CURRENT APPROACH TO HOMŒOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY
ORGANON § 35 - JEREMY SHERR
(RBH. XXXXI, 2&4/2004)
Thank you very much to all the people who invited me here, it’s a great honor to be here today and to all the organizers of this conference, to Eric Vanden EYNDE, to Daniel SAELENS, especially to my good friend Jacques IMBERECHTS. And all the other people that make that day a success.
You know Homœopathy is very popular in England now. We even had a football match between the homœopaths and the allopaths. Well, the allopaths after five minutes were discouraged and gave up and they left the game, about 25 minutes later the homœopaths got a goal!
We have a full day ahead and I’d like to do as much as possible with you. We have many subjects to cover. Most of you know me in connection with Provings. But rarely my belief in Homœopathy is that the central thing to study is Philosophy. I believe, if we know Philosophy, we rarely become homœopaths, we become true homœopaths. Knowing three thousand remedies, doesn’t make a person a homœopath. We first of all have to know: where we’re coming from and where we’re going, and how we are going to get there.
So I’d like to spend at least part of this day covering a particular topic of Philosophy and as you know this will be concerning dissimilar diseases, which is a very important aspect of the Organon. These are concerning things that we see every day, but sometimes we call them different names. So I think it is important to have the traditional name and the very logical understanding of HAHNEMANN. I teach the Homœopathic Philosophy from the Organon. But the Organon for me is not the Bible; it’s just a book I love very much. If it’s logical it’s good, if it’s not logical it’s not good. But until today I haven’t found anything not logical in there. So let us start with a particular paragraph, let’s go to paragraph thirty five.
Paragraph 35 is not an important paragraph, it’s one of the paragraphs that comes in between and is just a connection paragraph. Nevertheless, I’m going to start from there so we can be in contact with all this is about. HAHNEMANN says: “In order to illustrate this, we shall consider three different cases, as well what happens in nature when two dissimilar natural diseases meet together in one person, as also the result of the ordinary medical treatment of diseases with unsuitable allopathic drugs, which are incapable of producing an artificial morbid condition similar to the disease to be cured, whereby it will appear that even Nature herself is unable to remove a dissimilar disease already present by one that is unhomœopathic, even though it be stronger, and just as little is the unhomœopathic employment of even the strongest medicines ever capable of curing any disease whatsoever.”
What does he mean in the first sentence: in order to illustrate this? What is this? So for that we have to go back one paragraph, to see what this is all about. So paragraph 34 is a very important paragraph, it is one of the most essential paragraphs of the Organon. And it is a paragraph you all know and it doesn’t need much explanation, so I will go over it quickly.
§34: “The greater strength of the artifical disease producible by medicine is, however, not the sole cause of their power to cure natural diseases. In order that they may affect a cure, it is before all things requisite that they should be capable of producing in the human body an artificial disease as similar as possible to the disease to be cured, which, with somewhat increased power, transforms to a very similar morbid state the instinctive life principle, which in itself is incapable of any reflection or act of memory. It not only obscures, but extinguishes and thereby annihilates the derangement caused by natural disease. This is so true, that no previously existing disease can be cured, even by Nature herself, by the accession of a new dissimilar disease, be it ever so strong, and just as little can it be cured by medical treatment with drugs which are incapable of producing a similar morbid condition in the healthy body.”
Very simple! We all know this. This is basically HAHNEMANN’s declaration of the Law of Similars. Nevertheless, he says that we need two factors, he says in this paragraph, not only similarity but also an increased strength, that the medicine is stronger than the disease.
Now the interesting sentence here is: this is so true. That means that this is a universal law. There are two kinds of laws: universal laws and man-made laws. There are not many universal laws and there are many man-made laws: don’t park in front of the shop, don’t start a case with Lycopodium, do not give Lachesis on a Tuesday. People make up many laws: do not repeat the Nosodes. You can pay attention to these laws but you don’t have to obey them. But when he says: “this is so true”, that means this is universal truth.
