Recently, I posted To repeat, or not to repeat? Acute version. I gave many examples of “classical”* homeopaths recommending the rather frequent repetition of the remedies for acute cases.

If classical homeopaths are in agreement it’s OK to repeat remedies acutely, why do a lot of classical homeopaths think it’s not OK to repeat remedies when addressing chronic issues?

Let’s recap from last week:

• Repeating homeopathic remedies during acute treatment is fine and dandy.
• Sometimes there may be a homeopathic aggravation, which is considered a good thing.
  • if there is an aggravation, space the timing out further. (Note: it may be telling you the remedy is not quite right and may warrant further investigation.)
• Remedies can be repeated in dry dose or diluted in mineral water.
• If symptoms return, repeat the remedy.

When we get to chronic treatment, these guidelines are often set to the side… pushed away… locked up… verboten.

Small Doses, Big Results by Karl Robinson, M.D. (2014, p xv) begins his introduction thusly: "There is only one medicine, holistic or otherwise, that treats mind and body at the same time with only one medicine and does so with one dose repeated infrequently."

Lisa Strbac (2024, p 22) explains the classical thinking quite succinctly in The Trailblazer’s Insight into Homeopathy:

"‘I felt so good on my remedy; why can’t I keep taking it?’
Homeopathy follows the principle of the minimum dose — using the smallest amount of remedy needed to stimulate the body’s healing response. Repeated doses of a well-matched remedy, especially when not needed, can disrupt the healing process with a risk that the individual may prove the remedy. Once improvement is noted, it’s best to stop taking the remedy and only repeat if symptoms return."

​Dr. Lockie (1993) adds: "In chronic conditions, 6c remedies are usually taken 3 times a day for up to 14 days, and 30c remedies every 12 hours for a few days.”
“for a few days”… hmmm

I have noticed classical homeopaths actually often repeat doses, especially at the beginning of treatment, even when they otherwise do not recommend repeating doses. I frequently hear or read of classical homeopaths opening a case with a “split dose” (another name for a single repeated dose, e.g., take a dose at night and repeat it the following morning); or, they may repeat a dose for 3 to 5 days in a row, right off the bat (as above), and then stop and see what happens. Aren’t they risking disrupting the healing process?

I could spend hours listing all of Hahnemann’s aphorisms and Dr. James Tyler Kent’s lecture points and digging through all my books, but I’m not going to do that. I am going to ignore them when it comes to whether or not it is OK to repeat dry remedies.

​What?! You’re going to ignore the masters?!
Yes. Instead, I am going to turn to Dr. Francisco Xavier Eizayaga** (1991, p 211) who decided to test these theories:

"This subject has always worried us. After about eighteen years of collecting a rich experience with many thousands of patients, we decided to put some order to the matter. We have usually followed certain traditional rules according to the powerful influence Kent exercised with instructions stated in his Homoeopathic Philosophy [first published in 1900]. In the chronic cases we employed only one dose followed by placebo… We had always started with a 200c or MC potency and we waited for the results. The great majority of our patients suffered the initial homeopathic aggravation followed by the different contingencies described by Kent in his Lecture XXXV.…"

"-Some patients only feel well while they are having the remedy, not while they are having the placebo.…

-There is no difference between the homoeopathic aggravation due to a unique dose or due to repeated doses, even when taking a remedy during the reaction.

-The late aggravation of which Hahnemann speaks takes place in 4% of cases, some of them susceptible to being interpreted in another way, and, in any case, it never is anything more than a temporary bother with no other pathological significance.…
​
When an individual has daily and repeated doses, we are referring to a chronic case, only one of those doses will modify that susceptibility, by either aggravating first and then causing recovery, or causing recovery directly…. The proof of this is that the patient’s response to the therapeutic action is the same one with a unique dose as with repeated ones…."

As a reminder, I was “raised” on the Banerji Protocols which repeat doses often, so, to me, this was normal and “right.” Then, I attended classical homeopathic training which told me repeating doses was very bad. I was left a little perplexed for a few years. Repeating doses was working for myself and it was working for my clients. What was I missing?

Then I read Dr. Eizayaga and it turns out I wasn’t missing anything! The research conducted by Dr. Eizayaga was enough for me to put any hesitation I had been harboring about repeating dry doses away for good. Phew!

So, what are we talking about in terms of repeating doses for chronic situations?
#1 — the individual is the most important piece of this decision making process. I can’t stress this enough.

• Banerji Protocols? They repeat often — twice daily is a standard repetition.
• Narayani Remedies? They repeat even more often — three times daily is common and some of the combos suggest six times a day.

Like Dr. Eizayaga, the Banerjis and the Narayanis have decades-long track records of success with many thousands of patients repeating dry doses daily.

Now, let’s do a little comparison between “classical” and “practical” dosing. Most of the books written for home users list primarily acute conditions, so I turned to Hemorrhoids which is often a chronic condition for many people.

Drs. Jonas & Jacobs (1998, p 222):
"For acute†† hemorrhoidal problems, take the remedy twice daily in the 30c potency or 4 times a day in the 12x. Stop the remedy as soon as improvement occurs, or after two days if it is not giving relief." [They recommend one of 5 remedies: Aesculus, Sulphur, Nux vomica, Nitric acid or Hamamelis.]

​​Dr. Andrew Lockie (1993, p 258) recommends the same selection of remedies, plus, Aloe, Collinsonia, Pulsatilla, Ammonium carb or Causticum “to be taken 4 times daily for up to 5 days.”

The Banerjis (2013), on the other hand, recommend for hemorrhoids in their first line of treatment:

• Sulphur 200c, every other day
• Nux vomica 30c, once daily

And, in acute conditions:

• Sulphur 200c + Ratanhia 200c, twice daily, with instructions to repeat every 3 hours until complete remission of the pain or burning. This is quite an amazing combination!

Narayani remedies would most likely call for Mix 32: Veins & Piles which contains 8 different remedies and recommends using it 3 times a day and up to 6 times a day “if very bad.

Interestingly, in this instance, we see a similar repetition of remedies between classical and practical methods††.

So, to repeat or not repeat? Is it even still a question?

Julia Coyte, CHom
Classically Practical homeopath

#wellnessawaits

​*For this article, “classical” refers to homeopaths using one remedy at a time; “Practical” refers to homeopaths who use multiple remedies at one time.
**If you can find this book, buy this book… You won’t be disappointed.
***Plus Method, according to Eizayaga (1991, p 213):
"…if the succeeding dose is changed slightly every time, namely potentized somewhat higher then the vital principle may be altered without difficulty by the same medicine (the sensation of natural disease diminishing) and thus the cure brought nearer.”
†Eizayaga does not clarify what he means by “high potency.”
††To be accurate, the “classical” recommendations are not necessarily referring to chronic hemorrhoids, but let’s be real — hemorrhoid pain is hemorrhoid pain!

​Reference list
Banerji, P. and Banerji, P., 2013. The Banerji protocols : a new method of treatment with homeopathic medicines. India: Pratip Banerji.

Eizayaga, F. X., 1991. Treatise on Homoeopathic Medicine. Estilos Graficos S.A.

Jonas, W. B. and Jacobs, J., 1998. Healing with homeopathy : the doctor’s guide. New York, Ny: Warner Books.

Lockie, A., 1993. The family guide to homeopathy : the safe form of medicine for the future. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Robinson, K., 2014. Small doses big results : how homeopathic medicine offers hope in chronic disease.

Strbac, L., 2024. The Trailblazer’s Insight into Homeopathy.

The formation of teeth is something quite miraculous. They start to develop at 5-6 weeks in utero, so the mother might not even realise she is pregnant yet and already the teeth are forming. They start as a ribbon of ectoderm [the outermost layer of cells or tissue of an embryo] and mesenchyme [a loosely organized, mainly mesodermal embryonic tissue which develops into connective and skeletal tissues, including blood and lymph — according to OED], a few of them move away from each other depositing hydroxyapatite crystals as they go. The ameloblasts (enamel forming cells) lay down the enamel, the hardest material in the body; beautiful hexagonal pillars that, under an electron microscope, resemble the Giant’s Causeway* in Northern Ireland. Once these cells have done their job of forming the enamel and the shape of the crown of the teeth they are lost to us forever.

What does hydroxyapatite do? My son was suggested by his dentist to get toothpaste with this in it.
It is the name of the mineral that makes up our enamel. It is indeed an ingredient of some toothpastes. Emerging evidence is suggesting that this mineral in toothpaste can help protect the surface of the teeth, help with sensitivity and even positively affect the oral microbiome.

So, I’m thinking this sounds like all of this happens as we become us – not something we have control over?
Yes, correct. The development of our teeth is programmed into our DNA just like our spinal cord, brain and all of our other organs. Malformed teeth are rare and usually genetic.

On the other side of the ribbon are the odontoblasts [a cell in the pulp of a tooth that produces dentin] that lay down the dentine making up the bulk of the tooth including the roots. Rather than being lost, a few of these remain and continue depositing dentine whilst the tooth remains vital. Dentine has its own beauty and complexity of minerals and organic components and also house fine nerve endings accounting for our teeth being notoriously sensitive. Again, dentine formation is dictated by our genetic code but how much dentine continues to be deposited around the nerve later in life can be influenced by stress, wear and tear and how close any fillings are to the nerve. The nerve needs to be protected and if fillings are large or deep dentine is laid down in protection.

From this initial formation of the teeth we can see that enamel, once damaged or lost, cannot naturally be repaired or replaced. The main causes of wear are: erosion from eating or drinking acidic foods; abrasion from excessive pressure whilst tooth brushing or using an abrasive toothpaste; grinding teeth often in response to stress. Having said this, the surface is constantly under a microscopic flux between mineralisation and demineralisation caused by eating and drinking, creating an acidic, enamel dissolving, environment. Thanks to our saliva, our mouths are good at balancing the equilibrium. The dentine, on the other hand, in the centre of the tooth, has some ability to undergo some repair as some odontoblasts continue to work in order to be able to protect the pulp and nerves.

Our teeth have potential to remain perfectly healthy, other than natural slow wear and tear, for the whole of our lives. Dental decay and disease is essentially preventable, not inevitable.

