The text you are refering to is interesting.
But you do not seem to have read it carefully. Your words do NOT sum it up correctly. You may reread the § plus footnote and note which precisely defined cases Hahnemann is refering to. You will then recognize that the case you described here ( unless extremely distorted in your description ) does by no means fall into the type mentioned by H., and that neither your generalization ( in your last post ) catches what he tries to express.
Please be always very careful when backing up something with Organon §§s, even when tentatively and only in a questioning way ( as you did here ). Misquotes and -representations seem to be almost as widespread as correct ones, so a more careful attitude should be demanded from the teriffic "Homoeopathic community" in this ( as well as in many other ) regard(s).

And since you mentioned it:
If you look a tiny bit further you may also read the following § ( 283 ) which should teach a thing in general, and with regard to this case as well.
The games repeatedly played here are sickening.
But never mind and happily continue entertaining yourself: that's what this "Home of H." ( of all names ! ) platform is for, is it not ?

Panthera