And the negative of that is even more interesting. When he says: “This is so true, that no previously existing disease can be cured, even by Nature herself, by the occasion of a new dissimilar disease, be it ever so strong…”. That anything that is not the Law of Similars cannot work, it could not work in the past, it cannot work now and it will not work in the future. It’s impossible for a dissimilar disease to cure anything. This is what HAHNEMANN says. That means that in a way it’s made life quite easy for us. When somebody comes and sells you a bottle of medicine and tells you this is good for everything and everybody, you know it is no good. Any new medicine they tell about in the newspaper: “this is good for Arthritis, this is good for a heart disease”, you know it is no good. It’s impossible for them to truly cure, so let you save a lot of money. Even in herbal medicine or Chinese medicine, it’s impossible for it to work if it’s not similar; I’m not saying that it doesn’t work, I’m saying that Chinese medicine will only work if it is similar to the case. However we have to qualify what we mean with the word: “will work”. To work is different from to truly cure. And HAHNEMANN is talking about true cure over here. That means that non-similar diseases or medicines are able to affect the case, they can palliate and they can suppress but not cure.
Now if we draw a hypothetical line of disease. That means that there is only one kind of medicine that will cure or help that case. All the other possibilities will never cure. Now this is the interesting line: this is the line that is the line of most susceptibility in the person, this is the line of weakness, it’s the line where disease can enter and in the same place it’s the line where a remedy can enter and at the same it is the truth of the patient. Now I don’t know if you have ever taken a case and tried to tell the persons the truth about themselves; you know when you feel you rarely understand the person very well and you can see their truths and you try to explain it to them. Have you ever done that? Do the patients like it? No, they don’t like it at all! If you tell them the real truth, they will deny it, that’s how you know you hit the sore point. Because nobody wants to know the truth, if people wanted to know the truth there would be no disease.
So each one of us has its own little truth, one person’s truth is another person’s delusion. If somebody comes and tells me there is a dog under the bed, this is for me their delusion but for him it is truth. If you tell him there is no dog under the bed, he will go to another doctor. That is why we don’t use isopathic medicine. Homœopathy is not the medicine of same; it is the medicine of similars. The medicine of the same is too painful.
If you want to tell the person the truth, you should tell it by analogy. That is why we have for instance the art of story telling. There is a story in the Bible about King DAVID; he was lying on a roof one day, sunbathing and he looked across the road and he saw a beautiful woman lying naked on another roof, also sunbathing. He thought she looked very nice, the only problem was that she was married. But her husband was in the army. So he thought may be I do a little experiment: I will send her husband into the frontline and see what happens. And what do you think happened? The same as to all soldiers in the frontline: he was killed. Now she was no longer married, he took her for a wife, number 942 and he was happy.
Now there was a prophet NATHAN and the role of the prophet in those days was the same as the role of the joker. The joker in the court of the king has the role to tell the king the truth. Now what do you think happened if the joker told the king the real truth? You think the king would like it? Or do you think the king would cut his head off? (It is like a Georgia at the moment.) If you try to tell the king the truth, he won’t like it. So the joker has to tell the truth in a way of analogy: a little story or may be a song or a poem and then the truth goes in, in a more gentle way.
The prophet NATHAN came to the King DAVID and he told him a story; he said there is a man living down the road, he is a very poor man, he has only one little sheep but he loves his sheep very much. And there is another man in the same village that’s very rich and has ten thousand sheep. And this rich man was thinking all day long about this one little sheep and he wanted that sheep so badly to make his collection complete. So one night he sent some people and they stole the sheep from the poor man. King DAVID was very angry when he heard the story. He said: “Who is this man? Bring him to me!” And NATHAN didn’t say anything and went …. Quickly…. Then King DAVID had to start thinking, and slowly, slowly, slowly he began to realize what he had done. This of course brought about the aggravation in the beginning but later on realization and cure. This is why we don’t use medicine of same. The medicine of similars can also be a song or a poem, or a picture or a word that is an analogy to the true problem. So Homœopathy is a gentle way of telling the truth.
