Ian Watson in Conversation with Michelle Shine
An Excerpt from
What About the Potency?
by Michelle Shine RSHom
MS: How do you
select a potency, what method do you favour?
IW: Well, I would
favour using a combination of factors in each case rather
than use a certain method, and that would include, for
example:- the age of the patient, my perception of the
strength of the constitution, the depth of the pathology,
any features like ongoing medication, or anything else
that might interfere with the treatment. All of these
factors are what I would look at, but the main thing for
me would be the clarity of the prescribing image.
MS: The age of
the patient would be, the younger the patient -the higher
you’d think of?
IW:
In general, yes,
but that could be over ridden, for example by
constitutional strength. If I saw an older person but
they had good vitality and they weren’t on drugs and the
picture was clear, I would give them a high potency too.
MS:
The perception of
the constitution, can you clarify?
IW:
My in-the-moment,
snapshot understanding of what that person’s underlying
constitutional strength is. Obviously I am making a best
guess at that, because in reality you don’t know what
that is until you’ve started treating the person.
MS:
So are we talking
about the Vital Force, the strength of the Vital Force?
The energy there or…?
IW:
Yes, I guess you
could put it that way. I tend to just talk about
constitutional strength and I don’t really use the term
Vital Force that much, because it’s relatively
immeasurable isn’t it?
MS:
When you talk
about the constitutional strength, do you mean certain
types of constitution, certain remedy pictures..?
MS: No, it’s
irrespective of remedy picture. I am talking about the
underlying strength of the body itself. So, I have an
assumption there that some bodies are built better than
others and my experience supports that. Is it someone who
is very sensitive and relatively fragile, or is it
someone who is basically robust? That is what I am
looking at, is has nothing to do with the remedy picture.
MS:
Right, to
clarify, if you have someone who is relatively robust
they would get..
IW:
They are more
likely to get a higher potency, unless there are other
factors that over-rule that. For example, they are taking
loads of drugs or something similar.
MS:
And sensitivity
would go the other way, would it?
IW: Exactly!.
MS: Depth
of pathology is an interesting one and one I am trying to
get my head around at the moment. Um, someone like Dr
Ramakrishnan who wrote that book on cancer, are you
familiar with it?
IW:
I know of its
existence but I have not read it.
MS:
Well he tends to
use 200 potencies + for, well I would say cancer is quite
a deep pathology, so I am still learning around that
area, so do you have any sort of information that you can
share about pathology and potency with me?
IW:
Well for me its
an open question because I studied for example, do you
know that book Principles of Prescribing
by Mathur? I studied that years ago and
it gives examples of different prescribers, one of which
was a high potency prescriber, I think Indian, treating
mostly advanced pathologies using 50m’s and CM’s. I was
exposed to that early on in my homeopathic career, and I
always had this thought in the back of my mind, well why
not? The results seem to be suggesting that that is quite
do-able.
Then again, I
have also studied with Eizayaga, who would say that in
serious pathologies you want to start with a 3c and 6c
and you can always work your way up. So for me I think
that depth of pathology is a factor, but not necessarily
an overriding one. I would say that even in a case of
advanced pathology, if the picture is clear and there are
no other interfering factors like being overdosed with
chemotherapy or something of that kind, then I would not
necessarily go against using high potencies. Similarly,
if there is a lot of pain or intensity in the situation I
am more likely to use high potencies, because in my
experience the body will burn it up quickly in that
instance. The only time I would really just favour the
low potencies exclusively would be if I think the person
needs a lot of doses on a regular basis, and that’s
usually because they are on a lot of medication.
MS: What about aggravations then, especially if you are
using very high potencies?
IW:
I don’t think
aggravation is a function of potency primarily. I mean,
some of the most difficult to handle aggravations I have
experienced with clients have been on 30c. Sometimes
lower than that. You know, I have had people take one
dose of a 6c and all hell breaks out, so you can’t say
that its just from high potencies. Some of the most
gentle cures I’ve seen have been from 1m’s and 10m’s.
MS: Yes, me too.
IW:
And sometimes
even 200’s, and with no aggravation whatsoever.
MS: Me
too.
