and evening for two weeks , Call him in three weeks." I wonder if such gentlemen has ever heard about A63-64 and the creation of a dissimilar disease. It is also obvios that he follows the legacy of Kent (it does not matter how many pellets we puit in there): this recepe is a sure thing for similar aggravations and the creation of a complex disease by adding accessory sx IF the remedy is correct; in the worst case scenario he will make a new medicinal disease and by far a more complex disease difficult to treat! Why are homeopaths so stubborn? Why all this egotism and pride? And I would love to see such patient and see how that homeopath deals with the management. Up till now, there is not one homeopath that has advanced Hahnemann;s methods without harming patients. I think our duty is to use LMs and have experience with them so we can continue to improve where Hahnemann left. Alas, most neo-homeopaths act like Hahnemann was never born and the Organon is an old bible as I have heard some say. My question to them is: tell me where the Oreganon is wrong? I don;t want to sound so pessimistic but I am realistic. When I was in practice I could not handle the work and worked like the old fashioned homeopaths in the US: 7 days a week, 14 hours a day and housecalls if necessary. And I was never in the phone book. The only thing that convinces the homeopath and the public: real results!

I am going to post soon an interesting case of Carl Jung. I am writing a new book (2 volumes, about 800 pages in total) called: Beyond Jung:Dreams, Delusions and Neuroses. For this book, I have read all 20 volumes of Jung collossal wotk (the Collected Works of Jung). I have immense respect for the way Jung approached his patients: he wasa a true unconsdcious homeopath and I wish he would have studied homeopathy. When I post this case which he treated for 26 years without result (schizofrenia) it is evident that the remedy is clear from year one on and how secondary delusions develop but stll belonging to the same remedy.

Also (although I have plenty of topics to talk about) the readers of this group can suggest some topics of interest to everyone. I hope I can do a posting at least once a month.

May we all learn from each other, put egotism aside: I have learned morte from my mistakes than any success in my life!

Warmest regards to everyone

dr luc

Hello Luc,

We have not met in years but I remember you very clearly when I taught the LMs at HANA in the USA many years ago. I knew right from the start that we were "birds of feather" and that we would "grow together". I am always happy to hear what you are doing from friends and colleagues. There is no need to write back to me as I am just sharing some of my experience with and through you! If you have any comments on what I have written please feel free to make them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr luc When I learned early on about the LM potencies I was very enthgusiastic about it. My enthusiasam has never decreased but I am more practical. I have no idea how it works in other countries but in the US I learned very quickly that LMs are not for everyone. Patients here are not used to observe very well, certainly not the way we want! In spite of me saying to them when i had a striking response, not to repeat, people did anyway and aggravated of course.

Hahnemann prevented patients from repeating doses on their own by giving them placebos. I must honestly say that I have found VERY few patient that do not follow my instructions! This is true in the East and West. I also give my C potencies in the exact same way I give the LM potency. For those few patients who can follow instructions I modify my approach as needed. Olfaction is one option. One can also use the small dropper bottle dose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr luc People are so used to take medications daily in a reginenrted way and every good homeopath knows that there is NEVER mechanical repetition in spite of some teachers giving bottles of remedy along and tell the patient to come back when it is empty. There is still so much to change in homeopathy. That Vithoulkas and Schroyens state such things: I am amazed!

I also would like to know exactly how these LM trials were run. It takes training to give the LM potency correctly. Those that use the mechanical method and give everyone the same repetition do not do as well as those who use the artistic method and individualize the remedy schedule. If one doesn't use them correctly the results will not be correct. I agree that the neither the C or LM potency should be repeated mechanically daily or on alternate days, etc. The artistic method using individualization is much superior. I tend to first give a single test dose and then decided from the action of the remedy if I need to repeat in shorter intervals or not. I find that to go slow in the beginning often means to finish fast in the end!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr luc Practically, I quickly learned that I could almost all chronic cases start with 6C (quoting Hahnemann in CD, "the first ,mistake most homeopaths make is to think that the smallest dose will not work) but of course I always prefer LMs for strong patrhology especially when often suppressed by allopathic meds and for cases that hover on the brink of incurability.