But there is another force that is happening on this line. If this is the force of similars, this is the force of opposities. What do we call the force of opposites? It is not allopathy, it is antipathy, like an antipathic person. -HIPPOCRATES says there are two kinds of medicines: medicine of similar, of same and medicine of opposites. Now this medicine of opposites is quite logical: if you burn your hand put it in cold water, if you have a fever go into a cold bath and it works. I’m sure that your grand mother told you this. But it has to be accurate; meaning; if you’re treating heat, you have to treat it with absolute cold. Now, there are times that HAHNEMANN recommended the medicine of opposites., beause there is rarely not a big difference or no difference at all between the opposiste and the same, and that is because every force contains the opposite and the same, and that is because every force contains the opposite force with him: a remedy that can make you hot can also make you cold, we call that primary and secondary reaction as you know. It’s like Opium that makes you either sleepy or sleepless. So who do you give Opium to a sleepy person or a sleepless person? So if you give Opium to a sleepy person because that is similar to his sleepiness person you are using the law of opposites, supposedly.
That means that in fact the medicine of opposites is a perfect lie; opposite to the perfect truth. But the perfect lie always has some truth in it. Because each side contains the opposite of the other. For example, if a person burns his hand and you put it in cold water and you take it out, it will feel hot. That means each side can produce the opposite.
So why do we use a medicine of similars and not opposites? If we say that rarely opposites are a possibility, we do use opposite in fact. The reason is because it is very difficult to find the opposite. It is easy to say hot and cold but what is the opposite of the delusion there is a dog under the bed? Delusion, there is no bed or no dog? Or the dog is a cat? It is impossible! But the Law of Similars is totally easy and logical to apply.
Nevertheless, when do we use the law of the opposites? In life threatening situations. For instance most homœopaths know that if they burn their hand, it is very good to put the hand next to the source of the heat. Have you ever done that? You burn your hand in the hot water and you say ok, I’ll put it next to the hot water, one dose, two doses, three doses… and it will be better. If you put it in cold water, it will be immediately better and then you will have pain for six weeks. If you put it next to the heat it will be immediately worse: aggravation, and then it will be better.
This is good for first degree burns and may be second degree burns, but if you have third degree burns and you put the person next to the source of the heat may be they will be better but not in this life time! You can’t do that.
So when the situation is life threatening, HAHNEMANN says: “use the law of the opposites”. Because when a person is very sick, you cannot tell them the truth even by analogy. If you have a person who is about to die or who is very sick or has a severe disease or dementia for instance, Alzheimer …Psychosis…
You cannot tell them the truth. You have to tell them lies. HAHNEMANN tells that about threatening the terminally insane, the severely insane, in incurable diseases.
HAHNEMANN says in the end of this paragraph only similars will cure, nothing but similars will cure. Now I believe that to be true homœopaths we have to live our life homœopathiquely. Being a homœopath is not just about giving remedies. And I was thinking to myself, how do I use this principle of similars in my personal life?
And I had the experience of a case that has not been cured: my first marriage. You know, Woody ALLEN says: “A wife is for now but an ex-wife is forever.” So I was thinking about my first marriage and why it was not cured and of course about all the cases that we see before us of relationships that have difficulties. And the usual phenomenon is that people start with slight disagreements and then go into more intense arguments and then go into shouting and then screaming and then violence and then silence.
So I realize that this can not be a homœopathic approach in the relationship. The Law of Similars is based upon respect. It means that even if I don’t agree with your truth that there are dogs under the bed; I will give you a medicine to say yes there are dogs under the bed. I respect that you are different and that you have your own opinion. I call it the poker principal, I see you and I raise you one: it means that I will give you more; I will give you more dogs under the bed. Just to make sure I respect your opinion. It means you have to hear the person that is in front of you. Why does the fighting couple shout louder and louder, and louder..?
Because they are not listening to each other, they are listening to themselves. So I try to devise a method that will work in relationships and I did devise such a homœopathic method and it works. So I’ll tell you about it. It means applying the Law of Similars to your partner. So you take the person that you love to hate and hate to love, your friendly enemy and you sit down together.