IW:
So I’ve let go of
the idea that high potencies aggravate and low potencies
don’t. I think that is more determined by things like the
sensitivity of the patient, and also the expectation of
the prescriber. I think that’s a big factor. You know,
sometimes we set people up to aggravate, so they do. I
have had people aggravate on sac-lac, just to kind of
prove to myself that that was possible. I have actually
experimented with that, sometimes with patients who are
highly suggestible and also sensitive types, and they
will aggravate on anything. So I think potency is a
secondary thing as far as aggravation goes.
MS: Sensitivity
is a big issue, isn’t it, for us homeopaths. Have you got
any information to share with us, you know something that
you have gleamed through experience that perhaps
everybody else does not know or maybe they do but they
are not speaking about it?
IW: Sensitivity
to me is the same as susceptibility. It’s another way of
looking at that phenomenon. So, on the one hand it’s the
bane of our lives because we are always wondering, is
this a sensitive patient or aren’t they? But at the same
time, we need a degree of sensitivity otherwise we don’t
get any response at all. So understanding a person’s type
of sensitivity, I think is one of the most crucial things
abut case taking. To me that is more important than
gathering a list of symptoms. It’s getting a sense of,
not only how sensitive they are, but what is the
nature
of their
sensitivity, in other words what are they sensitive to,
that makes them a unique individual?
MS:
And I guess it’s
this sensitivity that leads you to the remedy, doesn’t
it?
IW:
Absolutely, it’s
one of the key things that will formulate the remedy
picture. For example, if you have a list of food
sensitivities we associate that with a certain remedy
type, but I also look at in a more general sense. Some
people are more sensitive to the weather, some people are
sensitive to the presence of the homeopath, some are not.
MS:
In my thoughts
about sensitivity, you have to be very very clear with
what you want to give with really sensitive people
otherwise they are going to aggravate, but if you get the
remedy right, then I don’t think they will. What do you
think?
IW: That is an
interesting belief. I have really studied this a lot with
different practitioners, and I tend to find that our
patients confirm the unconsciously-held beliefs of the
practitioners to a large extent. So if you believe that
‘if I get the remedy right, they won’t aggravate’, that
will be your experience. Whereas I know other homeopaths
who believe that if you get the remedy slightly wrong,
that will create a big aggravation, so they have a
different belief which their practice experience will
tend to confirm. So to me it is worth uncovering what
kind of assumption you hold about what you think will
happen, because you will tend to see that mirrored in
your practice. I know from my own experience that when I
change my internal reality around it, then what happens
to the people I am treating changes too.
MS: I
suppose my internal reality should therefore be that all
my patients are going to get better and not aggravate?
IW:
You could choose
that one.
MS:
That sounds like
a good one to me.
IW: Well, I came
around to the realisation that some people will, it
seems, as part of their healing process, need to
aggravate. And in that sense, this is something which is
independent of us even though we influence it. I know
that some people feel they haven’t got their monies’
worth if they don’t aggravate. In the north of England,
it’s quite popular for people to think they need to
suffer a bit in order to feel well, and I don’t want to
take that away from them. So the kind of strategy that I
tend to adopt is that people will get well in
whatever way is right for them, rather than me saying that
they should never aggravate or they should always
aggravate. And the ones that do aggravate - if you let it
be okay, then it generally is. It’s not really about
whether they aggravate or not - its whether you and they
are okay with the fact that they aggravate.
MS:
I think that is
true and I think as you become more experienced as a
homeopath that is easier to do.
IW: Exactly
right, yes, you become less worried about those things
and you tend to think, ‘oh yeah, it’s just an
aggravation, it’s fine, it will pass,’ rather than losing
sleep over it.
MS: What do you
actually do with aggravations, do you always wait or do
…...?
IW: No, I don’t
always do anything. I think if you always do something
then you are an allopath not a homeopath. For me
homeopathy is about individualising everything, so there
is no always and there is no never.
MS:
Oh, okay, in that
case what would make you wait if somebody aggravates?
IW:
If the person is
doing fine. If they are okay with the fact that they are
aggravating then it’s none of my business and I tend to
work that way. I don’t make myself particularly
available, so people know that ahead of time and they
have to be fairly self-responsible in order to work with
me in the first place. Which means, if something comes up
for example and I am not around, they are willing to ride
it, or to deal with it in their own way. If they get a
lot of pain or something and they can’t handle it, then
they know it is okay with me for them to take painkillers
if they need to, or they can prescribe a first aid remedy
if they need that for themselves. I don’t make it that
conditional that they have to wait for instructions from
me. I tend to trust that people will do what they need to
do, and I will support them in whatever that is.
