This fits very well with the orthodox concept of giving one dose and waiting. It also fit with Hahnemann?s admonition of never repeating a dose in exactly the same potency. We need to see what the remedy has done, let that dose exert its full action (although the action is immediate, what we see is the effect caused by it on the physiology, and that is what we do not want to interfere with) and only then either repeat the dose or move to the next potency. If there is no activity whatsoever, repetition or moving earlier and faster is then justified.
I have already described that some potencies, some levels of vibration, will not resonate with anything active in the patient, so there is no need to stay there: you do not spend too much time listening to white noise or a silent radio station, do you? And if it is the wrong remedy, the faster we know it, the better.
A regular schedule of dosage is warranted for some patients who need precision in their lives, for some who will not be able to perceive transformations, be it subtle or not and for some who are impaired to such an extent that the practitioner has to take control. Those are rare situations and often the amelioration created by the first doses brings back awareness, flexibility and suppleness, allowing an intelligent progression of the prescription. I have given examples and written more in detail about this in the paragraph “Timing of the remedies”. I need to repeat and heavily insist upon the absolutely essential role of having a good system of follow-up during the course of the treatment, a lot more than with C or LM/Q potencies. Changes can occur at any time, in an unpredictable manner and can be deep, with quite heavy physical or emotional reactions. The patient needs to know the practitioner is a phone call or an email away. Reassurance and explanation of what is happening is often the only needed action; some Bach Flowers or other Flower Essences can be very helpful. In the last 2 years, I only sent one patient (P.S) to the emergency room for chest pains after a remedy, everything was normal and as described in the paragraph “Aggravations” eventually a logical explanation was found. But the last thing we need is patients panicking or being forcefully medicated for an acute panic attack when a phone call and a few drops of Rescue Remedy can take care of the whole situation.
What started as an attempt to simplify the choice of potency has evolved into a revision of concepts of homeopathy.
There is an eternal constant: the remedy must be correct.
So must the approach be: what to treat in the first place; how to be flexible enough to interrupt the treatment, chose another one, then resume the previous one; how to be aware of the unpredictability of the therapeutic evolution; how to accept that the best remedy might not be indicated yet and chose the one(s) that will lead to it; how to be open to the fact that the same remedy might have to be used many times at different phases and times of the treatment; and how not to be obsessed by a timeline, especially in very intricated cases.
I have learned that that every F potency is a very special one, a threshold potency, a most active potency, and that in their proper order their ability to cure becomes optimal.
I have learned that in fact there are no different potencies, that each remedy has only one single variable potency, similar to the spectrum of the electromagnetic waves. In physics, you measure X Rays, ultrasounds, colour, radio waves, gamma rays differently depending on the instrument you use; none of them stops existing when you switch the instrument off, or as the Taoist koan asks: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is present, does it still make a sound? In real medicine, the patient’s history, symptoms, signs and complaints are localised ?nodes? in time and space, covered by a specific potency of a specific remedy. Different remedies might be indicated at different times and in different places; the patient tells us what the remedy is, the potency is unpredictable (so far); moreover, the strength of one symptom can easily overshadow other symptoms belonging to the same remedy but influenced by different potencies. Once the strongest symptom has been dealt with, the other symptoms might appear and send the practitioner on a wild goose chase for another remedy when the only thing needed is another potency of the same remedy. Going through all possible potencies in an orderly fashion makes the treatment whole, complete and permanent.
I have learned that this method works well, works fast, works deep and with the correct remedies, is curative.
I have learned that antidoting a remedy is not possible; it is an intellectual concept but not a reality. When a treatment has worked well, but everything recurs after a coffee, an essential oil or an antibiotic, that treatment was not correct, the pathology was not cured but only silenced (the dreaded suppression of orthodoxy); the treatment has to be revisited with a clear, open mind and corrected whatever pain this can inflict to our ego.
I have learned that many cases are intricated, have Gordian knots that can be untied.
