Hahnemann's Final
Methods
Vergleich: Siehe: Terms in Homeopathy + Einnahme
Shortly before Samuel Hahnemann passed away he shared the method of
administering the LM potency with Baron von Boenninghausen. After Samuel's
death Melanie Hahnemann told the Baron von Boenninghausen that the 6th
Organon would soon be published. When he announced this event to his
colleagues, Melanie asked him to remain quiet on the subject until after she
published the work. Out of respect for Hahnemann's widow von Boenninghausen did
not disclose all the information in his possession. Apart from Samuel
and Melanie Hahnemann it appears that only Baron von Boenninghausen had
tested the LM potency in the clinic. In 1857 the Baron wrote:
"In the new edition of
the Organon which will probably appear yet in the course of this year, improved
and completed by Hahnemann himself, a new simplified procedure for
the potentizing of medicines will be taught, which has considerable
advantages over the former and yields a preparation as to the efficacy of which
I can, from my own experience, give full praise. I know this procedure but
according to my pledged word of honor, am not as yet permitted to communicate
it to anyone."
The Lesser Writings; C. M. F.
Boenninghausen, Aluminium Metallicum, footnote, page 74.
In this quote Boenninghausen clearly states that the praise he lauded on
the new dynamizations was based on his "own experience". He would not
have used these words unless he had tested the LM potency personally. The
Aluminium cases quoted in this article are dated 1856 to 1857, which shows this
statement must have been made at least 14 years after Hahnemann's passing.
Unfortunately, the 6th edition remained unpublished until Richard Haehl's
edition appeared in German in 1920 and the Boericke edition in English in 1921.
By that time, all those with first hand information on how Hahnemann actually
used the LM potency has passed away.
There is quite a bit of confusion about Hahnemann's Paris methods in
general and the LM potency in particular. The most controversial area arises over
the subject of the daily and alternate day dose. This is because it is very
difficult to learn how to use the LM potency properly just from reading the
text of the 6th Organon without a lineage of teachers going back to Hahnemann.
The only way to understand the bigger picture is to study the final edition
along with the Paris Casebooks and remaining eyewitness accounts. First of all
we will review exactly what the 6th Organon actually says about posology and
case management.
Aphorism 246 gives the most precise details on how to administer the LM
potency. The statements made in this paragraph must be put in context with the
information presented in aphorism 248 about the daily and alternate day dose.
Here Hahnemann clearly says, "Every noticeably progressive and
conspicuously increasing improvement is a state which, as long as it persists,
generally excludes any repetition of the medicine." This is because the
remedy is "hastening toward completion" at the quickest possible
speed and any repetition may slow down the cure or cause a relapse of symptoms.
This reflects what Hahnemann said in aphorism 245 of the 5th Organon on the
single dose.
Then Hahnemann says, "On the other hand" some patients
experience only a "slow, continuous improvement based on one dose of a
aptly selected homeopathic medicine (taking 40, 50, 60 100 days to complete the
cure, depending on the nature of the medicine) but this is very seldom the
case." It is much more common for the slow remedy action to cease and the
patient to relapse. Then the Founder goes on to state how important it is to
"foreshorten this period" to 1/2, 1/4 or less so that a more rapid
cure is attained. This reflects what Hahnemann said in aphorism 246 of the 5th
Organon on repeating the remedy to speed the cure.
Hahnemann makes it very clear that there are two major types of remedy
actions that must be treated differently.
A. The 1st condition is a visibly progressing and strikingly
increasing amelioration. In this instance Hahnemann says to leave the single
dose to act without repetition as long as this state lasts. This statement also
applies to any time during treatment that there is a dramatically increasing
amelioration on a series of doses. I would like to report that my colleagues
and I have witnessed several cures of chronic diseases with single and
infrequent doses of the LM potency.
B. The 2nd remedy action is a slow continuous improvement
that could take up to 100 or more days to cure. Some cases show little or no
response to a single dose although the remedy is correct. This is because the
sensitivity of the patient and the nature of disease state require more
medicinal stimulation. In this case one should repeat the dose at suitable
intervals to speed the cure. This is quite common in protracted chronic disease
and complex miasms. One may repeat the dose to speed the cure only if they
follow all five conditions noted at the end of the paragraph.