MS:
What about
somebody who actually finds you who has an aggravation
and they don’t want to put up with it?
IW:
I prescribe on
it.
MS
Do you change the
remedy? Some people go up in potency, some people go down
in potency, what do you tend to do?
IW: I tend to
just look at the image that’s being thrown up, because I
find that a lot of what people call ‘aggravation’ is
actually just another state that they have gone into, so
its not an aggravation at all but is in fact another
layer that has been thrown up. Therefore, I tend to act
as though I don’t know what remedy they have taken
before, and say to myself: If I had never seen this
person before in my life, what would I give them
now? And I give them that. So if
it’s midnight and they are freaking out, I give
them Arsenicum
or
Aconite,
regardless of the fact that they may have been
given Calc Carb
six hours ago. I
find this works pretty well, and you can prescribe
without prejudice.
MS:
If a remedy does
not work at all, have you ever stuck with that remedy
because you feel it’s still indicated or the best for
them, and changed the potency?
IW:
Ah, yes although
I would say that is pretty rare. Usually if a person says
that it hasn’t worked at all, obviously sometimes we find
out that in fact it has, but they just didn’t notice. If
it has really not done anything, usually I find that
means that they have not been given enough of it, if I am
sure it’s the right thing. So, if I have started with a
low potency, say they are taking a 6c and they have only
had one or two doses, well it’s reasonable that it hasn’t
done anything yet, so they maybe just need to take more.
But if they have taken a reasonably high potency and it
hasn’t done anything and they have waited, what to me is
a reasonable time, (and I don’t have any fixed criteria
of that, a reasonable amount of time in one case might be
a day and in another case it might be a couple of weeks),
then I am more inclined to change the remedy. I am not
that patient to wait around for months.
MS;
I don’t think
most patients are either.
IW: Neither do I.
They pay good money to have something happen and if
absolutely nothing has happened I tend not to stick with
it. I tend to say, well okay, I have missed something
here.
MS: What are your views on dosage?
IW: You mean
repetition?
MS:
Yes.
IW:
I think it’s a
guessing game when you start out, and to me the best
approach is that you just start with your best guess but
you give the patient permission to modify it themselves.
That’s the way I found works best for me, and for the
patient. It is much better than me being in charge of it,
pretending that I know what is best! I just say, we’ll
start on this basis, you know, once a day, three times a
day, once a week, whatever it is, but as soon as you feel
like something is moving I want you to monitor it
yourself. If you feel like you are taking too much, you
cut it down. If you feel like it is not doing much you
can increase it. I build that in right from the
beginning. Then they report back to me with what they
found was their optimum dosage.
MS: So, if you
are starting off with higher potencies, not very very
high potencies, say 30’s and 200’s for example, would you
tend to give one-off or repeat in that situation. How
would you start?
IW:
I would make a
guess as to how much I thought they would need in order
to get the ball rolling. So, if all the factors are
favourable - they have good constitutional strength, a
clear remedy picture, nothing in the way, no drugs, then
I may well give a single dose and this should be enough
in this case, to at least see where it is going. Where
the underlying vitality is weak, the remedy picture is a
bit hazy, they are taking medication or have been, things
of that kind, I am more than likely to give it repeated
for a few days until they feel it working. Here it is
more the idea of kick-starting the constitution, because
it is likely they will need it. If my guess is that they
are going to be a bit sluggish, then I say start to take
it two, three or four times a day for a few days, and I
will give them enough doses for three, four, five days. I
tell them, once you feel the treatment is on the way,
then you can stop. So I will leave it up to them.
MS:
With people on
medication, I mean personally speaking, if someone is on
medication I normally give an LM, but if someone is on
medication and you are giving a 30c for example and you
kick-started it, do you find the medication can interfere
with it later on and the remedy has a very short life
span, or not necessarily.
