Hi,


What is the current estimate of the percentage of
US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
Do you see superior results?

Jack



_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Hi,


What is the current estimate of the percentage of
US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
Do you see superior results?

Jack



_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?

In my opinion LMs are out of date.

They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.

However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
potency series.

That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
LM, etc aspect.
But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.

Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
potency selection.

> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
> Do you see superior results?

I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
"pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
for those cases without aggravation.
I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
do not aggravate if used correctly.

The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
"The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.

You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
it made in my work on FIP disease:

peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
from-500-cases/>

OR short link:

http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP

So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
point doing anything else.
I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
option........... we have it now.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Hi,


What is the current estimate of the percentage of
US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
Do you see superior results?

Jack



_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?

In my opinion LMs are out of date.

They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.

However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
potency series.

That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
LM, etc aspect.
But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.

Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
potency selection.

> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
> Do you see superior results?

I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
"pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
for those cases without aggravation.
I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
do not aggravate if used correctly.

The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
"The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.

You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
it made in my work on FIP disease:

peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
from-500-cases/>

OR short link:

http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP

So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
point doing anything else.
I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
option........... we have it now.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What made
me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's last
and latest improvement to the area of potencies, and they haven't been
given a fair chance to prove themselves since.

Most homeopaths are using Kent's more or less arbitrary scale of 6C,
12C, 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M, CM, etc. Not many homeopaths know that
Hahnemann talks exclusively about the LM in his 6th edition of the
Organon. It's just due to the historical fact that the 6th edition was
published only in 1921, well after Kent's practice cought on large
scale, that LM potencies were even starting to be discussed.

> In my opinion LMs are out of date.I, for one, don't think that the date should be a criteria by which to
judge the merit of LM potencies. They are certainly more "modern" than C
potencies which are used by the vast majority of classical homeopaths.
Having used both scales for many years I can say that LM potencies -- if
used properly!!! (but that's another topic) -- offer severyl big
advantages at the expense of a more involved case management.

I would never want to miss them!

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Hi,


What is the current estimate of the percentage of
US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
Do you see superior results?

Jack



_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?

In my opinion LMs are out of date.

They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.

However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
potency series.

That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
LM, etc aspect.
But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.

Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
potency selection.

> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
> Do you see superior results?

I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
"pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
for those cases without aggravation.
I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
do not aggravate if used correctly.

The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
"The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.

You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
it made in my work on FIP disease:

peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
from-500-cases/>

OR short link:

http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP

So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
point doing anything else.
I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
option........... we have it now.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What made
me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's last
and latest improvement to the area of potencies, and they haven't been
given a fair chance to prove themselves since.

Most homeopaths are using Kent's more or less arbitrary scale of 6C,
12C, 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M, CM, etc. Not many homeopaths know that
Hahnemann talks exclusively about the LM in his 6th edition of the
Organon. It's just due to the historical fact that the 6th edition was
published only in 1921, well after Kent's practice cought on large
scale, that LM potencies were even starting to be discussed.

> In my opinion LMs are out of date.I, for one, don't think that the date should be a criteria by which to
judge the merit of LM potencies. They are certainly more "modern" than C
potencies which are used by the vast majority of classical homeopaths.
Having used both scales for many years I can say that LM potencies -- if
used properly!!! (but that's another topic) -- offer severyl big
advantages at the expense of a more involved case management.

I would never want to miss them!

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
I apologize for not including the proper name of the book I
recommend on potency by Dr Rozencwajg, at Lulu.com. It is this:


"Removing the guesswork from potency selection."
By Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD.
Paperback: $16.60

Jack writes:

> I have been involved with
> homeopathy for 25 years and feel that we have not
> yet arrived at an optimum system of treatment.

It seems to me it would be arrogant to think we have ever reached
perfection and that it is always good to strive to do better in some
way. I love what Hahnemann left us, but he'd never have sat on it
unchanged if he had been around longer, and nor should we. Adding to
such a solid base, and staying within all the good principles, is a
worthy challenge.

> A
> lot of homeopaths keep on doing the same thing
> over and over even though its NOT working.

..if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you
always got.
...By definition then, one can never improve the result. A hard fact.


> A
> lot of homeopaths lack rigorous self-honesty.

The principle Hahnemann had to begin with, is valid - the number one
thing to do is to "cure the patient".
If what we do is not working to "cure the patient", then it HAS to be
changed to something that does work, simply to comply with H's rule
number one. (Or anyone's common sense.)

Namaste,
Irene

On Feb 23, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Irene de Villiers wrote:

>
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
>> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
>
> In my opinion LMs are out of date.
>
> They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
> different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
> of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
> LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.
>
> However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
> developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
> exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
> It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
> natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
> potency series.
>
> That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
> potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
> LM, etc aspect.
> But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.
>
> Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
> 233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
> efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
> It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
> potency selection.
>
>> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
>> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
>> Do you see superior results?
>
> I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
> specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
> "pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
> for those cases without aggravation.
> I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
> do not aggravate if used correctly.
>
> The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
> "The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.
>
> You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
> series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
> it made in my work on FIP disease:
>
> > peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
> from-500-cases/>
>
> OR short link:
>
> http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP
>
> So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
> point doing anything else.
> I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
> to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
> being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
> potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
> Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
> option........... we have it now.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
>
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Hi,


What is the current estimate of the percentage of
US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
Do you see superior results?

Jack



_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?

In my opinion LMs are out of date.

They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.

However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
potency series.

That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
LM, etc aspect.
But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.

Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
potency selection.

> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
> Do you see superior results?

