Misunderstanding Hahnemann’s Legacy (Little vs Saine)

The I.H.M. present a treatise by David Little in response to comments made by Andre Saine regarding the L.M.potencies. We felt the historical content worthy of publishing.

In our (I.H.M.) research of the Paris casebooks, we were were struck by the strangeness of some of the prescriptions and the methodology employed in case management. The case was written by his wife, and notes by Hahnemann himself added to the side with remedies added. I personally went through the entire work twice and English translations were provided by Vladimir from the work.

In looking for an explanation for the poor casework, we present the possibility that the patients were actually seen by Melanie and discussed with Hahnemann later, and he added notes for her consideration on certain symptoms. In any event, the casebooks are not representative of the quality of work which the German casebooks reveal.


Dear Colleagues,

I have great respect for Dr. Andre Saine but I must deal with his comments about Samuel Hahnemann, the LM potency, and the 6th Organon. I have studied the microfiches of the Paris casebooks very closely and read everything available on the subject of the LM potency. I have also used the C and LM potency in medicinal solution for over 20 years and taught countless others how to do likewise. There are several misconceptions and historical inaccuracies in his statements about the Hahnemann and the LM potency. For this reason, it is my duty to place the truth in the public domain.

Dr. Saine begins his critique by saying that Hahnemann commonly used the 200th potency by 1840 and that by the beginning of 1841 he started experimenting with the LM potency. He also said Hahnemann only had 12 LM remedies with Sulphur prepared only to the 0/20. He stated that Hahnemann only experimented with the LMs for around 2 years and used them less in 1842 than in 1841 and barely practiced in 1843. Then he says rather sardonically that Hahnemann “apparently” though he had enough experience to authoritatively recommend the LM potencies to his colleagues. Dr. Saine says he has read almost every LM case and it was truly “very difficult” to be satisfied with the results.

By 1840 Hahnemann was using potencies like the 191, 192, 193 to 199th and occasionally gave the 200C. For some reason, he preferred to use potencies in the 190-199C ranges rather than 200C. Is this because he found that the 200C was not the smoothest potency? This particular potency has earned a reputation as the “great aggravator” in some circles. Nevertheless by 1840s Hahnemann did have a good amount of experience with potencies up to the 200c, and according to Melanie, he also tested the 1M. Hahnemann continued to these higher potency centesimal remedies even after the developed the LM potency.

Dr. Saine claims that Hahnemann only began to use the LM potency in early 1841 and only administered the remedies for around two years. On this basis he implies that Hahnemann was rash to recommend the LM potency based on such limited experience. The idea that Hahnemann only used the LM potency for two years does not fit the timeline presented in the 6 th Organon or the material found in his Paris casebooks. In the footnote to aphorism 246 of the 6 th Organon (c. 1842-1843) the Founder wrote:

“What I said in the long footnote to this paragraph in the fifth edition of The Organon of the Medical Art was all that my experience allowed me to say at the time. It was written with the purpose of preventing these adverse reactions of the life principle. However, during the last four or five years, all such difficulties have been fully lifted through the modifications I have made since then, resulting in my new, perfected procedure [for fifty-millesimal potency medicines].”

Organon of the Medical Art; S . Hahnemann (O’Reilly 6th Edition), footnote, Aphorism 246.

The earliest known administration of the fifty-millesimal potency was on March 9, 1838 (DF-6 p.145) when Hahnemann prescribed Sulphur 0/1 to a patient named Eugene. The introduction of the medicinal solution and split-dose in 1837 and the first LM case in early 1838 fit perfectly into Hahnemann’s timeline for introducing his new methods. These two hallmark dates are exactly four to five years from the time of writing the 6th Organon . Although Ms. O’Reilly inserted the words [for fifty-millesimal potency medicine] into the text they are not found in the original German. This is because Hahnemann is referring to his “new, perfected procedure” that he applied equally to C and LM potency. This procedure includes the use of the medicinal solution, succussing the remedy bottle prior to administration, and the use of the split-dose at suitable intervals to speed the cure when necessary. This shows that Dr. Saine’s statement on this matter is historically incorrect.

