This is as follows:

pot per cent range
3 0.581 0-3.8
6 9.13 0.85-25.2
9 1.36 0.42-3.02
12 13.4 2.97-35
18 17.98 9.32-30
24 22.83 15.3-55
30 27.6 22-44.1
100 2.26 0-1.7
200 3.06 0-20.3
M 0.53 0-3.4
LM's 3.33 0-16.95
sum 774 samples

To assess how accurate this final % is we can compare it with the previous data. This is shown in the range column, which gives the max and min for that potency (excluding 0 for some) and thus indicates how widely from the mean the samples vary or are spread. The most compact samples (closest to the mean) are potencies 3, 9, 18, 24 and 30. This means they have a narrow range, cluster tightly about the mean and thus the average shown can be considered to be a very reliable indication of Hahnemann's actual prescribing habits for that potency. It means that most people agree on his actual use of that potency and that there is much less variation in his use of it. I think we can safely assert that an analysis of 774 cases is fairly good and statistically very significant.

Those other potencies with much wider ranges (6, 12, etc) were clearly subject to more variation by the man himself, ie. he used them a lot at times and little at other times. It also means that those potencies with narrow ranges (mainly 3, 9, 18, 24 and 30) he was generally happy with and made frequent use of compared to those with wide ranges with which we can assume he had problems and his use of them therefore varied more over time.

Finally, we can safely say that Hahnemann at the end of his career mainly used potencies 12, 18, 24 and 30 and that this comprised some 81% of his total prescribing . If we then add potencies 6 and 9, we cover some 94% of his total prescribing. Clearly it is true that he was beginning to experimnt with higher potencies and was making increasing use of the LM's for reasons already stated. Those homoeopaths who can with honesty say they use mainly potencies 12, 18, 24 and 30 can truly call themselves Hahnemannian. The rest cannot.

Most of this flies in the face of what most people think he did and of course, with his directions in the 5th edition of the Organon and also it conflicts with Kent's directions, amongst others. Much more detail will of course be found in Rima Handley's forthcoming book on the same subject.



Коментари?