Expert advice from one of homeopathy’s very best – Dr. Andre Saine…

Presented at Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis Congress / Istanbul, Turkey—September 8, 2022

In August 2015, I introduced to the international homeopathic community during the Liga congress in Rio a paper on the use of high fluxion potencies in the treatment of patients with incurable and intractable chronic degenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease.

Some of the important points I made in that presentation were:

1. The curability of conditions that are generally considered incurable.
2. The importance of continually seeking the optimal posology.
3. The great therapeutic potential offered by the very high potencies of Fincke’s fluxion remedies.
4. A novel method of producing fluxion remedies—the h-potencies.

Today, I would like to give a follow-up report of the use of very high fluxion h-potencies in patients with incurable and intractable diseases -this time with two cases presenting with genetic diseases.

The first one is a case with retinitis pigmentosa (or RP), which is a genetic condition that involves the progressive breakdown and loss of photoreceptor cells of the retina. RP eventually leads to tunnel vision and, later, to total blindness.

Currently, there is no “known” treatment for RP.

However, in the nineteenth century, cases were reported improved or arrested with the use of homeopathy and galvanic current.

*William King, a homeopathic ophthalmologist from Washington, D.C., reported in 1895 three cases that he treated over a period of four to five years with low potencies remedies and electricity to the eyes, and claimed that he got better results than his allopathic colleagues who only used electricity.

From his case report, there is no indication that he changed the potencies of his remedies over the four or five years of treatment.[1]

Eight years later in 1903, Dr. King wrote a sequel to the first two cases of RP that he seen years earlier, *“In the case of two patients whom I have been able to watch for the past fifteen years, and who I have seen grow from childhood to young man and womanhood, not only retaining but gaining in visual ability as well as in the extent of their field of vision as measured once or twice a year by means of the perimeter.”[2]

What Dr. King did not know in 1895 is that one his colleagues, a homeopathic ophthalmologist from Boston, Dr. Frederick W. Payne, the son of Dr. William P. Payne, the pioneer homeopath in Maine, had reported in 1888 a case of retinitis pigmentosa that had been treated only with homeopathy and which ended with great improvement in vision.

*Dr. Payne wrote after only 11 weeks of giving the simillimum, *“A very interesting case of retinitis pigmentosa having come to my notice, and the result of the application of the law of similars to the same having proved so exact and astounding in result, I am prompted to give you a description of the primary case, as well as a synopsis of the wonderful restoration which has progressed in regular gradation, covering a period now of a little more than six months [11 weeks]. *These astounding developments, to my mind, are more amazing from the fact that no case of pigmentary retinitis, so far as I know, has ever been reported to have improved, or even to have been arrested in its progress, much less to have been cured, although it is a disease that all oculists not infrequently encounter; on the contrary, all cases are expected to go on to loss of vision.”

The case reported by Dr. Payne was the one of a 41-year-old man who noticed poor night vision beginning at the age of 34. With three doses of Sulphur CM given over a period of eleven weeks, a remarkable improvement in the visual fields and restoration of night vision was experienced by the patient. Dr. Payne reported that on examination, the pigments were clearly returning. The first dose of Sulphur CM was given on January 4, and the last of the three doses of Sulphur CM was given on February 6 of the same year.[3]

****We can see that in span of only eleven weeks and three doses of Sulphur CM, there was a great improvement in the field of vision.

Let me briefly present a summary of the current case that has been under homeopathic treatment for six years now.

July 25, 2016: SB, a 30 year-old landscaper, was diagnosed in December 2015 with retinitis pigmentosa. At the time of diagnosis in December 2015, his visual field was less than 20% of normal, and he had a mild epiretinal membrane (scar tissue) covering his macula bilaterally.

He was then declared to be legally blind and was told that stem cells, gene therapy and vitamins were not good options at this time.

When I first interviewed SB in March 2016, I told him to take fish oil, vitamin A and MacuHealth, a supplement that contains the three macular pigments, lutein, zeaxanthin and meso-zeaxanthin, and told him to eat kale everyday (one of the richest available foods containing lutein).

I finally took his case on July 25, 2016. Three years ago, his wife noticed that something was wrong with his vision, which was progressively getting worse. In August 2015, he began stumbling into things more often. He now stumbles at least once every hour at work or at home. When they are in a new place, his wife directs him and describes the terrain and the obstacles in the way as they move forward, such as steps, stairs or tight places. His wife reported that every time in the previous 3 years she moved furniture in the house he stumbled over it. He cannot see something on the floor unless he looks down straight at it.