Although the first LM prescriptions started in 1838, Hahnemann did not extensively test his new potency in the clinic until the 1840s. The idea that Hahnemann did not use the LM potency in 1840 is also false. For example, on May 22nd, 1840 Mr. Tarbocher (DF-12) received a single dose olfaction of Sulphur LM 0/1 followed by 4 placebos. These two cases prove that Hahnemann used the LM potency long before 1841. Dr. Saine’s claim that Hahnemann used the LM potency less in 1842 than 1841 is also incorrect. Adler’s statistical study of the Paris casebooks shows that the number of LM prescriptions using three degrees of potency in 1842 was much greater than in 1841.

My impression is that the LM potency was tested quite extensively in 1841 and 1842 and by 1842 Hahnemann had worked out the system as rendered in the 6th Organon . He increasing applied his new system in both 1842 and 1843. It is true Hahnemann only used the LM potency for part 1843 as he passed away on Sunday, July 2nd, 1843. Nevertheless, Hahnemann was working with many patients right up until his final illness. During this time he administered nearly half as many LM prescriptions in at least three degrees of ascending potencies than he prescribed in all of 1842! He was intensifying his use of the LM potency in his last thee years not decreasing it. The facts show that Hahnemann tested the LM potencies over a five-year period.

To say Hahnemann only had 12 remedies in the LM potency with Sulphur only potentized up to 0/20 is historically incorrect. In 1920 Haehl recovered Hahnemann’s: LM remedy box. He noted that a large part of the contents of medicine chest were missing leaving only seventy remedies in the Fifty Millesimal potency. He opined, however, that Samuel had around one hundred and fifty LM remedies. Most of the remedies were potentized from the 0/1 to 0/10 degrees but the cardinal anti-miasmatic medicines like Mercury and Sulphur was potentized up to the 0/30. Where does the idea that Hahnemann had only 12 remedies which he only used less and less over a two year period come from? Why is this false information used to demean the Founder experience in this manner?

It is easy to compare the Paris cases in which he used the high potency Cs like the 190-200 th with the cases he used the LM potency. I have read Hahnemann’s LM cases, and just like his C cases, there are some successes and some failures. What can be said for the LM potency can be said for the C potencies. The way Dr. Saine portrays the fifty millesimal potency cases makes it sound like Hahnemann’s centesimal cases we somehow much better. This is a complete untruth. The reason he was experimenting with the LM potency was he was not satisfied with C potencies. Hahnemann seemed to prefer the LM potency in chronic diseases in his last two years. Nevertheless, he continued to use both the C and LM potency in medicinal solution side by side until his passing in 1843. In truth the new methodology is just as important as the twin potency factors.

One must remember that Hahnemann is the Alpha of Homoeopathy – not the Omega. What one sees in his German and French casebooks is the birth of Homeopathy. Samuel is the Father but his child is still growing and has yet to attain its full maturity. Hahnemann’s stated one of the difficulties he faced was the limited number of well-proven remedies. The repertories and materia medicas at his disposal only contained around 125 remedies. If one is going to honestly criticize the LM cases they should likewise criticize the cases using 6C to 200C. It is not a matter Hahnemann’s C cases versus his LM cases. It is a question of how to use both potency systems to the best advantage in our life and times.

Dr. Saine also accuses Hahnemann of being dogmatic and says this is because he always though his latest experiments were the ultimate way. He says that reading Hahnemann’s works in their chronological order shows he always tired to impress upon the reader his latest method was “absolute perfection, and, that is it. Period”. He claims that when we read any edition of the Organon, including the 6th we may get stuck in his “dogmatism” and not go beyond his last word. He behooves us to go beyond this dogmatism and not repeat the Hahnemann’s mistakes and be open to change. He says the only thing that really matters is the inductive method introduced by the Founder.

