Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 215

ress at all, I am forced to make another prescription. Let us hope that it will not disrupt any beneficial effect which might be occurring from the first remedy.” Once the patient realizes by such a threat that later prescriptions can seriously interfere with the action of the first remedy, he or she is much more likely to try harder to describe the true situa- tion. It is in such moments that the real picture comes out.
There are numerous examples which could be cited to demonstrate the traps into which homeopaths and patients can fall. In this chapter, I shall attempt to describe the most common ones in my own experi- ence. To thoroughly delineate every possible response to remedies in every conceivable situation would be impossible. Such knowledge can only come from experience. Nevertheless, the examples given in this chapter are an attempt to describe the most characteristic responses, their interpretations, and the appropriate therapeutic actions.
To begin with, we must offer a clear definition of the second pre- scription. The “second prescription” is the one which follows a reme- dy which has acted. It is not necessarily merely the second prescription given. If no remedies have acted at all until the third prescription, then the fourth remedy is the “second prescription.” An incorrect remedy which is far removed from the resonant frequency of the organism has no effect whatsoever; thus it is not taken into account in consider- ing follow-up prescriptions. If, however, a prescription has had even a minimal effect on the patient, it is considered a “first prescription,” and its follow-up must be very carefully evaluated.
This point becomes an important factor in regard to so-called in- imical remedies. For example, it has been found in homeopathic expe- rience that Phosphorus and Causticum can create adverse reactions if prescribed one after another. This observation, however, applies only to those cases in which the patient has responded to one of the two medicines. If Causticum is given and absolutely no change occurred as a result, then one need not fear to give Phosphorus as the next prescrip- tion. If, on the other hand, Causticum did seem to have some effect, the homeopath should avoid following with Phosphorus.

Time Interval for Scheduling Follow-Ups

Once the first remedy has been given, the next issue is how much time to allow before seeing the patient again. Of course, this is largely an individual matter determined by the nature of the particular case. Acute cases, and severely suffering chronic cases, are seen sooner than average patients. After the initial interview, the precise course of events can never be predicted with perfect accuracy, so whatever decision is