Legatum Homeopathicum newsletter #38

From: "Legatum Homeopathicum" <newsletter@legatum.sk>
Subject: Legatum Homeopathicum newsletter #38
Date: April 29th 2015

Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your browser.

Legatum Homeopathicum

Wednesday 29th, April 2015

Dear subscriber,

the prize winnner of the Quiz from the previous issue of our newsletter is Beatrix Leifeld. Congratulations and please contact us regarding the delivery of the prize!

With homeopathy constantly under attack, it may be worthwhile to remember one of the things that are rarely emphasized and are one of the keystones to understanding homeopathy. When the critics demonstratively swallow random granules of homeopathic remedies (homeopathic with regards to the mode of preparation, and not neccessarily homeopathic in their effects) to prove their inertness, this is generally quite safe for them to do, because of the standard dose-reaction experience which plainly says the larger the dose, the stronger the reaction of the body. With some experience with one's reaction to doses of various substances, it is quite safe to assume a highly diluted substance (as used in homeopathy) will make little to no impression on the organism.

This, of course, is true only when the swallowed substance's medical range is dissimilar to the disease symptoms produced by the organism. If IT IS similar, the experience teaches us, the organism becomes INCREDIBLY SENSITIVE to that particular substance and a standard dose-reaction model no longer applies. Then and ONLY THEN can we use our highly-diluted remedies with any kind of positive expectations. It is a same thing as hitting the right frequency which creates a resonance capable of destroying an object with very little energy (such as human voice shattering glass objects or mechanical resonance destroying buildings).

What the critics do not realize is a fact that Hahnemann only employed these minutest doses as a reaction to the terrible aggravations his patients experienced when taking the usual doses of the substances selected on the base of similarity of symptoms. Hahnemann diluted and decreased the dose as much as possible while still being able to elicit a curative reaction.

You may remember the case of colicodynia reported by Hahnemann. It was cured by Verat. alb. in 4 gr. doses. The aggravation was so intense that, to use the patient's own expression, he "wrestled with death," covered with cold sweat, and almost suffocated. The remedy was homoeopathic and a cure resulted; but it might just as surely and more promptly have followed the minimum dose, and saved the terrible suffering. Hahnemann learned a lesson from the case, and was forced, as we are, to accept the fact that, to perform the safest, quickest, and pleasantest cure, we must seek to administer a dose just sufficient, “simply this and nothing more;” and repetition has as much to do with it as the size of the single dose or the potency."

E.B.Nash: "It is well understood that the primary effect of a drug prescribed homoeopathically, acting in the direction of the disease as it does, must be to cause (even though it be so slight as to be imperceptible) a temporary aggravation. Hahnemann teaches that the dose must be large enough to produce this aggravation in order to be curative (§ 279 and 280).

Again, it is well understood, that it is the secondary effect or reaction that cures. This being true, the violence and duration of the primary effect, of course, must pass away before the cure begins. What, then, would be the result if the dose were too large, or too frequently repeated? Evidently, in the first case, unnecessary suffering from too intense aggravation; in the second, hindered reaction or cure. These truths seem self-evident.

Then it seems to me that there can be but one correct rule, and that is, to repeat the dose when reaction (curative action) ceases. How frequently the dose must he repeated on account of expended reaction, must depend upon both the individual and the disease with which we have to do.

As some individuals are more susceptible to drug action than others, and require the small or smallest dose to affect them, so some are possessed of stronger reactive power, and the response to the proper remedy will be more lasting. Violent, acute diseases, attacking persons in full vigor and progressing rapidly, call for more frequent repetition of the remedy than chronic diseases. Hahnemann speaks in the paragraph above referred to of the proper dose being able to cure a portion of the disease. Every dose just sufficient is followed by reaction if it is administered after reaction ceases, or where disease action is in the ascendency. If administered in sufficient doses to impress either in health or during reaction, its effect is primary, in the first condition (health) causing disease action, in the latter (reaction) hindering the cure.

It may take more than one dose, especially if the first dose is not large enough, to get the impression that always resides in the homoeopathic remedy; but just as soon as that impression is obtained, the remedy should be discontinued so long as improvement continues.

A remedy may, and often has been repeated, after sufficient has been administered to set up curative action, and the result is, the case is either made worse, held in status quo, or recovers more slowly than it would have done if the remedy were properly given. The habit of doing something, so long as the patient is not quite well, even though he may be convalescent, is often productive of harm.

In very acute diseases it may be necessary to repeat very often until an effect is evident. In chronic diseases, improvement once begun, may continue from a single dose even for months, or until cure. We should always remember that reaction cures our patient; not the primary action; primary action is always in the direction of the disease; while reaction only is in the direction of health."

If you have any comments, questions etc., feel free to contact us.

Eds.

 

Question for André Saine

Q: How many times should an anti-psoric remedy of the same potency be ideally repeated? Is there some advisable restrictions on the number of times that the repetition should be done?

A: In order to obtain a rapid, gentle and certain recovery of health, posology, which entails potency, repetition and way of administering the remedy, must be optimal. Therefore, at all times, posology must be closely individualized as every patient’s circumstances... Read the full answer »

Do you have a question of your own? You can submit it here.

 

Recommended article – Lippe's Clinical Reflection

In this article, Dr. Lippe shares one of his cases and illustrates the apparent simplicity of the homeopathic method, when mastered properly.

Read the article here. »

 

The newsletter archive of Legatum Homeopathicum can be found here.
To be informed about all activities and updates related to Legatum Homeopathicum, you can also follow us on Twitter.



<< Previous: Legatum Homeopathicum newsletter #37

| Archive Index |

 

(archive rss , atom rss/atom )

Forward to a Friend




As the final step, please type in the string of letters that you see in the below image into the text box:


(CAPTCHA is case sensitive)

this list's archives:


Mailing list to keep you informed about latest Legatum Homeopathicum activities, progress of our projects, special deals, important homeopathic events, interesting homeopathic articles, provings, additions to homeopathic corpora on our web site etc. Estimated frequency of mailings is biweekly.

Subscribe to Legatum Homeopathicum mailing list

* Required