THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINES

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

 

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: 542

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Hans,
What comes to mind as I read this:
"The living organism creates against every medicinal-first action (after it has expired) a exactly direct opposite after-action (whenever such a opposite exists)."

. .is the 'rebound' effect, which so often happens when taking drugs. For example to spray a decongestant [Pseudoephedrine ~ read the warnings!].

If it is taken for too long then the reverse effect takes place. Instead of opening the sinuses, they become swollen and full, resulting in closing the sinuses.
Moreover, there is something else Hahnemann forgets to tell us.
He prentends to claim that only the primary action of a remedy is necessary to remove disease. This was indeed the case, when he was in the beginning, treating acute disease.
Later, he discovered that many "acute diseases" were really chronic ones with lomger or shorter periods of recurrence. The yearly flue is one of them.

What we see in acute disease are the primary actions of disease. The chronic diseases are the secondary actions of disease.

Similarly therefore, secondary symptoms still present themselves, if the remedy is taken long enough. Which means that the remedy is capable of also curing chronic disease.

Were the secondary action of remedies of no importance, then the treatment and even the theory of chronic diseases would become a mockery.
The first problem is that we only study an inferior materia medica, whoever wrote it. There are some that are better, such as earlier editions of the CD and the 12 volume MM by Allen. These have the times at which individual symptoms manifest themselves and which should be written down in temporary sequence. Rather than in the mishmash of the jumbled head-to-foot schema we have now, we would have a true living Materia Medica, Such MM follows the natural sequence of dsease from acute to chronic and thus from primary to secondary symptoms.
The second problem is that we do not study disease, but sets of seemingly unrelated symptoms in a divorced manner from nature and call it a case.
That infamous head-to-foot schema is completely spoiling so many cases.

Since disease follows a pattern, we must study and write MM according to those patterns.
Thus a case is taken on the basis of the reality of a sequence of symptoms. These symptoms follow a development with a definitive duration and period, speed, direction and intensity, as a quintessential picture of reality. The Time Modalities are therefore of primary importance, since sequential development takes place within a certain time frame.
Within this whole, all symptoms of the remedy are preset in the potency and include by necessity those of secondary nature, to enable the cure of secondary sumptoms in the chronically sick.
Thus hahnemann was incomplete in the Organon and completed everything in the CD, but forgot to mention the secondary symptoms in both disease and remedy as expressions of chronicity.
And Guillermo, what do you do when those symptoms you mention appear in the opposite sequence? You still give Opium because the primary action has now become secondary action and vice versa.
The same will happen with Camphora and any other remedy that is taken in sufficent quantity. The primary and secondary symptoms will begin to intermingle.
The same happens in a chronic dissease that has been suppressed or has remained untreated for many years.
This only proves the points i made in my answer to Hans.
Dr G and Kavi ~ You guys are way over my head ~ making my head spin and causing confusion. LOL

I think I understand there is primary and secondary action. This is a force, resistance, response. There are TWO movements. Yet, I also understand both of these forces are within the scope of the one vital force.
  • Maybe is this the TIME element of which Kavi speaks? First one and then the other? Or are they simultaneous? or the order of which does not always happen in only one direction?
  • The second point being quantity of remedy. That it can be very small. So small that it could be olfactory, etc.
  • The third point is the repetition of the dose, which is unnecessary because the vital force has already responded. And upon receiving the same dose more than once it pushes into the aggravation, the return of symptoms.

My question, may be off topic, comes in when the individual is taking a drug or other substance routinely, then we often give / repeat the remedy in LM doses, but slightly change the energetic vibration through dilution and succussion. This is the contemporary situation when so many people are taking antidepressants, antihistamines, anticoagulants, etc.