And now you are going to start because you are the homœopath and you will tell them everything that happen between you from their point of view, every time they were angry with you or upset with you in exactly their words and in their feelings; to demonstrate to them that you rarely are hearing them exactly.
And you will go over every little incident that was a problem between you. And one thing you cannot do, you cannot explain your point of view or give any of your excuses not even for one second. Nobody is interested.
Because the other person has heard your story for the last twenty two years; now you are showing to them that you heard them. And they can stop you at any time, and they can correct you or change what you say or remind you of something you forgot. And you do that for as long as it takes, three hours or three days. And you try to do it in a way that is expressing their feelings about it.
That means that you say : “I know that when I didn’t come to pick you up from the train station that day you were very upset, and you sat in the cold for ten minutes and you felt very forsaken and very angry. Now if you can do that and to do that you need to be very brave (but homœopaths are brave people otherwise they wouldn’t be homeopaths).
You will find that you can transform all the suppressed feelings from all those years. Issues that ten years with a psychiatrist will not change. And the people, the many couples I know who have done that, have resolved many issues in their relationship, because you can not resolve any problem by another way than the law of similar. And if we can do this, we slowly become truly homoeopathic inside.
Question: When you tell your wife all her feelings is it isopathy?
Good question. Yes it is Isopathy, if you want to be really homœopathic about it you have to write a poem for her. And the poem must tell everything she felt about for the last twenty years. It is a more sophisticated way, but it is more difficult. I believe poetry is very much like a homœopathic remedy. Because one of the principles of poetry is: less is more. If you are writing prose you try to put in many more words, if you want to turn that prose into a poem just take out two thirds of the words and it will be a poem. But a poem also has rhythm. Rhythm is like succession. You can read a hundreds of poems and they are interesting and then one poem will go deep inside. So if you can write one for your wife or husband like that, then that would be rarely Homœopathy, or may be make a statue, it is an analogy, allegory.
Now if your relationship is terminal it may be too difficult to do this, if you are already talking to each other through lawyers…”dommage”
But it is not only between husband and wife; you can do it also with your daughter or your son or your mother…
Anyhow, I hope it may help you, or your patients if they need it.
And now we can move to § 35 which is where we started, in which HAHNEMANN says:
§35: In order to illustrate this, we shall consider in three different cases, as well what happens in nature when two dissimilar natural diseases meet to in one person, as also the result of the ordinary medical treatment of diseases with unsuitable allopathic drugs, which are incapable of producing an artificial morbid condition similar to the disease to be cured, whereby it will appear that even Nature herself is unable to remove a dissimilar disease already present by one that is unhomœopathic, even though it be stronger, and just as little is the unhomœopathic employment of even the strongest medicines ever capable of curing any disease whatsoever.
What he says here is that nature can also cure if it is homœopathic. Meaning sometimes nature will cure without a remedy.
For instance a person may be suffering from Arthritis with swollen red joints and they get stung by a bee and they get better. It happens all the time.
But now he is giving us the introduction to non-similar diseases. And here we go to what he said: three examples, three different cases.
Now we go to § 36. So far the introduction.
§36: If the two dissimilar diseases meet together in the human being of an equal strength, or better, if the older one is the strongest, the new disease will be repelled by the old one from the body and not allowed to affect it. A patient suffering from a severe chronic disease will not be infected by moderate autumnal dysentery or other epidemic diseases. The plague of the Levant, according to Larry does not break out where scurvy is prevalent, and persons suffering from Eczema are not infected by it. Rachitis, JENNER alleges, prevents vaccination from taking effect. Those suffering from pulmonary consumption are not liable to be attacked by epidemic fevers of a not very violent character, according to Von HILDENBRAND.
I’m sleeping now! Why? Because it is boring!
Have any of you ever seen “the plague of the Levant”? Anybody seen it? No. Even epidemic fevers, we don’t see so many. Not like a hundred years ago. How does that apply to our reality? That is what we have to look at to translate this paragraph into today’s criteria. HAHNEMANN is talking about the first case of dissimilar diseases.