I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
"pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
for those cases without aggravation.
I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
do not aggravate if used correctly.

The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
"The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.

You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
it made in my work on FIP disease:

peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
from-500-cases/>

OR short link:

http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP

So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
point doing anything else.
I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
option........... we have it now.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What made
me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's last
and latest improvement to the area of potencies, and they haven't been
given a fair chance to prove themselves since.

Most homeopaths are using Kent's more or less arbitrary scale of 6C,
12C, 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M, CM, etc. Not many homeopaths know that
Hahnemann talks exclusively about the LM in his 6th edition of the
Organon. It's just due to the historical fact that the 6th edition was
published only in 1921, well after Kent's practice cought on large
scale, that LM potencies were even starting to be discussed.

> In my opinion LMs are out of date.I, for one, don't think that the date should be a criteria by which to
judge the merit of LM potencies. They are certainly more "modern" than C
potencies which are used by the vast majority of classical homeopaths.
Having used both scales for many years I can say that LM potencies -- if
used properly!!! (but that's another topic) -- offer severyl big
advantages at the expense of a more involved case management.

I would never want to miss them!

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
I apologize for not including the proper name of the book I
recommend on potency by Dr Rozencwajg, at Lulu.com. It is this:


"Removing the guesswork from potency selection."
By Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD.
Paperback: $16.60

Jack writes:

> I have been involved with
> homeopathy for 25 years and feel that we have not
> yet arrived at an optimum system of treatment.

It seems to me it would be arrogant to think we have ever reached
perfection and that it is always good to strive to do better in some
way. I love what Hahnemann left us, but he'd never have sat on it
unchanged if he had been around longer, and nor should we. Adding to
such a solid base, and staying within all the good principles, is a
worthy challenge.

> A
> lot of homeopaths keep on doing the same thing
> over and over even though its NOT working.

..if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you
always got.
...By definition then, one can never improve the result. A hard fact.


> A
> lot of homeopaths lack rigorous self-honesty.

The principle Hahnemann had to begin with, is valid - the number one
thing to do is to "cure the patient".
If what we do is not working to "cure the patient", then it HAS to be
changed to something that does work, simply to comply with H's rule
number one. (Or anyone's common sense.)

Namaste,
Irene

On Feb 23, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Irene de Villiers wrote:

>
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
>> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
>
> In my opinion LMs are out of date.
>
> They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
> different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
> of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
> LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.
>
> However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
> developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
> exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
> It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
> natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
> potency series.
>
> That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
> potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
> LM, etc aspect.
> But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.
>
> Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
> 233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
> efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
> It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
> potency selection.
>
>> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
>> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
>> Do you see superior results?
>
> I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
> specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
> "pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
> for those cases without aggravation.
> I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
> do not aggravate if used correctly.
>
> The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
> "The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.
>
> You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
> series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
> it made in my work on FIP disease:
>
> > peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
> from-500-cases/>
>
> OR short link:
>
> http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP
>
> So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
> point doing anything else.
> I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
> to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
> being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
> potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
> Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
> option........... we have it now.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
>
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Irene de Villiers;87195 Wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:39 AM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
> > conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What
> > made
> > me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's
> > last
> > and latest improvement to the area of potencies,
>
> I would perhaps have been more impressed with LMs if Hahnemann had
> used them consistently after he developed them. But even he was not
> satisfied and went back to using C's and combinations of C's and
> LMs.......per his Paris case books............ though he was a
> typical Sulfur in firmly pushing his LMs in the 6th Organon:-)
>
> Credit to Hahnemann, in my book, goes for *continuing to try* to find
> better and better potency options. He did not have time to find the
> best answer..... what he did achieve is phenomenal - it is hard to
> comprehend the magnitude of this one man's work in a single lifetime.
> But potency never did get resolved... except for the need to be in
> aqueous solution for best effect.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> 'www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html'
> (http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html) (Veterinary
> Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,

I don't believe that regarding potency there is anything to "resolve"
but rather continually improve. And it is here that I would like to
lodge a bit of criticism with the homeopathic community: many people
have opinions about LM potencies without the benefit of personal
experience.

I just simply believe that before venturing beyond Hahnemann's practice
we should at least be able to reproduce his last results accurately and
faithfully. In other words: you can't move beyond something unless
you've "been there and done that".

The only justification for my opinion about LM potencies is my own
experience with them and contrasting that to my own experience with C
potencies. Hahnemann was continually working to make homeopathy a more
and more individualized therapy. LM potencies are a big step in that
direction and offer more individualized control over the posological
regime. So now I not only have to be precise in the selection of the
remedy, I also have to individualize the potency, the potency
progression, the dilution, the dose and the frequency of repetition.

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Hi,


What is the current estimate of the percentage of
US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
Do you see superior results?

Jack



_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?

In my opinion LMs are out of date.

They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.

However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
potency series.

That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
LM, etc aspect.
But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.

Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
potency selection.

> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
> Do you see superior results?

I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
"pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
for those cases without aggravation.
I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
do not aggravate if used correctly.

The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
"The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.

You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
it made in my work on FIP disease:

peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
from-500-cases/>

OR short link:

http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP

So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
point doing anything else.
I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
option........... we have it now.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What made
me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's last
and latest improvement to the area of potencies, and they haven't been
given a fair chance to prove themselves since.

Most homeopaths are using Kent's more or less arbitrary scale of 6C,
12C, 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M, CM, etc. Not many homeopaths know that
Hahnemann talks exclusively about the LM in his 6th edition of the
Organon. It's just due to the historical fact that the 6th edition was
published only in 1921, well after Kent's practice cought on large
scale, that LM potencies were even starting to be discussed.