1. The remedy is perfectly homoeopathic (Not a wrong remedy or a partial
simillimum.)
2. The remedy is potentized and dissolved in water. (Not the dry dose.)
3. The remedy is given in a small dose (1 pill in a 7-8 tablespoon
medicinal solution, given in a split-dose, etc.)
4. The remedy should be given at suitable intervals based on what
experience has shown to be the correct timing. (Individualization.)
5. The degree of dynamization must be changed on each dose (The
medicinal solution must be succussed prior to ingestion to slightly raise the
potency.)
There is a great difference between a visibly progressing and strikingly
increasing amelioration and a slow continuous improvement that may take up to
100 days to show any significant improvement. In most cases of slow improvement
the patient tends to relapse rather than progress to cure. What Hahnemann is
offering is a very clear differential
analysis of two different types of remedy actions.
When the patient is already hastening toward cure on single or
infrequent doses the cure does not need to be sped! If the remedy is repeated
under these conditions it will
either slow down the action of the previous dose, aggravate the patient,
or cause a relapse of symptoms. In the footnote to aphorism 246 it says the LM
may be given daily
"when necessary". It does not say to give the LM potency to
everybody no matter what!
All the statements about the daily and alternate day dose that follow in
aphorism 248 are about how to speed the cure in slowly improving cases. These
are the cases where
one needs to foreshorten this period to 1/2, 1/4 or less the time so
that a more rapid cure is attained. In aphorism 248 Hahnemann says that the
remedy may be repeated daily
or on alternate days in "protracted diseases", which means
long drawn out and prolonged illnesses. If the patient is experiencing a
strikingly increasing amelioration on a single
dose or a short series of doses, the repetition of the remedy is counter
indicated as long as this state lasts. These aphorisms teach when it is best to
wait and watch and when it
is best to act and observe. This is the best of both worlds!
Hahnemann Sends LM Cases to Boenninghausen
Hahnemann sent Baron von Boenninghausen two LM case histories in 1843,
shortly before he died. Von Boenninghausen shared these cases with his
colleagues in the
“Neus Archive f. hom, Heilkunst” (Stapf's Archives) Volume 1 number 1
1844, page 69. These cases can be found in Boenninghausen's Lesser Writings in
an article called,
Three Precautionary Rules of Hahnemann, in the section called,
1. Warning, the Smallness of the Dose. These cases were very instructive
as they show how the Founder administered olfaction as well as the oral
medicinal solution of
the C and LM potency.
The following case history has been checked with the original case found
in the Paris Casebooks. This information was presented in an article by
Hanspeter Sailer called
Die Entwicklung von Samuel
Hahnemann's aertzukcger Praxis, Verlag, Haug, 1988. Von Boenninghausen noted that Hahnemann
dictated the example cases to a secretary
and dated and signed the letter in his own hand. This was the last
letter he received from his honored teacher.
On January 14, 1843 a patient referred to as O-T came complaining of
sore throat # with an anal fissure. Sailer noted that the patient's name was
Varlet. For several years
the patient had a sore throat but the present attack had lasted for one
month. The last time he had a sore throat it lasted for six weeks. The patient
reported that when he
swallowed saliva he feel a pricking sensation with constriction and
soreness. When he was not suffering from the sore throat he experienced a
fissure of the anus with violent
pains as from a chap. At this time, the anus was inflamed, swollen and
constricted. The patient could only discharge his stool with great exertion
with swollen, extruding hemorrhoidal veins.
1. January 15, 1843 - Belladonna in a 7 tablespoon solution.
H. prescribed Belladonna for sore throat on the 14th but told
the patient to take the remedy the next morning on an empty stomach before
breakfast. The potency was not noted
in his letter to Boenninghausen but Sailer confirmed that it was the LM
0/3 from the original casebook. The patient was instructed to put one
tablespoon of the medicinal solution into a glass of water, stir it well and
take one coffeespoon as a dose.