Well I would agree that Hahnemann’s inductive method is central and indispensable but so are the principles similars cure similars, the minimum dose and the potentized remedy. These are the checks and balances that make homoeopathy a safe and effective system. The Founder spoke of the limitation of his system and kept on working at improving the system. He often pointed out his mistakes in the various editions of the Organon and The Chronic Diseases . The record shows that his attitude was to keep experimenting in an effort to make improvements and overcome obstacles. He never thought that one technique was “Perfected. Period!” By the time Hahnemann published his present experience he was already working to make new improvements. He also included the ideas of others if they were better than his own. For example, Hahnemann got the idea of using a downward succussion on a hard but elastic surface from Jenichen. Before this he only used a downward jerk of the arm.

Where Hahnemann was historically accused of “dogmatism” was in relationship to his feeling that Homeopathy was inherently superior to allopathy and the two should not be mixed. When people mixed his new system with the old school he became upset and demanded loyalty to Homeopathy. He wanted to protect his new system because he was afraid it would be swallowed up by orthodox medicine to the point it would be lost as a pure science. In my opinion, he was quite right to protect his creation. If he did not defend his new system it would have been destroyed by the half-homeopaths and allopaths.

To call Hahnemann “dogmatic” because he felt his final method was his best is unwarranted. Of course, he felt each work was better than the last one because, in general, they were! Hahnemann’s middle path method found in the 5 th and 6th edition is a more perfected method than what he taught in the 1, 2, 3, and 4th Organon . In the first four editions of the Organon Hahnemann taught that a remedy must not be repeated until the duration of its affects had completely ceased and the patient relapsed. In the 5th and 6th edition he found a better method that transcend this limitation when certain conditions were followed. This new method allows for a more gentle, rapid and permanent cure than was possible with the first 4 editions.

In the 5th and 6th Organon Hahnemann taught that any “noticeably progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration” is a sign that precludes the repetition of the medicine as long as it lasts. The reason for this is that the medicine being use is still hastening toward completion at the fastest rate possible. The repetition of the remedy under these conditions only slows down the cure or causes relapses. This reflects what Hahnemann said in aphorism 245 of the 5th Organon on the single dose. This aphorism shows one when the wait and watch method is most appropriate. Nothing has been lost and there is everything to gain from the experience of the Founder over his last 14 years.

Hahnemann then says, “On the other hand” there are some cases that have only “slow, continuous improvement based on one dose of a aptly selected homeopathic medicine taking 40, 50, 60 100 days to complete the cure, depending on the nature of the medicine, but his is very seldom the case”. In most cases where there is only slow improvement the patient relapses long before cure is achieved. Hahnemann goes on to state how important it is to “foreshorten this period” to 1/2, 3/4 or less the time attaining a much more rapid cure. This reflects what Hahnemann said in aphorism 246 of the 5th Organon on repeating the remedy to speed the cure.

Hahnemann makes it very clear that there are two basic types of remedy actions that must be treated differently. The Founder no longer treated every case the same like he did from 1810 to 1833.

A. The first condition is a visibly progressing and strikingly increasing amelioration. In this instance one is too leave the single dose act without repetition as long as this state last. This also means that any time during treatment there is a dramatically increasing amelioration on a series of doses stop the remedy. This is true for the C and LM potency.

B. The second condition is a slow continuous improvement that could take up to 100 days to show any significant improvement. This, however, is seldom the case. Most of the time a slow improvement ceases at some point and the patient relapses. In this case one should repeat the dose at suitable intervals to speed the cure. This is quite common in protracted chronic disease. One may repeat the dose to speed the cure only if they meet all five conditions noted at the end of the paragraph.

1. The remedy is perfectly homeopathic (Not a wrong remedy or a partial simillimum.)

2. The remedy is potentized and dissolved in water. (Not the dry dose.)

3. The remedy is given in a small dose (1 pill in a 7-8 tablespoon medicinal solution, given in a split-dose, olfaction, etc.)

4. The remedy is given at suitable intervals based on what experience has shown to be best. (Individualization.)

5. The degree of potency must be changed before administering each dose (The medicinal solution must be succussed prior to ingestion.)

There is a great difference between a visibly progressing and strikingly increasing amelioration and a slow continuous improvement that takes up to 100 days to show any significant results. What Hahnemann is offering is a very clear differential of two completely different types of remedy actions. This is a much more sophisticated approach then just giving everyone a single dose and then waiting and watching no matter how slowly the patient is progressing. With his new posology methods there was no need to watch for weeks and months with the patient barely improving and wait for a relapse.