> In my opinion LMs are out of date.I, for one, don't think that the date should be a criteria by which to
judge the merit of LM potencies. They are certainly more "modern" than C
potencies which are used by the vast majority of classical homeopaths.
Having used both scales for many years I can say that LM potencies -- if
used properly!!! (but that's another topic) -- offer severyl big
advantages at the expense of a more involved case management.

I would never want to miss them!

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
I apologize for not including the proper name of the book I
recommend on potency by Dr Rozencwajg, at Lulu.com. It is this:


"Removing the guesswork from potency selection."
By Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD.
Paperback: $16.60

Jack writes:

> I have been involved with
> homeopathy for 25 years and feel that we have not
> yet arrived at an optimum system of treatment.

It seems to me it would be arrogant to think we have ever reached
perfection and that it is always good to strive to do better in some
way. I love what Hahnemann left us, but he'd never have sat on it
unchanged if he had been around longer, and nor should we. Adding to
such a solid base, and staying within all the good principles, is a
worthy challenge.

> A
> lot of homeopaths keep on doing the same thing
> over and over even though its NOT working.

..if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you
always got.
...By definition then, one can never improve the result. A hard fact.


> A
> lot of homeopaths lack rigorous self-honesty.

The principle Hahnemann had to begin with, is valid - the number one
thing to do is to "cure the patient".
If what we do is not working to "cure the patient", then it HAS to be
changed to something that does work, simply to comply with H's rule
number one. (Or anyone's common sense.)

Namaste,
Irene

On Feb 23, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Irene de Villiers wrote:

>
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
>> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
>
> In my opinion LMs are out of date.
>
> They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
> different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
> of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
> LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.
>
> However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
> developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
> exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
> It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
> natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
> potency series.
>
> That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
> potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
> LM, etc aspect.
> But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.
>
> Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
> 233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
> efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
> It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
> potency selection.
>
>> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
>> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
>> Do you see superior results?
>
> I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
> specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
> "pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
> for those cases without aggravation.
> I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
> do not aggravate if used correctly.
>
> The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
> "The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.
>
> You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
> series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
> it made in my work on FIP disease:
>
> > peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
> from-500-cases/>
>
> OR short link:
>
> http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP
>
> So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
> point doing anything else.
> I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
> to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
> being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
> potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
> Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
> option........... we have it now.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
>
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Irene de Villiers;87195 Wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:39 AM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
> > conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What
> > made
> > me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's
> > last
> > and latest improvement to the area of potencies,
>
> I would perhaps have been more impressed with LMs if Hahnemann had
> used them consistently after he developed them. But even he was not
> satisfied and went back to using C's and combinations of C's and
> LMs.......per his Paris case books............ though he was a
> typical Sulfur in firmly pushing his LMs in the 6th Organon:-)
>
> Credit to Hahnemann, in my book, goes for *continuing to try* to find
> better and better potency options. He did not have time to find the
> best answer..... what he did achieve is phenomenal - it is hard to
> comprehend the magnitude of this one man's work in a single lifetime.
> But potency never did get resolved... except for the need to be in
> aqueous solution for best effect.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> 'www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html'
> (http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html) (Veterinary
> Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,

I don't believe that regarding potency there is anything to "resolve"
but rather continually improve. And it is here that I would like to
lodge a bit of criticism with the homeopathic community: many people
have opinions about LM potencies without the benefit of personal
experience.

I just simply believe that before venturing beyond Hahnemann's practice
we should at least be able to reproduce his last results accurately and
faithfully. In other words: you can't move beyond something unless
you've "been there and done that".

The only justification for my opinion about LM potencies is my own
experience with them and contrasting that to my own experience with C
potencies. Hahnemann was continually working to make homeopathy a more
and more individualized therapy. LM potencies are a big step in that
direction and offer more individualized control over the posological
regime. So now I not only have to be precise in the selection of the
remedy, I also have to individualize the potency, the potency
progression, the dilution, the dose and the frequency of repetition.

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Shannon Nelson;87199 Wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Have you by any chance read or experimented with the Fibonacci series
> potencies, per Joe Rozencwajg's articles and book? It is fascinating!
>
> Shannon

No, not yet. I am familiar with the Fibonacci numbers in a mathematical
context but not in a homeopathic one. Can you tell me what your
experience is with them?

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Hi,


What is the current estimate of the percentage of
US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
Do you see superior results?

Jack



_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?

In my opinion LMs are out of date.

They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.

However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
potency series.

That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
LM, etc aspect.
But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.

Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
potency selection.

> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
> Do you see superior results?

I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
"pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
for those cases without aggravation.
I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
do not aggravate if used correctly.

The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
"The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.

You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
it made in my work on FIP disease:

peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
from-500-cases/>

OR short link:

http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP

So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
point doing anything else.
I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
option........... we have it now.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What made
me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's last
and latest improvement to the area of potencies, and they haven't been
given a fair chance to prove themselves since.

Most homeopaths are using Kent's more or less arbitrary scale of 6C,
12C, 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M, CM, etc. Not many homeopaths know that
Hahnemann talks exclusively about the LM in his 6th edition of the
Organon. It's just due to the historical fact that the 6th edition was
published only in 1921, well after Kent's practice cought on large
scale, that LM potencies were even starting to be discussed.

> In my opinion LMs are out of date.I, for one, don't think that the date should be a criteria by which to
judge the merit of LM potencies. They are certainly more "modern" than C
potencies which are used by the vast majority of classical homeopaths.
Having used both scales for many years I can say that LM potencies -- if
used properly!!! (but that's another topic) -- offer severyl big
advantages at the expense of a more involved case management.