2. January 16 - Merc. 0/1 in a 7 tablespoon solution.
The throat ache was gone but the fissure returned immediately! This
shows that these conditions were related. The patient then revealed that eight
years earlier he had a syphilitic chancre that was destroyed by corrosives. All
his problems started after the suppression of the syphilitic miasm. H.
immediately prescribed Mercury 0/1, his cardinal anti-syphilitic remedy. The
fissure and the chap were very painful. How often he gave the dose is not
noted. This may be a daily dose as the symptoms were in an acute-like crisis.
The Mercury 0/1 was to be prepared and taken in the same way as the
Belladonna.
3. January 20 - Merc. 0/2 in 7 tablespoons.
The patient returned for his check up 4 days later. This example shows
how closely Hahnemann was following this rather serious case at the start.
There are no "take this daily for one month" prescriptions in his
casebooks. The patient's throat pain returned slightly and the anus was better
although there was still soreness during stool. At this time, Hahnemann raised
the potency! The journal says: "One pellet of the Mercurius viv., 2
dynamization, prepared and taken in the same manner in the morning". If
the patient took the Mercury 0/1 in the "same manner in the morning"
the 7 tablespoon medicinal solution would not be finished yet. Nevertheless,
Hahnemann immediately raised the potency to 0/2. This shows that the Founder raised the
potency when he considered it necessary and did not always wait for the bottle
to be finished.
4. January 25 - Sailer says Hahnemann gave 2 placebos. This is not in
Boenninghausen's text.
The 0/2 continued to improve the throat but there was severe lancination
in the anus. This may have been a similar aggravation caused by the remedy. The
patient was then given
2 placebos. It seems these two placebos were alternated with the remedy
so he was now taking the alternate day dose.
This can be deduced because Hahnemann wrote on
Jan. 30th that the patient had taken the last dose of
medicine that afternoon. He only had 7 doses and this was 10 days later so he
could not be taking the remedy daily.
Mercury 0/2 was taken daily for 4 days and then slowed down to alternate
days interspersed with placebo. This shows H. slowing down the remedy, which is
an important method used to prevent overmedication. The daily dose of Mercury
was not continued.
4. January 30th - 7 days of placebo in medicinal solution.
The anus was now better but the throat was worse. This shows the
alternation of the symptoms still continuing although the symptoms are a little
better in general. There was no particular aggravation yet H. decided to give
placebos for 1 week and wait and watch. He must have observed enough medicinal
action so he stopped the remedy.
This prescription demonstrates how the Founder alternated periods of
active doses with periods of placebo and waiting and watching.
5. February. 7 - Sulphur 0/2 in 7 tablespoon solution.
The anus was still well but there was severe pain as if an ulceration in
the throat. H. wrote in “The Chronic Diseases” that the suppression of syphilis
could cause a flare up of psora that obstructs the cure. On this basis, H. gave
Sulphur 0/2 as a chronic intercurrent remedy. It was his hope that this
anti-psoric remedy would assist the action of his anti-syphilitic remedy in
removing the complex miasmic disorder. Exactly how often the remedy was
administered is not noted. Just because the patient returned in one week one
cannot assume
it was a daily dose but it may have been.
6. February 13 - Mercury olfaction.
The Sulphur brought out clear Mercury symptoms on the 11th and
12th. The throat felt ulcerated and the saliva was increased and now
was in great quantities! This was a sign that the anti-psoric intercurrent had
an effect on the overall symptom pattern. There was also some constriction in
the anus from yesterday. Rather than alternating, the symptoms were both
present at the same time. At this time, the patient was given a single
olfaction of Mercury, potency not noted.
7. February 14 - Merc 0/2 in 7 tablespoon medicinal solution.
Hahnemann now gave the patient a medicinal solution of Merc. 0/2. This
was to be taken "as before". Hahnemann kept the patient on the same
potency as given on January 20th, around 25 days previously. In this case he
did not raise the potency every 7 or 14 days as suggested by the example in
aphorism 248 of the 6th Organon . This shows that the paragraph is only
offering a baseline example, not a rigid predetermined schedule. Hahnemann
individualized all these procedures. In one prescription he raised the potency
before the bottle was finished and in others he kept the patient on the same
potency for longer periods.