However, SB reported noticing problems with night vision since the age of 6 or 7. He has always worn glasses. He experiences flashes in his eyes about once a week.

He presented a clear case of Sulphur: he is very hot especially at night; he uncovers his feet the greater part of the night every night since he is a teenager; he desires very cold room; he is very sensitive to hunger; he desires very spicy foods; his veins become distended on his temples during headaches, etc.

He began treatment on August 8, 2016 with Sulphur 200D.

*Here is the schedule of the dose of the increasing potencies of Sulphur over the first year of treatment:

About one and half years into the treatment, we had exhausted Fincke’s scale of remedy.

As I explained in Rio in 2015, now that we had reached the highest of the Fincke’s potencies with the MM, it was logical that we should continue to go higher, and from pure necessity, we began producing our own fluxion remedies.

*Incidentally, the term “fluxion” Fincke used was borrowed from Newton’s work on differential calculus entitled, The Method of Fluxions and Infinite Series. He wrote, “We propose to call them Fluxion Potencies, taking the notion from Newton’s infinitesimal calculus, which assigns to the fluxion, though of infinitesimal magnitude, a finite value.”[4]

*In mathematics, calculus is the study of changes, and a fluxion or a derivative is the measurement of the rate of change.

*Fincke wrote that fluxion “is a physical process long known in natural philosophy and common life as the continuous flow caused by a syphon, or by running liquids. It is of importance in physical science that a substance can be submitted to a refining process by means of fluxion, and as such it is to be accepted as a new physical process depending on the law of hydrodynamics.”[5]

How were Fincke’s remedies made?

**The water is siphoned from a graduated jar down a rubber tube that is connected to a glass regulator.

Because of the general limitation of Fincke’s remedies to the MM or one million potencies, we began making remedies with a fluxion process similar to the one used by Fincke for close to 25 years.

*This is done by using regular city water coming down from a tap at a height of about 25 cm with a flow of about 1.4 liter per minute, or 84 liters (84,000 ml) per hour (5,600  X  15 ml = 84,000 ml) into a 4-dram (15 ml) vial with a tight neck. Each hour is the equivalent of about a 5 M on the scale of Fincke.

For potentiating vial, Fincke used two by nine-sixteenths inches high vials, with a narrow neck, prominent lip and one dram volume (3.7 ml) (while ours are 2 inches high and a 4-dram volume (15 ml)).

The objective of using a tight neck bottle with the water flow mentioned is to create turbulence throughout the vial.

*Fincke wrote, “It can be seen that the narrow neck exerts a controlling pressure upon the water in the vial which can sometimes be observed as the surplus escapes with regular pulsations, 120 to 130 per minute.”[6]

*We can appreciate here the turbulence in action:

*At the end of each hour that goes by, a drop of the water is taken from the potentiating vial, added to one-dram vial to which is added ¾ dram of 94% grain alcohol and a cap is screwed on. The vial is then succussed, emptied, filled with dry blank pellets and labeled.

If we started the process with Sulphur MMF, after an hour we end up with Sulphur MMF-1h.

So our patient with RP began taking Sulphur MM-1h one and half year after we had started the Sulphur 200D.

So we moved to Sulphur MM-1h in mid–February 2018. In October 2018, he was taking Sulphur MM-5h and his wife said, “His vision is much, much, much better. It is not an issue anymore. He never steps on anything on his way. For ten football games, he was the chain person, which he could not have this one year ago or even just 6 months ago.”

In June 2020, his eye specialist, whom he had been seeing every six months, was confused, as after looking into his eyes, he thought that he had the wrong file. He said that he had the best visual field, as ever going from 20/2 to 10/2.

“He looked at the results obtained, looked on the computer and back to the results, and called security to get the paper file to double check.”

Soon afterward, he began to work again for the first time since he had lost his job in a landscaping company two or more years ago. He serves customers and locates products in a car parts store. No one knows he has a visual impairment. Despite boxes laying haphazardly on the floor and much traffic during the busiest time when there is lot of customers, he never trips or stumble on anything. He can read all the fine number on labels without any problem. He was told that he was the star employee for his kindness and helpfulness toward customers and his efficacy at work (his wife is crying, as she is telling me this last part). He feels he performs as well as any of his co-workers.