I would never want to miss them!

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
I apologize for not including the proper name of the book I
recommend on potency by Dr Rozencwajg, at Lulu.com. It is this:


"Removing the guesswork from potency selection."
By Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD.
Paperback: $16.60

Jack writes:

> I have been involved with
> homeopathy for 25 years and feel that we have not
> yet arrived at an optimum system of treatment.

It seems to me it would be arrogant to think we have ever reached
perfection and that it is always good to strive to do better in some
way. I love what Hahnemann left us, but he'd never have sat on it
unchanged if he had been around longer, and nor should we. Adding to
such a solid base, and staying within all the good principles, is a
worthy challenge.

> A
> lot of homeopaths keep on doing the same thing
> over and over even though its NOT working.

..if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you
always got.
...By definition then, one can never improve the result. A hard fact.


> A
> lot of homeopaths lack rigorous self-honesty.

The principle Hahnemann had to begin with, is valid - the number one
thing to do is to "cure the patient".
If what we do is not working to "cure the patient", then it HAS to be
changed to something that does work, simply to comply with H's rule
number one. (Or anyone's common sense.)

Namaste,
Irene

On Feb 23, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Irene de Villiers wrote:

>
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
>> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
>
> In my opinion LMs are out of date.
>
> They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
> different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
> of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
> LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.
>
> However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
> developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
> exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
> It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
> natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
> potency series.
>
> That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
> potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
> LM, etc aspect.
> But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.
>
> Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
> 233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
> efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
> It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
> potency selection.
>
>> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
>> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
>> Do you see superior results?
>
> I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
> specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
> "pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
> for those cases without aggravation.
> I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
> do not aggravate if used correctly.
>
> The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
> "The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.
>
> You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
> series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
> it made in my work on FIP disease:
>
> > peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
> from-500-cases/>
>
> OR short link:
>
> http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP
>
> So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
> point doing anything else.
> I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
> to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
> being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
> potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
> Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
> option........... we have it now.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
>
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Irene de Villiers;87195 Wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:39 AM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
> > conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What
> > made
> > me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's
> > last
> > and latest improvement to the area of potencies,
>
> I would perhaps have been more impressed with LMs if Hahnemann had
> used them consistently after he developed them. But even he was not
> satisfied and went back to using C's and combinations of C's and
> LMs.......per his Paris case books............ though he was a
> typical Sulfur in firmly pushing his LMs in the 6th Organon:-)
>
> Credit to Hahnemann, in my book, goes for *continuing to try* to find
> better and better potency options. He did not have time to find the
> best answer..... what he did achieve is phenomenal - it is hard to
> comprehend the magnitude of this one man's work in a single lifetime.
> But potency never did get resolved... except for the need to be in
> aqueous solution for best effect.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> 'www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html'
> (http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html) (Veterinary
> Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,

I don't believe that regarding potency there is anything to "resolve"
but rather continually improve. And it is here that I would like to
lodge a bit of criticism with the homeopathic community: many people
have opinions about LM potencies without the benefit of personal
experience.

I just simply believe that before venturing beyond Hahnemann's practice
we should at least be able to reproduce his last results accurately and
faithfully. In other words: you can't move beyond something unless
you've "been there and done that".

The only justification for my opinion about LM potencies is my own
experience with them and contrasting that to my own experience with C
potencies. Hahnemann was continually working to make homeopathy a more
and more individualized therapy. LM potencies are a big step in that
direction and offer more individualized control over the posological
regime. So now I not only have to be precise in the selection of the
remedy, I also have to individualize the potency, the potency
progression, the dilution, the dose and the frequency of repetition.

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Shannon Nelson;87199 Wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Have you by any chance read or experimented with the Fibonacci series
> potencies, per Joe Rozencwajg's articles and book? It is fascinating!
>
> Shannon

No, not yet. I am familiar with the Fibonacci numbers in a mathematical
context but not in a homeopathic one. Can you tell me what your
experience is with them?

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
Life is a complex business and none of us knows what lies ahead.

I think Irene's remarkable resilience in the face of the difficulties
she has encountered is inspiring and to be applauded. It speaks volumes.

I have often thought that my prescribing style must be poles apart to
Irene's but the truth is that we are both people first and homeopaths
second and so there is still much more for us to agree upon than disagree.

I'm all for vigorous debates but hate it when things turn nasty and ugly.



On 6/03/2011 9:43 PM, wrote:
>
>
>

--

Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Hi,


What is the current estimate of the percentage of
US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
Do you see superior results?

Jack



_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?

In my opinion LMs are out of date.

They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.

However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
potency series.

That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
LM, etc aspect.
But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.

Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
potency selection.

> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
> Do you see superior results?

I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
"pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
for those cases without aggravation.
I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
do not aggravate if used correctly.

The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
"The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.

You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
it made in my work on FIP disease:

peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
from-500-cases/>

OR short link:

http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP

So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
point doing anything else.
I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
option........... we have it now.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What made
me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's last
and latest improvement to the area of potencies, and they haven't been
given a fair chance to prove themselves since.

Most homeopaths are using Kent's more or less arbitrary scale of 6C,
12C, 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M, CM, etc. Not many homeopaths know that
Hahnemann talks exclusively about the LM in his 6th edition of the
Organon. It's just due to the historical fact that the 6th edition was
published only in 1921, well after Kent's practice cought on large
scale, that LM potencies were even starting to be discussed.