How can we prevent disease?
Cleaning and good oral hygiene is essential, physically cleaning off the plaque and biofilm twice daily from the surfaces of our teeth. We can do this with tooth-brushing and interdental brushes, floss, toothpicks whatever works for you. Toothpaste is also very useful but I won’t go into ingredients here because this is a subject in its own right.

Do we need toothpaste?
Good question! The most important part of brushing our teeth is the mechanical removal of debris and bacteria so what does the toothpaste add? You could argue not a lot if you are brushing well. What do you want to achieve by using a toothpaste? Remineralisation; help with sensitivity; probiotic; antibacterial; healing; anti-inflammatory; fresher breath; or you just like the sensation?

Diet is possibly the most important factor with sugar being universally associated with dental decay. Other things that can contribute to destruction of the tooth structure are acidic foods and drinks that dissolve away the crystalline structures and refined carbohydrates having similar effect to pure sugar. Crackers and refined breads can be just as destructive as sugar as the carbohydrate is readily available to the bacteria and they can often cling to the tooth surface. Dried fruit and juices also have a high level of available sugar that the bacteria can easily feed on and when we graze on these throughout the day we increase the risk of getting tooth decay.

Other factors are our general health. Recent research is showing that low vitamin D levels carry a higher risk of dental decay and gum disease. Vitamin D is essential for bone health, our immune system and sense of wellbeing which are all intricately connected to our dental health. Other vitamins and minerals that can support our immune system and dental health are Vitamin C, Vitamin B12 and Zinc.

All medications also cause dry mouth to some extent reducing the protective effect of saliva to bring back the oral environment and enamel surface into equilibrium. Unfortunately, the management of dry mouth is very difficult with saliva substitutes often not performing as well as their advertising promises. In the case of dry mouth prevention of dental disease is of the utmost importance and only some relief can be achieved by sipping water throughout the day.

What role can homeopathy play?
Whilst improving diet, oral hygiene techniques and general health we can use homeopathy to support dental health and prevention.

Tissue salts have a valuable role to play in supporting healthy tissues and can be used almost like a vitamin supplement. For teeth and bone health Calc Carb, Calc Fluor and Calc Phos are of particular value with the beauty that these remedies come from minerals that predominantly make up the structure of the teeth and bone. Silicea can also be value to support bone and gum health. However, one of the keynotes for Silicea is expulsion of foreign bodies. Those with implants may wish to avoid this remedy even though this is only a theoretical risk of contributing to their failure.

Many more remedies have characteristics and rubrics that are associated with dental decay. The fantastic thing about homeopathy is that we can truly individualise the presentation and experience of the decay. Just looking at the Murphy’s repertory and the rubric Teeth, DECAYED, teeth rotten, hollowed, there are 102 possible remedies with 14 of these strongly associated with this situation. There are also sub-rubrics of “appears, as soon as they”, “crown at”, “enamel, loss of”, “gums, at edge of”, “internal”, “premature, in children”, “rapid”, “roots, at”, “sensation, of” and “sides, of teeth”. Other rubrics we might consider might address the feeling of the teeth, other disease in the mouth, general health and even looking at the desire for sweets.

Once decay has started on the surface of the teeth we can manage this with preventative measures such as good oral hygiene practices and alterations to diet and general health. This is why it is recommended to see your dentist regularly so decay can be spotted early and then monitored. Once decay in the teeth has progressed beyond the enamel we often cannot avoid further intervention and the tooth is likely to need a filling. Homeopathy can play a valuable role alongside dental care whether it is in an acute situation to help with pain, during dental treatment and healing and as long term measures to promote whole person health and prevention. The mouth is reflection and a window into our inner world and the health of the whole body and person and dental decay can give us vital clues and rubrics into discovering the remedy that fits the similimum.

Can teeth be repaired without intervention from the dentist?
The internet and social media will offer the promise of healing teeth by various methods such as crushed eggshells amongst other remedies (homeopathic and non-homeopathic). Sadly, once the tooth structure is damaged beyond a few micrometres it cannot be replaced naturally. But what we can do is halt early progression and maintain the remaining structure with prevention, cleaning, diet, whole health and we can use the support of homeopathy.

Samantha

--
Dr Samantha Jugdev BSc(Hons), BDS(Brist), PGCME, FFHom(Dent)
www.thirtythreedental.co.uk

Thank you, Samantha!




Julia Coyte, CHom
Classically Practical homeopath


#wellnessawaits
​

And, another one because it's so very cool…

​I touched on the idea of remedy repetition in my recent “broad and shallow sweep through homeopathic potency.” In that article, remedy repetition was more related to various homeopathic ideas that certain potencies (generally low) are more suited to repetition than others.

I understand there are plenty of “classical” homeopaths who work with multiple remedies at a time (for example: a weekly “constitutional” remedy and a daily cell salt and perhaps an occasional “lesional” remedy — all used in the same time frame), but for this article, I will use the term “classical” in regard to homeopaths who practice with one remedy at a time.

“Practical” homeopaths, in this article, are referring to those who use multiple remedies simultaneously or even combination remedies. (I am aware that there are plenty of “classical” homeopaths who apply homeopathy in a “practical” manner, but do not use polypharmacy, for instance.)
--
As we learned in the above mentioned Homeopathic Potency article, it’s important to remember, as always in homeopathy, the individual is the driving and deciding force.
--
Digging through my bookshelves, it’s clear that repetition of remedies during acute conditions is pretty universal and considered to be sometimes necessary even. Let’s take a look at a few different authors and see what they recommend. (All emphases are from original authors.)

Dr. Ratera (2020, p 19), writing about First Aid with Homeopathy (so ostensibly dealing only with acute situations) says:

"Use low potencies (from 6 to 30D and C or K) for milder cases, repeat several times in dry dose or diluted in mineral water…. In severe cases, the frequency of administration initially must be high (every 1-5 minutes in severe poisoning), progressively decreasing the frequency with improvement. In medium and mild cases, every 2-8 hours the first day, and reduce the frequency to 1-2 times daily for 1 or 2 days.… Stop or reduce remedy administration when the patient starts improving. Prolonged, unnecessary repetition of homeopathic remedies can produce proving symptoms in the patient."

Dr. Colin B. Lessell’s The World Travellers’ Manual of Homoeopathy (1999, p 5) in discussing remedies for a sun headache:

"… in an average case, one dose of Belladonna 30c should be given initially every two hours. The strength of the treatment may be varied, however, according to the severity of the case. A mild case may require dosage repetition every four hours, and a severe case every hour, or half hour. For the beginner, it is best to start with the directive of the text. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the frequency of repetition should be reduced as the patient improves, and in most instances the remedy should be discontinued once significant improvement has occurred.

Occasionally, after the administration of a remedy, the patient experiences what is termed homoeopathic aggravation (see below for further explanation). This is a transient worsening of the patient’s symptoms, and may be caused by the use of too high a potency, or by too rapid dose repetition. In fact, it signifies overstimulation of the bodily healing response. Should this occur, the remedy should be discontinued, whereupon the phase of aggravation will be followed by one of remission, often proceeding to cure. However, it sometimes happens that this phase of remission is short-lived, and is followed by a resumption of the previous symptoms, although they are often less severe. In this case, the remedy should be reapplied, but less aggressively. Reduce the frequency of dosage, or select a lesser potency."

Dr. Andrew Lockie’s The Family Guide to Homeopathy (1993, p 30):

"In acute conditions, doses should be taken every 1/2 or 1 hour to begin with, up to a maximum of 10 doses. But as soon as there is some improvement, the interval between doses should be increased to 8 or 12 hours for 2 or 3 days at most. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO POINT IN CONTINUING TO TAKE A REMEDY ONCE THE SYMPTOMS HAVE STARTED TO DISAPPEAR."

Drs. Jonas & Jacobs in their Healing with Homeopathy state:

"The cardinal rule of homeopathic treatment is that once a remedy begins to work, it should be tapered off and/or stopped. This is because the remedies stimulate the natural healing mechanisms of the body, and once that process begins it continues on its own.… Marked improvement can sometimes occur after only one dose, especially in a particularly intense situation… at other times several doses are necessary before the effects of the remedy are noticed. At the point where an effect is noticed, stop the medicine and wait."

Miranda Castro in The Complete Homeopathy Handbook (Castro 1991, p 26):

"Having selected the remedy for your patient, you will need to decide on the dose. This will depend upon the urgency of the case: frequent doses for an acute illness that has come on suddenly and strongly, and less frequent doses for a slowly developing illness. Some earaches with very severely distressed patients need their remedies repeating every five minutes; a head injury may need the remedy repeating every half hour; and a slowly developing flu may need a remedy every four hours or three times a day.

Once you see that a homeopathic remedy has started to work — once you notice a definite reaction or change resulting from the remedy — then continue with the same remedy but give it less often (that is, increase the gaps between the doses) as the patient continues to improve.

Once there is a marked improvement — once a strong positive reaction has occurred — it is essential to stop taking the remedy altogether. This is the absolute opposite of the instructions you receive when taking orthodox medicines (for example, antibiotics), where it is often necessary to finish the whole course of pills. A homeopathic remedy acts as a trigger, a catalyst — it stimulates the body to begin to heal itself, and once that has happened the body’s own healing process will take over. In some cases, taking another tablet after this reaction has occurred can actually stop the remedy working and even exaggerate the symptoms and consequently you can be persuaded into thinking it was a poor prescription."

With these, we see the theme of remedy repetition for acute situations from what I would term the more classical homeopaths and they are all pretty much in agreement, with just a little fine tuning here or there.

Let’s talk about the homeopathic aggravation a little bit.
Dr. Hahnemann in §158 says:
"A small homeopathic aggravation is a good indication in an acute disease.