Throwing out another point, when we give a incorrectly matched remedy repetitively? If there is no correspondence between the remedy and the patient should there be no response? Then it becomes a PROVING if there is a response, but these symptoms are not common to the patient?
Debby, you say it is over your head, wheras it is very simple. You seem to have understood all too well. There are indeed 2 opposite reactions by the vital force to either a disease or a remedy. The TIME element is the sequence and speed of development and the local manifestation depends on direction and intensity.
Thus as an example we give a headach whereby there is also nausea. This begins as a headache and follows with nausea and possibly vomiting. so the pain has a period between the one symptom and the other. It also has a speed - how long did it take, and a direction - from the head to the stomach. The pain is intense and this causes nausea.

1. Sometimes they are simultaneous in Opium and Camphora, often called the most confusing remedies in the MM for that reason. These same remedies also often show them in reverse.

2. No matter how small it can elicit a reaction.
"The dose of the remedy can never be made too small." (Hahnemann Organon) Or even not be made small enough to not elicit a reaction.
If you repeat olfactory doses every 15 to 20 minutes, you WILL develop symptoms.

3. If you repeat olfactory doses every 15 to 20 minutes, you WILL develop symptoms. I am also certain that the routinely given LM doses create theirown problems.
V Boenninghuasens says, quoting Hahnemann:
“For a scientific establishment of the curative power and efficiency of the high potencies, we cite the well-established law of nature, discovered by Maupertuis and mathematically proved by him; this we apply to therapy. This is the law of the least effects, by others called the Lex parsimoniae. The discoverer stated it in the following words: ‘La quantite d’action necessaire pour causer quelque changement dans la nature, est la plus petite qu’il soit possible,’ i.e. the quantity of action necessary to produce any change in nature, is the smallest that is possible.”
(Von Boenninghausen The Lesser Writings)

Hahnemann said, that it is folly to use large means, where small means suffice.

“This law of effects (minimus maxima) appears therefore to be an essential and necessary complement to the law of homoeopathy (similia similibus) and to occupy a similar place with it.”
(Von Boenninghausen ‘The lesser writings.’ page 147))

Von Boenninghausen quotes Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases in his ‘Lesser Writings’ in the following passage:

“If…the medicines do not act out their full time, while they are still acting, the whole cure will amount to nothing.
(bold emphasis mine)
(Chronic Diseases page 124)

“To allow the dose of the medicine selected to complete its action undisturbed, so long as it visibly furthers the cure, a process which forbids every new prescription as also the repetition of the same remedy.” (emphasis mine)
(Chronic Diseases pgs 124-125)

As to your forelast point of habitual drugtakers:
Personally, when people come to my clinic i ask them to tell me if they accept me as their physician, if they are willing to live by my instructions. If they are, I forbid absolutely any intake of any substance other than food - which may carry its own restriction - and that they continue to take these things, i will not mop the floor while they keep the tap running.

• If he is also able to remove that which is an obstacle to cure, such as bad habits and the like, he is a true practitioner of the healing art.

4. He is likewise a preserver of health if he knows what deranges the health and how to remove this in his patients.
(Organon 3-4)

If you give an imperfectly matched remedy, repetiton will produce all symptoms, but some will be peculiar in that they were not present before ans indeed not common to the patient. That also should tell you immediately that you DO have the wrong remedy.
Dear members

In addition to my concise contribution yesterday, I want to look into two areas, but first, I like everybody concerned with this subject to take two double espresso coffees and then observe.

In such a crude form, we will experience first action and second action (which is opposed). And nothing can take away from personal experience.

By experience it was found, that if we decrease the first action, the second action will decrease. If we decrease the first action by further diminishing the input materialistically but potentising the medicine, then we get a much longer and profounder second action.

The first area I want to look at is the creation of materia medica.(pura)
If we admit all symptoms experienced in a proving (first and second action) it could easily happen, that symptoms are entered, which are opposed to first action symptoms of this remedy. As our selection has to rest on first action symptoms only (reason in my earlier post), a remedy selected on second action proving symptoms will be allopathic and not curative. ( a problem experienced in newer proving, where it is unclear)
Boenninghausen went through great lengths to separate second action symptoms from first action symptoms and entered only first action symptom (as good as possible) in the Therapeutic Pocketbook.