8. February 20 - Placebo in 7 tablespoon medicinal solution.
The throat was better since the 18th but there was much suffering at the
anus. There seemed to be strong aggravation so Hahnemann waited and watched for
around 11 days.
9. March 3 - Single Dose Olfaction of Nitric Acid.
After the aggravation passed the symptoms of the patient improved. The
sore throat was now ameliorated. On going to stool a hemorrhoidal vein still
extrudes although it did not cause as much pain as before. Now there is only a
bit of itching in that spot. Hahnemann wrote, "I let him smell of Ac.
Nitr." Sailer confirms that this prescription was a single inhalation of
the remedy. In this example, Hahnemann is using this method to give a gentle
but deep dose toward the end of the treatment in an effort to complete the cure
without aggravation.
10. March 20 - Single Dose Olfaction of Nitric Acid. (Patient cured)
Now there was hardly any pain after stool, throat well, although he
feels some sensation on drinking cold water. Hahnemann wrote, "Now he is
allowed to smell of Ac. nitr." This means that before this and since March
3rd the patient was not allowed to smell Nitric acid! This dose was allowed to
act over a period of 17 days. How long the second olfaction acted one cannot
tell from the record because Hahnemann only wrote, "His health was
permanently restored". The prescriptions in this case show the following
pattern.
1. Jan. 14, 1843. Belladonna in LM 0/3 in a 7 tablespoon solution.
2. Jan 16. Merc. 0/1 in 7 tablespoons medicinal solution.
3. Jan. 20. Merc. 0/2 in 7 tablespoons medicinal solution.
4. Jan. 25. 2 placebos to be alternated with final doses of the Mercury.
4. Jan. 30. 7 days of placebo in medicinal solution.
5. Feb. 7. Sulphur 0/2 in a 7 tablespoon medicinal solution.
6. Feb 13. Merc. olfaction.
7. Feb 14. Merc 0/2 in a 7 tablespoon medicinal solution.
8. Feb 20. Placebo in a 7 tablespoon medicinal solution.
9. March 3. Single dose olfaction of Nitric Acid (17 days on an
olfaction).
10. March 20. Second single dose olfaction of Nitric Acid (Patient
cured).
What does this case tell us? First of all, Hahnemann's prescriptions
were individualized according to the cause, symptoms, miasms and attending
circumstances. He did not use preconceived schedules over long periods of time.
He responded to each change in the symptoms and customized his case management
methods according to the time and circumstances. Secondly, this case shows how
the Founder often interpolated and followed his medicinal doses with a series
of placebos. In this example the patient spent around 37 days on placebos over a
period of 64 days! The idea that Hahnemann gave the daily dose for weeks,
months and years on end is a complete myth!
Hahnemann's case examples offer a true picture of how Samuel Hahnemann
actually practiced in Paris in the 1840s. Over the last 8 or so years I have
reviewed scores of LM cases that show a similar pattern. Hahnemann used single
doses (usually by olfaction) followed by placebos as well as a series of oral
doses interpolated with and/or followed by placebos. Hahnemann did not speak
about his liberal use of placebos in the 6th Organon. This may have been
because he did not want to state this in a public work, as the placebo was his
"secret simillimum". If the
public found out it could have caused problems.
Hahnemann never gave the daily dose or alternate day dose for long
periods without stopping the medicine, giving placebos and waiting and
watching. Some patients remained on placebo for 7, 14 , 21 or even more days at
times. This "on again - off again" technique was used with all of his
patients. I have not seen a single case in the microfiches of the Paris
casebooks between 1840 to 1843 where Hahnemann gave the daily or alternate day
dose of the LM potency for months without stopping the remedy and giving
placebos. This is true in the Casebooks DF-10, 11, 12, 13, 14, etc., which are
replete with LM prescriptions
Any time there is a noticeably progressive and strikingly increasing
amelioration the LM potency should not be repeated as long as this state lasts.