This small homeopathic aggravation in the first hours is a very good portent that the acute disease will be mostly finished by the first dose. Such an aggravation is not infrequent, since the medicinal disease must naturally be somewhat stronger than the malady in order to over-tune and extinguish it…"

Translation:
Unlike conventional (allopathic) medicines, which treat disease with “anti” remedies — meaning “against” or “opposite,” as in antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, antipyretics (fever reducers), etc, homeopathy is based on similarities (Homoeo means “similar” or “same”). (See also, Hom, not home). A homeopathic remedy for a fever would match the totality of the patient’s symptoms, including the unique symptoms of the person’s fever (sudden onset, throbbing, causing restlessness, etc). This remedy would then gently stimulate (“over-tune”) the vital force* — the body’s self-regulating life principle — creating a similar but slightly stronger “medicinal disease” (the dynamic, artificial disturbance produced by the potentized homeopathic remedy). This “medicinal disease” gently nudges the vital force in a similar direction to the existing illness, enabling the body to kick in and extinguish the fever on its own. It’s important to mention here that it’s not literally about inducing a full-blown fever in an already sick person — it’s about matching the energetic signature of an illness to a potentized homeopathic remedy which would support the body’s own self-healing process.

“Similia similibus curentur” — Like cures like. If a remedy or substance can create or provoke a symptom in a healthy person, that same remedy or substance in homeopathic form can help relieve that symptom in an unwell person. (See also, The original drug testing… Homeopathic Provings.)

What about the Banerjis? What do they say to do for acutes?
Interestingly, their written instructions show that remedies are actually given a little less frequently than the traditional homeopaths. To be fair, their book isn’t really aimed at treating acutes.

For example, their first line remedies for influenza suggest:

• Rhus tox 30c and Bryonia 30c, one dose every 2 hours alternately.

Being the Banerjis, they also suggest other remedies to be taken in conjunction with the main remedy/ies.

• in case of temperature — Belladonna**, one dose every one hour (SOS***)
• for nausea and vomiting — Arsenicum album**, one dose every 30 minutes (SOS)

The Narayanis, on the other hand, address the full range of issues in their selection of remedies (see also, Quickie: Narayani Books). It’s important to note that potency selection has already been done for us with Narayanis — there’s nothing to do except purchase the ready-made combo and decide how often to take it.
​
Contrary to classical homeopathy, the Narayanis repeat remedies quite frequently, regardless of potency. Here are some examples:

• Throat, mix 30, (200c) repetition is suggested every 15 minutes for acute sore throat. Reduce on improvement.
• Cold, mix 11 is in a 6x and they suggest it every 15 minutes until eased, then reduce to three times a day (which is technically equivalent to every 8 hours but is more often used upon waking, in the afternoon and before bed).
• Flu Pack, mix 79 is a 10M combination and they say: “as soon as one feels flu is coming on, take this remedy every 15 minutes. Take 2 pills once a day as a preventative. Every 15 minutes in an attack.”
• Injury, mix 20, (200c): 6 times a day (which is equivalent to every 4 hours). Reduce as condition eases.

Let’s recap the general rules of thumb for acutes:

• Remedies are repeated, depending on the intensity and severity of the symptoms.
  • Very intense symptoms may warrant repetition every few minutes and once there is some level of improvement, then the remedies are spaced out further (e.g., severe injury).
  • Less intense symptoms would warrant repetition every hour or two (e.g., sore throat).
  • Milder symptoms would be repeated every 2-4 hours (e.g., feeling like you are beginning to come down with a bug).
• Use dry doses or pellets diluted in mineral water
• If there is an aggravation/worsening of symptoms, space the timing out further. (Note: sometimes this may be a result of an incorrect remedy. If there is no improvement, move to a different remedy.)
• If the symptoms return, repeat the remedy.
• The Banerjis standard repetition is twice daily, though they often mix in other remedies to address accompanying concerns making the actual dosing more frequent.
• Narayani remedies often begin with every 15 minutes and taper off with improvement.
  • A standard repetition for many of their acute remedies is 6 times a day, reducing on improvement.

We see, a good deal of common ground between classical and practical homeopaths in terms of remedy repetition when it comes to treating acute conditions.

When we get to chronic treatment next week, however, that’s where the waters start to part…


Julia Coyte, CHom
Classically Practical homeopath


#wellnessawaits


*Vital Force is Hahnemann’s term for the dynamic, spirit-like power that maintains health and produces symptoms when it is “untuned.”
**Their book does include potencies but they are not readily available potencies so I left them off — 30c is a good alternative.
***SOS stands for, as needed. Translation: no fever = don’t repeat the remedy.

Reference list
Banerji, P. and Banerji, P., 2013. The Banerji protocols : a new method of treatment with homeopathic medicines. India: Pratip Banerji.

Castro, M., 1991. The complete homeopathy handbook : a guide to everyday health care. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Hahnemann, S. and Brewster O’Reilly, W., 2001. Organon of the medical art. Kindle. Palo Alto, Ca: Birdcage Books.

Jonas, W. B. and Jacobs, J., 1998. Healing with homeopathy : the doctor’s guide. New York, Ny: Warner Books.

Lessell, C. B., 1999. The World Travellers’ Manual of Homoeopathy. Random House UK.

Lockie, A., 1993. The family guide to homeopathy : the safe form of medicine for the future. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Ratera, M. M., 2020. First aid with homeopathy. Kandern, Germany Narayana Verlag.

​Maybe it’s the general feeling of the world. (See also, Homeopathy can make a heavy world a little lighter.) Maybe it’s that winter has gone on too long now. Maybe it’s all of the above. Maybe it has no relation to anything.

In the last couple of weeks, I have had 4 urgent phone calls from clients (and one general consultation with a new client), all with very different presenting symptoms, but all rooted in grief… all of whom benefitted greatly from Ignatia.​​

--18 months after losing a spouse
--intense anxiety from many years ago
--behavioral issues in a young child
--recent ramifications from an old divorce
--sleepless from worry trying to leave a warzone

One client, however, took one dose of Ignatia and the next day said to me, “that dose felt like ‘resilience.’”
I think that one word sums up Ignatia so beautifully.

The Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press 2021) defines “resilience”: “capacity to withstand or to recover quickly* from difficulties; toughness.”

All five of these people needed shoring up in their resilience and Ignatia did just that by providing a little emotional scaffolding.

When it rains, it pours and if you find yourself in an emotional downpour, I suggest giving Ignatia a try at being your proverbial umbrella.



Julia Coyte, CHom
Classically Practical homeopath

#wellnessawaits


*I removed quickly — homeopathy does not care if the catalyst was recent or long ago.

The yucks hit my house in very early January. For the next couple of weeks, I sometimes felt like I was on the verge of succumbing to something yucky. Many weeks later, I can safely say I skirted it.

The important piece of this puzzle, is this:
Your remedies do not have to be perfect. Remedies are forgiving. Many remedies share many symptoms and many overlapping symptoms. In most cases, there is not one single remedy that you have to get absolutely right in order to feel better.
​
I did all the usual things when one feels like they might be getting ill:

• first sign: Aconite/Bryonia
• echinacea (herb, not homeopathic)
• Narayani Flu Pack​

I drank bone broth and I skipped the treadmill if I didn’t feel there was energy enough to spare. Listen to your body - it’s always talking to you.

When I really thought I was in trouble and realizing that all those things I had been doing didn’t actually do what needed to be done, I was ready to acquiesce; I was ready to throw in the towel.

Then, the shaky quakes, as I call them, set in. I felt so weak and trembly. I had gone to bed really early (the headache was too much) and I slept really hard and I slept late and I did not want to get out of bed the next morning. I did get out of bed and I had some breakfast — even though the thought made me nauseous (I did feel better after eating) — I knew I had only a short amount of time to get the bills paid and do a quick couple of other things with deadlines before I was no longer going to be able to get to them for a while.

But then, when this new symptom set in, I decided to throw one more remedy at it. Main symptom? Trembling and weakness. Just sitting and opening the bills was too much. I was waffling between Arsenicum album and Gelsemium (both really good flu remedies, in general; and, both are in the “eating ameliorates” rubric, so that fit, too). I went with Gelsemium because the trembling was the chief complaint. Within 30 minutes, the trembling had completely disappeared.

The weakness remained, however. Gelsemium no longer felt right, even though it had done what was asked of it, so I switched to Arsenicum album. I couldn’t tell you now and I don’t think I could have told you then why the Gelsemium no longer felt right. Could it have done the job just as well? Perhaps.

One dose of each and the world was quite simply a happier place. I continued to feel better hour by hour. By the next day, I was completely back to normal.

I know I (and others) have said, that if a remedy is working, stick with it, but I broke that rule and I’m pleased I did. I took the “chase the symptoms route.” (See also, tis the season… for the crud.)

After a couple weeks of occasionally using good, general flu remedies to ward off symptoms that seemed to maybe be trying to creep in from time to time, I decided to focus on just the new main symptoms - one at a time. Once again, I never actually felt unwell until the very end — I just didn’t want anything to take hold.

It is entirely possible there simply weren’t good symptoms to follow previously - just a general sense of uh-oh. If I had worked with another homeopath, perhaps they could have seen something, but, I couldn’t see it in myself.

Had I taken these two remedies earlier in my battle of the on again/off again possible yucks, would I have put it all in my rearview mirror sooner? Maybe. The symptoms calling for these remedies, if they were there, they were very, very quiet and I couldn’t hear them.

There is another possibility… Maybe I didn’t, in fact, dodge the yucks and was just “homeopathically unwell” : translation, I had a bug, but the remedies were working well enough to keep me going — and these last two remedies were the clean up crew. (Arsenicum album and Gelsemium are both indicated in convalescence.)

Will I ever know? Nope. Do I care? Only in that I could have shared more detailed information so others may learn from my experience.

Stay well — spring is coming to the rescue soon!



Julia Coyte, CHom
Classically Practical homeopath

#wellnessawaits

I have written specifically about the Banerji Protocols and the Narayani combinations (here, here, and here. The Boiron over-the-counter combos are sprinkled throughout my articles. I have mentioned the BHI combos only once in my Digging Deeper article about hemorrhoids. Perhaps it’s because I don’t see these too often any more that they are not front and center in my mind. BHI/HEEL — I’m honestly not certain what the technicalities are between these/this company/companies. MediNatura (maker of Traumeel,) is another name that is part of this company puzzle. I do know they at least were based in New Mexico - maybe that’s why I saw their products on the shelves. Not so much these days, though.

They are still out there, however — for purchase through the internet.

What are they?

They are a smaller line of homeopathic combinations, compared to the Narayanis and they do not use the mega potencies that some Narayanis do; in fact, most (all?) of their combos are made using low x potencies.