> In my opinion LMs are out of date.I, for one, don't think that the date should be a criteria by which to
judge the merit of LM potencies. They are certainly more "modern" than C
potencies which are used by the vast majority of classical homeopaths.
Having used both scales for many years I can say that LM potencies -- if
used properly!!! (but that's another topic) -- offer severyl big
advantages at the expense of a more involved case management.

I would never want to miss them!

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
I apologize for not including the proper name of the book I
recommend on potency by Dr Rozencwajg, at Lulu.com. It is this:


"Removing the guesswork from potency selection."
By Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD.
Paperback: $16.60

Jack writes:

> I have been involved with
> homeopathy for 25 years and feel that we have not
> yet arrived at an optimum system of treatment.

It seems to me it would be arrogant to think we have ever reached
perfection and that it is always good to strive to do better in some
way. I love what Hahnemann left us, but he'd never have sat on it
unchanged if he had been around longer, and nor should we. Adding to
such a solid base, and staying within all the good principles, is a
worthy challenge.

> A
> lot of homeopaths keep on doing the same thing
> over and over even though its NOT working.

..if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you
always got.
...By definition then, one can never improve the result. A hard fact.


> A
> lot of homeopaths lack rigorous self-honesty.

The principle Hahnemann had to begin with, is valid - the number one
thing to do is to "cure the patient".
If what we do is not working to "cure the patient", then it HAS to be
changed to something that does work, simply to comply with H's rule
number one. (Or anyone's common sense.)

Namaste,
Irene

On Feb 23, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Irene de Villiers wrote:

>
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
>> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
>
> In my opinion LMs are out of date.
>
> They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
> different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
> of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
> LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.
>
> However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
> developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
> exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
> It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
> natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
> potency series.
>
> That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
> potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
> LM, etc aspect.
> But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.
>
> Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
> 233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
> efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
> It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
> potency selection.
>
>> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
>> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
>> Do you see superior results?
>
> I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
> specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
> "pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
> for those cases without aggravation.
> I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
> do not aggravate if used correctly.
>
> The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
> "The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.
>
> You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
> series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
> it made in my work on FIP disease:
>
> > peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
> from-500-cases/>
>
> OR short link:
>
> http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP
>
> So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
> point doing anything else.
> I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
> to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
> being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
> potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
> Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
> option........... we have it now.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
>
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Irene de Villiers;87195 Wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:39 AM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
> > conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What
> > made
> > me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's
> > last
> > and latest improvement to the area of potencies,
>
> I would perhaps have been more impressed with LMs if Hahnemann had
> used them consistently after he developed them. But even he was not
> satisfied and went back to using C's and combinations of C's and
> LMs.......per his Paris case books............ though he was a
> typical Sulfur in firmly pushing his LMs in the 6th Organon:-)
>
> Credit to Hahnemann, in my book, goes for *continuing to try* to find
> better and better potency options. He did not have time to find the
> best answer..... what he did achieve is phenomenal - it is hard to
> comprehend the magnitude of this one man's work in a single lifetime.
> But potency never did get resolved... except for the need to be in
> aqueous solution for best effect.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> 'www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html'
> (http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html) (Veterinary
> Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,

I don't believe that regarding potency there is anything to "resolve"
but rather continually improve. And it is here that I would like to
lodge a bit of criticism with the homeopathic community: many people
have opinions about LM potencies without the benefit of personal
experience.

I just simply believe that before venturing beyond Hahnemann's practice
we should at least be able to reproduce his last results accurately and
faithfully. In other words: you can't move beyond something unless
you've "been there and done that".

The only justification for my opinion about LM potencies is my own
experience with them and contrasting that to my own experience with C
potencies. Hahnemann was continually working to make homeopathy a more
and more individualized therapy. LM potencies are a big step in that
direction and offer more individualized control over the posological
regime. So now I not only have to be precise in the selection of the
remedy, I also have to individualize the potency, the potency
progression, the dilution, the dose and the frequency of repetition.

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Shannon Nelson;87199 Wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Have you by any chance read or experimented with the Fibonacci series
> potencies, per Joe Rozencwajg's articles and book? It is fascinating!
>
> Shannon

No, not yet. I am familiar with the Fibonacci numbers in a mathematical
context but not in a homeopathic one. Can you tell me what your
experience is with them?

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
Life is a complex business and none of us knows what lies ahead.

I think Irene's remarkable resilience in the face of the difficulties
she has encountered is inspiring and to be applauded. It speaks volumes.

I have often thought that my prescribing style must be poles apart to
Irene's but the truth is that we are both people first and homeopaths
second and so there is still much more for us to agree upon than disagree.

I'm all for vigorous debates but hate it when things turn nasty and ugly.



On 6/03/2011 9:43 PM, wrote:
>
>
>

--

Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
Fran, I do so appreciate your balanced perspective, and do so
resoundingly agree with all you've written below--thanks again.

Shannon


On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:58 AM, Fran Sheffield wrote:

> Life is a complex business and none of us knows what lies ahead.
>
> I think Irene's remarkable resilience in the face of the difficulties
> she has encountered is inspiring and to be applauded. It speaks
> volumes.
>
> I have often thought that my prescribing style must be poles apart to
> Irene's but the truth is that we are both people first and homeopaths
> second and so there is still much more for us to agree upon than
> disagree.
>
> I'm all for vigorous debates but hate it when things turn nasty and
> ugly.
>
>
>
> On 6/03/2011 9:43 PM, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Fran Sheffield
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
>
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Hi,


What is the current estimate of the percentage of
US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
Do you see superior results?

Jack



_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?

In my opinion LMs are out of date.

They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.

However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
potency series.

