New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

Dr. Hahnemann told us in his Organon that if the same unchanged dose of the medicine is repeated further again and again, then a new artificial medicinal disease is created (which is what is occuring in drug provings) but he says, ". . . or the effects of the medicines are partly neutralized." 

Doctors of this group (I'm in great doubt of these last few words) please tell how the effect of the medicines are partly neutralized? Can anyone explain this to me and clear my doubts?

Views: 538

Replies to This Discussion

Good question Dr Nagarajan.
Dear Nagaraj,
Can you tell me the aphorism where Hahnemann had quoted this words? Then i will answer you the discussion.

Dear Charu, I'm sorry that the point which I mentioned was written in chronic diseases on page no. 3 the 3rd paragraph. Could you explain it?

Dear Doctor,

I am answering your Question from what I understood from Dr. Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine 6th Edition translated by William Boericke, to which I have to split the Aphorisms written by our master in order to understand so please bear with me.

The following things are observed:

I. From § 247:
 It is impractical to repeat the same unchanged dose of a remedy once, not to mention its frequent repetition (and at short intervals in order not to delay the cure).

The reasons are:
 The vital principle does not accept such unchanged doses without resistance, that is, without other symptoms of the medicine to manifest themselves than those similar to the disease to be cured.

 because the former dose has already accomplished the expected change in the vital principle, and

 a second dynamically wholly similar, unchanged dose of the same medicine no longer finds, therefore, the same conditions of the vital force.

 The patient may indeed be made sick in another way by receiving other such unchanged doses, even sicker than he was, for now only those symptoms of the given remedy remain active which were not homoeopathic to the original disease, hence no step towards cure can follow, only a true aggravation of the condition of the patient.

II. § 275 - The suitableness of a medicine for any given case of disease does not depend on its accurate homoeopathic selection alone, but likewise on the proper size, or rather smallness, of the dose. If we give too strong a dose of a medicine which may have been even quite homoeopathically chosen for the morbid state before us, it must, notwithstanding the inherent beneficial character of its nature, prove injurious by its mere magnitude, and by the unnecessary, too strong impression which, by virtue of its homoeopathic similarity of action, it makes upon the vital force which it attacks and, through the vital force, upon those parts of the organism which are the most sensitive, and are already most affected by the natural disease.

III. § 276 - For this reason, a medicine, even though it may be homoeopathically suited to the case of disease, does harm in every dose that is too large, the more harm the larger the dose, and by the magnitude of the dose and in strong doses’ it does more harm the greater its homoeopathicity and the higher the potency1 selected, and it does much more injury than any equally large dose of a medicine that is unhomoeopathic, and in no respect adapted to the morbid state (allopathic).

Too large doses of an accurately chosen homoeopathic medicine, and especially when frequently repeated, bring about much trouble as a rule. They put the patient not seldom in danger of life or make this disease almost incurable. They do indeed extinguish the natural disease so far as the sensation of the life principle is concerned and the patient no longer suffers from the original disease from the moment the too strong dose of the homoeopathic medicine acted upon him but he is in consequence more ill with the similar but more violent medicinal disease which is most difficult to destroy.2

(Also read §276, which contains answer to the above).

The answer given above is not complete it will grow further, for this question needs to be substantiated with more details, so I would like you to keep this topic alive.

Thank you for raising the question, which is of much importance in our day to day practice.
thank you Dr. PANDARINATHAN,

very good answer !
Well, I have experienced it in the following manner.

Any remedy in any potency suitable to the case shows a certain action, which could probably best be illustrated by a graph, but i do not have the tools to show it.
The vertical axis is the diseased state in a time frame and the horizontal axis is the action of a potency of the appropriate remedy, which has a certain plane of action.
Repetition in the same plane will cure the disease but only in that plane - anything in a different plane that is expressed by a different potency will not be touched upon.
So if we now repeat the same potency again and again, we may develop symptoms of that plane in an increased manner and they will be added to the symptoms of the other planes in wich the state manifests.
We will add drug-disease to the existing plane in which that potency acts. And thus we will not be able to cure.
good answer.........
I beg to differ.

There is no such thing as primary or secondary action. All symptoms come from the same remedy and the totality of symptoms must include both the primary and secondary ones, and thus we must consider what they are. They are always opposite and in some remedies completely mixed up and in others alternating. Hahnemann made one of his few mistakes there and careful observation will teach you this is true.

I agree that the reaction to any remedy - whether for cure or in a proving - is always the reaction of the vital force. After all, symptoms are the effects of the remedy, regardless whether they appear in a proving or disappear in a cure. hahnemann himself was thoroughly puzzled by the actions of Opium, Camphora and others, where primary reactions and secondary reactions may appear in reverse order in different provers.
The point i was making is that such distinction is meaningless, since in the same prover symptoms may appear first on the left and then on the right or vice versa, depending on the circumsatnces under which these symptoms manifest. As an example we may mention Lycopodium, which generally goes from right to left, but can also manifest as from left to right. What we see in MM is the recording of the majority, while the opposite is considered anomalous. However, they are nonetheless occurring.
What we must consider in such cases is that the time modalities take precedence over those of location. The concomitants of time and location are always in favour of those of time over and above those of place.

