Can someone tell me what exactly are Q potencies?

I know they are related to LMs but I don't think they are LMs exactly.

What is the difference?


Also, I know the Netherlands are making a type of LM potency but are
starting with the
4C trituration. They are supposed to work deeper than the LMs.

Are these the Q's?

Thanks for any information.

Warmly, Maria

Hi Maria,
from an earlier discussion:

Q means quinquagentamillesimal.
LM and Q both are used to say 50'000, whereas LM is basically a wrong
choice, as LM, the two letters together, actually means 950. 50,000,
in Latin, is written Q (for 'quinquaginta milia'). To add to the
confusion, let's say that a 50M of a C potency can also be called a
LM, and this is a first good reason for calling Q the potencies made
according to Hahnemann's 6th Organon (247 248, 264 271).
Alain
-----------------
"LM" is a bastardized "L" 50 and "M" 1,000. In Roman numbers, "LM" is
really 950 50 subtracted from 1000. That is why the Euopeans call
them "Q" potencies for
"quinquagentamillesimal" the more accurate nomenclature.
JW
-------------
I am sure Julian is aware of the fact which Alain has recently
pointed out that in Europe there is a slight difference between LM
potencies and Q potencies. To nit pick this point again:

LM potencies is a potency scale described and standardized in the
"HAB", the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoea. The description there is
different from Hahnemann's way of manufacturing potencies as
described in the 6th edition of the Organon. (1) The pellet size is
slightly different, (2) the remedies are by majority not manufactured
from a 3c trituration.

There is also a legal matter involved. LM potencies are "over the
counter" and need no prescription, Q potencies may only be sold by
prescription. The reason being that they are not "standard".

Go figure....

Chris.

-------------------------

C4 is not Q potency
Here is a Alize Timmerman's site with an article on C$ protocol
http://www.hahnemanninstituut.nl/protocoleng.html

Lynn
--------------------

At 08:37 AM 5/4/2006, MARIA T BOHLE wrote:
>
>Can someone tell me what exactly are Q potencies?
>
>I know they are related to LMs but I don't think they are LMs exactly.
>
>What is the difference?
>
>
>Also, I know the Netherlands are making a type of LM potency but are
>starting with the
>4C trituration. They are supposed to work deeper than the LMs.
>
>Are these the Q's?
>
>Thanks for any information.
>
>Warmly, Maria
>

Hahnemann himself named these potencies LM potencies so I think
whatever it may mean they we should use the convention that he used.
Deviating from convention will only lead to more confusion.

Following this whole discussion I have a few questions.

Due to the Kentian influence 99 percent of homeopaths still use C
potencies. On the other hand in the 6th Organon Hahnemann only gives
detailed directions for making these potencies only and praises these
most perfect LM potencies so much that one wonders why arent they
being used.

Are these LMs as good as Hahnemann suggests? and if they are, will
they eventually replace the C potencies?
I think their eventual universal adoption depends upon the knowledge
of their proper use and only when all homeopaths see their enormous
advantage over the 'C's (if that is true).