That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
LM, etc aspect.
But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.

Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
potency selection.

> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
> Do you see superior results?

I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
"pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
for those cases without aggravation.
I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
do not aggravate if used correctly.

The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
"The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.

You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
it made in my work on FIP disease:

peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
from-500-cases/>

OR short link:

http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP

So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
point doing anything else.
I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
option........... we have it now.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What made
me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's last
and latest improvement to the area of potencies, and they haven't been
given a fair chance to prove themselves since.

Most homeopaths are using Kent's more or less arbitrary scale of 6C,
12C, 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M, CM, etc. Not many homeopaths know that
Hahnemann talks exclusively about the LM in his 6th edition of the
Organon. It's just due to the historical fact that the 6th edition was
published only in 1921, well after Kent's practice cought on large
scale, that LM potencies were even starting to be discussed.

> In my opinion LMs are out of date.I, for one, don't think that the date should be a criteria by which to
judge the merit of LM potencies. They are certainly more "modern" than C
potencies which are used by the vast majority of classical homeopaths.
Having used both scales for many years I can say that LM potencies -- if
used properly!!! (but that's another topic) -- offer severyl big
advantages at the expense of a more involved case management.

I would never want to miss them!

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
I apologize for not including the proper name of the book I
recommend on potency by Dr Rozencwajg, at Lulu.com. It is this:


"Removing the guesswork from potency selection."
By Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD.
Paperback: $16.60

Jack writes:

> I have been involved with
> homeopathy for 25 years and feel that we have not
> yet arrived at an optimum system of treatment.

It seems to me it would be arrogant to think we have ever reached
perfection and that it is always good to strive to do better in some
way. I love what Hahnemann left us, but he'd never have sat on it
unchanged if he had been around longer, and nor should we. Adding to
such a solid base, and staying within all the good principles, is a
worthy challenge.

> A
> lot of homeopaths keep on doing the same thing
> over and over even though its NOT working.

..if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you
always got.
...By definition then, one can never improve the result. A hard fact.


> A
> lot of homeopaths lack rigorous self-honesty.

The principle Hahnemann had to begin with, is valid - the number one
thing to do is to "cure the patient".
If what we do is not working to "cure the patient", then it HAS to be
changed to something that does work, simply to comply with H's rule
number one. (Or anyone's common sense.)

Namaste,
Irene

On Feb 23, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Irene de Villiers wrote:

>
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
>> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
>
> In my opinion LMs are out of date.
>
> They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
> different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
> of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
> LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.
>
> However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
> developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
> exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
> It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
> natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
> potency series.
>
> That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
> potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
> LM, etc aspect.
> But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.
>
> Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
> 233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
> efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
> It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
> potency selection.
>
>> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
>> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
>> Do you see superior results?
>
> I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
> specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
> "pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
> for those cases without aggravation.
> I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
> do not aggravate if used correctly.
>
> The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
> "The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.
>
> You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
> series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
> it made in my work on FIP disease:
>
> > peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
> from-500-cases/>
>
> OR short link:
>
> http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP
>
> So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
> point doing anything else.
> I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
> to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
> being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
> potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
> Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
> option........... we have it now.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
>
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Irene de Villiers;87195 Wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:39 AM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
> > conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What
> > made
> > me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's
> > last
> > and latest improvement to the area of potencies,
>
> I would perhaps have been more impressed with LMs if Hahnemann had
> used them consistently after he developed them. But even he was not
> satisfied and went back to using C's and combinations of C's and
> LMs.......per his Paris case books............ though he was a
> typical Sulfur in firmly pushing his LMs in the 6th Organon:-)
>
> Credit to Hahnemann, in my book, goes for *continuing to try* to find
> better and better potency options. He did not have time to find the
> best answer..... what he did achieve is phenomenal - it is hard to
> comprehend the magnitude of this one man's work in a single lifetime.
> But potency never did get resolved... except for the need to be in
> aqueous solution for best effect.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> 'www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html'
> (http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html) (Veterinary
> Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,

I don't believe that regarding potency there is anything to "resolve"
but rather continually improve. And it is here that I would like to
lodge a bit of criticism with the homeopathic community: many people
have opinions about LM potencies without the benefit of personal
experience.

I just simply believe that before venturing beyond Hahnemann's practice
we should at least be able to reproduce his last results accurately and
faithfully. In other words: you can't move beyond something unless
you've "been there and done that".

The only justification for my opinion about LM potencies is my own
experience with them and contrasting that to my own experience with C
potencies. Hahnemann was continually working to make homeopathy a more
and more individualized therapy. LM potencies are a big step in that
direction and offer more individualized control over the posological
regime. So now I not only have to be precise in the selection of the
remedy, I also have to individualize the potency, the potency
progression, the dilution, the dose and the frequency of repetition.

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Shannon Nelson;87199 Wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Have you by any chance read or experimented with the Fibonacci series
> potencies, per Joe Rozencwajg's articles and book? It is fascinating!
>
> Shannon

No, not yet. I am familiar with the Fibonacci numbers in a mathematical
context but not in a homeopathic one. Can you tell me what your
experience is with them?

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
Life is a complex business and none of us knows what lies ahead.

I think Irene's remarkable resilience in the face of the difficulties
she has encountered is inspiring and to be applauded. It speaks volumes.

I have often thought that my prescribing style must be poles apart to
Irene's but the truth is that we are both people first and homeopaths
second and so there is still much more for us to agree upon than disagree.

I'm all for vigorous debates but hate it when things turn nasty and ugly.



