Editorial for April 2011

My views on evolution and development of the LM Potency

Introduction

In this long journey of development and evolution of the LM scale it’s essential to know the
historical period from 1840 till the publication of the 6th edition Organon. Homoeopaths all over
the world practiced homoeopathy either following the 4th edition Organon (1829) or 1st edition
Chronic Diseases (1828) by giving one dose, wait and watch method or by following 5th edition
(1833) Organon and firing multiple doses until improvement commences. Many of the great
19th century homoeopaths like James Tyler Kent, John Henry Clarke were masters of this latter
method.

In the 5th edition Organon Hahnemann introduced olfaction and the homoeopathic medicine in
solution as new systems of administering homoeopathic remedies. The change from a dry dose
to an energized medicinal solution succussed prior to administration had an instant impact on
his patients. This idea has been a very solid foundation in my practice.

During the same period that Hahnemann was mastering the method of giving medicines to his
patients by olfaction method to get the highest degree of cure, he worked extensively with the
medicinal solution for oral administration and olfaction. Around the year 1840 Hahnemann
began to introduce his new LM potency into clinical practice to complement his already existing
centesimal potencies. Between 1840 and 1843 Samuel Hahnemann used both the centesimal
and LM potencies as and when required.

Potencies that Hahnemann used as seen in the Paris case book

Hahnemann always felt that 3rd centesimal potency was the first level of dilution where
homoeopathic remedies become non-toxic. After years of experiments he settled on 6c, 12c,
24c and 30c as the most suitable lower potencies. With his low potencies Hahnemann started
with the 30c potency and then used the 24c., 18c., etc., in their descending order.

He continued to lower the degree of his low potencies 30c - 6c in his last years 1840-1843. At
the same time, the Paris casebooks record him raising his high potency C's through potencies
like 197c, 198c, 199c, and 200c.Hahnemann also used 1M potency on occasions during his
experiments.

Editorial April 2011 Page 1

The biggest dilemma that Hahnemann faced was that when he used low potencies (6c, 12c, 24c,
and 30c) they would not cure completely but if he used the high potencies (200c-1M) they
produced unproductive aggravations. Hence Hahnemann decided to raise the ratio of dilution of
the medicine. After countless experiments Hahnemann decided on the 1/50,000 dilution ratio
associated with the 50 Millesimal potency, also known as Q, LM, or millesimal potencies.

Dr. Julian Winston has given the best interpretation of H.’s method of manufacturing the LM
potency as found in Paragraph 270 of the 6th edition of the Organon. There it mentions very
clearly how to prepare them. The process starts with a 3C trituration. In the case of plants
(where a tincture is the usual starting point), the plant material is triturated directly with the
milk sugar. It is unclear how one would proceed with something like APIS which has to start with
a tincture! 1 grain (or .05gms) of the 3C (1:1,000,000) is dissolved in 400 drops of distilled water
and 100 drops of 90% alcohol.

Place 1 DROP of the above in a vial and add 100 drops of 95% alcohol. The bottle should be no
more than 2/3 full. Cork the vial and succuss 100 times.

The granules, which are the size of poppy seeds, are placed in a small thimble with a hole in the
bottom. The granules are smaller than #10 granules. (Hahnemann describes them as weighing
one grain per 100). They are then saturated by pouring the liquid potency over them. When the
liquid starts to run out the bottom, the granules are saturated. Spread the granules on blotting
paper. When they are dry, put them in a bottle and label them 0/1. This is the first millesimal
potency.

To go up the scale, take one globule of the 0/1, dissolve it with one drop of distilled water, add
100 drops of 95% alcohol, and succuss 100 times. Saturate granules with this, dry them, bottle
them, and label them 0/2.These steps can be repeated up to 0/30.

Hahnemann suggested that the dose is one globule. He also suggests (#272) that the dosage be
administered in water. He outlines the dosage process in #248 and its footnote. The guidelines
are as follows: Dissolve one globule in 110cc of distilled water. “Vigorously succuss this bottle”
(emphasis in the original but no number of succussions is recommended). This becomes the
stock bottle given to the patient. One tablespoon of this stock solution is placed in 4-5 oz. (118
to 150 cc) of pure water and stirred several times vigorously. “Administer the determined dose

Editorial April 2011 Page 2

of this to the patient” (as H. put it). Hahnemann suggested that in the case of very sensitive
people, a teaspoon should be put into another glass of water, stirred, and then a teaspoon or
more is taken from the second glass. This mixture is good for 24 hours. If more is needed, a fresh
glass should be made.

When speaking of the amount of original medicinal substance in the LM 0/1 it is similar to the
amount found in the 6c potency although its remedial powers are greatly expanded due to the
larger dilution medium.

The lower degrees of the LM potency are deeper acting then the 6c to 30c but they are also
gentler than 200c or 1M on the constitution. They reach a depth of cure without producing the
overly strong primary actions and rapid aggravations like the high centesimals. They have the
stability and consistency of the low potencies in centesimal potency but the power to cure deep
chronic diseases and miasms like the high potencies. However in many chronic cases that I know
of, Hahnemann preferred 30c.

