Be careful about conclusions.

A very interesting two part interview with David Little has arrived on the net.  part one can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9NN0fqdvrQ

Fascinating to hear of the journey one man took to discover Hahnemanns methodology in practice. David uncovered a lot of the falseness of the homoeopathy that is taught today and observed how Kent did not practise in the manner Hahnemann insisted on. David laid out a lot of the differences and showed how in some cases the differences were actually dangerous to the patient, especially in volume of dose given.

Here at the IHM, we encourage and enjoy talking with homoeopaths that know their subject. FACTS supersede opinion and FACTS are the bedrock of practice.

Over the years we have come to realise that FACTS are subject to defined conclusions and herein is where issues start to arise in practice.

David carefully presented the differences between the Organon instructions regarding practice and showed how practitioners who give medicines according to the 4th edition, the 5th edition and the 6th edition all have success in curing the patient. For us at the IHM, we noted this many years ago and after examination of the FACTS, concluded that it is the similarity of the MEDICINE to the disease that is the curative element, and that potency is a fine tuning to the organism.

We also noted that Hahnemann was continually searching for a method to eliminate some of the strong medicinal aggravations that occurred with the application of a medicine in potency and the manner and vehicle of how the dose was given.

So several FACTS emerged.

  • Size of Dose is important.
  • Potency is important.
  • HOW the medicine is given is important.
  • Medicinal reaction depends on the above criteria.

David discovered that Hahnemann in his last years, used both the Q potencies and the Centesimal potencies in treating patients. The FACTS show that Hahnemann gave the different scales utilising the same methodology, in water and not repeating whilst a medicinal action was observed. David concluded that Hahnemann thus intended to use the centesimal scale for acutes and the Q potency for chronics. He rationalised that the scales harmonised with the nature of the two types of diseases.

We at the IHM have a slightly different take on the conclusion drawn by David.

Firstly, Hahnemann was still experimenting with the Q potencies. He was observing the action of the two scales on patients and had already applied a protocol of giving both scales in water. Remember this whole scenario was to find a medicinal application to obviate some of the excesses of aggravation, and also to shorten the time between giving doses to speed up the process of healing.

By coincidence, I too received my first LM (Q) kit from the same pharmacy as David did, in 1986. Because Hahnemann repeated his warning regarding the repetition of any medicine during AMELIORATION, I also noted that he called the new potency scale “new altered but perfected method”.

On this basis after reading § 246 and § 271, I completely moved over to the Q or LM scale. My pharmacy consisted from that day- LM potencies.

§ 246 Sixth Edition
(Hahnemann admonition for not repeating) Every perceptibly progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration during treatment is a condition which, as long as it lasts, completely precludes every repetition of the administration of any medicine whatsoever, because all the good the medicine taken continues to effect is now hastening towards its completion.

(Indicating use in ACUTE diseases} This is not infrequently the cause in acute diseases, but in more chronic diseases, on the other hand, a single dose of an appropriately selected homoeopathic remedy will at times complete even with but slowly progressive improvement and give the help which such a remedy in such a case can accomplish naturally within 40, 50, 60, 100 days. This is, however, but rarely the case; and besides, it must be a matter of great importance to the physician as well as to the patient that were it possible, this period should be diminished to one-half, one-quarter, and even still less, so that a much more rapid cure might be obtained. And this may be very happily affected, as recent and oft-repeated observations have taught me under the following conditions: firstly, if the medicine selected with the utmost care was perfectly homoeopathic; secondly, if it is highly potentized, dissolved in water and given in proper small dose that experience has taught as the most suitable in definite intervals for the quickest accomplishment of the cure but with the precaution, that the degree of every dose deviate somewhat from the preceding and following in order that the vital principle which is to be altered to a similar medicinal disease be not aroused to untoward reactions and revolt as is always the case1 with unmodified and especially rapidly repeated doses.

1 What I said in the fifth edition of the Organon, in a long note to this paragraph in order to prevent these undesirable reactions of the vital energy, was all the experience I then had justified. But during the last four or five years, however, all these difficulties are wholly solved by my new altered but perfected method. The same carefully selected medicine may now be given daily and for months, if necessary in this way, namely, after the lower degree of potency has been used for one or two weeks in the treatment of chronic disease, advance is made in the same way to higher degrees, (beginning according to the new dynamization method, taught herewith with the use of the lowest degrees).

The IHM do not legislate what potency scale a practitioner should use. We do however point out that Hahnemann himself recommended the use of LM or Q potencies to obviate the reactions to the artificial disease state caused by strong medicines in the living organism.

Gary Weaver has exclusively used the LM scale in his clinic for 25 years in both acute and chronic cases. He sees rapid resolution of acute diseases if the prescription is correct. He sees amazing curative responses in Chronic disease.

Something to consider.

 

Curative reaction in 2 weeks using LM potency. Patient had been treated in hospital for a long time using Steroids and other strong medicines.

Advertisements

One response to “Be careful about conclusions.

  1. Pingback: Be careful about conclusions. | The Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine – Natural Medical Remedies

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s