In regards to symptoms caused by excess of the remedy dosage it must be noted that such are only mentioned in the 6th edition, where the use of LM potencies is extensively discussed.
All symptoms are due to the reaction of the vital force - both in disease and provings. There is no other way in which they can make themselves known. If we introduce a remedy to the body, the vital force will generate symptoms as a reaction. there are no "other symptoms" because there is no force other than the remedy or the disease that can elicit a reaction. The vital force does not generate any symptoms on its own, without the presence of a diseased state or sufficient doses of a remedy.
In the latter case all symptoms are intrinsic to the remedy - with the exception of symptoms present before the taking of the remedy. These are not due to the vital force, but to an existing diseased state, which causes the vital force to react. excess of quantity means sufficient doses to cause a reaction. Hahnemann is simply mistaken if he says that the vital force has no need to employ aginst this small artificial disease any symptoms. How do we know it is an artificial disease? By the appearance of symptoms.

In the beginning of the Organon Hahnemann says that the symptoms point to the disease and the remedy to remove those symptoms.

6. Unprejudiced observation is directed at the changes in health of the mind, emotions and body. These are clearly visible or revealed by further examination. He notices only the deviation of health. The sensations of the patient, those noticed by his relatives and the observations of the physician are all that needs to be noted. All these perceptible signs present the disease in its whole extent and form a true picture of the disease.

7. In disease, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symp-toms. It follows that it is by these symptoms alone that the disease points to the medicine indicated to remove it. The totality of symptoms – being the outwardly reflected picture of the internal disease – must be the principal and sole means the disease can use to indicate what remedy it requires. Therefore, the totality of symptoms is the only thing the physician needs to discover and note down. Then he must remove it by means of his Art, to enable cure and return to health.

8. It is inconceivable nor provable that after removal of all symptoms there should or could remain anything besides health.

So if there are symptoms present they are due to the disease or the excess of dosage of the remedy.

This is because:

11. When a person falls ill, it is only the defence system – which is active in all parts of the body – that is primarily deranged by the dynamic action of the morbid influence. Only the defence mechanism – deranged to abnormal functions – causes the disagreeable sensation we call disease. While being invisible, it can be known by its effects on the organism. Its changed functions become apparent by the feeling of disease. These limit themselves to those parts visible to the senses of the sufferer and doctor and show up as symptoms. There is no other way in which they can make themselves known.

12. It is the morbidly affected defence mechanism alone that produces symptoms. The morbid phenomena express at the same time all the internal changes. Together they reveal the entire disease. The disappearance under treatment of all the morbid phenomena and alterations certainly affects and implies the recovered health of the entire mind, emotions and body.

19. Diseases are nothing more than alterations in the healthy state, expressed through signs and symptoms. Cure is a change to the state of health. Therefore, medicines can never cure diseases if they do not have the power of altering the state of health. Their curative power is entirely owing to the power they posses to alter the state of health.

20. This dynamic power to alter the state of health – hid-den in the interior of every substance – is incapable of being second-guessed. Only by experiencing the phenomena it causes in its action on the healthy state can we derive the necessary knowledge.

21. We only depend on the symptoms the medicines pro-duce as the single possible manner in which their hidden powers become known. Therefore, it is necessary to ascer-tain their morbid action on the healthy individual, since this produces pure effects. Diseased persons cannot produce pure effects, since the disease will alter the effects.
Dear members
In passing and very concise the following few lines may illustrate:

The law of first- and after- action (second-action) of medicines is the basis of homeopathy.
Without that phenomena there would be no homeopathy.

The living organism creates against every medicinal-first action (after it has expired) a exactly direct opposite after-action (whenever such a opposite exists).

If a medicine creates in its first action evacuation of stool, the organism will create in the after-action with ”none evacuation of stool”= constipation.

If this would not be so, if there were only first action (here evacuation of stool), then only the medical principle: “contraria contraries” would exist, but no homeopathic principle of cure. The difference between homeopathy and allopathy originates from above principle.

Homeopathy works after the principle “similia similibus”.
The first actions of the medicines corresponding the ailments (= disease symptoms) of the sick.
“Against” this first action, the organism puts the opposing after-action, which “takes away” (neutralizes) the ailments; what remains is cure.

Allopathy works with the first actions of medicines (contraria contraries) opposing the ailments of the sick (pain killer, anti -- ).
Against this first action the organism creates counter action . (=after action)
In this case this after-action cannot remove the ailments, because it is unequal (dissimilar) to them (=disease symptoms)

Therefore the result cannot be “neutralization” or cure.

Hope that explains --
No Hans, it does not.

See opium and camphor where the first and second actions often change place. Then this whole thing falls dead in the water. Hahnemann himself was thoroughly puzzled by this phenomenon and never sought to explain it.

All reactions of the body, or the vital force if you like, are reactions to the remedy - both primary and secondary. All remedies have those reactions and thus homoeopaticity is based on development of similar symptoms - primary and secondary.

The reasoning you use to explain - explain away really - the secondary action of remedies as the neutralising of the first is fallacious, because constipation is as bad for the body as diarrhoea - it is also a diseased state.

So the cure for diarrhoea is not constipation. As i explained above, this is an instance were Hahnemann made an all too human mistake - he was also not a god and did make mistakes. Another one is where he says that the remedy cures because it is stronger than the disease - again abject nonsense, because in both instances it denies the law of similars!


HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...