You may be familiar with their T-Relief and Traumeel (a personal favorite combo of mine). What else do they have? In addition to the Hemorrhoid combo listed above, to list just a few more:

• They have a T-Relief for Arthritis.
• A cold/flu combo called ReBoost
• Wellmind Calming tablets (also called Calming with different packaging) (this looks like a really lovely combination, but I haven’t tried it)
• Spasm for cramp and spasm relief
• Mucus
• Nausea

Plus a handful of remedies for animals. It appears the ingredients are the same but there is a price difference — generally the pet product is more expensive for fewer tablets as the “human” version. I do see there is a difference in the inactive ingredients.
​
Since we are in the middle of cold and flu season, let’s take a very quick (and by no means complete) look at BHI’s ReBoost combo and why they have included the remedies they have (including one I have never heard of so let’s learn together):

• Zincum aceticum and Zincum gluconicum
  • it could be argued that these low potencies (2x and 1x) of zinc could be equated to using a zinc supplement (more akin to a cell salt) which has shown to be beneficial in respiratory viral infections (Sadeghsoltani et al. 2021)
  • according to Synergy VIVA AI homeopathic software, Zincum gluconicum is generally used for immune support, especially in reducing the duration and severity of cold symptoms and Zincum aceticum is known more for its effects on the nervous system relating to restlessness and irritability.
• Asclepias vincetoxicum (homeochord: 6x, 10x, 30x), aka Vincetoxicum officinale
  • I’ve never heard of this remedy and this exact remedy name does not come up in either of my software programs; however, it does show up in Similia, (but just barely), as Vincetoxicum officinale, (and, under this name it does show up in both my software programs) with Murphy saying it’s a gastrointestinal irritant. Murphy references Boericke, but I’m not finding Asc-v there, either, relating to influenza, at least.
  • the package says: relieves chills, headaches and bodyaches
• Anas barbariae (homeochord: 20x and 200c)
  • also known as Oscillococcinum — indicated for early stages of the flu
• Aconitum napellus
  • for fever and aches and pains during the flu
• Bryonia
  • bursting headaches, limb pain, aching muscles
• Ipecacuanha
  • coughing, difficult respiration, vomiting, nausea
• Sulphur (homeochord: 4x and 10x)
  • difficult respiration, cough, fever, bruised (as if) pain
• Hydrasatis
  • sore or tickling throat; dry, harsh cough; thick, sticky mucus; headache
• Eupatorium perfoliatum
  • aching pains, especially in the bones; bursting headache; aching muscles; profuse sweat; extreme fatigue
• Phosphorus
  • dull headache; lots of snot; watering eyes; sore throat; lots of hawking of mucus; cough; weakness; fever; fatigue
• Lachesis
  • a racking, spasmodic cough - tickling and tormenting; fever

As you see, a few of their combos contain homeochords, specifically in what I would call the “target” remedy for the main concern. For example, the Clearlife Allergy Relief shows in their 15 remedy combo that two of the ingredients (Histaminum and Sabadilla) are in multiple potencies.

What else about the BHI combos? If you want to spend a little time searching the internet, you can find old copies of their manuals. Apparently, they used to make an awful lot more combinations. Alas. Like the Narayani books, I find these BHI guides helpful for learning remedies.

As I have said in previous articles about combos which are no longer available, you can make your own. You don’t have to be perfect. If their combo calls for a potency that is not readily available to you, choose the nearest potency you can find. For instance, their old “Exhaustion” combo contains Sepia 12x — not so easy to find. Sepia was also used in the Hyland’s no longer available combination called “Awake” in a 30x. But, if you were making your own combination reflecting these remedies, a 6c would be a good substitution. (Margriet Plouvier-Suijs equates 12x-14x to a 7c**, another not so easy to find potency, but we can be pretty sure a 6c is pretty close to a 7c in it’s action.)

When I first really got interested in homeopathy, years before becoming a homeopath, I had a whole line up of Heel containers on a spice rack shelf in a kitchen cupboard. It was so nice to have an alphabetical line up of go-to remedies: Headache, Nausea, Spascupreel, Traumeel… The names may change but the idea remains the same — an excellent way to cover lots of homeopathic bases right there at your fingertips - no thought required!


Julia Coyte, CHom
Classically Practical homeopath

#wellnessawaits


*I have zero affiliation with any of these companies — I just like their products.
** France seems to use odd numbers, the rest of the world even🤷‍♀️

Reference list
​Plouvier-Suijs, M., 2014. About potencies. Emryss Publishers.

Sadeghsoltani, F., Mohammadzadeh, I., Safari, M.-M., Hassanpour, P., Izadpanah, M., Qujeq, D., Moein, S. and Vaghari-Tabari, M., 2021. Zinc and Respiratory Viral Infections: Important Trace Element in Anti-viral Response and Immune Regulation. Biological Trace Element Research [online]. 

I’ll confess… it wasn't love at first sight. It took me a figurative minute to get on board with the idea of sarcodes. Once I discovered their unbelievable usefulness… I’m not looking back.

​There is one problem with this sarcode love… I hate that we don’t have more readily available information on how to use them! The schools I attended (as fantastic as they were) touched on sarcodes, but I was definitely left with wanting to know more about the how’s and why’s and when’s. As a result, I have taken pretty much every course available and purchased every book I could find on sarcodes.

​This is what this article is all about — spreading the good word, sharing the love of homeopathic sarcodes.
​
It is very important to note that neither these books nor this article will actually teach you the how’s and why’s and when’s of using sarcodes. These books are useful once you have learned how to use the sarcodes.

​What are sarcodes, again?
(See also: Sodes and Codes if you are unfamiliar with the term.)

​Sarcodes are homeopathic remedies made from healthy tissues or secretions, generally taken from healthy animals. “Any physiological processes can be a sarcode remedy” (Johnson 2016).

• tissues (such as thyroid, tendon, thymus gland, hypothalamus, cartilage, to name but a few) — essentially every piece of a body can be made into a sarcode
• healthy secretions (substances like adrenaline, cortisol, histamine, lactic acid) can be made into a sarcode
• the matridonals are remedies made from the hormones and substances from, as the name says, the mother and are considered sarcodes
• lacs, or the milks, are a whole other class unto themselves but are also considered sarcodes.

Matridonals and Lacs are for another day.

​Are sarcodes the same thing as organotherapy, or something different?
This, of course, is not a straight forward answer. I believe this discrepancy often comes down to individual authors.

Dr. Thasleena M has literally just this week published Sarcodes: The Organ Language of the Vital Force: Understanding, Selecting and Using Organ Remedies in Homeopathy. 

​She provides an opportunity to cut through the noise in regard to “sarcode” vs “organotherapy.” She lists 4 different kinds of sarcodes (on page 6):

• glandular
• organ
• tissue
• enzyme/hormonal

​This list may shed some light on our confusion: many of the “glands” she mentions are also considered “organs”; and, she lists other organs, like skin and bones, as “tissues”. This shows us one way these terms can be confused.

Organotherapy may use sarcodes. Sarcodes may be used to help ailing organs. Sarcodes may be made from organs. See where all this confusion is coming from?

​So,what is organotherapy then?
Organotherapy is a homeopathic therapeutic approach that uses remedies targeted specifically at organs, glands or systems to stimulate, regulate or normalize their function. The remedies used may be “standard” homeopathic remedies or they may be cell salts or gemmos or sarcodes or even nosodes — thus making organotherapy a much larger topic than sarcodes alone. Today, we’re sticking with just sarcodes.

Just to make it a little more confusing, organotherapy is also used in allopathic medicine, though most versions used today are synthesized in the lab… think: hormone replacement therapy, thyroid and glucocorticoids to treat adrenal insufficiency, etc.
​
Historically speaking, if someone had a thyroid issue, allopathic physicians would use the whole desiccated thyroid gland (and still used today, actually), generally from a healthy pig (porcine), to treat this problem (Heald et al. 2024). The benefit of this method is that you get the entire thyroid gland and all its supposed goodness. The counter argument, they say, is that not everybody needs all the thyroid extras.

​Today, if you go to your doctor with this complaint, you are most likely going to be given Levothyroxine which is a synthesized form of thyroxine from L-tyrosine, a naturally occurring amino acid, resulting in a synthetic version which is “chemically identical to the naturally produced thyroid hormone thyroxine” (Drugbank). 

As I recall hearing years ago, the main reason as to why they made the switch to a synthetic product was to be able to control the dose. A logical thought. But, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, I think it misses the point. The point, to my mind, is to re-teach the thyroid what it is supposed to be doing. In an ideal world, this supplementation would not be taken forever. (I know, some people absolutely require thyroid replacement to live. I’m talking about a poorly functioning thyroid, not a missing or completely defunct thyroid.) Note: I am not here to argue one side or the other, I am just laying out the history of thyroid medication and how it relates to homeopathic sarcodes.

However, it’s not always straight forward. Of course it isnt!

Sticking with the thyroid example, even though the thyroid is what appears to be the problem, (most likely via blood testing), it could actually be another endocrine gland above or below the thyroid in the endocrine chain that is making a nuisance of itself: the hypothalamus or the pituitary (posterior, anterior or the whole thing), for instance. In other words, simply because someone is seemingly struggling with thyroid issues, that doesn’t mean that the use of Thyroidinum is a slam dunk. Our bodies aren’t always so accommodatingly simple, unfortunately.

​OK, but what do sarcodes actually do?
Sarcodes (from Tenka 2021):

• balance organs, glands or tissue activity
• slow down accelerated organs, glands or tissue activity
• stimulate sluggish organs, glands or tissue activity…

I like to think of sarcodes as a little kick in the keister — they serve as a reminder to the body, giving a gentle nudge to remind the various aspects of the anatomical system what their job is and how to do it… properly.

​Back to the books, please.
Getting back to this brand new book by Dr. Thasleena M… it is probably one of the most useful books on sarcodes I have found to date. (It’s one of only three in this list solely dedicated to sarcodes.) The author does a really nice job explaining sarcodes with charts describing the main indications for the use of various sarcodes and where one might expect to see their use, i.e., gynecology may use this group of sarcodes and pediatrics or geriatrics may use different groups.