On September 9, 2020, he began taking Suphur MMF-33h, which he was told to take every 2-3 days. He feels that his vision is now close to normal, including his night vision. He has not stumbled into anything for many months. He doesn’t have any more flashes in his eyes. He is very active physically, and his wife reports that he see details in his environment as good as anybody else and doesn’t need any more guidance or visual support.

On October 6, 2020, the patient and his wife can be seen during the review of his case in a video conference talking about the journey they went through since the diagnosis, from down in the pits of despair of the inevitable blindness, the loss of jobs, not being a father to his children, etc. to instead having regained some of his vision, being a star employee at a car part distributor and being really happy.

On December 15, 2020: SB said that Sulphur MM-34H was the best potency he has taken in a while.

On March 31, 2021: He reported that his vision was right on. He could spot a penny that fell on the ground while serving a customer. He had had no incidence of running into something at home or at work for many months and that the colors were sharper, “The reds are redder, the blues are bluer.” He had started Sulphur MM-37H on three weeks before.

By June 2021, he is changing potency every four weeks and takes the remedy every 5-6 days. Since taking Sulphur MM-40H he reported that everything was better, including his vision. He sees things much better in the peripheral field of his vision, which he would never have been able to see in the past.

He had his bi-annual eye exam three weeks ago. He had 20/20 in both eyes, the first time ever, his night vision was good and the ophthalmologist said that there was no inflammation, which was for the first time ever. The nurse turned to the ophthalmologist and said, “He is he still legally blind.” The Dr. asked what he had done and said, “It doesn’t make sense, you shouldn’t get better.”

He said that he didn’t want to jump to conclusions, even though his mind was blown away, and he was not happy when he was leaving the room.

His vision had improved so much that Steven saw three nurses who kept comparing his eye charts. They said that he didn’t have the vision of a RP patient anymore. He was told that from now on he doesn’t need to return twice a year and gave him an appointment in one year.

He has not change prescription glasses in five years.

For the first time ever, our patient left the ophthalmologist office crying from happiness and not from grief.

He ran crying all the way to announce the good news to his wife at the other end of the parking lot: “I literally ran out of the office to tell the news to my wife, through few hallways, going through few double doors, down stairs, dodging people and cars while sprinting in the parking lot over 500 feet from the hospital.”

One of his two retinal specialists wants him to start driving again. He will see a third retinal specialist without telling him about the original diagnosis.

In August 2021, he watched a football game at night in which one of his sons was playing and sat on top of the bleachers about 75 meters away from the play and despite the big spotlights, he could see his son’s number and follow the ball that was passed through the air throughout the game, which was the first time he could follow a football game since that age of 17.

As of August 2022, he was taking Sulphur MM-56h bid. We found that it was optimal to change the potency every 10 days and to continue taking the remedy routinely at twice a day. He has not reported any visual impairment in many months.

The next case I would like to present is the one of a 25-year-old medical student who came under my care on January 31, 2018 with a long list of complaints (with the year of diagnosis in parentheses):

*Progressive loss of vision due to that is associated with Stargardt macular degeneration (2011); primary biliary cirrhosis (2015); gastroesophageal reflux disease (2014; polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) (2016); chronic Salmonella enterica houtenae type B (2017); Lyme disease (2017); Bartonella (2017); recurrent Epstein-Barr viral infection (2016); Sjogren’s syndrome (2017); autoimmune hepatitis (2015); MTHFR gene (2017); and finally amblyopia (infancy).

*Stargardt macular degeneration is an inherited eye disorder that causes progressive vision loss and for which there exists no treatment. (Switch here to text)

She experiences chronic liver and spleen pain. She can’t digest fat. Within 10 minutes of eating a food rich in fat, such as avocado, she bloats as if she is pregnant. Aside from fatty foods, she can’t digest a number of other foods, including many fruits and vegetables, chicken, eggs, dairy, and fish. She can eat an enormous amount of meat at one sitting.

Accompanying the PCOS she has had hirsutism.

MTHFR stands for methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase. It’s getting attention due to a genetic mutation that may lead to high levels of homocysteine in the blood and low levels of folate and other vitamins

With the amlyopia, she can’t read out of her left eye.