Why wait for a relapse of symptoms when the remedy can be repeated where there is only gradual improvement? This is not the time to wait and watch. This is the time to act and observe! Waiting for long periods with the patient barely improving is not necessary with Hahnemann’s advanced methods. Why not repeat the remedy as long is the improvement is continuing and there are no aggravations or new symptoms? Anytime there is a strikingly increasing amelioration the repetition is stopped as long as this state lasts. This middle path method can greatly speed the cure of protracted cases that take months and years to cure! This is not dogma – This is the fruit of over 40 years of experience!

The Paris casebooks show that Hahnemann tended to start his cases by giving a single dose by olfaction followed by placebos or short series of 3 to 7 doses oral doses over a period of one week. Then he would check the patient and make a proper assessment of the remedy, dose, potency and repetition. Whenever there was a strong remedial action he would give the patient placebos and have them return in another week. If the patient appeared to require the repetition of the remedy to speed the cure he would continue his doses as long as there was no aggravation or new symptoms. Anytime there was a strikingly increasing amelioration he would stop the dose as long as this state lasted. Hahnemann constantly alternated active doses with placebo and periods of waiting and watching throughout the case. He used this “on again – off again’ method to control the power of both the C and LM potency in medicinal solution. There are no daily doses for weeks, months and years on end in the Paris casebooks.

Dr. Saine says that if the 6th edition of the Organon had been published in 1843 the question of potencies would have evolved differently. He makes it sound good that the 6th edition was lost for nearly 80 years so that the higher potency Cs could develop. He says it was fortunate that after Hahnemann died Boenninghausen started to use the 200th regularly and that later on, especially in America, they started to experiment with the highest potencies. He says that based on 150 years of experiments by Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Lippe, Hering, Dunham, Skinner, Nash, etc., “the higher potencies have been proven and are here to stay.”

Yes, the high potencies are here to stay but that doesn’t mean there is no room for any other potencies! Boenninghausen was already using the 200C and higher before Hahnemann died but he also used other potencies as well. When Melanie Hahnemann was asked about what potencies Samuel used she replied that he use anything from 3C to 1M depending on what was needed. It is a fact that some patients do better on the 6C, some on the 12C, some on the 30C, some on the 200C, some on the 1M and some need the LM potencies. It is best to have as many options as possible.

If you try to give high potencies to everyone the outcome in some will be dangerous aggravations, accessory symptoms and antagonistic counter actions of the vital force. In some cases there is a danger of making the disease worse and causing premature death. The higher potencies do not suit every patient and all disease states. At one stage Kent tried to begin his cases with ultra high potencies but he found that it was counter productive in the long run. Later he suggested starting at the lower ranges and moving upward to the higher degrees as the case progressed. Kent learned this the hard way, and was honest enough to share his experience so we don’t make the same mistakes.

Hahnemann never said “don’t use Cs anymore – Only use the LMs”. The high potencies made by Jenichen and Karsokoff were already in use when he was alive. He supported the use of high potencies in the 5 th Organon and continued to use the 190-200th even in his last years. Who is really being dogmatic here? Who is resisting history as well as the future? Who is saying there is only one way? Who is it that is not open to change? Who is not open to expanding our case management strategies? Certainly not Hahnemann!

The Paris casebooks show Hahnemann used the C and LM potency side-by-side though out his last years. Hahnemann’s only negative statement in the 6 th Organon about the C potency is concerns medicines made on machines that gave overly forceful succussions. This is a warning well worth heeding because potencies made with overly strong mechanical succussions produce furious primary actions without long enduring secondary actions. It is not a matter of one potency against the other potency so there is no need for a divide and rule mentality. What Hahnemann was offering homoeopathy is two complementary opposite potency systems that greatly expand the therapeutic horizons of Homoeopathy!

