Hi,
There was a discussion on this subject but I didn't have time to post this extract from the Hahnemannian Monthly of 1886. Hope I will not be hauled up for copyright infringement and such. Some one who knows the legalities may please enlighten me.

This article also touches on whether to use high or low potencies in critical conditions and why, which is also being discussed now on this list.

with best wishes,
V.T.Yekkirala.

16 The Hahnemannian Monthly. [August, 1866]

PROVINGS & OBSERVATIONS
CAMPHORA & CUPRUM MET BY B.FINCKE, M.D., N.Y.
<snip>

6. In as much as it is impossible to assign the precise limits between primary and secondary symptom; It appears to be inappropriate, for practical use, to divide upon the theoretical distinction between primary and secondary action. From the rapidity of action of Camphor, Hahnemann himself inferred that it is most difficult to understand, because the primary, secondary and alternate actions run into each other. That division is made on pure theoretical grounds; for, in the given ease, nobody can practically sever the primary action of the remedy from the secondary action of the organism. The fact is, that what we observe after the taking of a remedy, is already the result of the mutual action of the remedy and the organism; and hence it cannot be said. exactly to be1ong to either the one or the other. They both combine in order to give the observable symptom, and all we know of the remedy after its susception, is the symnpton appearing in the subsequent charge of the state of the organism from health to disease.

Now, this mutual action between a Organism and remedy actually continues as long as there is anything of the remedy or of the force it exerts, being left, and able to cause a change. And from this continued action we have a series of actions and reactions, or mutual actions, the terms of which are indicated by the symptoms appearing from time to time.

7. When, in the course of time, opposite or contrary symptoms make their appearance, as is frequently the case, it does not follow that this is a secondary action. Nor is it a secondary action when the organism tends to “indifferentiate itself (Org. § 64), that is, to prove its overweight by extinguishing the change caused, from outside, (by the remedy),” which is what Hahnemann rightly calls it, only a “Nachewirkung,” i.e., an after-action, simply followming the “Erstwirkung,” i. e, first-action, in the order of time.

All the symptoms indicating the actions of a remedy in the organism, are as one continuous curve, which may assume all possible shapes, including the contrariety of action, as well as the action’s tapering out to nothing, going on sometimes in a circle to its speedy termination, sometimes to a slower and more tedious end, in a more or less irregular line, frequently receding, and sometimes even assuming similar forms.

8. From these considerations it follows, that all the symptoms appearing in a healthy body, after the remedy has been taken, and every one of them have equal pathopoetic and pathoctonic value, being as curative in a given similar pathematic case, as it is probative in the present pathopoetic case, always provided, that precautions have been taken against other pathopoetic influences, affecting the organism during the time of the proving.

And here it will appear, how absurd it would be to take such a symptom, for instance, as the death-rattle, as diagnostic for cure by Camphor or Opium, because they, on poisoning, produce a similar death-rattle.

Nobody can blame homoeopathy if, notwithstanding the truth of the principle, Similia Similibus Curantur, she cannot always save the patient after a protracted or fatal disease. For, in such cases, the potentiality of the organism is too low to admit of the proper mutual action between organism and remedy, and hence the mutual action cannot take place at all, even if the remedy be suscepted at all. Where the potentiality of the organism is high enough for admitting the mutual action requisite for cure, there the infinitesimal dose of the Simile will certainly cure the similar rattle, and thus prevent its becoming a death-rattle. Thus it is explained how symptorns resulting from poisoning doses, are made available for cure.

9. Hering and Boenninghausen found that those symptoms which are the last to appear in a proving, are the most valuable, because they are characteristic of the remedy. This observation has been confirmed by competent observers, and it strengthens our proposition. At the same time, it admonishes us, to multiply provings by the potencies in single doses, with sufficient time for the full sway of their actions and reactions, in order to ascertain the proper and characteristic action of the remedy.

10. Unfortunately, Toxicology furnishes means enough to know the poisonous actions of the remedies, and they ought to be carefully observed and analyzed for our therapeutic use. But our problem is not to poison ourselves or our friends for the purpose of knowing the curative action of a remedy. The criterion, of a good proving is, not the relation to death, but it is the relation to disease shown by the perturbation of the oscillatory equilibrium of the healthy organism. For probative purposes, the rapidity of poisonous action does not help anything; it only confuses the observation. But the purely pathopoetic action, after showing as much rapidity and sufficient intensity, presents a clear conception and distinct detail of the picture, finer than that from toxical action.


