primary and secondary action - was 30C's- Dr. John

[VR VR]

I find the discussion interesting, but so much seems to be based on hypotheses. Is there any way to "scientifically" examine primary reaction and secondary reaction to homeopathic remedies? It's difficult to distinguish where the curative action is, whether always in the secondary action or sometimes in the primary action - I think Hahnemann wrote about this, especially with regard to Ignatia. Are there any MMs which clearly define symptoms as primary or secondary actions of remedies? Is this at all possible?
Vera

Nader Moradi wrote:
Dear Dr. Shaddel,

Thnx for correction, Yes, Susceptibility is different from Sensitivity.
Regarding Primary and Secondary action, IMO, they must be redefined. In
Organon Hahnemann has not elucidated whether secondary action is in
opposite direction of Primary action or not?
On the other hand in Homeopathic remedies,IMO, we can not have counter
action of VF which is in opposite direction of primary action. Because
for inducing counter action there must be two criteria 1- when there is
opposite condition in the nature 2- Large dose and as Homeopathic
remedies are made by potentisation therefore naturally they can not be
found in the nature and counter action can not be induced by Homeopathic
remedies.
Besides, Mechanism action of Allopathic drugs are different from
Homeopathic remedies and we can not compare them. Also mechanism action
of Homeopathic remedies are different in Acute and Chronic situations,
In acute situation VF is battling with stressor (and remedies in
Proving) but in chronic states remedies correct mistunement of VF. In
fact, IMO, in chronic situation primary stressor has mistuned VF and
when encountering with false stressor ( Exciting Causes) VF reacts in
way that it is like reaction to primary stressor and in this way VF
destroy the Body and produce sing and symptoms. What we do in chronic
situation is that we want to say to VF that its primary stressor is
similar to our simillium remedy and there is no need to react to false
stressor. Therefore duration of homeopathic remedy depends on situation
of VF.

Kind Regards,
Nader

[Shannon Nelson]

Some homeopaths (my first teacher, for instance) recommend to just hang
it up, don't worry about primary versus secondary... So if *they're*
that confused by it, I decided to never mind that I still was! Er, am.
)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Paul Booyse]

Hello Vera,

hypotheses. Is there any way to "scientifically" examine primary reaction
and secondary reaction to homeopathic remedies? It's difficult to
distinguish where the curative action is, whether always in the secondary
action or sometimes in the primary action - I think Hahnemann wrote about
this, especially with regard to Ignatia. Are there any MMs which clearly
define symptoms as primary or secondary actions of remedies? Is this at all
possible?

Hahnemann did indeed write about this, extensively. The curative action is
in the primary action, not the secondary action. In a proving, it is the
primary symtpoms that are of interest, which are more detectable in the
dynamized dose. He did say it is not always easy to differentiate between
the two, but in potency, you get more of the primary symptoms coming through
with less chance of the secondary symptoms.

He also wrote about the opposing primary actions with e.g. ignatia.

Okay, this is going to start a debate, but go and read the Organon.

Regards,
Paul Booyse

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Paul,
Tho I confess to being still confused by this topic, I thought the
primary symptoms gave the *indications* of what it can cure, but it's
the secondary action (response of the VF) that does the curing, as it
eliminates the "artificial disease" and the "natural disease" in the
same stroke?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Paul Booyse]

Hi Shannon,

Tho I confess to being still confused by this topic, I thought the
primary symptoms gave the *indications* of what it can cure, but it's
the secondary action (response of the VF) that does the curing, as it
eliminates the "artificial disease" and the "natural disease" in the
same stroke?

The primary action of the remedy is the result of the effect of the remedy
to "derange " the vital force. As such it represents a simillum of the
inner disease state which is deranging the vital force. According to
Hahnemann's (extensive) observation of disease interaction, the stronger
similar (remedy) disease state takes preference and overcomes the weaker
(natural) disease state. "There can be only one" (c.f. Highlander).

The remedy, by virtue of the single dose (okay I'll explain the LM's later)
has a limited action, like an acute disease. It is not sustained as with
the inner disease (chronic disease) - unless WE DECIDE TO KEEP REPEATING THE
DOSE TOO FREQUENTLY (so we sustain the artificial disease state)

It is not stated by Hahnemann, but I would hazard, and maybe put my head on
the block that the primary symptoms are in fact the characteristic symptoms,
which is why characteristics are so important in homeopathy. They are
characeteristic for the remedy. Secondary symptoms are non-specific. Many
poisons will be expelled by means of vomiting or diaorrhea etc.