IW:
No, I don’t think
it’s the remedy life span, I don’t think remedies have a
life span! To me that is a bit of a myth. I think that
individual people have varying degrees of ability to
respond, and that’s both to remedies and to other
substances like drugs and so on. Some people, even though
they are on medication, will take a remedy and sail
through it, whereas for someone else, the fact that they
are on medication will slow everything down for them. To
me it’s not that the drug is interfering with the remedy,
but that it’s affecting their system on a daily basis. If
you only give the remedy once, and every day following
they are taking something that is powerfully impinging on
their system, the chances are they are going to need more
of that remedy in order to keep improving. You know, it’s
like a counter balance. I don’t believe that these
substances interfere with our remedies. There is nothing
there for them to interfere with, for God’s sake!
MS When you
repeat a remedy, what makes you want to change the
potency?
IW: They’ve have
had enough of it. They have done well up to a point and
they seem to plateau or they start to slip back, and the
remedy picture has not altered substantially, so they
still need the same remedy. What they are saying is that
they have had enough of it at that level. And I don’t
pretend to know in advance whether that will happen, or
when it will happen.
MS: Just wait for
the patient to tell you really.
IW: I give them
permission to detect that and to let me know, because all
the times when I changed it on my own accord, it’s
usually been premature and I’ve regretted it, you know.
So I have learnt to keep my hands off. If they want to
take a 6c for six months and do well on it, then that’s
fine with me now.
MS: Do you ever use a water-potencies? Do you use LM’s or
plus remedies?
MS: I have done.
I found that these are things that I do, I have a phase
and then I suppose I get bored of it and I go back to
giving pills. I have experimented quite a bit, more so
with centesimals in liquid form and less so with things
like LM’s, although I have used LM’s as well.
MS: Well, what makes you, with your experience and
experimenting, what would make you want to give a water-
potency now?
IW: I haven’t got
many pills left. I wouldn’t want to give the whole bottle
away! That’s the main one. The other would be
over-sensitivity of the client, for example, someone who
describes themselves as the type who will over-respond to
anything in a normal dose. That to me is a way of
diluting it a little bit further, and it gives them more
adjustment possibilities. You know, they can vary the
amount of drops if they have got a dropper bottle. So I
use it for people who seem to need that fine-tuning, but
I would say that its not that common.
MS: Do you find that it makes the remedy more gentle if
you put it in water?
IW: It does when
it does. It doesn’t always.
MS: Do you have any questions on dosage or on potency
that you would like answered?
IW: Yes, there
was some interesting work that came out a couple of years
ago where Tony Pinkus from Ainsworths was involved in
some research and there was a suggestion that potency did
not go up in a linear scale, which is what we have been
taught. You know, the idea that it starts at the tincture
and it goes up to infinity via 6, 30 & 200 etc.
Rather than it being linear in that sense, it had more of
the shape of a kind of wave form, with peaks and troughs.
That was something that intrigued me, but I would still
have an open mind about it. The suggestion being that a
200, for example, could in fact be ‘higher’ than a 1M.
Which was interesting to me because there is a lot of
folklore in homeopathy that says that 200 is the one that
really aggravates and that 1M’s are relatively gentle,
and my own limited experience would go along with that to
some extent.
So that would be an open question for me, that I’d be
interested to have answered. Whether in fact potency
isn’t this linear thing, and that ‘higher’ doesn’t
necessarily mean ‘higher’. And I don’t know what the
answer is or whether there is any research that has drawn
any good conclusions about that. But I remember it
raising a question in my mind that intrigued me. It would
be worth knowing, wouldn’t it? And it might give some
explanation as to why some of these high potency
prescribers can give, what we would classify as very high
potencies with great frequency and apparently no
problems. You know, maybe they are not as high as we
think.
MS: To be
honest with you when I look through my cases, through all
my old cases, I tend to have more aggravation in the
lower potencies.
IW: That has been
my experience – interesting, huh?
MS: Or the medium potencies.
IW: Yes - medium
one’s, the 30’s, 200’s sometimes, but it’s not the really
high ones.
MS: But then I am
usually really sure when I give a high potency, so that
might be something to do with it, I don’t really know.
IW: No, I don’t
know either.
MS: Thank you Ian, you’ve answered all my questions, and
I’ve really enjoyed the conversation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This
interview has appeared in several homeopathic journals,
and was included in Michelle Shine's book,
What About the Potency,
published by Food For Thought
Publications.