​From here, she works through the various sarcodes and provides information on:

• source and preparation
• sphere of action
• essence of the remedy
• a small materia medica
• clinical indications
• remedy relationships to both other sarcodes as well as homeopathic remedies
• and ends with a small graph of differential diagnoses and indicated remedies

It’s a short book but it looks like it will be a very useful resource (and, its available on Kindle for easy searching)!

​Jerry van den Bosch* has written what is probably the most practical approach to these remedies: Sarcodes — The Hidden Gems of Homeopathic Medicine: A Comprehensive Guide to Homeopathic Healing with Organotherapy. This is a tiny book, just 75 small pages, but, once you learn how to use it*, they are very valuable pages.

​What does he have to say about organotherapy?
Mr. Van den Bosch seems to be one of the authors who uses sarcode and organotherapy interchangeably and he very helpfully tells us (on page 11):

Before his book even gets going, Van den Bosch says:

I can relate to his statement of needing firsthand experience — both with sarcodes in general and his method in specific.

​The bulk of Van den Bosch’s book is laid out very simply: indications by body part, followed by the sarcode/s he suggests for each. In a few instances, he includes detailed instructions with which doses to take and when.

CAUTION: there is a language barrier!

• All of his potencies are based on remedies from Boiron in France — e.g., 4CH or 8DH (unless otherwise stated). To my knowledge, we can’t get these potencies outside of France. Van den Bosch* says these specific potencies and the Boiron preparation of these remedies makes a difference. He says even though you can get similar remedies from places like Helios, they are different. I leave it to you to figure out and decide.
• Another quite important note on Van den Bosch’s book: all of the remedy names are in French, so have your French/English dictionary handy.

​Despite these little hiccups, overcoming the language barrier has been worth it in my opinion. I have tried some of these French sarcodes and I have been very pleasantly surprised.

​Berkeley Squire’s (2011), A Repertory of Homeopathic Nosodes & Sarcodes
Like Van den Bosch’s book, this one left me a little perplexed for a while, too. It’s called a repertory, but despite it being a thick volume, it felt a little thin on information at first.

I was listening to a Gaurang Gaikwad lecture and the penny dropped for me on this book. The introduction acknowledges this is a different sort of book: “So, it must be viewed as the definitive book upon them [nosodes and sarcodes], for an index is the soul of a book.” It is indeed more like an index than any repertory I’m used to using. Most symptoms list pretty much just one or two remedies and most of the remedies appear to be nosodes, not sarcodes. However, it is an excellent resource for confirmatory symptoms.

​Speaking of repertories… sarcodes don’t pop up too often — which is why the need for so many dedicated books.

​Part of the reason for this is, generally speaking, sarcodes don’t undergo classic large-scale Hahnemannian provings. The materia medicae of sarcodes are developed by combining toxicological effects from crude preparations, as well as “knowledge of their pharmacological actions,” mixed with clinical experience (Nayak et al. 2016). In short, we only know what we know about sarcodes and there is a lot left to be discovered in terms of sarcode benefits. I think we’ll have to wait patiently for thorough provings to be conducted.

Back to Berkeley Squire’s book… the final couple of pages are “Remedy Relationships” — a useful little list of sarcodes and nosodes and their related “standard” homeopathic remedies.

​Chaturbhuja Nayak’s Homeopathic Materia Medica of Sarcodes.
This is a thorough book with each entry having an introduction about the substance; the source and preparation of the substance; who proved it and when; sphere of action; clinical conditions; characteristic features and then followed by a few pages of symptomatology. Each chapter ends with a dose and potency section, cautions, comparisons and “success stories of reputed clinicians”. The size of the symptomatology for each entry is rather thin compared to some of the other books in this list.

​Note: about the middle third of this book is dedicated to the Lacs.

​Gaurang Gaikwad’s Materia Medica of Nosodes & Sarcodes.
Each of the remedies (20 sarcodes, 27 nosodes and 7 bowel nosodes) are fleshed out quickly through bullet points followed by clinical diseases in which it would be useful and a bit of materia medica from notable sources. Some of the entries are very short but a couple of others include cases.

​B.K. Sarkar’s Up-to-date with Nosodes and Sarcodes.
I really like the size of this no-nonsense, straight to the point book, but it only has write-ups for just a couple of sarcodes. Most of the book is dedicated to nosodes, bowel nosodes and some more unusual remedies like the Magnetis polis, X-ray and Electricity.

​Most of the sarcode books out there are materia medicae and I am very grateful to have them. Some are more complete than others; but, unfortunately, there is not one single source that I have found to cover everything. I wish I could provide one simple title with all the possible sarcodes with full write-ups to guide us to applicable sarcodes for every needed situation, but I guess we’ll just have to wait. In the meantime, share the homeopathy love. 💕
​

​Julia Coyte, CHom
Classically Practical homeopath

#wellnessawaits


*CHE offers a Homeopathy Spotlight with Jerry Van Den Bosch and I highly recommend it. In fact, I found the book not very helpful prior to hearing him speak on it.

Reference list
Burdet, C., 2016. Interhomeopathy - Editorial: sarcode remedies - processes of life [online]. Interhomeopathy.fr. 

Clarke, J. H., 2015. Dictionary of practical materia medica. accessed through Radar Opus software.

Drugbank, n.d. Levothyroxine sodium - DrugBank [online]. go.drugbank.com.

Gaikwad, G., 2019. Materia Medica of Nosodes & Sarcodes. Gurukrupa, Mumbai: Dr. Gaurang Gaikwad.

Goswami, A., 2024. Exploring The Enigmatic Nature of Sarcode Remedies in Homoeopathy: History and Applications [online]. homeopathy360.

Heald, A. H., Taylor, P., Lakdasa Premawardhana, Stedman, M. and Dayan, C., 2024. Natural desiccated thyroid for the treatment of hypothyroidism? Frontiers in Endocrinology [online], 14.

Johnson, G., 2016. Interhomeopathy - Sensational sarcodes [online]. Interhomeopathy.org.

Kalathia, G., 2010. The Language of Sarcodes. Homoeopathic Links [online], 23 (01), 52–55.

Kumari, A., 2020. Sarcode and Nosode remedies in Homoeopathy [online]. Homeopathy Resource by Homeobook.com.

Lathiya, P. and Patel, G., 2024. Role of Thyroidinum (sarcode) as an intercurrent remedy in treating various cases of Hypothyroidism. Southeast Asian Journal of Health Professional [online], 7 (2), 47–49.

M, T., 2026. Sarcodes: the Organ Language of the Vital Force: Understanding, Selecting and Using Organ Remedies in Homeopathy. Kindle. Independently Published.

Master, F. J., ed. 2024. The Homeopathic Heritage: Bringing Classical and Contemporary Homoeopathy ogether • Unveiling the Potential of Homoeopathic Remedies in Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media: Ongoing Research at The Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital • Sarcodes -A Bestowal For Ailing Mankind Sarcodes & Homeopathic Practice [online].

McAninch, E. A. and Bianco, A. C., 2016. The History and Future of Treatment of Hypothyroidism. Annals of internal medicine [online], 164 (1), 50–56.

Nayak, C., Smita Brahmachari and Syed Afsar Ali, 2016. Homoeopathic Materia Medica of Sarcodes. B. Jain Publishers (P.) Ltd.

Pope, C., 2024. Levothyroxine [online]. Drugs.com.

Squire, B., 2011. Repertory of Homoeopathic Nosodes and Sarcodes. B Jain Publishers Pvt Limited.

Tenka, Y., 2021. Sarcodes and its homeopathic application.

Teraiya, D., 2025. Organ Remedies in Homeopathy: Healing Through Organ Support. Kindle. Independently Published.

van den Bosch, J., 2024. Sarcodes: The Hidden Gems of Homeopathic Medicine: A Comprehensive Guide to Homeopathic Healing with Organotherapy. Emryss Publishers.

If you are a frequent reader of Ruminating on Remedies, you’ll know that I am a fan of homeopathic combination remedies, especially for at home use: Banerji Protocols, Narayanis and over-the-counter combos, like Cold Calm.

Homeopathy chords (also spelled as homeochords or homaccords or homeocords) resemble a combination remedy but they are multi-potency preparations as opposed to multi-remedy combinations.

A “standard” homeochord (sometimes also called a potency chord) would include homeopathic potencies like 12c, 30c, 200c, 1M — some may include additional higher potencies or more lower potencies.

Finding the history on these chords is not so easy. I certainly didn’t find it in any of the books on my shelves and I didn’t find anything through the books on my homeopathic software or through internet searches. I had to turn to AI (I used Grok, which I have been told is more homeopathy friendly than others) which refers to Emanual Cahis (a Spanish physician) as the “key reference” “who is widely credited as the first to describe and use the idea of combining multiple potencies of the same remedy in 1913… in Berliner Homöopathische Zeitschrift (Berlin Homeopathic Journal)… (drawing on Fechner’s law for ratios like 3:6:12 in decimal/centesimal scales) to create what he called ‘accords’ or ‘syntheses.’ He noted practical benefits like faster, more intense, longer-lasting action with fewer adverse reactions.”

Finding modern “official” information on homeochords is not much easier. Lisa Strbac (2024) mentions them in her Trailblazer’s Insight into Homeopathy, but other than that, not much is out there. I have included in the references below two PDFs I stumbled upon.

Dr. Joe Rozencwajg (2010) is one modern homeopath who uses them and writes about them. He calls homeochords “plasma potencies” postulating “that instead of remaining individualised and separated, the different potencies would also somehow ‘morph and create’ all the intermediaries… maybe this is wishful thinking, maybe this is real, so far there is no demonstration of this…. Nevertheless, as long as the remedy was correct, I always had very good results with that system.” He says they are “especially useful in acute situations, in semiacutes and localized problems.”

Dr. Rozencwajg* now uses his “plasma potencies” in a Fibonacci chord. The Fibonacci potencies are a way of using homeopathic remedies based on a natural sequence of numbers. This sequence is found throughout nature, like in the arrangement of leaves or the pattern of a sunflower’s seeds. In homeopathy, remedies are given in potencies that follow these steps (not just in a chord — these can be used individually as well), with the idea that this approach may align more naturally with the body’s own rhythms and healing processes, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of the remedy. (See here for more information on Fibonacci numbers.)

