Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 298

led to a disruptive second prescription in this patient. Especially after two months had passed with no “apparent improve- ment” according to the estimation of the patient, the temptation became very great to prescribe another dose. However, if the original remedy were to have been repeat- ed, or a new remedy given, at either the one-month or two-month visits, it is very likely that ultimate cure would have been

prevented. In such a serious case, any dis- ruption can lead to enough disorder that it may become impossible to ever resume progress toward cure. This is why it is so very important to wait whenever there is improvement in any of the three major categories of symptoms – the mental/emo- tional symptoms, the energy, or the physi- cal chief complaint.

INTENSITY
OF SYMPTOMS

E M/E CC
MINOR SYMPTOMS

REMEDY

TIME PERIOD 1 MONTH

Figure 30:

CASE XV:

Patient: “I am the same.”
Case: “Closed” patient. Finally admits improvement in a minor symptom only.
Interpretation: Uncertain effect. 1) May be early change from correct remedy. 2) May be only partial remedy. 3) May be

merely random fluctuation after remedy far off the mark. Fluctuation may return to original state within a few weeks.
Prescription: Wait, for another month or so. Later, if there is no further improve- ment, seek a better remedy.

CASE XV:

A similar circumstance to Case XIV occurs when a “closed” patient reports no change whatsoever, and the only noticeable improvement found upon further question- ing involves a minor symptom. For ex- ample, suppose there is no change in major symptoms, but a previously strong craving for salt has disappeared, or the patient no longer sticks feet out from under the covers at night.
Such a situation is difficult to interpret.
A) This minor change may be herald- ing the action of a precise remedy, and it should not be simply ignored in a “closed” patient who admits changes only reluctant- ly.