? I sure have, don't know what you mean... Am I being thick, or are
you being "too subtle" again?
Aph 177
To meet with success in [cases with "too few sxs", aka "one-sided"
cases] one should, at first, select the medicine that has been
homeoapthically singled out according to one's best estimation, guided
by these few symptoms. ...
Aph 180:
In this case ... the medicine [rx] will arouse accessory ailments ...
[and] will mix several befallments from its own set of sxs into the
condition of the patient. These befallments are, however, at the same
time, ailments of the disease itself, although they have rarely or
never been felt by the patient up until now.. Befallments that the pt
had not perceived at all before will disclose themselves, or
befallments that the pt had perceived only indistinctly will develop
themselves to a higher degree.
Aph 181
... One has to accept the entire symptom complex that has now become
visible as belonging to the disease itself, as the present true state,
and to further manage it accordingly. ...
Aph 183
Therefore, as soon as the first dose of the medicine produces nothing
further that is beneficial, new findings of the disease must again be
gathered, the status morbi [disease state] must be recorded as it is
now, and a second homeoapthic means must be selected that exactly fits
the present, the current state. This second means should be all the
more appropriate since the group of sxs has become more numerous and
complete."
Which I think is basically what I said!
Maybe I'm just being "picky" about that word "palliation" again...
And more likely, maybe I should just accept it for an observation and
never mind the "whys"!
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]