The whole principle of a remedy meeting a disease or two diseases meeting each other is about two energies that are meeting. When we talk each other they need to have a similar quality in order to affect each other. Imagine a cannon ball flying through the air and you trying to affect it with radiowaves. Is it possible? Only if the radio waves are immensely strong. So the two forces need to have some similar qualities i.e. the two diseases. But two forces meeting, is basic Newtonian physics, two vectors meeting.
Now the first case is when the existing vector is much stronger than the new vector.
We have the old disease, and we have a new disease.
And the new disease is weaker than the old disease, HAHNEMANN said: nothing will happen. You have a canon ball and you have a radio wave, nothing will happen.
If the new disease was in the same line, we know that something would happen.
But when we say dissimilar there are many degrees of dissimilarity. So there are two factors that will affect what happens in this meeting. One is the relative strength and the other is relative direction. In the similar direction you need very little force. In the non-similar direction you need maximum force. How do you call this non-similar direction of 90°? Allopathy.
Allopathy, i.e. that it has no connection, no logical connection to the disease. “Allo’ means other. For example: Your child falls down the stairs and hurts his head. The antipathic approach of opposites is to say shut up, don’t cry, it doesn’t hurt. It works! The child stops crying, he goes to sleep, he has nightmares and stomach ache all night, and he has to go to a Psychiatrist for 20 years.
The homœopathic approach is to say: Oh my God that must really hurt, I once fell off the stairs too, it was so painful I cried for three days. At that moment the child will stop crying. They call it reverse psychology. But it is not reverse, it is through psychology.
Now, what is Allopathy? Your child is crying on the floor, you say: “There, there is an airplane, there is a tractor.”… Like what? The child thinks: ‘my father is nuts!’ what does the airplane has to do with my head? It is the medicine of denial. Now, in order to work it has to be a strong force, it has to be a very interesting airplane. So allopathy will only affect the case if it is very powerful. You need a bulldozer to push a case over with Allopathy. However, what we need to understand is that modern medicine is not Allopathy. Most of modern medicine is based on a primitive Homœopathy or a primitive antipathy. For example vaccination is a homœopathic principle but it is very primitive because it is not individualized and because it needs large quantities. Nevertheless nobody can deny that it is based on the laws of similarity. Most of modern medicine is crudely Homœopathy, otherwise nothing would happen. And we know that with modern medicine things do happen. Chemotherapy is crudely similar to Cancer as is Radiotherapy.
But there are four principles in Homœopathy:
- and less is more.
Modern medicine is only using similarity, crude similarity but not the three other principles. If modern medicine used allopathy they would not be in business and meanwhile they are doing very good business.
Therefore, what we see is, that the more similar a force, the less is needed. If you are wanting to use Allopathy, you need a bulldozer. If you use Homœopathy one dose of 10M is enough, (which is nothing!) In this case the new disease is too weak to affect the old disease. But we said that HAHNEMANN’s examples are not so interesting for us. Let’s think of a case, for instance a Natrum muriaticum case. These persons have suffered from grief for all their life; their father died when they were young, and their boy friend was killed in an accident, and their first husband left, and the second is constantly sick. Grief and love – disappointment, all their life. And then one day, they lose 10 ·. How long do you think it is going to affect them? Twenty minutes? Will they remember it one year later? No, if they come to the Homœopath after 10 · , are they going to say: “You know, five years ago I’ve lost five euro, it was so painful for me.” I don’t think so. This is a problem that is so painful for me.” I don’t think so. This is a problem that is a weaker similar disease. However if this person had a little bird, a canary, and the canary died. That would affect the Natrium muriaticum very badly. Even after ten years he will tell the Homœopath: “And you know my canary died”. Because that is a similar direction.