These cases may be cured by a single dose or infrequent repetitions of the
remedy. If the patient is only slowly improving, the remedy should be repeated
at suitable intervals to speed the cure. Any time during the treatment that
there is a sudden strikingly increasing amelioration, or an aggravation or
strong accessory symptoms, the dose should be stopped as long as the state
lasts. In the case of light to moderate similar aggravation it is usually best
to wait and watch for the expected amelioration. In the case of strong
aggravations, obstructive accessory symptoms, and the appearance of new
troublesome symptoms, the situation should be rectified by skilful intervention
to regularize the symptoms.
As long as the patient is improving at a reasonable rate the remedy
should be repeated at suitable intervals to speed the cure. In "protracted
diseases" the remedy may be repeated daily or on alternate days, if
necessary, to speed the cure in otherwise long drawn out cases. The more
frequent repetition may be used as long as the patient is improving and there
are no aggravations or new symptoms. As the patient improves over time it is
best to slow down the repetition of the remedy as the potencies are increased
to prevent aggravations.
If there is an aggravation toward
the end of treatment when the patient is well in most respects this is a sign
of that the cure is reaching completion. To test this scenario one stops the
medicine, gives placebo if necessary, and waits and watches. If the aggravation
is followed by a period of amelioration and then a relapse of symptoms, the
remedy should be again administered but at longer durations until the cure is
complete. If the aggravation is followed by the complete restoration of health
the remedy is no longer needed. This is the case management method of the 6 th
Organon in a nutshell.
Dr. Croserio's Letter
Boenninghausen shared the two LM cases sent by Hahnemann in Stapf's
Archive. Dr. Stapf raised a number of questions about the Founder's
revolutionary new methods. In order to answer these queries von Boenninghausen
sought help of Dr. Croserio, who was a close colleague of Samuel and Melanie
Hahnemann. Only Croserio and Jahr were invited to Hahnemann's deathbed to see
the H. lying in state. Dr. Croserio assisted Melanie in her practice after the
Founder passed away and defended Melanie in court when she was charged with
practicing without a license. For these reasons, I call him "faithful Dr.
Croserio".
Dr. Croserio responded to Boenninghausen with a letter written on Jan.
28th, 1844 that was published with Boenninghausen's commentary in the “Neus
Archive f.hom, Heilkunst” Volume 1 number 12, 1844. This letter may be found in
Boenninghausen's Lesser Writings, in an article called Hahnemann's Doses of
Medicines. The Baron wrote:
"In order to be quite
sure as to the matter I applied to those homeopaths in Paris, who were most
intimate with Hahnemann, visited him almost daily, and in consequence, were
best informed as to his practice during the last times , namely, to Dr.
Croserio, from whom I had before had a very friendly communication, could
therefore also feel sure that he would give me as detailed an account as
possible."
Hahnemann's Paris casebooks contain only personal notes of the Founder's
practice and leave many questions unanswered. He rarely wrote down exactly how
often he was administering his remedies. Boenninghausen understood this, and
for this reason he sought an eyewitness account to fill in the details. Dr.
Croserio's letter is a very valuable testimony because it gives insights as to
how Hahnemann actually practiced in the clinic. Dr. Croserio wrote:
"As to his [Hahnemann's]
mode in which he prescribed the medicines to be taken I am able to give you all
the information that you may wish, as I have quite frequently been witness of
it."
Croserio confirmed that Hahnemann was dissolving 1, or rarely 2, tiny
pills into 8 to 15 tablespoons of water and taking a tablespoon of this
solution and stirring it into a tumbler of water. He notes that Hahnemann would
start with 1 spoonful of the solution from the tumbler and increase this amount
on successive doses, if necessary:
"until he observed some
action."
"Then he [Hahnemann]
would diminish the dose or would stop the medicine."
Dr. Croserio stated that when Hahnemann saw definite medicinal action he
either diminished the dose or stopped the remedy and gave the patient placebo.
