The Fibonacci Potencies series, or F series, was introduced and published last year as a method to simplify the prescription of correctly chosen homeopathic remedies. The title of the paper was clear: “Removing the guesswork from potency selection”.
This technique has evolved since then to become the main, if not almost the only way I prescribe in my homeopathic practice. It has also given me some insights into some frequently asked questions and allowed me to find integrated answers to most of them. Those answers are certainly bound not to please everybody and I am quite prepared to witness some ferocious arguments swamping the homeopathic community. So be it. It is only through challenges and by getting out of our comfort zone that we can progress.
There will be lots of repetition of notions, cases and explanations, because they appear in different sections that have been divided artificially for more clarity (hopefully that worked out well…); read through the whole paper, then read it again and then again, as the information, as it suits to homeopathy, is not linear but is a complex pattern.
Previously on this screen
The whole idea of the F series was to have guidelines regarding the best potencies. Every practitioner has his own way; every teacher, lecturer or alleged authority has another approach and the conclusion of a book researching exactly that (What about the potency?) was “It works for me”. Not very helpful! Did that mean that any potency, any way of administration would work as long as the remedy is correct? Some practitioners argue that this is true, but too often a remedy was given in one potency, then another, nothing worked but yet a different third one, given in despair, cured the case. I looked for a system that would simplify the whole affair and would at the same time be based on a natural rule pervading everything. That is when I stumbled across the Fibonacci mathematical series which is found everywhere in the living world and in the artificial world, from music, architecture to the stock exchange. For more details refer to the paper “Removing the guesswork from potency selection”.
The Fibonacci series is 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233 and so on. For our purpose we use it from 3 to 233, potentising the remedies as 3C, 5C, 8C, 13C, 21C, 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C, and 233C. Potentisation is done manually with 10 succussions at each stage. The manual technique, although having caused some tennis elbows, allows knowing exactly what potency we are using without the shadow of a doubt. The ten succussions were chosen because that was the routine in use at the Simillimum Pharmacy in Wellington, where the potencies are made.
For each remedy prescribed, we follow the order, starting with the lowest up to the highest we want to reach. 55C and 89C are the most frequently used highest level covering most of the cases; 144C and 233C are used only occasionally. Their respective indications will be explained soon.
Starting potencies are 3C, 5C or 8C.
This so-called “low potency” is the starter potency used for non-toxic plants and non-toxic materials. Its actual concentration or rather dilution is one part per million (1PPM), still detectable with regular laboratory techniques. Without taking into account the factor of dynamisation, 1PPM still has physiological effects and therefore is not used with toxic substances, poisons, venoms, etc,…despite the fact that the French homeopaths and some English ones like Compton-Burnett have used 3C potencies of many toxic materials without any problem. 3C is also used to prepare isotherapic or tautopathic remedies from conventional drugs for the purpose of helping removing them and their energetic imprint from the body. It makes sense it will not be harmful as these drugs are swallowed or injected in large material doses.
Referring once again to the seminal paper, it is to be remembered that those potencies are not a simple succession of weird ones, but that they have a multiplying, exponential effect, allowing one to reach extraordinary high potency levels otherwise unobtainable.
3 = 3 3C
5×3 = 15 15C
8×15 = 120 120C
13×120 = 1560 1.5M
21×1560 = 32760 33M
34×32760 = 1113840 1MM
55×1113840 = 61216299 62MM
89×612166299 = 5448241800 5MMM
144×5448241800 = 773546819200 774MMM
233×773546819200 = 180236413271600 180MMMM
In other words, those are calculated potencies that can be achieved by giving hand succussed remedies without the need for hypotheses and bizarre techniques that assume levels of potencies without any proof. See the previous paper for graphs.
This level of dilution is equivalent to ten parts per billion (10 PPB). There is really very little statistical chance of encountering any atom or molecule of the original substance, and if this would happen I can quite confidently affirm that nothing harmful will ever occur. We use 5C as the starter potency for toxic plants, poisons, metals and minerals in general; some of those are not available at a lower dilution anyway.