The secondary symptoms are not healing. They are in fact the ones that will
kill the patient in disease. What kills in Cholera? The loss of fluid and
electrolytes. Will more secondary symptoms (diarrhoea etc.) cure the
patient? Hardly likely. Same in epilepsy. More seizures = more cure? Never.

Amongst the observation of primary symptoms will be such clues as modalities
and aggravation and amelioration. The primary state of the disease is more
active at certain times, or when triggered by certain conditions etc. So in
our cholera case, a diarrhoea at a certain time or aggravated by certain
stimuli might give clues. The sensations experienced will give clues as to
how the primary state affects the vital force.

Again there can be only one. And in the healthy state (aph. 9) the "one" is
our indwelling spirit, fully able to use the body to fulfill our mission.

Regards,
Paul Booyse

[Kathryn Ellen Madono]

Dear Chris,
How do you think this change in our belief that the remedy is acting for months took place in the sense of history, in our experience and in rational thinking? (In Herscu's work 200c is considered to be active for 6 months.) When I have a weak remedy choice in a chronic case, I am slow to give up because I have been taught to be slow. Always I am in doubt and just thrilled when the remedy works. In these cases of poor remedy choices, looking back often I feel that I made the patient suffer because I was slow and also possibly lazy about chosing the next remedy. I lack a really firm rule of thumb for deciding on a "no show." I would call this uneasy homeopathy. I know this judgement depends on an estimation of the patient's vital force. Possibly I should be asking how long it takes to get over common colds, etc. An allergic person should be expected to have a reaction quickly or the remedy is no good. What other clear measures are there? That estimation seems so subjective.
Blessings,
Ellen

[Kathryn Ellen Madono]

Dear Chris,
Maybe I am not understanding you correctly. If you can't clearly distinguish between primary and secondary reactions in all cases, why make the distinction? Dumb question?
Thanks
Ellen

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi David,

Thank you, I was hoping you would weigh in!
I do understand the theory of what you've described below--that (if I
am understanding you right) "primary action" is from the remedy
"pushing" on the vital force, and secondary action is from the vital
force "pushing back", thus eliminating both the medicinal and the
"natural" disease, right?

Where the confusion has come in, is when one looks at proving symptoms,
which are primary and which are secondary? And which should be used to
build the remedy's prescribing picture? I think that was the issue
where I have heard some good teachers advise that it isn't important.
Do you disagree with that? Or are you saying that every symptom
produced during a proving is by definition a primary symptom?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kathryn Ellen Madono]

Dear David,

I am trying to understand the primary and secondary effects in a concrete physiological and evolutionary sense. I guess its just speculation, but it helps me to be a little concrete or at least to relate the homeopathic theory to something else that I learned.

Blessings,
Ellen Madono
THE CORECT POTENCY CAUSES THE VITAL FORCE TO REPOND AS IF ATTACKED BY A FORCE GREATER THAN THE NATURAL DISEASE FORCE.
The idea behind potency selection is to stimulate the vital force to do more than it would naturally do. How does it happen that the vital force is aroused to heal more than it would naturally heal? I am imagining the evolutionary place of human healing patterns. As a basic rule, the homeostatic mechanisms of organisms are built to conserve energy. To ensure the survival of the organism, the vital force has a minimal task: heal so the organism can get food, protect itself and reproduce.
EXAMPLE OF WOUND HEALING