I feel it was a great loss that the 6th Organon was not published until 1920. One cannot learn how to correctly use the LM potency from a book. The 6 th edition was meant to be an aid for teaching the new method by teachers with experience in the technique. To understand the bigger picture one needs to study the Paris casebooks and eyewitness accounts of Hahnemann’s practice. One needs to study with those how have used the LM potency for many years. Then one needs to test Hahnemann’s new postulates in the clinic in the proper manner. Using the medicinal solution and the LM potency wrongly and then saying they don’t work will not do.

Yes, Homoeopathy would have developed differently if the 6 th edition were published. Yes, Homoeopathy would have been better because we would have had two potency systems. Yes, more individual would have understood how to use the medicinal solution and the split-dose when necessary. Yes, there would be less confusion because Hering, Boenninghausen and others would have used the C and LM potency side by side just like Hahnemann. We would have a living lineage of teachers that understood how to use the C and LM potency according to Hahnemann’s advanced methods. And yes, that would have been wonderful!

There is no doubt that the high potency centesimal remedies have done lot of good but they have also caused some damage. I have received more than one letter, phone call and email from people who have never been well since they were given random numbers of pills of a higher C potency. It is not really the centesimal potency that is the problem. It is the way they are being administered. If one gives too many pills of too a high potency too many times the outcome is aggravations, accessory symptoms and antagonistic counter actions of the vital force. This makes some patients so hypersensitive that they can no longer take potencies without dire consequences. These patients become difficult to treat by any method if one is not careful. So what if these are a minority of cases. Do they not matter? Should they be “sweep under the rug” and then forgotten? No, we should learn from our mistakes and try to do better in the future. Most of these problems can be avoided if one uses the method of the 5 th and 6 th Organon properly.

As long as people continue to use the high and ultra high C potencies by the methods of the 4th Organon (which were only used with the 30C and lower) these problems will remain. Hahnemann first developed the medicinal solution during the period he was testing the high potency centesimal remedies. When he was using the dry dose he suggested limiting the potency to 30C. He changed his mind when he started using the medicinal solution to modify the power of the potencies above the 30c. That is why he supported the use of high potencies like the 300th in the 5th Organon . Unfortunately, too many homoeopaths have not taken the time to review these historical realities and have not bothered to test the system. Some still think every reaction is a good reaction but unfortunately this is not the case. When a patient does not recover from a negative remedy action they usually blame the problem on some other factor.

Dr. Saine is of the opinion that we could not achieve similar results if Homoeopathy was limited to the lower potencies and “In reality the LM are very low potencies.”  This idea can only come from a person who has very little if any real experience with the LM potencies. Anyone with clinical knowledge would not call the LM potency a 3C in a cup! Although the LM 0/1 has around the same amount of original substance as the 6C, there is a great difference between mathematical equivalency and the relative medicinal powers of the C and LM potency.

The 1/50, 000 dilution ratio and 100 succussions of the fifty millesimal potency produces a completely different medicinal quality than the 1/100 dilution ratio and 10 succussions of the centesimal remedy. This larger dilution ratio and increased succussion factor produces a much deeper penetrating remedy even at the lower degrees. In many ways, the LM potency has the best qualities of the high and low potency in one remedy. They are very deep acting remedies but at the same time they can be repeated at shorter intervals when necessary to speed the cure.

Some cases do better on the LM potency and some cases on the C potency. Some cases need both the C and LM potency at the right times. If one studies the Paris casebooks one comes to the conclusion that Hahnemann was well aware of this fact. Experienced homoeopaths are reporting cures of very chronic diseases with the LM potency where the high C potencies failed. There are also some cases that are cured by the C potency when the LM potency failed. So why not use both in accordance with Hahnemann’s advanced methods? In this way nothing is lost and there is everything to be gained.

Boenninghausen was in close contact with Hahnemann about the development of the LM potency. Hahnemann sent him two fifty millesimal case examples in 1843. It was the Baron’s greatest desire to see the 6th Organon published and he let it be known in public that he had tested the new dynamizations. Boenninghausen wrote:

“In the new edition of the Organon which will probably appear yet in the course of this year, improved and completed by Hahnemann himself, a new simplified procedure for the potentizing of medicines will be taught, which has considerable advantages over the former and yields a preparation as to the efficacy of which I can, from my own experience, give full praise.”

