Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 216

made, it must be explained to the patient that the next appointment can be altered if there are any dramatic changes needing attention in the meantime.
In acute cases, the appropriate time for follow-up depends upon the intensity of the illness. In severely ill patients, six hours would be an appropriate time to evaluate the action of the remedy. In more routine acute cases, the best time would be 24 hours. These are the best time intervals for evaluating whether the remedy has acted at all, as well as for choosing a new remedy if the picture has changed significantly. Of course, if the remedy has produced a dramatic amelioration followed by a definite relapse, the interval may be even shorter than planned.
In chronic cases, the ideal interval would be two months. In this period of time, the response could be reliably evaluated in virtually every case. For most patients, however, this is too long a period to wait in case there is no response.
For practical reasons, therefore, a compromise of one month can be recommended. If there is any change, whether positive or negative, it can be detected within one month in approximately 95% of cases. If the original remedy is the correct one, a very large percentage can be expected to show an interpretable result within one month. Often, for example, a patient will report no change (or perhaps an aggravation) until 20 days after the remedy, but then a definite amelioration occurs within the last week or so. On the other hand, only a small percentage of patients are likely to show a curative response which is not visible within one month.
Of course, it sometimes happens that some change has definitely occurred after one month, but the precise meaning of the change is as yet uninterpretable. In such a case, it may be necessary to wait another 15 days or even another month in order to be very sure of the nature of the response. Nevertheless, the one-month follow-up visit is never wasted, because many valuable details are gathered which can be of great help in later interpretations.
An important principle to remember always is that it is not abso- lutely necessary to give a remedy at every visit. Such practice is a prev- alent assumption deriving from the predominant allopathic philosophy of prescribing, but it can be seriously disruptive in a homeopathic case. If the course of events or the remedy image are not sufficiently clear, then the best prescription is always “tincture of time.” The defense mechanism can always be relied upon to produce the necessary image if given enough time (assuming, as well, enough knowledge on the part of the homeopath to interpret the image it is trying to produce).
There are, of course, always circumstances in which the patient