This is an extremely important observation of a technique that is not clearly
elucidated in the 6th Organon. This pattern, however, was witnessed in the case
of O-T where Hahnemann used almost as much placebo as medicine. This is common
to all the cases found in the Paris casebooks.
Dr. Croserio stated in his letter that Hahnemann frequently gave single
doses by olfaction . The doctor wrote:
"Hahnemann in the last
years of his practice seemed to devote his whole dexterity to continually
diminish the doses of his medicines. On this account he in the last years
frequently contented himself
to allow his patients to smell of the medicine. In chronic diseases he
would in no case allow the patient to smell at the medicines oftener than once
a week, and would give nothing but sugar besides;
and in this way he would make the most admirable cures, even in cases where
we others had not been able to do anything."
Dr. Croserio noted in his eyewitness account that Hahnemann
"frequently" gave single doses by olfaction followed by at least 7
days of placebo. The Paris casebooks confirm the fact that the Founder often administered
single doses by olfaction and occasionally by oral solution and gave the
patient placebo for at least 1 week! In some cases he would wait for longer
periods than 7 days, even up to
14 or 21 days before repeating the dose. Some patients received
infrequent olfactions and placebos almost exclusively. This proves that
Hahnemann did not always use the daily or alternate day dose.
His method was artistic not mechanical and was individualized by the
symptoms, time and circumstances.
Sometimes Hahnemann gave a single dose followed by at least 7 days of
placebo while he waited and watched. At other times, he gave a short series of
3 to 7 doses over a period of seven days and had the patient come back in one
week. At this time, he would re-evaluate the case. If the remedy caused a
strong medicinal action or an aggravation, he would give the patient placebos
for another seven days. When there was a strikingly increasing amelioration he
also would stop the repetition as long as this state lasted. If he thought he
needed more medicinal action he would continue the repetitions for another
week.
In this way, Hahnemann individualized his case management strategies. He
did not give the C or LM potency daily in a mechanical manner over long
periods. He constantly interpolated and followed his medicinal doses with
placebos at different intervals during the progress of the case. This balance
of single doses and infrequent repetitions and split-doses at rapid intervals
to speed the cure offers a wide range of methods in the clinic. The idea
Hahnemann gave the daily dose to everyone is a complete falsehood.
These are very important details that do not come through clearly in the
6th Organon. That is one of the reasons why it is not sufficient to try and
practice only by the text. One must study Hahnemann's casebooks and eyewitness
account of his practice to grasp the whole method. One also needs to consult
those who have experience with Hahnemann's true clinical methods. The Founder
frequently alternated a period of medicinal doses with period of placebos
throughout the treatment. In this way, he found a perfect balance between
acting and observing and waiting and watching. Boenninghausen commented further
on this important aspect of Hahnemann's practice.
"This passage in the
communication of Dr. Croserio give the most clear and complete exposition of
the mode practiced by the closely observing Master of the art during the last
times, on his patients, and explains most satisfactorily what might have
appeared obscure in the two cases lately reported. The addition "until he
felt an effect" is of the greatest importance, and must always be closely
observed, in order that nothing may be spoiled afterwards by giving too much or
too often."
Dr. Croserio also notes:
"In order to pacify the
patients or their relatives he frequently allowed them to take simple sugar of
milk"
Hahnemann called placebos a gift from God in the Chronic Diseases. He
used placebos to satisfy his patients and their relatives and to keep the
clients away from other medicines. Many of his patients were so conditioned to
the idea that they needed medicine daily that it was necessary to use placebos.
Sometimes their relatives were even worse than the ill person! In my practice I
try to educate my clients to the fact that homeopathic remedies have actions
that last for long durations and they do not need medicine daily under most
circumstances.
There are, however, situations where the placebo is a very useful tool.
The most common example is when there is an aggravation or healing crisis that
will pass off quickly but the patient is desperate for help. Here the placebo
effect often provides the attention, comfort and psychological relief necessary
to pass through a difficult moment. This is a trade secret that should never be
related to the patient or other persons even to make a point. Placebo is a
psychological simillimum for the patient who thinks they need medicine when
they do not.