5 = 5 5C
8×5 = 40 40C
13×40 = 520 520C
21×520 = 10920 11M
34×10920 = 371280 370M
55×371280 = 20420400 20MM
89×20420400 = 1817415600 2MMM
144×1817415600 = 261707846400 262MMM
233×261707846400 = 60977928211200 61MMMM
I was pushed into using that starting potency for the nosodes as the lowest potency that was in stock to prepare the remedies was 6C. I reluctantly complied at first but experience has shown there was no problem starting with an 8C
8 = 8 8C
13×8 = 104 104C
21×104 = 2184 2M
34×2184 = 74256 74M
55×74256 = 4084080 4MM
89×4084080 = 363483120 363MM
144×363483120 = 52341569280 52MMM
233×52341569280 = 12195585642240 12MMMM
Realise that 12MMMM means a potency of 12 trillion C!
At first, patients were informed that this was an experimental protocol and were offered a choice between the F series or LM/Q or regular C potencies according to my previous, usual way of prescription. Having become a lot more confident after the first 25 cases and the results presented in the previous paper, the F series became my “routine” prescription for all but very rare patients who wanted to keep going on with LM/Q potencies.
I am mentioning only patients who received an F series, of course. Success rate is not considered as this depends upon the correct choice of the remedy, and this is not an audit of my practice. What is reviewed here is what happens with the correct and the incorrect remedies.
At the time of writing, there were 126 different patients.
The following chart shows the number of patients and the number of remedies they took.
|Number of patients||Number of different remedies received|
Some of those patients received a mix of different remedies, as a complex, but in an F series and not 11, 10 or 9 different remedies one after the other. A fuller explanation about this system will be forthcoming.
About 30% of all those patients are still in active treatment.
Contact and follow-up was maintained by email during the treatment, but some patients did not bother to either be in touch during the treatment or to report what has happened at any time. I can only assume that if they had a complication or a side effect, they would have called in anger and that those who did not maintain contact are at worst unchanged. I did meet some of them by chance on social occasions or at the shopping mall; those who did not manage to run away and escape my inquisition reported that they were doing well.
The remedies and their frequency of use.
Here is the list of the remedies I used in an F series since the beginning of this work; the number indicates how many times it was prescribed, no number means only once. This list is correct at the time of writing.
Arsenicum Album 4
Arsenicum Sulphuratum Flavum
Aurum Arsenicosum 2
Aurum Muriaticum Natronatum 5
Calcarea Arsenicosa 2
Calcarea Fluorica 4
Calcarea Muriatica 3
Calcarea Phosphorica 12
Calcarea Silicata 4
Calcarea Sulphurica 2
Cuprum Arsenicosum 2
Hepatitis A vaccine (starting 34C)
Hepatitis B vaccine (starting 34C)
Lac Humanum 2
Luesinum (aka Syphillinum)
Magnesia Muriatica 2
Meningococcus vaccine (starting 34C)
Mercurius Solubilis 2
Natrum Muriaticum 13
Nux Vomica 3
Phosphoric Acid 2
Rhus Tox 5
Salicylic Acid 2
Tarentula Hispanica 3
Typhoid vaccine (starting 34C)
Urtica Semen 2
A total of 107 different remedies; as mentioned in the previous paragraph, some of them were given in a mix according to the rules of Complexism. The remedies are selected through usual repertorisation and consultation of materia medica; isotherapic or tautopathic remedies made out of vaccines and conventional drugs are included, with the proviso that some have received a regular, orthodox proving. I have used some unusual herbal remedies (Lespedeza for example) in an F series to try and get more intense organic stimulation. I cannot yet comment on that technique as I do not have enough cases to compare with the usual tincture prescriptions.
Safety of the method
This is of course a major issue. In the previous paper I was asking those questions at the start of this work: “I had some anxieties: would there be horrible aggravations? Would there be intense provings? Would there be permanent grafting? What would happen if the remedy is not correct?”
I thought one patient, W.E., did prove Lachesis, but in fact it was “only” an extreme aggravation caused by an impatient mother giving one powder every day, from 5C to 89C, to an incontrollable and extremely agitated child. That aggravation was corrected with one dose of Arsenicum Album 200 (as per repertorisation of the extreme symptoms) given in water, 3 repetitions. Then the next indicated remedy appeared clearly. None of the 126 patients has shown any sign of proving until the date of writing.