The Lesser Writings; C. M. F. Boenninghausen, Aluminium Metallicum, footnote, page 74.

In this quote Boenninghausen clearly confirms that the praise he lauded on new dynamizations was based on his “own experience”. Unfortunately, Melanie became upset with him for announcing that the 6th Organon with its new potency would soon to be released. She told him not to speak about the subject in public until after the 6th Organon was published. Regrettably, the text did no see the light of day in his lifetime. Nevertheless, The Baron spoke of his experiences with the LM potency in his last article written shortly before he left for his Heavenly Abode.

“Of the other remedies used in these two cures (Sulphur, Mercurius, Nitric Acid), new dynamizations were used, which will be described in the next edition of the Organon , the peculiar preparation of which is known to me and which requires less time and trouble, but essentially presents our present high and highest potencies but having given my word of honor, I am not as yet at liberty to publish the same.”

The Lesser Writings; C. M. F. Boenninghausen , Boenninghausen’s Last Work, Atropa Belladonna L, page 316.

In this quote Boenninghausen lets it be know that he was privy to how the LM potency was made and had tested them in comparison to the centesimal potencies. It was the Baron’s opinion that the action of the LM potencies was equal to the “high and highest potencies” used at the time. This was written in 1863 when the C potency was already reaching staggering heights in Europe and America. The Baron was well aware that one could not mathematically equate potencies with different in remedial powers by linear mathematics. The LM 0/1 acts like a much higher potency than the 30C. The only way that one can test the comparative powers of the C and LM potency is to test them on patients.

Hahnemann’s lower potencies where the 30C to 6C. His higher potencies were anywhere from the 50C to the 200C and the LM 0/1 to 0/30. Melanie stated he had also used the 1M. The Founder tended to lower the degree of his low potencies from 30C to 24C to 18C to 12C to 6C and raised the high potencies from 191C to 192C to193C, etc. He also tended to raise the LM potency in degrees like 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc. He continued to use the low and high potency centesimal remedies as well as the LM potency throughout his last years in practice.

Some have found that the LM potency is “too powerful” and causes more aggravations than the single dry dose. This is true if one tries to give them daily or on alternated days for weeks and months to everyone in a mechanical fashion. They are far too powerful to be used like a 6C. In some cases the LM potency is too deep of an acting potency for the patient and they do better on 6C to 30C. Many of these patients can be worked up from the lower potencies Cs to the LM 0/1 over time. This seems to work better than jumping from the 30C to 200C in many cases. Why get trapped in categories like low and high potency prescribers? Why get stuck in categories like a C or LM prescriber? Why not use both potencies as needed? Why get fall into a for or against mentality? Isn’t it best to do what is best for the patient based on their sensitivity and the nature their disease state?

Dr. Saine says he has always stayed away from the LM potencies because “does not need to use them”. Where is the experimental spirit of the Founder in this statement? Isn’t this a person who said we should remain open to changes? Is it rational to criticize all the methods Hahnemann introduced in the 1830s and 1840s before even trying them? Samuel was never satisfied so he was always open to new experiments. There is much more at stake here than just the LM potency. There is an entirely new way to approach case management strategies and posology factors on offer in the 5 th and 6 th Organon . Why hold on rigidly to the dry dose and exclusive wait and watch method of the 4 th Organon ? Like Hahnemann, I am constantly experimenting with remedy selection, delivery systems, dose, potency and repetition. There is always room for doing better!

  Dr. Saine second reason for rejecting the LM potency is the method  “is too complicated” keeping in mind that aphorism 2 of the Organon speaks of “easy comprehensible principles”. The methods of the 5th Organon (1833), the 1837 Chronic Diseases , and the 6th Organon (c. 1843) are the extension of the principles enshrined in the all the previous editions of the Organon . The principle of Hahnemann’s advanced methods is the individualization of the remedy, the size of the dose, the degree of potency and the repetition of medicine to suit the patient. That is certainly an easy enough model to understand if one has an open mind. Those who still think the size of the dose does and the nature of the delivery system do not matter can see no reason for making any changes in their methods. They follow the incorrect theories that originated with James Kent not the teachings of Samuel Hahnemann.