Homeochords are not classical homeopathy and I am not implying that here at all, but the classical thinking behind the chords in the standard potencies is that these potencies will address the physical symptoms (through the low potencies) and the deep-seated mental/emotional symptoms (through the high potencies). The medium potencies are thrown in for good measure to bridge the physical and emotional planes. (For more thoughts on potency, see here.)

I would say that like the Banerji Protocols, homeochords are aimed at the disease rather than the patient as a whole. They make more sense to me when trying to address something specific.

Henninger and King (1998) surmise: “When applying homeopathic potency chords, a faster and broader response of the organism is to be expected.” From the same article, Dr. H.H. Reckeweg says: “…the leading idea is that different potencies will reach different defense systems.”

Dr. Reckeweg developed what are called Homaccords, “a mixture of two or more homeopathic components in potency chords.” This is a full system of homeopathy which I have yet to dig into very far, but it’s on my to-do list.

Looking at the chords from a more practical aspect, think of them as “birdshot” — the ammunition for shooting small, fast-moving targets — the pellets, or in this case the potencies, spread out in a wide pattern for the best chance of hitting the target.

I have been aware of the idea of chords for a while, but only recently did I decide to give one a try.

Why did I choose to try a chord? I had excellent results with a particular remedy and potency but things weren’t quite finished but that remedy and potency combination was no longer doing anything for me. I went up in potency to no avail. I went down in potency for nought. Rather than systematically taking a long time to work my way through the various potencies, I decided to let my body decide which potency it needed. (Bonus: a homeochord is (generally speaking) cheaper than buying many different potencies of the same remedy.)

The benefits of using a homeochord:

• if it’s the right remedy, there’s a good chance the chord will strike harmoniously with the user
• it is said to reduce the potential of aggravations. This makes sense since one standard rule of thumb for dealing with an aggravation is to take the same remedy but in a lower potency (2 steps down) to quell the symptoms. There’s a good chance that lower potency is already included in the chord.

The downside? I have no idea which potency worked its magic on me. Oh, well.

Some may worry about “proving” a remedy with all these potencies, but in my never-to-be-humble opinion, I believe that if your body doesn’t need the homeopathic remedy, your body will ignore that homeopathic remedy. There are exceptions to this thought process: if one repeatedly takes a remedy which one does not need, new symptoms may arise. (See “The Original Drug Testing… Homeopathic Provings” for more info.) I believe the same thing holds true in regard potencies: The remedy and the potency needs to resonate with the person.

I am sure I have tempted you with this idea and now I leave you with the challenge of finding these homeochords.

A couple of the combination remedies you can buy at the grocery store are a little chord-ish… T-Relief,** for example, includes Arnica in 3x, 6x and 10x, all in the same tablet, along with other remedies.
Rootling around the internet, I came upon a few online sources (most located in Australia) and only one of which I am familiar (Eugenie Kreuger).

Heel/BHI and Dr. Reckeweg are the most readily available in the US that incorporate chords. There are other US based distributors and pharmacies, but I believe most of these are available only to/through professional homeopaths. So, if you’re interested, speak to your homeopath about them.


Julia Coyte, CHom
Classically Practical homeopath
#wellnessawaits


* Dr. Rozencwajg’s book is all about the Fibonacci sequence, but I have yet to read anything beyond his few pages on chords.
** I have no affiliation with this company, I just like their products.

Reference list
Berryman, P., n.d. Busting the myth of ‘high’ and ‘low’ potencies: how homochords can improve your potency and dosing outcomes [online].

Henninger, C. and King, G., 1998. Fundamentals of the Application of Potency Chords. Biomedical Therapy [online], XVI (No. 1), 147–150.

Pierce, R., 2016. Fibonacci Sequence [online]. Mathsisfun.com.

Rozencwajg, J., 2010. The potency : advanced prescribing in homeopathy : the Fibonacci potencies : a unified theory and practice of modern homeopathic posology. Haarlem? Emryss.

Strbac, L., 2024. The Trailblazer’s Insight Into Homeopathy. Homeopathy Heals.

A quickie look at what is in each of these books.

Margriet Plouvier-Suijs’ About Potencies

• It says in the forward: “Suijs has created an extremely workable overview of the functioning of different potencies by systematically and logically arranging her observations of the therapeutic effect after prescription. This is a great support when we try to choose the appropriate potency for a case.”
• She then works through the potencies. For example, she begins with the heading, “3x-6x, 3c, 4c” and talks about the effects of these low potencies (they have a stimulating effect) and how they are used in organotherapy.
• For each potency group, we learn “characteristic words or language related to these potencies” and then followed by various cases which follow each characteristic word.
  • she provides the words for 9c, but says, “Unfortunately I have no example…” fortunately for us, the rest of her sections do have examples.
• She also, interestingly, equates C/K potencies to LM potencies.
• This book is unlike any other I have used and though it has been sitting on my shelf for a long time, mostly unread, I am going to be digging in a little more frequently from now on.

Select your Dose and Potency by Dr. P.S. Rawat

• I found the introduction to be the most useful — it’s short, but full of information.
• The bulk of the book is a list of homeopathic remedies and which historical homeopaths (denoted by initials) used which potency, plus any notes of relevance. Sometimes a potency is tied to a specific condition, but more often not. For example, Eupatorium perforliatum says: “1. Tincture, to third attenuation (WB). 2. 20th and 200th potencies are generally used. 3. Bears repetition well (KNM). 4. Allen recommends it to be applied locally in sore nipple and sore mouth.” This entry continues through number 12, and I won’t be putting it all here, but I wanted to give a flavor of the book.
• Some entries are much more fleshed out and more useful than others. Magnesia Phosphorica, for example, goes on for a couple of pages, with 35 entries, most with specific uses and potencies.
  • Irksome, but not a big deal: not all the initials line up with the abbreviation list. The first entry for Abies Canadensis attributes point 1 to (WB) and point 5 to (BW). However, in the list, BW = A.C. Blackwood but there is no WB. There is a WKB (W.K. Bond), but we can only assume this is the same as WB.

The Potency: Advanced Prescribing in Homeopathy by Dr. Joe Rozencwajg (I have more coming soon using this book)

• Dr. Rozencwajg begins this book talking about various methods of potency, but what it is mostly about is the Fibonacci Potencies: “a unified theory and practice of modern homeopathic posology.”
• I have not completed this book yet, but I look forward to learning this system. So intriguing! But, this is not what my upcoming article is about.

Michelle Shine’s What About the Potency: (A Comprehensive Guide to Homeopathic Potency and Dosage)

• I found this book the most helpful out of the four for my purposes. The first half of the book is a series of the author’s cases and what happened with each. Interspersed are short write-ups of various topics, such as:
  • the constitutional remedy v prescribing for the disease
  • what is homeopathic potency
  • changing potency
  • depths and layers
  • plussing remedies
• The second half of the book (and what I found most interesting) are transcripts of her interviews with 10 well-know homeopaths and their thoughts on potency selection.
  • Mike Bridger, Ian Watson, Jeremy Sherr and others

Happy Reading!

Julia Coyte, CHom
Classically Practical homeopath


#wellnessawaits

Homeopathic potency is a hairy subject. Don’t believe me? Ask any homeopath. I guarantee they will not have an easy answer. “This topic will cause more feathers to fly and engender more ill-will than any other subject,” says Luc De Schepper (2001, p 56).

I didn’t think it would take long to look into this topic, but over the last two weeks or so, I was on a quest for an easy answer to this potency question; and, after reading multiple books, dozens of chapters and countless pages and documents, all on homeopathic potency and all from well-known homeopaths — guess what? There appears, indeed, to be no easy answer.

The only easy answer I came up with was from Jeremy Sherr, but that was when he first began practicing, decades ago, and he used nothing but 30c for a full year so he could learn all about that particular potency (Sherr 2007). The next year he added 200c and the year after, 1M and after that, he added in the whole range of potencies. So, we’re back, full circle, to no easy answer.
​
William Boericke is a greatly revered homeopath, let’s see what he says in his preface to his 9th edition (2007): “The dosage needs some apology. It is, of course, suggestive only: more often to be wholly disregarded.”

That was helpful.

Surely, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann can sort this out for us?
Well, I’m afraid not. I think he, actually, inadvertently, is part of the problem. You see, he wrote six different versions of the Organon — and by the last one, he no longer agreed with his earlier selves. In the 4th edition, he touted taking a single dose of a 200c and letting it ride for a few weeks. In the 5th edition, he turned around and called that method “barbaric.” And, by the time he got to his 6th edition, he ended up rejecting “everything” from the 5th and praised his “most perfect method” (De Schepper 2001, p 63). (The LM potency is a whole other kettle of fish and not what we’re talking about today — though, some would say the LMs would put an end to all the potency bickering 🤔).

Remember §2 from his 6th edition? (Hahnemann and Wenda Brewster O’reilly 2001):
The highest ideal of cure is the rapid, gentle [emphasis mine] and permanent restoration of health…
This goal does not jibe with “barbaric.” Depending on which version of the Organon they were taught is what homeopaths are left believing and practicing. So, no, Master Hahnemann is not going to help us out of this dilemma.

We have some general rules of thumb - that should fix it, shouldn’t it?
Sure! Oh, wait, looks like we can’t even get to an agreement on what is considered a high potency and a low potency, though. Let’s bypass that little hiccup and come up with our own definition and go from there. For our purposes, we’ll use 200c as the mid-point: anything below is “low” and anything above is “high.” Bear in mind, this convoluted subject is much bigger than high vs low potency.