Grafting is the superimposition of the remedy’s symptoms, as seen in the provings, upon the patient’s ones. It can happen when a remedy is “imposed” on the patient’s physiology either by multiple repeated doses or by too high potencies. It is a situation that is especially difficult, if not almost impossible, to get out of. Repeated doses and high potencies (even though they are calculated ones) are characteristic of the F series; yet none of the 126 patients has been grafted with an artificial disease, to my knowledge. It might have to do with the fact that once a series is done, it is very unusual to repeat it unless it is needed (see later “intricated layers”); when the remedy is needed, treatment happens and not grafting. The obstinate repetition of useless series of remedies would be a concern in any type of prescription methodology.
They do happen. W.E., the Lachesis child, is one example, albeit an extreme one and the worst over the 2 years I have been using the F series.
M.J. is a patient with a long and complicated history and a traumatic past whom I have been treating for 7 years now. Her main problems are type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dizziness and progressive kidney failure. Her latest remedy was Plumbum Metallicum 5C to 89C. The first doses were taken as one powder dissolved in a teaspoon of water. They resulted in a deep feeling of amelioration and emotional comfort but with an extreme aggravation of the dizziness. Nux Vomica 30C in drop doses controlled the aggravation and we switched the Plumbum to liquid doses, one dilution glass, one drop from the glass and repeat when the amelioration fades away; when the repetition becomes ineffective, it is time to move to the next potency. This allowed constant and steady progress with small aggravations controlled by Nux Vomica as needed. Her blood sugar stabilised and her kidney function deterioration has dramatically slowed down as demonstrated by normal HbA1c levels and a normal glomerular filtration rate even though there is still microalbuminuria with slowly increasing urea and creatinine levels.
Another patient, RMC, received Calcarea Phosphorica but due to her extreme sensitivity, we needed to use between 5 and 13 dilution glasses for each powder, working backwards and going to the next potency when there was no more reaction to the first dilution glass. She had the same problem with LM/Q potencies; the advantage of using the F series was a slightly faster evolution. But her case demonstrated that even extremely sensitive patients can use the F series, contrarily to what I implied in the previous paper, when I was probably overcautious.
Here is what F.W., a patient with rheumatoid arthritis for years and very high ANA levels wrote:
“As I had an immediate and intense response to the first dose of Causticum (5) I felt it necessary to e-mail you for advice as to how and when to continue the regime you prescribed.
I took the Causticum as directed at 2pm Thursday X July 200X. Within 1/2 hour I developed nausea and dull ache in temples and back of the head.
At 1am Friday I woke with a vicious searing pain travelling from the left chest cavity to the sternum. It felt like a molten, golf-ball burning its way across my chest. Over the ensuing hours the pain gradually subsided. This episode was very similar to my experience before being hospitalized in March 1992 with a suspected heart attack. I underwent all manner of tests – revealing no heart malfunction. Drs at the time dismissed it as being rheumatoid related “as the ribs are in fact jointed to the sternum”… Even though the pain was on entirely different level to all other joint pain I was experiencing.
I have felt totally exhausted over the week-end with a number of other earlier symptoms returning – burning eyes, chest rash, dry niggling cough. I have woken in the early hours absolutely bathed in sweat, to the degree of needing to change my PJ’s. The headache remained constant and I’ve had little appetite. All the nodules on my hands and feet have become intensely tender to touch. All Joints, muscles etc are less painful than is often usual…though this may be attributed to the bed-rest I’ve compelled to undertake.
I also feel emotionally drained… constantly on the edge of tears.
It is now Monday morning and I am gradually improving. Eyes feel better, chest rash not so fiery, cough not so insistent, night sweat not so pronounced. Headache barely there. My chest feels heavy – like there is a brick in there. However, it only hurts when I breath deeply. Nausea has gone. Appetite has not really returned as yet.
Overall (believe it or not) Thank You – Causticum just may well be the beginning of ridding this monster!!! I just never expected to be completely bowled over. I feel positive and confident about continuing the regime and was wondering if it will be OK to take a day in the sun and leave the next dose until tomorrow? And of course I wonder if I need to be prepared for a similar reaction?”
Very intense reaction, definitely in the category of aggravation, but as is clearly mentioned, the overall feeling is that things are moving, changing and the deeper emotional status is that we are on the right track. The methodology of administration was changed and will be discussed later.
Other aggravations were minimal, some cleansing diarrhoeas, especially with Sulphur, nothing very different from what is seen with C and LM/Q potencies.