She a number of other complaints (mental fogginess, mood and energy problems, constipation, migraine headaches, dizziness, joint pain, swelling and stiffness, low back pain, menstrual problems, insomnia, acne, etc.). She has been treated with homeopathy since 2015 but unsuccessfully to address the chronic problems.

She began treatment on February 7, 2018 with Calcarea carbonica 200D, which was eventually followed by Calcarea carbonica 1M and 10M, Conium 200D, Psorinum 200D and Carbo vegetabilis 200D. All these remedies helped some complaints, but none of these remedies helped all of her complaints. In the meantime, she reported that her vision continued to deteriorate. On August 16, 2018 she began taking Natrum muriaticum 200D.

In the first three months under Natrum muriaticum, the majority of her complaints improved but not the vision. However, by November 15, 2018, for the first time, she reported an improvement of vision. Up until now, all the remedies were taken as needed, as she is very sensitive to the remedies, and she often experienced an initial aggravation after taking the remedy.

She has been taking Natrum muriaticum in increasing potency since August 2018. By August 11, 2022, she was taking Natrum muriaticum MM-57h qid.

The first time she noticed a change in her vision for the better was after the seventh dose of Natrum muriaticum the second week of November. At first, she was taking the remedy as needed, and the vision would go up and down with the 1M potency. However, as soon as she took Natrum muriaticum 10M her vision began to improve more consistently

As her vision is improving, she is able to read smaller prints. She can walk on the sidewalk and cross streets by herself. She watches movies and reads the subtitles.

She reported that since switching potencies on a weekly basis, her vision is steadily improving without any relapse. She even often forgets to wear her glasses and can function well. She recently did her annual visit with the ophthalmologist and retinal specialist. Both were very perplexed, as the macular degeneration has been arrested for two years now, and the vision has in the meanwhile improved. The retinal specialist said, “Don’t stop what you are doing because it is working!”

Overall, the patient doesn’t have any more chronic symptoms, and she is followed on a monthly basis to monitor her progress and adjust the intake of the remedy.

In April 2022, she had COVID-19 and developed a 39.5C fever. Her vision decreased by 30% during the days with fever, but it slowly came back to better than before COVID-19.

It is clear that homeopathy can offer hope to patients with incurable and intractable degenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, but also to people who are afflicted with incurable and intractable genetic diseases.

I am not sure how I would have been able to achieve such consistent results in these patients with the use of the unlimited scale of fluxion remedies that was initiated by Fincke over one and a half centuries ago.

In order for homeopathy to continue progressing in the direction indicated by Hahnemann and fulfilling the ideal of cure for an ever greater number of people, we need to emphasize:

1. This practice is based on the well-established principles of homeopathy, which include:
   1. Making a complete examination of the patient in an artful manner.
   2. Asking the question, “What is most peculiar in this case?”
   3. Differential materia medica with repertorization and comparative analysis of the most indicated remedy.
   4. Prescribe this most indicated remedy in an optimal posology.
   5. Follow-up the patient appropriately in order the cure is progressive with the least relapses.

2- Further, as a whole, the profession must continue to develop its two most important tools, namely its materia medica and repertories. This is exactly what the Materia Medica Pura Project (MMPP) has been busy accomplishing since 2005.

Daily, we are reaping the rewards of all the hard work that has been poured into the MMPP through the development of more precise and complete tools. Please view our website at https://mmpp-saine.org/en/ and consider joining the project by contacting us at info@mmpp-saine.org.

As usual, we leave the last words to Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy: “The physician’s highest calling, his only calling, is to make sick people healthy—to heal, as it is termed .”

[1] William King. A Study of retinitis pigmentosa, with cases. The Homoeopathic Journal of Eyes, Ear and Throat Journal 1895; 1: 313-326.

[2] William King. Indications for the use of the electricity for diseases of the eye. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological, Otological and Laryngological Society 1903; 16: 228.

[3] Frederick W. Payne. A case of retinitis pigmentosa. Homoeopathic Physician 1888; 8: 286-291.

[4] Bernhardt Fincke. On high potencies and homoeopathics: Clinical cases and observations, with an appendix, containing Hahnemann’s original views and rules on the homoeopathic dose, chronologically arranged. Philadelphia: Tafel, 1865.

[5] Bernhardt Fincke. Letter from Bernhardt Fincke M.D., to the Editor. Organon 1880; 3: 162.

[6] Ibid.