In my practice with patients on chemotherapy suffering from advanced cancer or on

immunosuppressive drugs with auto immune disease, I prefer either lower potency Cs like 6c,
12c, and 30c. Or else I use LM 0/1 and go through the LM scale. Sometimes I need to repeat
quite often as chemotherapy, radiation and immunosuppressant’s exhaust the action of our
medicines too quickly thereby requiring frequent repetition which can be safely done with LMs.
These people do not do very well on 200c, 1M, etc. In fact, many of them are only under
palliative care and unnecessarily they go into a severe medicinal aggravation because of the
centesimal potency.

It is a false claim to say that the LMs cannot aggravate so they can be given daily or every other
day for weeks, months and years. The Paris casebooks show that Hahnemann never gave his
remedies in such a bizarre way. One must always take into account the sensitivity, susceptibility
and nature of the disease before selecting the potency. In the footnote to aphorism 246
Hahnemann discusses the concept of the daily repetition of the dose. He suggested starting the
case with the "lowest degree of potency" and then going to higher potencies. In 1840
Hahnemann once prescribed 0/10 potency which caused a strong aggravation. He then gave the
patient a placebo and waited and watched. After the aggravation had subsided, Hahnemann
lowered the potency degree to avoid further aggravations. In his last years Hahnemann tended
to begin cases with LM 0/1, 0/2 or 0/3 but occasionally opened a case with 0/4., 0/5., 0/6 or 0/7.

Are LM potencies better and deeper acting then centesimal potency?

Let’s start with Hahnemann; he was constantly trying to improve on his selection of potency.
First, he started to dilute the remedies in order to make them less toxic. He started with
dilutions of one in five hundred; then he did one in ten thousand and so on. Then he went on to

Editorial April 2011 Page 3

make successive dilutions by changing vials. Eventually, he systematically adopted the
centesimal dilutions without succussion at first and later on with succussion. He experimented
with the number of succussions from a hundred down to two, and up again. Then in his last
eight years, he started using higher and higher potencies. By 1840, he was commonly using the
two hundredth centesimal. At the beginning of 1841, he started to experiment with the fifty
millesimal. In total, he had only about a dozen remedies prepared in this way and the highest
was Sulphur LM 20. He experimented with these for about two years. In the later part of 1842,
he made many fewer prescriptions. In 1843, he barely practiced. He made his last patient entry
in his case book in early May 1843. By that time he was preparing the sixth edition of the
Organon for publication. Apparently, he felt that he had enough experience to authoritatively
recommend the LM potencies to his colleagues. I have never been totally satisfied when I read
the cases of Hahnemann treated with LM potencies. I feel his success was average.

When we study Hahnemann as a person as well as a scientist, we soon find out that he tended
to be very dogmatic in his writings by rendering his last experiment as the ultimate way. This
approach of his is contrary to the great scientific mind he had. When we read his works in a
chronological order, at each step of its evolution he impresses upon the reader that the method
has now been developed to absolute perfection with finality! Then comes the next work, and
now he tells us that further experiments are now permitting him to negate what he had
previously said with such great certainty and that the method has now reached a new state of
perfection, and so on. If we read any work of Hahnemann, including the sixth edition of the
Organon, we may ourselves get stuck in his dogmatism and not go beyond the last work just
read.

It is likely that if the sixth edition of the Organon had been published earlier the question of
potencies would have evolved differently. Perhaps fortunately, as soon as Hahnemann died
Boenninghausen started to systematically prescribe Lehman’s two hundredth centesimal. Later
on, the Hahnemannians, especially in America, started to experiment with the high and higher
potencies. Since our most reliable prescribers have consistently abided by them for over one
hundred and fifty years, starting with Hahnemann himself, followed by Boenninghausen, Lippe,
Hering, Dunham, Skinner, Nash, etc., the higher potencies have been proven and are here to
stay. I am not sure if we could achieve similar results if we would limit ourselves to the lower
potencies, and in reality the LM are very low potencies. I have hence balanced my practice to
select my cases for LM scale with the following indications:

· Allergic disorders

· Steroid dependent skin disease

Editorial April 2011 Page 4

 · Auto immune diseases

· Advanced cancers

· Cases with hypersensitivity.

Hence I may conclude that I firmly believe that higher potencies in centesimal scale act
much deeper and more curatively then LM potencies. Also if you examine the history, a very few
stalwarts in the past including Pierre Schmidt have tried LMs only to later abandon them. It does
not mean they don’t have a role to play but I don’t think they are what Hahnemann wanted
them to be, the ultimate homeopathic preparations. We cannot deny the incredible success we
have had with the higher potencies on which, unfortunately, we do not have Hahnemann’s
experience. I do not want to take any credit away from the LM potencies but things have to be
considered in a broad perspective. Hopefully, the perfection of our potencies will continue to
evolve. Like Hahnemann, our aim should be to always try to perfect our method, including the
potency question. Like him, we should favor positive changes.

Editorial April 2011 Page 5