The LM remedies are not a "low potency" system. One cannot
compare the C and LM potency solely by the amount of the original substance
left in the dilution. There is a great difference between
a mathematical and dynamic equivalence. 1 pill of the LM 0/1 potency in
an 8 tablespoon solution has around the same amount of medicinal substance as
the 6C but its power is much greater due to its 1/50,000 dilution and 100
succussions per dilution. Boenninghausen was well aware of this fact. In 1863,
just one year before his death, the Baron reminisced over the two LM cases
Hahnemann had
sent him in 1843.
"Of the other remedies
used in these two cures (Sulphur, Mercurius, Nitric Acid), new dynamizations
were used, which will be described in the next edition of the Organon , the
peculiar preparation
of which is known to me and which requires less time and trouble, but
essentially presents our present high and highest potencies, but having given
my word of honor, I am not as yet at liberty to publish the same. Also these
the preparations were given in the dose of one single pellet either dissolved
in just as much water, or applied by simply smelling of it. By means of these
before unheard of minimal doses, there was effected a restoration of both these
cases in a comparatively short time; the first of these cases was an acute
ailment of the brain, the other a chronic complicated disease. It is especially
curious that the proper action of these remedies, and even their first action,
could be clearly distinguished in the course of the disease."
The “Lesser Writings”; C.M.F.
Boenninghausen, Boenninghausen's Last Work, Atropa Belladonna L, page 316.
It was Boenninghausen's opinion that the actions of the LM potency were
very similar to the "our present high and highest potencies" . By
1863 Boenninghausen personally used the 200C potency made by Hahnemann's
methods and Jenichen's 1M, 2M, 4M, 6M, 8M up to 40M. The Baron also had
experience with Korsakov's 1000th and 1500th . This offers a glimpse into the
true medical powers of the LM potency. The Baron noticed that the recovery of
both cases, one a dangerous acute disorder and the other a complicated chronic
disease, was comparatively short and that the first action of the remedies
could be clearly distinguished. This shows how the LM potency acts quickly and
deeply yet these preparations have a different medicinal quality than the C
potencies. Hahnemann's opening potencies were between the 0/1 and 0/7. These
seven degrees have remedial powers that are similar to the moderate to high
potency centesimal remedies and must be treated with the greatest respect.
In over 20 years of comparing the LM with the C potency I would say that
the LM 0/1 acts deeper and longer than the 30C. If one studies Hahnemann's
cases one comes to the conclusion that Hahnemann thought likewise. All things
equal, I would say the LM 0/1, 0/2 and 0/3 act with a similar depth to the 200C
or 1M although the durations might not be as long. The LM 0/4, 0/5 and 0/6 act
as deeply as much higher potencies. To think the LM remedies are low potencies
that can be repeated daily in every case is a big mistake.
This higher power yet slightly shorter duration can be used to one's
advantage in many chronic cases. This is because one can make more frequent
adjustment of the dose, potency and repetition so that the remedy can be
customized more artistically to the case. If one is continually forced to wait
out overly long remedy actions, it is hard to make adjustments when the remedy
is causing aggravations or accessory symptoms due to too large a dose or too
high a potency. These long durations can also be counterproductive when the
wrong remedy is chosen. Being able to adjust the size of the dose, the level of
potency and the repetition according to the present time and circumstance has
its advantages in complex cases.
The LM potency will cause strong aggravations when misused. I have seen
it, my colleagues have seen it, and I have received many letters from patients
who were strongly aggravated by receiving the
LM potency daily or alternate days in a mechanical fashion. Many times
they felt very, very good in the first week or so (strikingly progressive
amelioration) and then got worse and worse because the dose was never slowed
down or stopped. It is always best to either slow down or stop the remedy when
there is a sudden great improvement. These are the clinical facts.