I have learned that with some (no, with a lot of) pigheadedness and obstination, total cure is possible. I have relearned and reaffirmed one of my mottos: never give up!
How does the Fibonacci system fit within the paradigm of the so-called “Classical”, “Hahnemaniann”or “Orthodox” homeopathy?
– single remedy: yes, of course, one remedy at a time, the appropriate one
– single dose: the 4th Organon practitioners, adepts of the ?one dose and wait? method, can easily practice this way; the 5th Organon practitioners, adepts of the liquid dose with repetitions can easily practice this way; the 6th Organon practitioners, although the F series is not an LM/Q potency, can still practice the multiple dilutions glasses, variable amounts, variable potentisations between repetition methodology
– never repeat the same potency twice: clearly, it fits
And for those who will assimilate the concept that each remedy has only one single, wide, variable potency, then of course there is always only one single dose, although divided in fractions that are needed to achieve the full potential of the single full dose.
His whole life, Hahnemann was dissatisfied with posology. He started with what was available, the crude doses, experimented a lot (see the paper by Jan Klussendorf, Hahnemann’s Pre Organon Views in Homeopathic Links, Summer 2009, Vol 22:112-116), settled for a time with dry centesimals, shifted to liquid centesimals, then created the LM/Q potencies. He then still used all of the above at some times, according to those who read his Paris casebooks. Even though Hahnemann wrote that the LM/Q potencies were the most perfect ones, he was obviously not totally convinced as he still used C potencies; and I have no reason to doubt David Little and others who have read and translated the Paris casebooks. The Fibonacci Series is nothing else but a continuation of Hahnemann’s research for the perfect method of administration; it only needs a little bit more experimenting for its details.
The F series encompasses all those systems, apparently integrating them: it makes sense; it is a natural series, not an artificial, mathematical construction.
With very few exceptions, for the last 9 months (at the time of writing), I have used the F series exclusively, although not in acute cases where I need to use what I have at hand, my stockpile of C potencies.
I also need to repeat that the F series allows for the use of hand made potencies, so that we know exactly what we give. Korsakovian potencies, continuous flow and other methods create dynamised remedies, no doubt about it; but as I demonstrated in the first paper, we really do not know which potency they are in reality.
We could use the X/D potencies in an F series, no doubt about it, we could also use the CK but only if the Korsakov method was used from the very first potency.
We have now almost 110 remedies (and growing) that have been prepared in the F series, at the cost of a few tennis elbows. Any remedy, any substance can be made in an F series.
This has also opened the door to other questions that were hinted at in the previous paper: how many succussions should be used? Should there be a different number of succussions for different remedies? Why? How do we find out? More research to be done and it has already started?..
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
Dr. Joseph (Joe) Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD, was born in Brussels, Belgium in 1951. He graduated from medical school (the Free University of Brussels) in 1976 and went on to fulfill his childhood?s dream: to become a surgeon. He studied General Surgery in Belgium and Israel, then Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery in Alberta, Canada.
Back in Brussels and while in private practice, he had a personal encounter with Acupuncture that sent him back to school, this time to study Acupuncture; from then on there was no turning back and he became a compulsive student of natural medicine, learning Homeopathy, Herbalism, TCM, Nutrition, Homeobotanical Medicine, Flower Remedies, Aromatherapy, Naturopathy, Reiki and others. He has a PhD in Homeopathy and one in Natural Medical Sciences as well as a Doctorate in Naturopathy.
He was a Lecturer in Medical Diagnostics at the Faculty of Chiropractics and Homeopathy in Durban, Natal, South Africa and a Lecturer in Homeopathy at the Israel Medical College of Homeopathy in Jerusalem. Dr. Joe lives now in New Plymouth, Taranaki, New Zealand where he practices exclusively Natural Medicine at his clinic, Natura Medica Ltd. Dr. Roz is the author of “Dynamic Gemmotherapy”, available at www.lulu.com (just type the title in the search box.)