Regards,
Tauseef



On 05/05/06, Lynn Cremona <freelynn (AT) optonline (DOT) net> wrote:
> Hi Maria,
> from an earlier discussion:
>
> Q means quinquagentamillesimal.
> LM and Q both are used to say 50'000, whereas LM is basically a wrong
> choice, as LM, the two letters together, actually means 950. 50,000,
> in Latin, is written Q (for 'quinquaginta milia'). To add to the
> confusion, let's say that a 50M of a C potency can also be called a
> LM, and this is a first good reason for calling Q the potencies made
> according to Hahnemann's 6th Organon (247 248, 264 271).
> Alain
> -----------------
> "LM" is a bastardized "L" 50 and "M" 1,000. In Roman numbers, "LM" is
> really 950 50 subtracted from 1000. That is why the Euopeans call
> them "Q" potencies for
> "quinquagentamillesimal" the more accurate nomenclature.
> JW
> -------------
> I am sure Julian is aware of the fact which Alain has recently
> pointed out that in Europe there is a slight difference between LM
> potencies and Q potencies. To nit pick this point again:
>
> LM potencies is a potency scale described and standardized in the
> "HAB", the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoea. The description there is
> different from Hahnemann's way of manufacturing potencies as
> described in the 6th edition of the Organon. (1) The pellet size is
> slightly different, (2) the remedies are by majority not manufactured
> from a 3c trituration.
>
> There is also a legal matter involved. LM potencies are "over the
> counter" and need no prescription, Q potencies may only be sold by
> prescription. The reason being that they are not "standard".
>
> Go figure....
>
> Chris.
>
> -------------------------
>
> C4 is not Q potency
> Here is a Alize Timmerman's site with an article on C$ protocol
> http://www.hahnemanninstituut.nl/protocoleng.html
>
> Lynn
> --------------------
>
> At 08:37 AM 5/4/2006, MARIA T BOHLE wrote:
> >
> >Can someone tell me what exactly are Q potencies?
> >
> >I know they are related to LMs but I don't think they are LMs exactly.
> >
> >What is the difference?
> >
> >
> >Also, I know the Netherlands are making a type of LM potency but are
> >starting with the
> >4C trituration. They are supposed to work deeper than the LMs.
> >
> >Are these the Q's?
> >
> >Thanks for any information.
> >
> >Warmly, Maria
> >

If a correction is justified why not welcome it than follow a cult
type practice.....

Kentian or Hahnemanian - whatever works good in the pratice should be
adopted......I use both C & Q (LM) potencies but I am happier with the
C potencies even though Q's also work great....

Let us follow more practice based than opinion based approaches....

Somenath

On 5/5/06, Tauseef Khan <tauseef.khan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> Hahnemann himself named these potencies LM potencies so I think
> whatever it may mean they we should use the convention that he used.
> Deviating from convention will only lead to more confusion.
>
> Following this whole discussion I have a few questions.
>
> Due to the Kentian influence 99 percent of homeopaths still use C
> potencies. On the other hand in the 6th Organon Hahnemann only gives
> detailed directions for making these potencies only and praises these
> most perfect LM potencies so much that one wonders why arent they
> being used.
>
> Are these LMs as good as Hahnemann suggests? and if they are, will
> they eventually replace the C potencies?
> I think their eventual universal adoption depends upon the knowledge
> of their proper use and only when all homeopaths see their enormous
> advantage over the 'C's (if that is true).
>
> Regards,
> Tauseef
>
>
>
> On 05/05/06, Lynn Cremona <freelynn (AT) optonline (DOT) net> wrote:
> > Hi Maria,
> > from an earlier discussion:
> >
> > Q means quinquagentamillesimal.
> > LM and Q both are used to say 50'000, whereas LM is basically a wrong
> > choice, as LM, the two letters together, actually means 950. 50,000,
> > in Latin, is written Q (for 'quinquaginta milia'). To add to the
> > confusion, let's say that a 50M of a C potency can also be called a
> > LM, and this is a first good reason for calling Q the potencies made
> > according to Hahnemann's 6th Organon (247 248, 264 271).
> > Alain
> > -----------------
> > "LM" is a bastardized "L" 50 and "M" 1,000. In Roman numbers, "LM" is
> > really 950 50 subtracted from 1000. That is why the Euopeans call
> > them "Q" potencies for
> > "quinquagentamillesimal" the more accurate nomenclature.
> > JW
> > -------------
> > I am sure Julian is aware of the fact which Alain has recently
> > pointed out that in Europe there is a slight difference between LM
> > potencies and Q potencies. To nit pick this point again:
> >
> > LM potencies is a potency scale described and standardized in the
> > "HAB", the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoea. The description there is
> > different from Hahnemann's way of manufacturing potencies as
> > described in the 6th edition of the Organon. (1) The pellet size is
> > slightly different, (2) the remedies are by majority not manufactured
> > from a 3c trituration.
> >
> > There is also a legal matter involved. LM potencies are "over the
> > counter" and need no prescription, Q potencies may only be sold by
> > prescription. The reason being that they are not "standard".
> >
> > Go figure....
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> > -------------------------
> >
> > C4 is not Q potency
> > Here is a Alize Timmerman's site with an article on C$ protocol
> > http://www.hahnemanninstituut.nl/protocoleng.html
> >
> > Lynn
> > --------------------
> >
> > At 08:37 AM 5/4/2006, MARIA T BOHLE wrote:
> > >
> > >Can someone tell me what exactly are Q potencies?
> > >
> > >I know they are related to LMs but I don't think they are LMs exactly.
> > >
> > >What is the difference?
> > >
> > >
> > >Also, I know the Netherlands are making a type of LM potency but are
> > >starting with the
> > >4C trituration. They are supposed to work deeper than the LMs.
> > >
> > >Are these the Q's?
> > >
> > >Thanks for any information.
> > >
> > >Warmly, Maria
> > >