Here are the “golden rules” of low potency (gathered from countless books and lectures and homeopathic wives tales). Look in any homeopathic book and you’ll see a nice list of “assured” guidance on potency which would resemble this list:

1. low potencies are for physical symptoms
2. low potencies are for acute conditions
3. low potencies are gentler [than higher potencies]
4. lower potencies are less likely to provoke a strong reaction
5. low potencies are better suited to sensitive individuals
6. low potencies are better when using repeated doses
7. low potencies for the weak and feeble and those suffering from chronic sickness
8. low potencies for chronic conditions
9. low potencies for the dying

Here’s what the old wives (and experienced homeopaths, too, of course!) have to say about high potencies [we’ll switch to letters for this list for easier reference later]:
a. high potencies are for emotional and/or mental conditions
b. high potencies for chronic conditions or deeper seated issues
c. higher potencies for acute conditions
d. high potencies are more intense [than low potencies]
e. high potencies are more prone to aggravations
f. high potencies last longer
g. don’t repeat high potencies very often
h. for healthy children, use high potencies
i. high potencies may be more effective in cases where lower potencies have failed
j. high potencies are more suitable for robust individuals

Any other potency rules of thumb? Yes…
aa. match the potency with the intensity of the condition
bb. take the miasm into account and prescribe potencies based on which miasm is believed to be active in the case (but we’re not talking about miasms today)
cc. when one is taking allopathic medicines, repetition of the homeopathic remedies is required (there is, of course, discrepancy as to which potency, however)
dd. the more certain one is about a remedy, the higher the potency used

Simple enough, right?
Sure, but, right off the bat, we can see [I’m going to make my life simple and use # for both numerals and letters] #s 2 & 8 and b & c are a little in conflict as regards acute/chronic conditions. However, both can be true and I’ll use a very simple point to illustrate the possibility. As we know, acute conditions can be minor (the sniffles) or they can be life threatening (pneumonia). Chronic conditions can be minor (dry skin) or they can be intense and all encompassing (rheumatoid arthritis). This may explain some of the discrepancy, but I fear it’s not a complete picture. You see, pneumonia may also fall under #s 7, 9, h and j (at least). Alas. Let’s carry on. Let’s go through both “golden rules” lists:

#1/a — low potencies are for physical symptoms/high potencies are for emotional and/or mental conditions
For a brief reminder of how potency is understood to work, let’s turn to Asa Hershoff (1999) who gives us a nice explanation of low potency:
“Remedies that range from the 2x, 3x, etc. to about the 6x, are considered to be very low potencies. Since these medicines are very close to the original herbal or mineral state of the original substance, they work on a very gross physical or material level. Remedies at this strength directly affect the levels of cells and biochemistry, not unlike herbs or vitamins. Low potency remedies means remedies that range between the 12x, 15x, 6c and 12c strengths. Medicines at this level of dilution have an affinity to specific tissues and entire organs, like the skin, liver or heart.… When conditions have advanced to the point of physical or structural changes, lower potencies should be used.”

There is a branch of homeopathy called “organotherapy” — homeopathy which is used to support struggling organs and it seems to me that those potencies are universally low. We also know that chronic situations do often involve specific tissues and organs.

We’ll call this rule of thumb pretty solid — “Low potencies for specific tissues and entire organs.”

Not so fast. Jeremy Sherr (Shine 2004, p 207) may have something to add about this.
“One thing I can definitely say from both the cases and the provings is that the notion that high potencies affect the mental and low potencies affect the physicals is inaccurate. That’s my opinion derived from many provings. [JS has conducted over 40 Hahnemannian provings.] In provings, some of the strongest mental/emotional symptoms have come from a 6c and yet with a 200c I have occasionally seen none of the mental/emotionals but more physicals, and also vice versa, which means that the mental/emotional/physical hierarchy does not apply to potency. In fact, to my mind, it does not apply to much at all. … I have seen provings from a single dose of a 12c last for months. These facts contradict some of the prevailing notions on the subject.”

Got it. But, I’m going to stick with my “pretty solid” rating, at least for the low potencies = specific tissues and organs. In fact, Dr. Manuel Mateu Ratera (2016 p 15) also likes low potencies for “local, acute and very superficial disorders.” That’s saying something coming from an emergency room doctor. He likes medium and high dynamisations, between 30 and 200c and 1000 (1M) to 10,000 (10M)… in major and severe disorders though, so maybe the whole low potencies for specific tissues and organs doesn’t hold? I told you this was a hairy subject.

Before moving on, it’s important to remember that very low potencies often have physical matter remaining in them. (See X? C? Homeopathic potency briefly explained for a refresher.) S.M. Gunavente* (2014, p 132) says plainly:
“We should be wary of using very low potency, and especially the crude drugs.”

Remember, Dr. Hahnemann first started potentizing (diluting and succussing/banging) crude substances because he witnessed the harm these substances (like mercury) were doing to people*; he was trying to reduce the poisonous effects while still being able to use the medicinal substance. I’m not going to pretend to know exactly what percentage of homeopathic remedies are made from substances which would be perfectly safe to consume in crude form, (cup of chamomile tea, anybody?) but it’s a good reminder to know your homeopathic remedies and from whence they stem.

As a refresher to Avogadro’s number, “any potency beyond 24x or 12c has virtually no chance of containing even one molecule of the original substance” (Vithoulkas 1981, p 102).

At this juncture, it’s also interesting to note that there are some substances which seem to work better in mother tinctures or very low potencies, like Sabal serrulata or Avena sativa (Gunavante 2014, p 147) — but then we are heading into herbalism/gemmotherapy, and that’s for another day, too. (See, also: Anger and Fear for further info on why some remedies should not be used in crude form.)

As for the high potencies for mental/emotional symptoms? Well… I have seen people with suppressed anger issues lose their cool with little old ladies in the grocery store after taking a 200c and I have seen that same remedy in a 200c work gently and beautifully for another person with suppressed anger issues. I have also seen Avena sativa mother tincture calm the most stressed out, high strung anxious minds. Leaving us once again with hairy confusion.

Having said all that, I am going to call this rule of thumb pretty solid, at least on the “low potencies for physical symptoms” piece. For the high potencies for mental/emotional symptoms, we have to take the individual and their circumstances into consideration and can’t assign a low/high rule.

#3/4 & d/e — low potencies are gentler [than higher potencies]/low potencies are less likely to provoke a strong reaction & higher potencies are more prone to aggravations/high potencies are more intense
I think Jeremy Sherr in #1/a handles this answer quite nicely.

Let’s also revisit Asa Hershoff for this one (1999):
“The higher potency contains less substance, but a more powerful and focused burst of energy and information. Using a higher potency means raising the energy level to a higher octave that, like a high-pitched sound, has deeper and further penetration.”

I have to say here that low-pitched sounds can resonate pretty deeply in the human body, too. Some would even say they resonate deeper than high pitched sounds. Once again, too big of a topic for a sidestep, but if you’re interested, the internet can satisfy your curiosity.
In all, though, I believe that generally speaking, lower potencies are gentler and less intense (for most people).

#5 — low potencies are better suited to sensitive individuals
How do we know who is sensitive? That is a question. Sometimes we know someone is sensitive because:

• every time they have taken a 200c, they experience unpleasant aggravations, or a big worsening of their symptoms.
• they are allergic to everything — very sensitive systems that “overreact” to otherwise harmless environments.
• they have heightened reactions to noise, light, smells, touch, etc.
• they tell us they are sensitive.

Are low potencies really better suited to “sensitive” individuals? I know from personal client experience that some people have physical reactions to the lower potencies and thrive on very high dilutions (1M and above).

With sensitive individuals:
“…some caution should be exercised with the initial potency” (Vithoulkas 2019, p 51).
As with everything homeopathy, the individual is the most important piece of the puzzle. Regardless, we’ll call this rule of thumb pretty solid — “Low potencies are better suited to MOST sensitive individuals.”

#6/g — low potencies are better when using repeated doses/don’t repeat high potencies very often
This one will definitely ruffle some feathers. In fact, my cutting my homeopathic teeth on the Banerji Protocols is where I have seen the most friction with my fellow homeopaths who have been solely classically trained.

Repetition of potencies doesn’t scare me. Having said that, I know from my own personal experience that repeating potencies too often and ill-advisedly can temporarily lead to some uncomfortable situations.

Generally speaking, in the classical mode, one would wait for the action of a remedy to cease before repeating it. Recall back to earlier in this article where Hahnemann refers to this method as being “barbaric.” The Banerjis teach that repeating a dose, sooner rather than later, timed appropriately based on the remedy and potency being used, can avoid the discomfort of an aggravation.

Repetition of doses is a very common tactic when dealing with an acute situation, (regardless of potency) — the rule of thumb here is to repeat the dose as soon as the symptoms return and to gradually space out the dosing as symptoms improve. Well, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, the same can be true in chronic situations, too.

Francisco Xavier Eizayaga wrote a really amazing book, Treatise on Homoeopathic Medicine (1991). If you can find it, buy it! However, I am going to quote Robin Logan (Shine 2004, p 167) summing up Eizayaga:
“… something that Dr. Eizayaga taught me quite a long time ago - is that you don’t have to be frightened of repeating the dose. In fact if you’re on the right remedy, if you give one dose of a 50M or thirty consecutive doses of a 50M, in other words once a day for a month, you’re likely to get a very similar outcome, and that’s something which I’ve experimented with and found to be the case. … But taking it every day won’t necessarily speed things up or work any more effectively either, but neither will it do anything to spoil the treatment.”

Having said all that, I am going to call this rule of thumb pretty solid — “Low potencies are better suited to repeated doses”… but not to the exclusion of repetition in higher potencies.

#7/8/9/h/j — low potencies for the weak and feeble and those suffering from chronic sickness/high potencies are more suitable for robust individuals
Homeopathy is an excellent and gentle way to help with chronic illness, and can significantly improve comfort and quality of life (i Llobet 2014). Homeopathy can help alleviate the sometimes dire side effects from allopathic medications which accompany chronic sickness. [Murphy (2018) has a very nice chapter entitled, “Handling People on Drugs.”]

Once again, however, I’m going to call the Low potencies for the weak and feeble and chronic illness a pretty solid recommendation. The flip side of that can be that high potencies are better suited for robust individuals and healthy children, but, we have to take the individual into account.
Homeopathy is said to be an excellent modality for the dying, but again, that’s a whole other article.

#8/b — low potencies for chronic conditions
As usual, I really like what Dr. Murphy has to say. What I have learned from Dr. Murphy’s lectures is that he was a big proponent of low and slow for chronic conditions, for instance. He taught that when he came upon the right remedy for the person, he would “send in a probe”— meaning he would give a single dose of 200c and if they responded favorably, he would then follow it up with repeated doses of 6c. He mentions this in his book Case Analysis & Prescribing Techniques (excellent book, by the way) on page 281, apparently it’s something he picked up in the old journals. His reasoning for using low potencies for chronic conditions is that chronic diseases took a long time to get where they are and they need to be slowly and systematically removed over time. Makes sense to me.