The truth is that nature of the delivery system and the size of the dose are important factors related to posology. Hahnemann introduced the use of 1 or 2 pills in medicinal solution so that he could reduce the frequency of aggravation, accessory symptoms and antagonistic counter actions of the vital force. He introduced the split-dose so that the remedy could be repeated to speed the cure in those cases that only show slow improve on the single dose. He applied this new system to both the C and LM potency. He stated that this method could reduce the time of cure in resistance cases to 1/2; or 1/4 or less the time it takes with the single dry dose method.

Isn’t this a claim worth testing seriously in the clinic over a sufficient period of time? Isn’t reducing the time of cure in challenging cases worth a little more effort on the part of the practitioner? Aren’t better results worth taking the time to learn a more advanced method? Why let ideas like “I don’t need” or “its too complicated” get in one’s way when it is the patient that really matters. I challenge everyone to test the methods of the medical solution and adjusting the size of the dose of the C and LM potency in clinic before they make up their minds. That is the only fair way.

There is nothing too complicated about taking a pill and putting it into a bottle to make a medicinal solution. There is nothing too complicated about succussing the bottle. There is nothing too complicated about giving the dose in spoonfuls. There is nothing too complicated about customizing the repetition to suit the cause, symptoms, circumstances and remedy action. What about the first aphorism of the Organon , which says our sole duty is too heal the patient? It doesn’t say out duty is to do what is easiest for us. It doesn’t to be complacent while the patient is barely improving. It doesn’t say we should accept unneeded aggravations. It says we should do what is best for the patient!

Dr. Saine’s third reason for rejecting the LM potency is that Pierre Schmidt and P. Sankaran tried them but continued with their previous methods. At the same time, there were many like Dr. H. Choudhury that had great success with the LM potency for over 30 years! Many of these individuals were in West Bengal, India and Bangladesh. This was at a time when almost no one in the West was using these potencies. Over the last 40 years a tremendous amount of clinical experience has been gathered in India. I have used the LM potency for over 20 years and many of my colleagues now have years of experience. It is no longer a case of the opinion a just a few persons. The LM potencies have been tested all over the world and they have proved their value in the clinic. It is no longer a question of what someone might have or might not have done in the 1950s.

Hahnemann tested the 200C and 1M but he was not completely satisfied with them in all cases. These are probably the most used high potencies today. It is a clinical fact that an excessive number of dry pills can cause serious aggravations and complications in some cases. At the same time, the dry pills cannot be repeated safely before the duration of the previous dose ceases and the patient relapses. This is true whether the patient was improving in a striking manner or only slowly responding over a period of months. There is nothing one can do to change this situation with the methods of the 4 th Organon .

Hahnemann found the methods of the 1820s too restrictive and slow in a great many chronic diseases. He also did not think it was necessary to aggravate patients with high potencies to cure them. This is why Hahnemann reduced the size of the dose as he increased the level of his potencies. This is why he introduced the medicinal solution and split-dose in 1837. This is why he began to experiment with the LM potency in 1838. That is why he wrote the 6th Organon in the 1840s. That is why he used his advanced methods with the low and high potency centesimal remedies as well as the LM potency.

When I first started speaking about the differences of the 4th, 5th and 6th Organon very few had any idea of what I was taking about. In those days one could not even buy the LM potency in the USA and many other countries. At that time those with experience in using the C and LM potency in medicinal solution in the West was limited to a few. Today, there are many who have 5, 10, 15 and 20 years of experience. Many of these practitioners used the high and highest C potencies for many years and now they have found a place in their practice for the LM potency. Before someone criticizes Hahnemann’s advanced methods and the LM potency they should at least test them first. To do otherwise is disingenuous.