hi toseef
i think LM potency[Q? if u could mix up both] were first reminded by late dr
flury of bern switzerland a great doc of his time with trilingual repertory
published after him.
i still have no idea where confusion occured in Q and LM and why they r
either made in liquid only or pallets as Gudgeons of germany and Hapco of
india respectively.

pl expalin and oblige

dr afsar imam
Dr akhter husain foundation
pakistan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tauseef Khan" <tauseef.khan (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: <homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 5:09 AM
Subject: Re: [H] Q potencies


Hahnemann himself named these potencies LM potencies so I think
whatever it may mean they we should use the convention that he used.
Deviating from convention will only lead to more confusion.

Following this whole discussion I have a few questions.

Due to the Kentian influence 99 percent of homeopaths still use C
potencies. On the other hand in the 6th Organon Hahnemann only gives
detailed directions for making these potencies only and praises these
most perfect LM potencies so much that one wonders why arent they
being used.

Are these LMs as good as Hahnemann suggests? and if they are, will
they eventually replace the C potencies?
I think their eventual universal adoption depends upon the knowledge
of their proper use and only when all homeopaths see their enormous
advantage over the 'C's (if that is true).

Regards,
Tauseef



On 05/05/06, Lynn Cremona <freelynn (AT) optonline (DOT) net> wrote:
> Hi Maria,
> from an earlier discussion:
>
> Q means quinquagentamillesimal.
> LM and Q both are used to say 50'000, whereas LM is basically a wrong
> choice, as LM, the two letters together, actually means 950. 50,000,
> in Latin, is written Q (for 'quinquaginta milia'). To add to the
> confusion, let's say that a 50M of a C potency can also be called a
> LM, and this is a first good reason for calling Q the potencies made
> according to Hahnemann's 6th Organon (247 248, 264 271).
> Alain
> -----------------
> "LM" is a bastardized "L" 50 and "M" 1,000. In Roman numbers, "LM" is
> really 950 50 subtracted from 1000. That is why the Euopeans call
> them "Q" potencies for
> "quinquagentamillesimal" the more accurate nomenclature.
> JW
> -------------
> I am sure Julian is aware of the fact which Alain has recently
> pointed out that in Europe there is a slight difference between LM
> potencies and Q potencies. To nit pick this point again:
>
> LM potencies is a potency scale described and standardized in the
> "HAB", the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoea. The description there is
> different from Hahnemann's way of manufacturing potencies as
> described in the 6th edition of the Organon. (1) The pellet size is
> slightly different, (2) the remedies are by majority not manufactured
> from a 3c trituration.
>
> There is also a legal matter involved. LM potencies are "over the
> counter" and need no prescription, Q potencies may only be sold by
> prescription. The reason being that they are not "standard".
>
> Go figure....
>
> Chris.
>
> -------------------------
>
> C4 is not Q potency
> Here is a Alize Timmerman's site with an article on C$ protocol
> http://www.hahnemanninstituut.nl/protocoleng.html
>
> Lynn
> --------------------
>
> At 08:37 AM 5/4/2006, MARIA T BOHLE wrote:
> >
> >Can someone tell me what exactly are Q potencies?
> >
> >I know they are related to LMs but I don't think they are LMs exactly.
> >
> >What is the difference?
> >
> >
> >Also, I know the Netherlands are making a type of LM potency but are
> >starting with the
> >4C trituration. They are supposed to work deeper than the LMs.
> >
> >Are these the Q's?
> >
> >Thanks for any information.
> >
> >Warmly, Maria
> >