I use both the C and LM potency in the medicinal solution. I consider the 6c to 30c to be relatively low potencies when compare with the LM 0/1. I do not find that the 30C works a deeply as the 0/1. I also use the 200C, 1M, etc., we needed. I usually start very sensitive persons with the 6C in medicinal solution. Even here I still give a single test dose and am surprised how deeply a 6C can act! Not everyone needs the 6C daily either. Then I work them up to the 30C and then change to the LM 0/1 when they are ready. Many of these folks cannot take the jump to 200C with aggravations and accessory symptoms. Then I work them up through the 0/2, 0/3, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr luc I read from people who finally discover LMs here in the US , these are potencies that never aggravate and I really would like to see that. LMs are for hypersensitives but I would advise every student to work with 6C split method before they dive into LMs.

The idea that the LM potency NEVER aggravates is a grand myth. Of course, the LM potency can aggravate!!! Just look at Hahnemann's cases. Why did he give offer the method of using a series of dilution glass if they never aggravate? ANY potency may aggravate if the patient is too sensitive and over medicated. Also the more perfect your simillimum the less doses one needs and the more potential there is for aggravations.

One thing I learned from reading the Paris casebooks is that Hahnemann did not always start with the LM 0/1. In fact, if one takes a broad survey of his cases one sees that he sometimes would start anywhere between 0/1 to 0/6 and even higher at times. This offers a wide range of opening potencies for the experienced homeopath. Most chronic cases, however, are usually started between 0/1 and 0/3.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr luc The 5th and 6th edition have a lot more in common with each other than the 4th and 5th and it is incomprehensible that most homeopaths are stuck in the 4th edition. And then there are those that claim to use the watery dooses. I just received such prescription of a wellknown MD homeopath: "He gave 10M Ignatia (a chronic case) , told her to dissolve 20 pellets (sic!) in a 4 oz bottle and take 1 dropper full (after shaking well-not succussions!) morning and evening for two weeks , Call him in three weeks."

The medicinal solution works very well with the 1M and 10M but they must not be repeated very quickly. I have heard of more than one case being spoiled by over repeating high potencies in water. This is not the way they are meant to be used. Their actions are long and one must watch out for over medication. The normal pattern of using the high potency Cs in the dry dose with a random number of pills is dose - aggravation - amelioration - relapse. This pattern up-down neither smooth nor fast. What the medicinal solution offers with the higher potencies when done correctly is a less aggravations at the start and you don't have to what for complete relapse before repeating. You can repeat the remedy when the action first begins to slow down. This pattern is dose - amelioration - repeat - amelioration. Here the patient move upward toward health without all the ups and down and bumps associated with the Kentian method of posology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr luc I wonder if such gentlemen has ever heard about A63-64 and the creation of a dissimilar disease. It is also obvios that he follows the legacy of Kent (it does not matter how many pellets we puit in there): this recepe is a sure thing for similar aggravations and the creation of a complex disease by adding accessory sx IF the remedy is correct; in the worst case scenario he will make a new medicinal disease and by far a more complex disease difficult to treat! Why are homeopaths so stubborn? Why all this egotism and pride?

What I see is complacency and psychic inertia. There is also a great fear of change and unknown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr luc And I would love to see such patient and see how that homeopath deals with the management. Up till now, there is not one homeopath that has advanced Hahnemann;s methods without harming patients. I think our duty is to use LMs and have experience with them so we can continue to improve where Hahnemann left. Alas, most neo-homeopaths act like Hahnemann was never born and the Organon is an old bible as I have heard some say. My question to them is: tell me where the Oreganon is wrong? I don;t want to sound so pessimistic but I am realistic. When I was in practice I could not handle the work and worked like the old fashioned homeopaths in the US: 7 days a week, 14 hours a day and housecalls if necessary. And I was never in the phone book. The only thing that convinces the homeopath and the public: real results!