Now let’s take a Psorinum patient who is always affected by losing money. Their father went bankrupt and lost all his money, the bank collapsed and all their savings were lost. They had a business and their business collapsed. They are a very good Psorinum. And now, one day they lose 10 ·. It is going to affect them? Yes very badly. They say: “I’ve lost everything and now I lost 10 ·. May be that 10 · will throw them into Cancer or chronic disease. Because it is a minimum stimulus in the most painful point. But if that Psorinum has a little canary and the canary died it is not a big problem (depending on the price of the canary!! That is why I say a canary and not an African parrot. They will not tell the Homœopath for 10 years: “my canary died”.
They will only tell the things that are on the line of their case, they will not tell all the other little things that happened to them. That is why, when I take a case, I don’t ask many questions. I don’t dig too deep into the past and I don’t dig too deep into the subconsciousness. I prefer to stand back and see what floats up. They have this expression in English, I don’t know if I’m allowed to say it over here? They say: “shit floats!” you just have to see back and look what is coming up. But if you did and digged into the subconscious, even in the Psorinum patient you will find the canary. And in the Natrum muriaticum patient, if you dig deep enough you will find the 10 · . And this will confuse you.
There is a kind of Homœopathy which gives a remedy for every causation that happened to the patient. For instance if the patient had a love disappointment and ten years ago they had a head injury and twenty years ago they lost their job and thirty years ago they were a baby. According to this system: you give Ignatia, Natrum sulfuricum, Aurum and Calcarea carbonica. And this is trying to cure every cause that happened during the existence but this doesn’t make sense to me! Because many of the causes are not similar to the case. We have to look only at the causes that hit the poor person on the most sensitive point, of most susceptibility.
To summarize §36: Any cause that is not similar to the case will not affect the person and we do not need to consider it.
Before we go to the break, we are going to talk about three cases of dissimilar diseases. And this is half of the first case.
Thank you …. Pause
So before I continue are there any questions?
Q: In the case of the child falling down the stairs you have not spoken about the fact that the child could turn back to the stairs and hit it. How does this fit in your reasoning?
This case of the child falling down the stairs and doing it again or hitting the stairs is Isopathy, this is treating two different cases in the same way. And Isopathy is very crude. You know when you began to study Homœopathy and you explain it to your brother in law. And he says: “So if I hit my head with a hammer, you will hit it with a hammer?” … It is always the brother in law!
But Arnica is analogy to falling down the stairs.
Isopathy is treating similar cases in the same way!
So did I understand the question right? No
So there are two points: The child falls off the stairs, and goes again and falls again off the stairs. By himself. He is trying to apply a kind of Isopathy. But the other things are: the child falls down the stairs, gets angry and stags, hits, screams, does whatever against the stairs. Then the Homœopathic way, would be to show that you understand or reflect the anger, and to say for instance: “I fell down the stairs once and I was very angry too, I can understand why you are angry.” Something like that for instance. That would be trying to apply analogy. In both cases, the most subtle you can act, the better. Not directly in the same way. If you know NLP, it can be helpful to you.
But with NLP you need to be careful because you can do it in an Homœopathic way or in an Allopathic way. For instance you can use NLP to convince some body to come and buy your motorcar even if they don’t want it.
Any other question?
Q: To illustrate dissimilar diseases: in the case of an asthmatic child that, after a certain treatment develops the measles when in the past he didn’t. Even if there was an epidemy in the school.
Q: And in another case of incurable disease, where the patient is about to die, you said we need to lie to the patient. Does it have to be related to the reality of the patient, to the fact that he is religious minded or not?
I will first answer the question and then reply to the statement.
For the terminal patient: if they have more awareness, can you tell them the truth? And the answer is a limited yes. The more aware the person is and the more understanding the person is, the more you can tell them the truth. But even the most aware person has a place where it is very painful to go. But if we had a true master who was able to understand very easily and immediately what is happening then we could tell them. But you have to understand that what you tell them may be a paradox to their beliefs of their entire life. The gate to truth is always through paradox. When you first heard about Homœopathy it was a big paradox: one cure heals the other. But immediately something suited. Because you have a big awareness, consciousness and flexibility. But when you say the same thing to your brother in law… nothing happens!! So anybody that is able to accept a paradox will be able to move to the next level. For instance when I told you today that the law of opposites is also a good medicine, but you didn’t put me on the plane back to England, for me this was a very good sign. But remember that a homœopathic remedy is more than just a psychological truth. We may be dealing with physical diseases. However I will explain something more in this regard.
