Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 296

INTENSITY
OF SYMPTOMS

E M/E CC

REMEDY

TIME PERIOD 1 MONTH

Figure 28:

CASE XIII:

Patient: “I am the same.”
Case: “Open” patient. Indeed, no change.
Interpretation: 1) Remedy far off the mark. 2) Potency far from optimum

potency. 3) Remedy has been spoiled prior to administration.
Prescription: Re-take the case and give the appropriate remedy

CASE XIII:

Suppose a patient returns and reports ab- solutely no change. This impression is not accepted at face value, but further ques- tioning nevertheless seems to bear it out. Further, suppose the patient is an “open” type person who would like very much to report some degree of change in order to please the prescriber.
There are three interpretations which might apply to this situation. First, and most likely, the remedy was far removed from the true simillimum. The procedure in this instance, of course, is to thoroughly re-take the case and study harder to find the true remedy.
Secondly, it may be that the correct rem- edy was chosen, but the potency may have been far off the mark. Perhaps the case ide- ally required a 10M but was only given a 12 x. This is a highly unlikely possibility, since

a precise remedy will show some action at virtually any potency, but it is a consider- ation.
Finally, it must always be remembered that the remedy itself might have become inactivated in some manner. This consider- ation would be particularly likely if the ho- meopath were quite experienced and able to be very certain that the remedy image is clearly correct. In such a situation, it is reasonable to suspect the remedy itself; a repeat dose could then be given from the supply of a trusted homeopathic pharmacy. Of course, beginning prescribers in their relative ignorance consider this interpreta- tion quite often. By far, however, the most likely interpretation is the first one listed
– that the original remedy was far from the mark.