INVESTIGATION OF HIGH AND LOW SOLUTIONS

Alexander Ostrovsky, director of the OLLO Homeopathic Center

One and the same question is constantly present for the experienced doctor and beginning homeopath: What solution and in what cases to prescribe it?

The practice of homeopathic doctors of various schools gives various answers to that question.

The entire history of the homeopathic school in Kiev (the school of T.D. Popov) tells us of the dominance of high solutions in Ukraine and rather frequent use.

In the United States, homeopathy has often given the answer of high and infrequent use, according to the school of J.T. Kent.

In Russia, since 1981, from 30 CH and, at present, any solution, including 10 000 CH.

In France, from 30 CH, according to Hahnemann, to 100 000 CH, according to Korsakov.

In Germany, Austria and England, any prescription is possible.

A number of conclusions can be made based on ones own practice and the literature as commentary to these facts. According to Hahnemann, it is especially necessary while treating chronic diseases and their miasmic manifestations to prescribe large doses of their specific substances at ever higher degrees of dynamization every day, possibly several times a day." (note 163, "Organon," 6th ed.)

By "high degrees of dynamization," Hahnemann had in mind in "Chronic Diseases" the LM scale. The frequent doses may be, as indicated in "Chronic Diseases," a matter of medicines dissolved in water. At present, the majority of schools of homeopathic thought consider low solutions from O to 3 CH, medium from 3 CH to 30 CH and high 200 CH and up.

Another, specific dose that Hahnemann considered safe is 30 CH. He considered high solutions preferable for mental illness.

The American school of homeopathy recommends beginning with 200 CH and then raising it to 1M, 10M or higher and alternating medicines prepared by various mechanical methods. In general, in the view of Elizabeth Hubbard, editor and publisher of the journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy in 1954, the following holds:

1. When treating functional breaches, solutions above 200 CH are preferable.
2. When treating organic changes, medium or low solutions are preferable.
3. When treating severe diseases, high solutions are preferable.
4. Severe crises, such as bronchial asthma and heart attacks stemming from chronic pathology are treated better by low and medium solutions.
5. However, severe infections, such as diphtheria and pneumonia, react better to high solutions.
6. It has also been noted that therapy should be started with lower solution for patients with higher sensitivity.
7. The therapy of persons under the stress of significant application of allopathic medicine is better carried out with high solutions.

In my opinion, the choice of solution should be such that the treatment causes the patient the fewest possible aggravation.

A) It is my observation that there are antipsoric medications, such as Phosphorus, Sulfur and a number of others described by Hahnemann, with which it is better to begin the treatment of a chronic disease with 6 CH or 30 CH, since any therapy with those substances in solutions or higher than 6 CH or 30 CH causes exhaustion of the life force and hinders the treatment of chronic pathology. In the long term, where there is positive dynamics, it is expedient to switch to high solutions.

B) Severe diseases, such as severe infections, measles, pneumonia and so on, are treated better by 30 CH when they are not the aggravation of chronic pathology, which requires 6 CH (for specific substances).

C) In the case of chronic pathology, antimiasmatic therapy is better conducted with 30 CH in a solution with water with rather frequent applications. Here, in a number of cases, it is possible to agree with Elizabeth Hubbard that patients taking a lot of chemical medicines require higher solutions. This has been confirmed in my practice.

D) To treat severe chronic diseases, antipsoric is necessary in the majority of cases at 30 CH or higher.

E) In the therapy of chronic pathology, the appearance of severe symptoms in connection with the treatment of the chronic pathology (such as temperature) must be differentiated from symptoms connected with homeopathic aggravation. If the symptoms arise as a result of aggravation, the question follows, was the solution properly chosen?

In conclusion, only the general principles of prescribing homeopathic medicine have been laid out here. It is plainly obvious that every patient requires an individual approach in the choice of solution and in the frequency of its use.