When I first started to take about the different editions of the Organon in the 1980s nobody knew what I was taking about! When I quizzed many modern homoeopaths I found that very few even knew what was really in the Organon. That is why I began to teach the Organon in a serious manner to anyone who got near me. I have been called names for my efforts on a number of occasions (smile). Nevertheless, my labors have paid off as now many homeopaths are much better educated then before. The new generations seem to really care about such studies. It is some of the older homeopaths that don't seem to want to change at all. I have seen certain person that have practiced the exact same way for the last 25 years!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr luc I am going to post soon an interesting case of Carl Jung. I am writing a new book (2 volumes, about 800 pages in total) called: Beyond Jung:Dreams, Delusions and Neuroses. For this book, I have read all 20 volumes of Jung collossal wotk (the Collected Works of Jung). I have immense respect for the way Jung approached his patients: he wasa a true unconsdcious homeopath and I wish he would have studied homeopathy. When I post this case which he treated for 26 years without result (schizofrenia) it is evident that the remedy is clear from year one on and how secondary delusions develop but stll belonging to the same remedy.

Volume 5 and 6 of my compendium is called Constitution, Temperament and Maps of Consciousness. The first volume begins with the works of Pythagoras, Hippocrates and the Greek Naturalists as well as the Mappa Mundi. Then it progress to review pre-Freudian psychology and the works of great homoeopaths dealing with mental illness. Then it progresses to study the works of Freud, Reich and Jung. In this work I review the 12 personality disorders (obsessive compulsive, passive aggressive, etc), The mood disorders (depression, mania, manic depressive, melancholia), the neurosis (OCD, anxiety, hysterical, etc), psychotic states, and schizophrenia. I have used the group case to study the symptoms of condition combined with my clinical experience and offered rubrics with possible remedies. I also review autism and ADHD, etc. Volume 6 a 500 + page materia medica based on the information introduced in volume 5. Together these volumes are over 1000 pages. So, although Luc and I have not seen each other in years we still seem to be working in similar areas.

Sincerely, David Little

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Quote: Originally Posted by Dr Luc ... That Vithoulkas and Schroyens state such things: I am amazed! First thing I would ask : How did you give these LMs? You would be surprised how many deviations from the 6th edition are done. I respectfully disgafree with these two gentleman. I have seen Vithoulkas at work with high potencies (dry!) , having no result or aggravations. I respect him for the hard times he has gone through but I am disappointed he is quite stubbornly hanging on to the 4th edition. I also would like to know exactly how these LM trials were run. It takes training to give the LM potency correctly.

If my own initial LM experience, thru a Vithoulkas-trained and "very Vithoulkian" prescriber is representative, the trials probably used a tablespoon from the 8 oz bottle (into 4 oz water), then a tablespoon from that for a dose (even for a three-year-old), with instructions to repeat daily, *even* if there was aggravation. This particular clinic had stopped using LMs because they had too many problems with aggravations. (Tho apparently not so many with feeding people entire "single dose vials" of high potencies... Interesting.)

Shannon

Dear Dr. Luc,
How interesting! I too have always believed that Jung would have made a superb homeopath for people with problems of the mind! HE surely had a most homeopathic approach to case management. I was looking forward to reading some of Jungs case histories and managenebt, but apparently (from epople in teh Jung society) there are copywrite or confidentiality laws to reading these case histories in Germany.

The Interviews with David Little also brought out this similarity of observation. I thoroughly enjoyed reading David Little's observations on various issues other as well.

I do look forward to reading your new book (while I've nearly finished reading the one being discussed).

Thanks for taking the time to post.
Sincerely,
dr. leela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Luc Practically, I quickly learned that I could almost all chronic cases start with 6C (quoting Hahnemann in CD, "the first mistake most homeopaths make is to think that the smallest dose will not work)

This remark keeps on echoing in my mind. What do you mean by this? Do you consider the 6C a smallest dose?

This is an additional option in the discussion of what Hahnemann meant with a small dose. Some think (like Kent)that high potencies are these small doses, because they are diluted in the potentation process. Others, like myself say that it is the amount of the medicine, spoons, drops etc, no matter the potency.

But I never considered the 6C to be the smallest dose, but only one of the lowest potencies which can be applied in large or small doses. Am I misunderstanding your statement?

Kind regards, Piet