The second area is the initial question of this discussion.
If we repeat the exact same remedy in the exact same potency at a time when the second action to the previous dose has not ended, we antidote the effects partially or completely.
This is not so, if the next dose is increased somewhat in potency.
Explanation

I have to go back one step to outline the basis of my earlier contributions. It is a complex issue and takes some time to grab it.

In live, the liveforce will always balance itself. If it cannot find any sort of balance, it fails and death is the result.

If the life-force is affected by a disease creating natural dynamic influences, it first gets out of balance and then produces symptoms and signs on the outside to balance itself. Those symptoms are an exact counter-picture to the dynamic im-balancing influence affecting the live force.

Once this dynamic influence exhausts itself or is overpowered by the liveforce’s regulative measures, the liveforce returns to its normal equilibrium, and as a result of that withdraws the signs and symptoms on the outside. They are no longer necessary to survival.

If such a dynamic influence suddenly stops, the liveforce tends to overreact and by that overreaction expresses after-symptoms, or secondary symptoms, which are of opposite character to the primary symptoms expressed.

This principle was discovered by observation and applies to all dynamic influences to which the liveforce is susceptible to. There are individual differences of susceptibilities depending on the individual, health status etc.

The same principle applies to medical induced dynamic influences to the live force. In fact, only such substances are called medical, which have the ability to dynamically affect the liveforce. (poisons are substances which by their chemical qualities create alterations of tissues).

If the medical dynamical input was strong and short (par.:130 org.) we can observe first action and second action symptoms following each other clearly.

In disease, the individual expresses disease-symptoms to the outside. Those we can assess.
In homeopathy we find a remedy matching the disease- symptoms with first action symptoms of the remedy.

This is hat happens if we apply such a remedy:
The dynamic influence, being the counter-picture of the first reaction proving symptoms is similar to the already existing dynamic disease influence.
If it’s stronger, then the living principle will first look after this dynamic influence.
We know that it is stronger in the individual case if there is a homeopathic aggravation.
This stronger dynamic influence is overcome quickly (we know as soon as the hom. Agg .is over),-- and with it the natural dynamic disturbance.

What follows is recovery.
Dr Zamora,
Thanks for your comments, which I support.
If one do not know the primary action of a selected homeopathic remedy and secondary action of the vital force, then he or she need to study Organon of Medicine in detail again.
All true followers of Hahnemann and Organon of Medicine never fails in practice. We do mistakes in understanding and homeopathic pracitice and blame others.
PLEASE note that Homeopathy was not invented yesterday and already stood the test of time of more than 200 years. I feel sad to see negativeness, but I am always open to accept true scientific advances.
Best wishes
Homoeopathy is as old as the mountains and first written down in India's vedic books and has thus at least a recorded history of 5000 years.

amayã yas ca bhutanam yayate yena suvrata
tad eva hy āmayām dravyām na punāti cikītsitām

Oh good soul, does not a thing when applied therapeutically, cure a disease, which was caused by the very same thing?
(Vyasa K.D. Bhagavad Purāna 1/5/33)

Hahnemann "stumbled upon it by the grace of Providence," as he so aptly puts. He formulated its laws and principles in a systematic and comprehensive manner. We must simply follow it and be successful.
Weel, suppose the medicne on the first dose produces five symptoms, i.e. A, B, C, D, and E. After the second dose is given it will produce same or similar symptoms to that of A, B, C, D, and E. And then accoding to aphorism 26 and 29, the earlier if it is weaker (whcih it usually is), then it will be removed permanently or 'neutrslised'.
Not if the dose is given in the sane form Then you will aggravate those symptoms. Par 245 and following.

RSS

HWC Partners

RADIO & VIDEO SHOWS

© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...