11. With such amplification, our provings will become the blessings of the human race, if they are carefully pursued with all kinds of healthy people. That the provers them-selves can only gain by such proving, is well known. The action of the remedy in the organism serves as a most wholesome kind of infinitesimal gymnastic exercise in those parts which are net reached by the club, or the dumb-beIl of the gymnasium, useful as they are.

By the provings here reported, we observe that from the high potencies more symptoms have been experienced than from the low ones. From this the inference is, that these high potencies for probative purposes must be more available than low potencies.

And since the high potencies prove so efficacious in healthy persons, producing symptoms similar to such as are so much dreaded in a Cholera season; and since it is probable that where the susceptibility of a poison is very high, the lower potencies might have a tendency to produce a choleraic disposition; it would seem advisable, for preventives, to use only the higher potencies.

For in crude drugs and lower potencies, the tendency is towards poisoning, in the higher- potencies it is towards aegrotation.

13. Herein we perceive the reason, also, why the large doses of the Allopathic school prove murderous in Cholera, and often when used as prophylactic, tend to produce the very disease against which they were directed. The case of the “Virginia” is in point. When she sailed from Rotterdam, no case of sickness occurred in the first eight days, all the passengers having been well in the port. There was no Cholera in Germany at the time. And yet the Germans on board were by quarantine declared to be affected with Cholera, which the proper sanitary authorities failed to discover. These are contradictions, explained by the considerations, that after about a week, not only sea-sickness, but also worse diseases, may have been developed from the crowded, filthy, and unhealthy condition on board, especially among the German people, who never had been at sea, and are of cleanly and temperate habits (see the letter from the Hanseatic Legation; New York, May 31, 1866. Tribune, June 1, 1866); that they were treated, lege artis, by- the Allopathic emetics, purgatives and narcotics, so that, by the time they got to New York, a state of disease had developed on board which the quarantine, eager for prey, denounced as Cholera, but which the sanitary superintending officers failed to detect. (See Med. Surg. Reporter, vol. xiv., p 89(3.)
<snip>

I must beg to differ ,because I take the Kentian view , that AFTER a remedy is administered the emergent "symptoms" are an "overview " of any suppressions that have taken place.
The view that the body acts as a "tape recorder" and retains a record. This , in my view , is why the 're-appearance of old symptoms' is a sign that a return to health is in train.
Kent maintained that when the body's evolved natural ability to cure itself, was released by the appropriate remedy - then a house cleaning takes place and those things that are not required , are dispensed with , on the road to cure.

Quote:

8. From these considerations it follows, that all the symptoms appearing in a healthy body, after the remedy has been taken, and every one of them have equal pathopoetic and pathoctonic value, being as curative in a given similar pathematic case, as it is probative in the present pathopoetic case, always provided, that precautions have been taken against other pathopoetic influences, affecting the organism during the time of the proving.

Oh yes, that's what I always say too...those pathopoetic and pathoctonic values should always present in perfect perpendicular proportions, in order to promulgate a proper protocol during a proving.

PARDON?????

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris PARDON?????

pathopoiesis = the creation of disease
pathoctonus = the killing of appetite (passion); self restraint
pathema = any disease or morbid condition

We forget that these old guys (of whom Fincke was a shining star) knew the language. They used very exact terms and they were understood.

Sigh... how far we've come....

You want to read an earful? Try making your way through the Appendix of Fincke's "On High Potencies" where he attempts to explain the why of the action. VERY heady stuff...

JW

well pick a peck of pickled pepper !

:-)

Simon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian Try making your way through the Appendix of Fincke's "On High Potencies" where he attempts to explain the why of the action.

Do the "whys" matter?

I do not mean for possible, eventual recognition of homeopathy. This is a different consideration.

I mean for the therapy.

Regards

Luise

You got it :))
A perfectly proportioned and plausible reply!

He was a pathetic plower penning poetic-prose
Had no other hobby probably!
Like peeking on TV;
Up and down, up and down he plundered his potencies;
Pity him! I wonder, if only he knew,
Pleasures of playing on his pedal-guitar!
That is, if he had one!

With best wishes,
V.T.Yekkirala.

dear dr yekkirala,

I would like to clearly understand some aspects of the primary and secondary symptoms phenomenon.

may I request you to write a paragraph or two on the primary and secondary symptoms and how they are associated with cure and healing / suppression; separate analysis from the view point of 1) homeopathic similimum and 2) allopathic drug.

we may have a discussion after that.

best regards,
dr manish agarwala