False aggravations: unmasking other problems
Using the F series with the correct remedies has brought an unexpected bonus.
In one patient, H.C., whom I treated for 6 years, I was able to finish the treatment within a few months once I switched to the F series, concluding with Ignatia previously given in C and LM/Q potencies. She then complained of a sore throat, which I attempted to treat over the phone, after all it is a routine condition: no such luck! After a few unsuccessful prescriptions, I asked her to come in: nothing wrong with the throat, the pain was an irradiation from muscular spasms in the neck. I relieved the spasms with Ortho-Bionomy, then examined her neck properly and discovered her second cervical vertebra was misaligned in right rotation. I sent her to an Osteopath as I do not adjust spines. She also complained of “feeling inner vibrations all the time”; a quick energetic check showed her Crown charka totally open and absorbing energy in a massive manner. Closure of the charka stopped the vibrations. She has been completely well with no recurrence of any symptom whatsoever since then (follow-up of 6 months at the time of writing).
Another patient, P.S., during the course of his treatment, received Natrum Muriaticum, then later on Sulphur both in F series. He took lots of doses of Natrum Muriaticum by his own advice and seemed to have a proving characterised by intense chest pains, like angina pectoris or even myocardial infarction, although when checked in hospital everything was normal. After some other remedies, we moved to Sulphur, which caused the same symptoms. I was completely baffled, until the patient sent me the results of his hair mineral analysis, showing an extremely low level of Calcium, Magnesium and Potassium, even though the blood levels were normal. I interpreted this as the effect of the remedies trying to normalise the tissular levels of the minerals and in doing so, creating plasmatic imbalances and symptoms in the cardiovascular system, probably by suddenly shifting electrolytes from the blood to the tissues. Vegetables juicing, bone soup and mineral supplements took care of the problem.
Therefore it appears we need to be very vigilant: the extremely deep action of the F series, or of a “threshold” potency can unravel problems that must be treated differently; a structural, mechanical problem is not well treated by homeopathy (exceptions do exist), a nutritional deficiency needs proper input of nutrients, not energy medicine.
The F series with the correct remedy will treat completely what is treatable with dynamised, potentised substances, triggering the physiology of the patient in the proper direction and towards the appropriate action. It will also unmask other problems, as demonstrated, show them clearly and allow the choice of other therapies as needed. We must be aware of that and able to recognise this phenomenon.
Amazingly, nothing happened, even when a remedy was purposefully given for a local problem or as a symptomatic or palliative treatment.
Palliation happened fast with the added bonus of revealing the deeper problem. In cases of palliation or suppression, we would expect, or so we have been taught, that the same problem would either reappear as it was or be modified and cause deeper pathology in other locations or systems. That was not the case. It was as if the F series completely stripped the complaint for which it was prescribed, exposing the original problem (or a place closer to the original). At times, the same “palliative” remedy reappeared as if it was again another layer; eventually it became the final curative remedy: H.C. is a lady with many allergic problems and a bad history of abuse. Ignatia was needed early in her case, and some repeated doses allowed us to make steady progress with different remedies, each one bringing ameliorations at all levels and exposing other symptoms; eventually an F series of Ignatia was needed (the first Ignatia was a series of C potencies, 30, 200, 1M, 10M) and this completed the cure.
The repetition of this phenomenon in a few cases allowed me to formulate the existence of “intricated cases/layers” where layers of pathology interpenetrate and are not the nice, regular concentric onion peels some theories describe. Those interwoven layers at times are totally eliminated from the case with one single series of the appropriate remedy and at times are so anchored by other pathologies that they must be freed through the use of other remedies before allowing the final Simillimum to act fully.
Concentric layers, the “onion peel” image, with the main, core remedy at the centre.
“Intricated layers” with the potential for any layer to lock another one in its place and allow only a partial removal by a remedy, hence the need to repeat the remedy after the lock is removed.
The “almost correct” remedy
A “wrong” remedy might also be a Simile, an “almostcorrecticum” but not a “goodenoughicum”.
J.H. received Natrum Muriaticum in an F series; her main complaint was a foul body odour that almost nothing could mask. With Natrum Muriaticum, the body odour disappeared as I reported last year.
