A well presented viewpoint about the LM hoopla, aka, the LM bubble!

Q: How about LM-potencies?
A.S.: This is a very delicate question. I do not want to offend any of your readers but the question must be exposed and discussed openly. For a moment, let’s briefly review Hahnemann’s personal evolution regarding posology. What we find out is that he was constantly trying to improve on posology. First, he started to dilute the remedies, in
order to make them less toxic. He started with dilutions of one in five hundred; then he did one in ten thousand and so on. Then he went to make successive dilutions by changing vials. Eventually, he systematically adopted the centesimal dilutions without succussion at first and later on with succussion. He experimented with the number of
succussions from a hundred down to two, and up again. Then in his last eight years, he started using higher and higher potencies. By 1840, he was commonly using the two hundredths. At the beginning of 1841, he started to experiment with the fifty millesimal. In total, he had only about a dozen remedies prepared in this way and the highest was
Sulphur LM 20. He experimented with these for about two years. In the later part of 1842, he made fewer prescriptions. In 1843, he barely practiced. He made his last patient’s entry in his case book in early May 1843. By that time he was preparing the sixth edition of the Organon for publication. Apparently, he felt that he had enough experience to authoritatively recommend the LM potencies to his colleagues. I have read in Hahnemann’s case books almost every case in which he used the LM potencies. Truly, it is very difficult to be satisfied with his success.

When we study Hahnemann as a person as well as a scientist, we soon find out that he tended to be very dogmatic in his writings by rendering his last experiment as the ultimate way. This approach of his is contrary to the great scientific mind he had. When we read his works in a chronological order, at each step of its evolution he impresses
upon the reader that the method has now been developed to absolute perfection and, that is it. Period. Then comes the next work, and now he tells us that further experiments are now permitting him to negate what he had previously said with such great certainty and that the method has now reached a new state of perfection, and so on. If we read any work of Hahnemann, including the sixth edition of the Organon, we may ourselves get stuck in his dogmatism and not go beyond the last work just read. I would think that we would do greater honor to Hahnemann by further developing homeopathy, and medicine in general, through understanding and adopting the inductive method which is the basis of his achievements, rather than by adopting his dogmatism and repeating his mistakes. Wouldn’t we be fools not to learn from his mistakes? In my mind, the real Hahnemannian is not the one who does as Hahnemann said to do but the one who proceeds with the positive aspect of his approach, the
inductive method. That is
the real Hahnemannian, not a follower, but one who understands.

It is likely that if the sixth edition of the Organon had been published earlier the question of potencies would have evolved differently. Perhaps fortunately, as soon as Hahnemann died Boenninghausen started to systematically prescribe Lehman’s two hundredths. Later
on, the Hahnemannians, especially in America, started to experiment with the high and higher potencies. Since our most reliable prescribers have consistently abided by them for over one hundred and fifty years, starting with Hahnemann himself, followed by Boenninghausen, Lippe, Hering, Dunham, Skinner, Nash, etc., the higher potencies have
been proven and are here to stay. I am not sure if we could achieve similar results if we would limit ourselves to the lower potencies, and in reality the LM are very low potencies. I have stayed away from them, first because I did not need to use them, second because it is too complicated (in keeping in mind the second paragraph of the Organon: "... on easy comprehensible principles") and third a few reliable authors, such as Pierre Schmidt and P. Sankaran (the father), have tried them only to later abandon them. It does not mean they don’t have a role to play but I don’t think they are what Hahnemann wanted them to be, the ultimate homeopathic preparations. We cannot deny the incredible
success we have had with the higher potencies on which, unfortunately, we do not have Hahnemann’s experience. I do not want to take any credit away from the LM potencies but things have to be considered in a broad perspective. Hopefully, the perfection of our potencies will continue to evolve. Like Hahnemann, our aim should be to always try to perfect our method, including the potency question. Like him, we should favor change, positive changes.

Andre Saine's workshop at this German conference runs simultaneously with the LM/Q potencies one.

http://www.hahnemann-congress.org/referent-saine.html

The links to Andre's interview where he discusses his LM potency viewpoint is at the bottom.