I think that Dr. FAYETON was talking to you about euthanasia yesterday. The way I captured it:
There are three stages in a disease:
Number one is the entire life of the patient: and in that stage you can give them their constitutional remedy and tell them the truth in that manner. If they go into a severe terminal illness, a serious Cancer or Cirrhosis of the Liver, they come to stage number two where you can not give the constitutional remedy anymore. It is too deep, too late. And that was the experience of all classical Homœopaths, including KENT and HAHNEMANN.
Especially if the first remedy was a big antipsorics the second stage would be the second resumption of the disease that covers up the real symptoms of the constitution.
For instance if a person has Diarrhoea for his entire life and now he has a tumor pressing down his colon and causing constipation. The constipation is not a real symptom, but it is a secondary symptom or a result of the disease. We need to contract the totality. The totality of symptoms gets smaller and we give a remedy that is maybe Tarentula cubensis, a remedy for terminal diseases. It is a lie, it is not the truth but it is too late to tell them what is going on. It is just like you having some young person around who is constantly eating noisy, they eat with their mouth open: you can tell them the truth at this very time. But when they are old and sensitive and very sentimental, it is too late to tell them, so you must keep it for yourself. Give them good food and let them make the noise. However in stage three, this is the stage just before the patient dies, the last few hours of life. And in this stage you can give the true remedy. And if the person is not taking heavy drugs, and you can observe them closely you will see their deep nature. And then you can give them the true remedy or the one that you see as a high potency and it will help them to get through and that way they will die peacefully. So you need to lie to get to the very essence of the case.
So this is concerning the question, regarding the observation. I think I totally agree and it justifies this paragraph. You know when people say: “I didn’t get any acute disease during the last three years.” It is either a very good sign or a very bad sign, usually a bad sign; meaning that they are not healthy enough to get an acute disease. And that is why a child with chronic Asthma may not be infected by an epidemic disease. But if you give them a remedy and they become healthier, then they will be able to get infected. Likewise a person with Cancer will not be infected with Influenza.
Ok until here?
Now we are going to § 37:
“So, also under ordinary medical treatment, an old chronic disease remains uncured and unaltered if it is treated according to the common allopathic method, that is to say, with medicines that are incapable of producing in healthy individuals a state of health similar to the disease, even though, the treatment should last for years and is not of a too violent character.1 This is daily witnessed in practice, it is therefore unnecessary to give any illustrative examples.”
But if treated with violent allopathic remedies, other diseases will be formed in its place which are more difficult and dangerous to life.
If a patient comes to you and says: “I have been taking Valium for four years”. And you see this Valium is not doing anything, they still have the same anxiety it is a weaker dissimilar disease. If a patient is taking vitamins and again nothing happens, it is a weaker dissimilar disease. So people are taking these things all the time: weak medicines that do not do anything. That means that § 37 is the same as § 36 but regarding artificial disease.
For this reason sometimes you get a patient that has been going to some Homœopaths who prescribe daily remedies, for example an anthroposophy. You have a patient that goes to an anthroposophy and he receives Pulsatilla 12 every day during 6 years, 200 every day during 2 years. When they come to you, you wonder why they are not blond with blue eyes. Nothing happened! Because the medicine is dissimilar and it is weaker and it doesn’t affect them. Even if it would affect them less in a 200 than in a 12C. Because the less similar the medicine the more of it you need! You can affect somebody profoundly with a 10M, but it has to be defined. Most of the people with a medical treatment have a weaker dissimilar disease. People come with a medical list like that and usually nothing happens. ‘ca ne fait rien!’ You know people taking sleeping tablets. Research has shown that these sleeping tablets have no effect after two or three weeks. Most of the effect is psychological.
So HAHNEMANN says I don’t need to tell you this, I don’t need to give examples, you see it every day in the clinic….