Wound healing, for example, requires only prevention of excessive blood loss, protection from infection and mobilization of the organism. Civilized concerns such as beautiful skin, alignment or pain avoidance are not high survival issues. Yet for the civilized human these are high priorities. With the slightly more challenging stimulus of the well selected remedy, the life force rises above the call of nature and totally heals.
INTITIAL WOUND HEALING PROCESSES: As a physiological event, wound healing may happen in many stages (Kumar etal p. 51). The following is my imagined understanding of how a specific remedy may cause the vital force to rise above the patterns of animal survival.
NEEDS OF WILD ANIMALS: Under normal circumstances after anywhere from a few hours to a few days, depending on the severity of the injury, indurated scar tissue begins to form. The animal first and foremost survive. Unlike the delicate human animal, few wild animals can lick their wounds for days. Luckily, wild animals may also heal more quickly.
SCARING DEGENERATION IN NATURE: Quick healing of a severe wound for a human could result in deformities such as thick scar tissue. Cells are designed to either regenerate or to degenerate. Under natural circumstances without a remedy, the damaged cells that have not yet regenerated becom,e for example, indurated (scar tissue) and thus less vital than the fully regenerated tissue. The skin has the capacity to fully regenerate its cells, yet the vital force will settle for less than fully healed because it assumes the survival demands of animals in the wild. Full regeneration of tissues requires energy, and given the natural history of mammals, quick scarring is probably more important than total regeneration of tissue. To avoid invasion by parasitic organisms, all living organisms must quickly regenerate tissue to cover wounds. I have noticed that cold blooded animals such as fish and insects do not bleed in the aggressive way that wounded mammals bleed. Presumably, they because their body temperature can fall to the level of their environment, their blood does circulated as rapidly as the blood of warm blooded mammals. Mammals must heal even more quickly than other species to avoid excessive blood loss. Except for the most healthy humans, many cells are still not regenerated in the time that the vital force normally allows for healing. Instead, otherwise unspecialized fibers quickly fill in the spaces created by a wound. This emergency response based on the circumstances in nature is much faster than the scaring response of a wild animal, much less the weak healing response of a civilized human.
THE FUNCTION OF ARNICA: After a wound, Arnica helps to dilate the capillaries while the other initial "factors" needed to stimulate the healing process are being broken down. For example, histamines last only a couple of hours. Within 24 hours, the healing process involves another set of cells and factors that stimulate the longer-term healing process. As new capillaries develop, extra blood is pumped to the injured area, and the white blood cells necessary to heal the wound are brought to it. The anti-infection elements and tissue building elements to some extent exist in the inter-cellular spaces, but they if they brought in over the "super-highways" of the circulatory system cell healing can occur more efficiently and if necessary, longer than natural healing processes. If Arnica is given even after the initial response to injury, days after the wound, instead of large wound cleaning agents (eg. macrophages and neutrophils) seeping into the wound through the extra-cellular spaces, especially the large macrophages are being brought into the wound area through the capillaries that are opened by Arnica. Furthermore, the waste products of healing can be carried away by the blood and do not congest and further infect the injured area. Without Arnica, days after the injury, continuation of this rapid influx of fresh resources would not occur. Normal healing would quickly shut off the extra energy being invested in building new capillaries and bringing in more healing agents. Under the rules of nature, this continued process is a waste of energy that could be better used for survival needs.

THE HEALING HUMAN ANIMAL NEEDS: The human animals use social and technological means to assure those basic needs. They may have the time and energy to completely heal, but their body is set to quickly move beyond emergency treatment of wounds. Their animal body is prepared only for the more desperate basic situation of an animal in the state of nature.
Furthermore, the normal civilized person has psychological and social concerns that are far more important to him than a small wound. The person who needs arnica on a psychological level refuses to get medical care and may not even feel the pain from his wound. In the normal civilized state, he may ignore his wound so that he can attend to more pressing social values that are totally unrelated to animal survival. Even if such chronic mental states are only temporary palliated, arnica prolongs the vital force's focus on the wound so that at least on the physical level, the wound totally heals. The strongest healing agent in the body, blood, continues to heal long past the time when under natural circumstances it be the major force in full regeneration of injured tissues.
CONCLUSION

In the state of nature, cells move rapidly from the physical processes of regeneration to degeneration of the cell. Remedies allow the weaker human animal the full scope of regeneration that is inherent in the biology of the tissue healing. A simple example of regeneration amplified by arnica was described, but the basic pattern may be common to other forms of cell injury dues to organic causes as well. In other parts of the body we may use different remedies than Arnica and the circulation of blood may not be the chief healing agent, but the basic concept may be similar. The idea is based on the principle that organisms naturally are designed to conserve energy. The vital force is set to allow the bare minimum of healing so that the animal can attend to needs other than healing. A remedy such as Arnica extends the period of healing so that cells fully regenerate and degeneration of cells is much less than it would be in a state of nature.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Nader Moradi]

Let me read Organon:
§64
As seen from the following examples, during the initial action of the
artificial disease potences (medicines) upon our healthy body, our life
force appears to comport itself only conceptively (receptively,
passively as it were) and appears as if it were forced to allow the
impressions of the artificial potence impinging from without to occur in
itself, thereby modifying its condition.
The life force then appears to rally in one of two ways:
1. Where there is such a one, the life force brings forth the exact
opposite condition-state (counter-action, after-action) to the impinging
action (initial action) that has been absorbed into itself. The
counter-action is produced in as great a degree as was the impinging
action (initial action) of the artificial morbific or medicinal potence
on it, proportionate to the life force's own energy.
2. If there is no state in nature exactly opposite to the initial
action, the life force appears to strive to assert its superiority by
extinguishing the alteration produced in itself from without (by the
medicine), in place of which it reinstates its norm (after-action,
curative-action).

Rgds,
Nader