On 6/03/2011 9:43 PM, wrote:
>
>
>

--

Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
Fran, I do so appreciate your balanced perspective, and do so
resoundingly agree with all you've written below--thanks again.

Shannon


On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:58 AM, Fran Sheffield wrote:

> Life is a complex business and none of us knows what lies ahead.
>
> I think Irene's remarkable resilience in the face of the difficulties
> she has encountered is inspiring and to be applauded. It speaks
> volumes.
>
> I have often thought that my prescribing style must be poles apart to
> Irene's but the truth is that we are both people first and homeopaths
> second and so there is still much more for us to agree upon than
> disagree.
>
> I'm all for vigorous debates but hate it when things turn nasty and
> ugly.
>
>
>
> On 6/03/2011 9:43 PM, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Fran Sheffield
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
>
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:22 AM, leilanae wrote:

>
>
> Shannon,
>
> I also agree with Fran's balanced point of view.
>
> Leilanae
>
>> Fran, I do so appreciate your balanced perspective, and do so
>> resoundingly agree with all you've written below--thanks again.
>>
>> Shannon
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:58 AM, Fran Sheffield wrote:
>>
>>> Life is a complex business and none of us knows what lies ahead.
>>>
>>> I think Irene's remarkable resilience in the face of the difficulties
>>> she has encountered is inspiring and to be applauded. It speaks
>>> volumes.
>>>
>>> I have often thought that my prescribing style must be poles apart to
>>> Irene's but the truth is that we are both people first and homeopaths
>>> second and so there is still much more for us to agree upon than
>>> disagree.
>>>
>>> I'm all for vigorous debates but hate it when things turn nasty and
>>> ugly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/03/2011 9:43 PM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Fran Sheffield
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Homeopathy Mailing List
>>>
>>> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Homeopathy Mailing List
>>
>> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Hi,


What is the current estimate of the percentage of
US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
Do you see superior results?

Jack



_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?

In my opinion LMs are out of date.

They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.

However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
potency series.

That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
LM, etc aspect.
But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.

Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
potency selection.

> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
> Do you see superior results?

I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
"pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
for those cases without aggravation.
I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
do not aggravate if used correctly.

The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
"The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.

You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
it made in my work on FIP disease:

peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
from-500-cases/>

OR short link:

http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP

So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
point doing anything else.
I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
option........... we have it now.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What made
me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's last
and latest improvement to the area of potencies, and they haven't been
given a fair chance to prove themselves since.

Most homeopaths are using Kent's more or less arbitrary scale of 6C,
12C, 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M, CM, etc. Not many homeopaths know that
Hahnemann talks exclusively about the LM in his 6th edition of the
Organon. It's just due to the historical fact that the 6th edition was
published only in 1921, well after Kent's practice cought on large
scale, that LM potencies were even starting to be discussed.

> In my opinion LMs are out of date.I, for one, don't think that the date should be a criteria by which to
judge the merit of LM potencies. They are certainly more "modern" than C
potencies which are used by the vast majority of classical homeopaths.
Having used both scales for many years I can say that LM potencies -- if
used properly!!! (but that's another topic) -- offer severyl big
advantages at the expense of a more involved case management.

I would never want to miss them!

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
I apologize for not including the proper name of the book I
recommend on potency by Dr Rozencwajg, at Lulu.com. It is this:


"Removing the guesswork from potency selection."
By Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD.
Paperback: $16.60

Jack writes:

> I have been involved with
> homeopathy for 25 years and feel that we have not
> yet arrived at an optimum system of treatment.

It seems to me it would be arrogant to think we have ever reached
perfection and that it is always good to strive to do better in some
way. I love what Hahnemann left us, but he'd never have sat on it
unchanged if he had been around longer, and nor should we. Adding to
such a solid base, and staying within all the good principles, is a
worthy challenge.

> A
> lot of homeopaths keep on doing the same thing
> over and over even though its NOT working.

..if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you
always got.
...By definition then, one can never improve the result. A hard fact.


> A
> lot of homeopaths lack rigorous self-honesty.

The principle Hahnemann had to begin with, is valid - the number one
thing to do is to "cure the patient".
If what we do is not working to "cure the patient", then it HAS to be
changed to something that does work, simply to comply with H's rule
number one. (Or anyone's common sense.)

Namaste,
Irene

On Feb 23, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Irene de Villiers wrote:

>
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jack Anderson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> What is the current estimate of the percentage of
>> US homeopaths that have switched to an LM practice?
>
> In my opinion LMs are out of date.
>
> They were the last eperiments by Hahnemann in his attempts -
> different in every edition of the Organon - to find an ideal system
> of potency - which he never did. ... Hence his swapping around from
> LMs to C's and back or using both - till his death.
>
> However, since then the Fibonacci series of potencies has been
> developed and DOES fit the laws of Nature. I have used these
> exclusively since they became known and available in 2009.
> It is a matter of time before ALL homeopaths see the logic, the
> natural sense and the efficacy and safety of this far more logical
> potency series.
>
> That said one could in theory use LMs in F series - or any chosen
> potency in F series....it is the F series that matters, not the X, C,
> LM, etc aspect.
> But the C potencies in series are the ones most studied and proved.
>
> Using Fibonacci series (eg 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C,
> 233C...) causes each potency to build on the others with GREAT
> efficacy. Anyone who has not read up on it yet is urged to do so.
> It is a major step forward and takes all the puzzlement out of
> potency selection.
>
>> Does anyone on the list have five years or more of
>> experience with full time use of LMs in their practice?
>> Do you see superior results?
>
> I saw INferior results in severe chronic cases - the ones where I
> specialize. It did not work FAST enough for some cases, and if
> "pushed", it aggravated. Ordinary C potencies did not go deep enough
> for those cases without aggravation.
> I see superior results with C potencies in F series. They go deep and
> do not aggravate if used correctly.
>
> The book on this with explanations and case studies is:
> "The Potency" by Dr Joe Rozencwajg, NMD. See Lulu.com under his name.
>
> You can also read the difference between ordinary potency and F
> series in my paper in Hpathy, Nov 2009, explaining what a difference
> it made in my work on FIP disease:
>
> > peritonitis-fip-case-management-and-suggested-new-rubrics-developed-
> from-500-cases/>
>
> OR short link:
>
> http://www.tinyurl.com/IreneNov2009FIP
>
> So far, whoever tries the F series, starts using them exclusively. No
> point doing anything else.
> I predict everyone will eventually be using them. It just takes time
> to get used to something new to us. It is really the answer though
> being based on nature - as is the Law of similars. We never had
> potency based on laws of nature before:-) I suspect that's why
> Hahnemann struggled and kept changing and looking for a better
> option........... we have it now.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
>
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Irene de Villiers;87195 Wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:39 AM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
> > conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What
> > made
> > me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's
> > last
> > and latest improvement to the area of potencies,
>
> I would perhaps have been more impressed with LMs if Hahnemann had
> used them consistently after he developed them. But even he was not
> satisfied and went back to using C's and combinations of C's and
> LMs.......per his Paris case books............ though he was a
> typical Sulfur in firmly pushing his LMs in the 6th Organon:-)
>
> Credit to Hahnemann, in my book, goes for *continuing to try* to find
> better and better potency options. He did not have time to find the
> best answer..... what he did achieve is phenomenal - it is hard to
> comprehend the magnitude of this one man's work in a single lifetime.
> But potency never did get resolved... except for the need to be in
> aqueous solution for best effect.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> 'www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html'
> (http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html) (Veterinary
> Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,

I don't believe that regarding potency there is anything to "resolve"
but rather continually improve. And it is here that I would like to
lodge a bit of criticism with the homeopathic community: many people
have opinions about LM potencies without the benefit of personal
experience.

I just simply believe that before venturing beyond Hahnemann's practice
we should at least be able to reproduce his last results accurately and
faithfully. In other words: you can't move beyond something unless
you've "been there and done that".

The only justification for my opinion about LM potencies is my own
experience with them and contrasting that to my own experience with C
potencies. Hahnemann was continually working to make homeopathy a more
and more individualized therapy. LM potencies are a big step in that
direction and offer more individualized control over the posological
regime. So now I not only have to be precise in the selection of the
remedy, I also have to individualize the potency, the potency
progression, the dilution, the dose and the frequency of repetition.

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

Shannon Nelson;87199 Wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Have you by any chance read or experimented with the Fibonacci series
> potencies, per Joe Rozencwajg's articles and book? It is fascinating!
>
> Shannon

No, not yet. I am familiar with the Fibonacci numbers in a mathematical
context but not in a homeopathic one. Can you tell me what your
experience is with them?

-- Chris.


--
ckurz7000

------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
Life is a complex business and none of us knows what lies ahead.

I think Irene's remarkable resilience in the face of the difficulties
she has encountered is inspiring and to be applauded. It speaks volumes.

I have often thought that my prescribing style must be poles apart to
Irene's but the truth is that we are both people first and homeopaths
second and so there is still much more for us to agree upon than disagree.

I'm all for vigorous debates but hate it when things turn nasty and ugly.



On 6/03/2011 9:43 PM, wrote:
>
>
>

--

Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)
Fran, I do so appreciate your balanced perspective, and do so
resoundingly agree with all you've written below--thanks again.

Shannon


On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:58 AM, Fran Sheffield wrote:

> Life is a complex business and none of us knows what lies ahead.
>
> I think Irene's remarkable resilience in the face of the difficulties
> she has encountered is inspiring and to be applauded. It speaks
> volumes.
>
> I have often thought that my prescribing style must be poles apart to
> Irene's but the truth is that we are both people first and homeopaths
> second and so there is still much more for us to agree upon than
> disagree.
>
> I'm all for vigorous debates but hate it when things turn nasty and
> ugly.
>
>
>
> On 6/03/2011 9:43 PM, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Fran Sheffield
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
>
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:22 AM, leilanae wrote:

>
>
> Shannon,
>
> I also agree with Fran's balanced point of view.
>
> Leilanae
>
>> Fran, I do so appreciate your balanced perspective, and do so
>> resoundingly agree with all you've written below--thanks again.
>>
>> Shannon
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:58 AM, Fran Sheffield wrote:
>>
>>> Life is a complex business and none of us knows what lies ahead.
>>>
>>> I think Irene's remarkable resilience in the face of the difficulties
>>> she has encountered is inspiring and to be applauded. It speaks
>>> volumes.
>>>
>>> I have often thought that my prescribing style must be poles apart to
>>> Irene's but the truth is that we are both people first and homeopaths
>>> second and so there is still much more for us to agree upon than
>>> disagree.
>>>
>>> I'm all for vigorous debates but hate it when things turn nasty and
>>> ugly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/03/2011 9:43 PM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Fran Sheffield
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Homeopathy Mailing List
>>>
>>> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Homeopathy Mailing List
>>
>> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)

On Mar 6, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. wrote:

>
>
> First of all, I am no more part of BIH, thankfully got rid of
> that....check
>
> Your information and actualise it.
>
>
>
> Yes we are personal friends, so what, jealous?

LOL :-)

Thanks - made my day:-)
.......Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List

http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
)