Chris Gillen wrote:

The Adlers' article "Hahnemann's Experiments with Q potencies" can be read
here:
http://www.hahnemann-congress.org/referent-adler.html

refer to:
[Homoeopathic Online Education, David Little] Misunderstanding Hahnemann's Legacy

for debate by David Little
"There are several historical inaccuracies in his (Andre Saine's) interview."

dear members

it is hard to compare hahnemann's sucess with LM's in his case books with his sucesses with C-potencies.
The problem starts with the transcription of the case books. There is no provision made for the transcription of Q - potencies entries as Q-potencies, resulting in a situation, that in the transcription of Df 2 and Df 5 no Q-potencies are found.
Unless Andrew Sainne places his view on other sources, I would not agree with him on this point.
I can say from my own 18 years of using Q-potencies, that my results were significantly better with Q-potencies, than using high C-potencies, particularily when it comes to chronic diseases.
Potency selection does not pose any problems anymore, and the medical impact on the patient can be regulated much easier than using C-potencies.

With C-potencies you give the car a push and then let it roll out till it comes to a stand stil, with Q-potencies you drive the car through the gears, till you have the maximum comfortable speed, which gets you there in the shortest possible time.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath
homeopathy study guide: http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity....hy-study-guide

Yes, exactly! With the Q-scale of our medicines, you simply raise the potencies through very harmoniously spaced degrees of increasing medicinal force and always begin at the beginning (Q1, Q2, Q3, etc., and there's no limit, either) until cure holds or medicinal effects are noticed as proving symptoms requiring them to be ceased for a bit. The Kentian scale of the C-potencies is, by comparison, artsy, clumbsy, specious and whatnot: 6x, 12c, 30c, 200c, 1M (1000c), 10M, 50M, 100M, DM (500M), MM & MMM -- and then you've run out of potencies! OMG, what do you do then? Moreover, you're able to give them daily in Q-potencies by the simple modifications of dilution and stirring in a glass. On the other hand, C-potencies have to run their course, and that can be months. There's no comparison, period. I just wish they'd make them right so that we can fully confirm Hahnemann's statements, for nobody makes the correctly sized microglobules. What the hell is so difficult about that?

Beautiful analogy, sir.

Finally, that history reported by Saine is inaccurate. Without tedious research to find out exactly how many they are and how seriously in error they are, I'd presently call them minor mistakes, but I don't like any such things about the thing I love, and neither should anyone else. It's also horribly written -- at the 8th-grade level of literacy, in fact -- and that tremendously insults me since homeopaths must be scholars, so I simply didn't read but a few lines. I'll bet that was published in one of the many wholly useless medical journals of the Vithoulkas school of thought (GVs). I gave up reading those throwaway journals about 15 years ago because they're constantly making mistakes. That seems like a typical example of such carelessness by those bozos.

What I read really bothered me, so I scanned a bit more of it. He referred to reading the works of Hahnemann in a chronological manner and then said what appears to be total hokum. Methinks that Andre Saine has never read THE LESSER WRITINGS OF SAMUEL HAHNEMANN (link: http://books.google.com/books?id=YwT...um=2&ct=result). How is that possible? Unfortunately, you get used to it with those guys. After all, from the grave, Hahnemann called the GVs "beginners, bunglers and aggravators of diseases" on pp. 121-22 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES (link: http://www.homeoint.org/books/hahchrdi/index.htm). How is it possible for all of those people to have failed to read our primary literature? They graduated from schools without having read the writings of Christian Fredrich Samuel Hahnemann? It boggles the Mind.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

As someone who experienced terrible aggravations from the C & M potency's I must disagree with Andre Saine. It has only been possible for me to begin to heal the chronic problems I have delt with for the past 40 years when I found and began to use the LM potency. Without Hahnemann's contribution of the LM dilutions I would still be ill and homeopathy would hold no cure for me. I personally know other "sensitives" who fall into the same category. So for all of us I give a big "Thank You!" to the genius of Hahnemann!

Yes, it was his last major contribution to medicine, and it was truly brilliant even though as equally obvious as the rest of them. In fact, it's many times more contributions to medicine than anyone in history and probably by orders of magnitude. It never ceases to amaze me, and it's one of several things that tends to indicate he was an actual Saint, probably in the Hermetic Brotherhood. The implications of that are staggering, but you get used to it.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

Hans

Could you advise where you source your Q potencies from please

Albert insists the pharmacy in San Fransisco is the only true place but that means shipping them in with all the risks of packages being X rayed these days by Customs etc and the x rays damaging the remedy

surely one of Englands Homeopathic pharmacies is capable of making them

For those who're interested, she's talking about Hahnemann Labs in the Bay Area (i.e., San Francisco). Those are Michael Quinn's drugs. He recently died, and I went very sad about that unexpected event, for he did the right thing to give us reliable drugs. Hahnemann would have thanked him. That speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Likewise, the most-reliable homeopathic pharmacy in Europe is Schmidt-Nagel.

God bless!

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa