be plausible. Basically his view was the the *remedy* is never
antidoted--it's already long gone! It's exerted its effect, and been
extinguished. His view was that, when we view a remedy as having been
"antidoted" (e.g. the examples I gave), what happened is that the
"antidoting" substance is one that the person is sensitive / reactive
to, and it sufficiently distracted or disturbed their physiological
equilibrium (I'm trying out that term instead of "vital force"?
), and caused it to sort of lose track of the remedy's guidance. (That
my attempt to paraphrase; I don't remember exactly how he put it.)
Below:
Generally I agree, but in some few cases the effect has been dramatic
and consistent enough to be considered causative.
Right, not the same thing--and from my understanding *either* may be
the case after sudden trauma. (Doesn't so much matter which, as in
either instance you have to "follow the case".)
Good to hear! I think that's just what I'll do.
Shannon