On the flip side of this, higher potencies can certainly be useful in chronic conditions. The Banerji Protocols (Banerji and Banerji 2013) are chock full of high potency remedies aimed at relieving chronic situations.

#i - high potencies may be more effective in cases where lower potencies have failed
A general rule of homeopathy floating around is ascending potencies. Use whatever potency you’re using and when it is no longer doing what is needed, move to the next potency up the ladder.

I learned early on this is not necessarily the case. I was playing around with Rhus tox for my eczema and though I could tell Rhus tox was the right remedy, I could not get the potency correct, despite my following the ladder upward. Finally, on a whim, I decided to try 12c. Boom. That’s all she wrote. Eczema gone, never to return.

Some homeopaths say to not go down in potency. Period. However, I have read many times in the last two weeks about various homeopaths who move to a lower potency when they are not getting their expected results with their chosen potency.

Aaronson's Pharmacy (2020) instructs:
“If you start low, increase potency with response. Decrease potency if no response…”
The goal is to find the “right” potency, not to follow a rule.

#aa — match the potency with the intensity of the condition
Returning to Dr. Ratera (2016), he offers these guidelines:
“Use low potencies (from 6 to 30) for milder cases, repeat several times in dry dose or diluted in mineral water… For severe cases or severe emotional or mental impairment, use higher potencies (from 200 to 10M).”

Severe injuries or surgical recovery, etc., may warrant potencies not available to the general home user. Sometimes, the lower potencies work just fine but may need to be repeated more often.

I once sliced the tip of my finger off (see, I did a doozy…) and low potencies did me just fine (Hypericum 30x was what I had handy) and I also used Phosphorus 30c to stop the seemingly non-stop bleeding. I may be bias, but I’m going to say it was a pretty severe injury; it certainly was a heck of a lot more than a little cut.

I’m going to say that the intensity of the injury needs also to be matched by the intensity of the remedy — not necessarily meaning the potency. Perhaps if all I had was Arnica, a higher potency may have been required to match the intensity of the pain alone. Hypericum with it’s association for nerve-rich areas was the “right” remedy and therefore did not require a very high potency.

Conversely, perhaps this is an example of #1, low potencies are for physical symptoms. See, this is where it gets confusing again…

After all of that, here is what I have to say: All of these guidelines are correct.

How can that possibly be?
“There are no set rules, and experience and observation play a very large role… some general guidelines… but it must be fully understood that they are not designed to be adopted as ‘rules.’ …
“Proper guidelines for selection of potency are difficult to define, because in any given case it is impossible to say what would have happened if a different potency had been given” (Vithoulkas 1981, p 213).

As Dr. Murphy says (2018, p 275):
“All these ways are right, and all of them are wrong, depending on the case. That should be our attitude.”

If you will harken back to our acute/chronic = low/high potency discrepancy, it actually makes all the sense in the world when we return to Hahnemann’s Organon, 6th edition, §83:
“This individualizing examination of a disease case… demands nothing of the medical-art practitioner except freedom from bias and healthy senses, attention while observing and fidelity in recording the image of the disease.

“Freedom from bias” = these general rules of thumb should be known and considered, but not followed blindly. Observe the person (or animal) in front of you. Know the remedies. Learn from those who have learned before us. Put it all together and use your best judgement.

The key to understanding how each of these guidelines can make sense even when it is in direct contrast with another? The individual. The individual needs to be considered in each and every situation.

However, it is not only the intended recipient of the remedies that needs to be considered — It is also the homeopath and their understanding of the intended recipient.

Max Tetau (1986, pp 36-37) agrees with this:
“The choice of potency depends on the clinical case, and, also it must be admitted, on the habits and temperament of each Homeopath [sic]. With experience each one possesses a keyboard that he knows best how to use.”

There is another theme that floated in and out of all these books and chapters and pages and that is this: It isn’t necessary to “fret about which potency of a medicine to give… the choice of the correct medicine is significantly more important than the correct potency. Giving the incorrect potency will generally still promote healing, albeit slower healing.”

In his introduction to Select your Dose and Potency (1991), Dr. P.S. Rawat says simply:
“Selection of potency depends on the susceptibility of the patient together with the acuteness and chronicity of the disease.… There is almost endless field here for speculation and observation, ranging from the pictures to the highest potencies… The various potencies are all more or less related to individuals and it is the individual we should study.

How about just following the advice and guidance of respected lecturers?
Yes! Gather all the information you possibly can! Learn from those who know! Clinical experience holds a lot of weight in my mind. If an experienced homeopath teaches a specific potency for a specific condition, make note of it. It doesn’t mean it’s a slam dunk, but it should be a very good place to start.
Jeremy Sherr may be able to help us out on the whys for this. In his interview with Michelle Shine in her interesting book What About the Potency (A Comprehensive Guide to Homeopathic Potency and Dosage) (2004, pp 206-207), he talks about the many provings he has done, using a variety of potencies:

“I have also found out various things about them. In fact, at one stage I used to put all these provings into a database, so that I could analyse [sic] the potencies relative to the symptoms they produced. Ultimately, this approach means that if we were really precise in homeopathy, we would match the potency to the potency that produced the symptom in the proving***.”

I’m thinking the Banerjis and other homeopaths with extensive clinical knowledge may have stumbled upon some of these specific potencies, resulting in reproducible results.

An interesting thing occurs in virtually every lecture I have ever attended — at least one hand goes up after each case description with the question, “What potency?” Some lecturers give potencies freely and often include them as part of the learning, others react like it’s a distraction from their thinking and some say plainly that the potency is irrelevant. In fact, this happened in two different lectures I was listening to this week alone: Guarang Gaikwad is one who includes the posology in most cases and the other was Richard Pitt who responded a little differently when he very sensibly said that in almost all cases when he was working in Africa that he would begin with a 30c.
​
Simple enough! and I will call this my simple answer, too. How perfect is that since that’s the most commonly available potency for home users, too?


Julia Coyte, CHom
Classically Practical homeopath

#wellnessawaits


*Note: try as I might, I was unable to find a link for any biographical information on Gunavante.
**For a refresher on how homeopathic remedies came to be, see, Original Drug Testing… Homeopathic Provings.
***I’m so excited by this information because in this new age of powerful computers and databases and AI, it feels like this should be a do-able project in the near future.


Reference list
Aaronson’s Pharmacy, 2020. Homeopathic Medicine Potency Selection Guide [online]. Aaronson’s Compounding Pharmacy.
Bhatia, Dr. M., 2009. Homeopathic Potency Selection - Dr. Manish Bhatia [online]. Hpathy.
Boericke, W., 2007. Pocket Manual of Homeopathic Materia Medica & Repertory. accessed through Radar Opus software. New Delhi, India: B. Jain.
De Schepper, L., 2001. Hahnemann revisited : a textbook of classical homeopathy for the professional. Santa Fe, Nm: Full Of Life Pub.
Dynamis, 2019. Dynamis [online]. Dynamis.
Eizayaga, F. X., 1991. Treatise on Homoeopathic Medicine.
Faculty of Homeopathy, 2026. Professor George Vithoulkas | Faculty of Homeopathy [online]. Faculty of Homeopathy.
Franz, M., Bradford, T. L. and Tafel, L. H., 1994. The lesser writings of C.M.F. von Boenninghausen. accessed through Radar Opus software. New Delhi India: B. Jain.
Gaikwad, G., 2024. Dr Gaurang Gaikwad – Dr Gaurang Gaikwad [online]. Drgauranggaikwad.com.
Gamble, J., 2009. Mastering Homeopathy. Karuna Publishing.
Gunavante, S. M., 2014. Roadmap to the Correct Prescription. B. Jain Publishers (P.) Ltd.
Hahnemann, S. and Wenda Brewster O’reilly, 2001. Organon of the medical art. Kindle. Palo Alto, Ca: Birdcage Books.
Hershoff, A., 1999. Homeopathic Remedies. Avery Uuuu-Uuuu.
i Llobet, I. L., 2014. Homeopathic research in palliative care (PC) - A review of modern studies concerning the field of PC. Homeopathy [online], 103 (1), 87–88.
Lockie, A., 1993. The family guide to homeopathy : the safe form of medicine for the future. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Murphy, R., 2018. Case analysing & prescribing techniques. New Delhi: B. Jain.
Pitt, R., 2024. Therapeutic Guide & Thematic Materia Medica of Homeopathic Medicine. San Francisco, California: Lalibela Publishing.
Pitt, R., 2026. Welcome to my website. [online]. Richardpitthomeopathy.com.
Plouvier-Suijs, M., 2014. About potencies. Emryss.
Radar Opus, 2026. Dr. James Tyler Kent: A Trailblazer in High-Potency Homeopathy [online]. Radaropus.com.
Ratera, Dr. M. M., 2016. First Aid with Homeopathy. Germany: Narayana Verlag.
Rawat, P. S., 1991. Select Your Dose and Potency. Kishan Kunj, Delhi: B. Jain Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
Rozencwajg, J., 2010. The potency : advanced prescribing in homeopathy : the Fibonacci potencies : a unified theory and practice of modern homeopathic posology. Netherlands: Emryss.
Sherr, J., 2007. On Choosing The Potency [online]. Hpathy.com.
Shine, M., 2004. What about the potency? : a comprehensive guide to homeopathic potency and dosage. London: Food For Thought.
Team, H., 2023. Francisco Xavier Eizayaga Biography and Books [online]. homeopathy360.
Ullman, D., 1992. Homeopathic medicine for children and infants. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, A Member Of Penguin Putnam Inc.
Vithoulkas, G., 1981. The science of homeopathy. New York: Grove Press.
Vithoulkas, G., 2019. Levels of Health: The Second Volume of The Science of Homeopathy. 3rd revised edition. North Sporades, Greece: International Academy of Classical Homeopathy.
Whole Health Now, 2022a. WholeHealthNow | Home [online]. Wholehealthnow.com.
Whole Health Now, 2022b. WholeHealthNow | Home [online]. Wholehealthnow.com.
Yasgur, J., 2024. First Aid with Homeopathy: The Ultimate Medical Guide for Travelers Athletes. Also Covering Work-Related Accidents Major Disasters by Manuel Mateu Ratera. Homœopathic Links [online].