Dr. Andre Saine is a respected teacher and practitioner. Nevertheless, I have been forced by circumstances to defend the Hahnemann’s credibility in relationship to the LM potency and the 6th Organon . In the process of his critique Dr. Saine has passed on several historical inaccuracies that he used to dramatize his opinions. I must say that I am surprised and saddened by this misuse of the facts. To repudiate the LM potency on the basis that Hahnemann only used them for two years, made less LM prescriptions in 1842 than 1841, only had 12 LM remedies, and only made Sulphur to the 0/20 is a false argument. I have provided documentation and sources that show that each of these statements is historically incorrect. One is welcome to their personal opinions but there is no reason to use incorrect information to criticize Hahnemann and the 6th Organon.

To say we must go beyond Hahnemann’s final teachings because he was a dogmatist is an oversimplification Founder’s character, life and works. This statement seems to be connected to the theme that if the 6th Organon and Hahnemann’s Paris cases were published it would have thwarted the development of the centesimal remedies. This idea, however, has little relationship to historical realities. The two example cases Hahnemann sent Boenninghausen in 1843 show the Founder using both the C and LM potency in medicinal solution on the same patients. There is absolutely no suggestion that the C potencies should be abandoned in this material. To the contrary, the Paris casebooks show that the C and LM potency can be used side by side in a great variety of potencies.

What is written in the 6th Organon is the outcome of nearly 50 years of the Founder’s experience and the final capstone of his legacy. In this work Hahnemann did his best to remove all the remaining obstacles in his homoeopathic system and pave the way for a safer, more rapid and permanent cure. It was his hope that his new middle path philosophy on repetition and the advanced posology techniques for the C and LM potency would reduce aggravations and speed the cure in slow responding cases. Now the mantle has been passed to a new generations and it is up to us to investigate the Founder’s hypothesis in the clinic. After more than 160 years of neglect Samuel Hahnemann’s lost teachings are finally being given the attention they deserve.

Similia Minimus
Sincerely, David Little

PS. I was just informed that Dr. Farokh Masters told a seminar in the Netherlands that Hahnemann only used the LM potency on 6 patients thus insinuating that the LM method was not tested properly! This is another practitioner I admire and respect but they don’t seem to value the work of Hahnemann nor those following in his footsteps. Adler’s study of the Paris casebooks shows that Hahnemann used the LM potency in three degrees like 0/1, 0/2 and 0/3 on 681 patients! This number does not include all of the other types prescriptions using the LM potency. This is only the number of cases in that demonstrate a series of three lower degree potencies as discussed in the 6 th Organon . Where do these people get these ideas? An even more pertinent question is – Why do they say such things?

2 responses to “Misunderstanding Hahnemann’s Legacy (Little vs Saine)

  1. Errol Klinkerfuss

    From Mark Twain, “What is Man?” a dialogue between a young man and an old man:

    “O.M. Wait. You misunderstand. I said I have BEEN a Truth-Seeker.
    Y.M. Well?
    O.M. I am not that now. Have your forgotten? I told you that there are none but temporary Truth-Seekers; that a permanent one is a human impossibility; that as soon as the Seeker finds what he is thoroughly convinced is the Truth, he seeks no further, but gives the rest of his days to hunting junk to patch it and caulk it and prop it with, and make it weather-proof and keep it from caving in on him. Hence the Presbyterian remains a Presbyterian, the Mohammedan a Mohammedan, the Spiritualist a Spiritualist, the Democrat a Democrat, the Republican a Republican, the Monarchist a Monarchist; and if a humble, earnest, and sincere Seeker after Truth should find it in the proposition that the moon is made of green cheese nothing could ever budge him from that position; for he is nothing but an automatic machine, and must obey the laws of his construction.
    Having found the Truth; perceiving that beyond question man has but one moving impulse–the contenting of his own spirit– and is merely a machine and entitled to no personal merit for anything he does, it is not humanly possible for me to seek further. The rest of my days will be spent in patching and painting and puttying and caulking my priceless possession and in looking the other way when an imploring argument or a damaging fact approaches.”

    We are all subject to this unfortunate trait and must beware…

  2. You are an incredible scholar David and your in depth understanding is admirable. The homeopathic community is so rife with divergent beliefs, dogmatisms, unsubstantiated assertions and even pure BS it is refreshing to read something based on sound analysis of historical fact.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.