Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 299

B) It may be that the change has occurred because the remedy is merely partial. It may be having only a “glancing” effect which is not reaching deeply enough into the organism and is not likely to last.
C) The third possibility is that the rem- edy was actually far from the mark, and the symptom change is merely an acci- dental fluctuation in the state of the patient. If the remedy was precise, then more definite improvement will follow by the second month if nothing is done to disturb its action. If, however, the remedy was only partial or the symptom change is just a ran- dom fluctuation, then more time will reveal

a return to the original state. The craving for salt will return, or the patient will again stick his feet out.
Therefore, the only course of action in such a case is to await further develop- ments. Again, this case illustrates how important it is to go over every symptom in great detail. If the minor change is not noticed because of inadequate follow-up, the interpretation would be that the rem- edy was far from the simillimum and a new remedy should be given. This would be a mistake if the original medicine was in re- ality correct.

INTENSITY
OF SYMPTOMS

REMEDY

TIME PERIOD

1 MONTH

Figure 31:

CASE XVI:

Patient: “I am the same, but some symp- toms have improved.”
Case: “Open” patient. Wants to say he is better, but admits true improvement only in a few minor ways.
Interpretation: Remedy far from the simil- limum.
Prescription: Re-take case and give an- other remedy.

CASE XVI:

This case is identical to Case XV except that here we are dealing with an “open” pa- tient – a person who very much wants to offer some sign that he or she is better, or even to please the prescriber who has

worked so hard on the case. In this in- stance, the seeming improvement is likely to be only apparent. An “open” patient would readily admit any improvement in major symptoms if actually present, so