Then she got an upper respiratory infection, went to her GP, received antibiotics and the body odour came back! She begged to receive another course of Natrum Muriaticum but it was clear that if antibiotics could reverse a previously successful treatment, then that treatment has been suppressive and not curative; repeating Natrum Muriaticum would be a mistake. So the search continued and after a few useless remedies, all in F series without problems but with only small changes, she was able to give more information on the emotional aspect of her situation (so the previous remedies were not that useless!) and finally received Silica 5C to 144C with apparently good results…only time will tell.
This and a few other similar cases confirmed my earlier suspicion that once an F series has been gone through (lifted to 144C or 233C if deemed necessary) the whole possible effect of the remedy has been used and there is no use to repeat it or switch to an LM/Q for example. If that remedy has not cured or not done the intended action, if only a partial action, symptomatic, was expected, then the selection of the remedy was wrong. How does that fit with the “intricated layers” I just described? In my experience, when that problem arises, there will be new, different symptoms, often not covered by the actual remedy, pointing towards another remedy altogether. When this happens, we interrupt the series, give the other remedy, and then come back to the original remedy where it was interrupted when the new, different symptoms have been dealt with.
Therefore, another bonus of that F system is that it becomes very clear whether the remedy is correct or not. No doubts about potencies as we go through all of them; a recurrence of a pathology, which was apparently cured, by a minimal “antidote” is not at all “antidoting the remedy”, it is simply revealing that the remedy was not correct in the first place (even though pretty close) and that the practitioner has to go back to the drawing board.
Quite a lesson in humility!
Timing of the remedies
The correct timing is once again nothing new: the first dose of the lowest potency is taken, either in dry, wet or liquid dose, wait, see what happens, repeat if using a liquid dosage when changes have stabilised, move to the next potency when there is no more evolution.
In the previous paper, I described patients taking their remedies too closely, one powder every day, and others forgetting to take their remedies, ending up with a totally incoherent schedule; this continued to happen, with no problems. With too long intervals, the amelioration was stationery until the next dose came in to continue the work; with too hasty administration, the positive results were positive although at times lingering symptoms took some time to disappear: each symptom being covered by a different potency, a different “wavelength”, if it is interfered with, that symptom will not disappear at the appropriate occasion but will have to be dealt with by a now healthy physiology once the full treatment is finished. This confirms the orthodox warning that too early a repetition might “negate” the effect of the previous dose, in that system at least.
Some patients wanted more precise time guidelines, some appeared to need them. At first I thought I would be smart and have a double Fibonacci whammy with timing between doses of 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and 21 days, but that meant the treatment would be too long and protracted; so the timing went to the prime series of 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and 13 days….but almost nobody ever managed to follow it as I always mention it is only indicative, that it is better to wait more as long as there is evolution and that they have to ask me in doubt. Only one patient, V.S. did follow the prime timing chronology faithfully to the hour, religiously, with an excellent end result.
Even the most rigid OCD Arsenicum Album patient, after a few doses, did release his pathological rigidity, was able to discard the set timeframe and use repetition as requested by his own reactions.
A fellow homeopath who tried the F series on some of her patients, Meridy Brown, experimented with at first a dry dose, followed by the same potency in water; she found out that in her cases, the dry dose was creating major changes and an awareness of those changes; then the further liquid doses were useful to fine tune the reaction and complete the work of that given level of potency; she gave up to 8 repetitions at certain potencies until the last one did not do anything at all before moving to the next potency: talk about squeezing the lemon to the end! I do suspect she had some training with the income tax peopleJ! Here are her comments in her own words: “I experimented with a first dry dose at the beginning of each new potency, followed by the same potency in water doses. I found that in those cases, this first dry dose produced a noticeable change to the patient fairly soon after having been taken. The changes felt by the patient were then able to be communicated to the practitioner more clearly, allowing the practitioner the ability to judge the appropriateness and action of the chosen remedy. This new, clearer awareness by the patient, revealing to them that with little doubt, it was the remedy producing the changes they were feeling, (which they themselves had prepared and administered), solidifies in the patient the realization that they are able and may in fact desire to participate in their own healing process. For patients coming from orthodox treatment where they have no or little participation in their own illness, this is a new thought that takes some getting used to! A sense of hope, exhilaration, better understanding, responsibility, and then an excitement to participate in their own healing process has been established! We are now in a “Win-Win” environment for both patient and practitioner. This is a valuable additional benefit realized by using the method of a first and only dose being a dry dose, when beginning a new potency”.