I have found that overmedication either causes the patient to become non
responsive to the remedy due to overexposure or it causes aggravations that
make them overly sensitive to the remedy. Sometimes this can make it hard to
use even the correct remedy later in the case. The cases that are spoiled the
most are those who only needed a single dose, infrequent doses or only a short
series of doses but were never given a chance to respond correctly. What should
be one's "best case scenarios" turns into one's "worst case
situations". One must be very careful with the LM potency because
overmedication will cause aggravations, accessory symptoms or adverse counter
actions of the vital force if abused. Hahnemann had some strong aggravations at
times! Like all homoeopathic potencies, the LMs must be treated with the
greatest respect!
Hahnemann spoke about raising the LM potency every 7 to 14 days in
aphorism 248 but the Paris casebooks show that this was only a baseline
example. He would sometimes raise his potencies very fast before the bottle was
finished and in other cases he would keep the patient on the same potency
interspersed with or followed by placebo for longer periods. Sometimes he would
move up to find a better potency and at other times he would move downward
because of aggravations. There was no fixed rule. The time of raising the
potency was dependant on when the medicine was consumed, how much placebo he
was giving, and the symptoms and circumstances.
I know that some give all patients the daily or alternate day dose and
only stop if they see aggravations. This only reflects one aspect of
Hahnemann's method. It does not take into account what Hahnemann says in
aphorism 246, Dr. Croserio's eyewitness account or what is found in the Paris
casebooks. Sometimes Hahnemann gave a single dose and placebos and other times
he gave a series of split-doses at intervals like daily, alternate days, or on
the third day, etc. It all depended on the cause, symptoms and circumstances
affecting the patient and the action of the remedy. Hahnemann constantly
alternated series of medicinal doses with placebos and waiting and watching. He
used so many different methods that a simplistic mechanical approach cannot
embrace his artistic techniques. As Croserio said,
"It would be impossible
for me to give in a letter all the shadings of his treatment. By your constant
correspondence with the learned sage you have had abundant opportunity to learn
to appreciate his rare powers of observation, and you will therefore easily see
that his mode of action was not always the same."
Hahnemann varied the adjustments of the size of dose, the degree of the
potency, and the intervals of repetition based on what the individual needed. He
did not have one predetermined method that was supposed to suit all patients.
The 6th Organon only contains baseline examples not a fixed mechanical method.
He used single doses and infrequent repetition interspersed by placebo as well
as frequent repetition daily, every other day, every three days, etc. One
cannot oversimplify Hahnemann's methods because "his mode of action was
not always the same." All of his case management strategies were
individualized to suit the symptoms, time and circumstances.
There are too many people that think they can give the LM potency daily
for long periods in a mechanical fashion. One patient was told to take the LM
potency daily for 6 weeks just to test the remedy! The idea that one can give
the daily dose for months is often separated from the words if necessary found
in the footnote to aphorism 246. I have not seen one LM case in the Paris
Casebooks where Hahnemann thought it was necessary. The Founder used almost as
much placebo as medicine!
Hahnemann groomed Baron von Boenninghausen as one of his successors.
That is why the Founder shared the methods of the LM potency with him before he
passed away. The Baron knew the pharmaceutical methods of making the remedies
as well as the case management scenarios necessary to safely apply the new
dynamizations. Other than Melanie Hahnemann, Boenninghausen seems to be the
only person who was privy to this information. He was well placed to teach the
new system and comment on the ramifications of the 6th edition. It seems that
this was the Founder's original intention.
Melanie Hahnemann asked Boenninghausen not to release information about
the LM potency until after she published the 6th Organon. Unfortunately, Madam
did not complete the task and the Baron passed away before he was allowed to
share his experience. Melanie was the only remaining person with knowledge of
the LM potency, but unfortunately she never released the 6th Organon or
Hahnemann's casebooks. This was a great loss to the homoeopathic community as
the 6th Organon and the LM potency became one of the lost teachings of Samuel
Hahnemann.
In our times there has been a great resurgence of interest in
Hahnemann's advanced methods and the 6th Organon is finally receiving the
attention it deserves. Although there has been some confusion and agenda-driven
abuse of this subject, a group of mature homoeopaths is now spreading the true
techniques throughout the world. I am sure Samuel Hahnemann would be pleased to
know that his final efforts were not in vain.
Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen Impressum