Minutus

He describes primary and secondary effects ONLY when referring to
allopathic drugs,
and says they do not ocur with homeopathic ones.

So I do not think we misunderstand what the primary and secondary
effects are that he observed, just that (he says) it applies only to
allopatic (suppressive) use of drugs and not to matched remedy, which
he is trying to persuade us to use instead.
This is not about provings (where he discusses the first and second
response), it is about allopathy where he discusses it.
There are no secondary effects in a proving.
It applies only to a case where allopathic drug opposes and
suppresses what is already there. Initially it suppresses (a proving
can't suppress anything there is nothing to suppress) - and after
some time (H says) the body fights back against the suppression....
and THAT is the secondary response he sees with allopathic drugs.

In a proving you are eliciting a response - not suppressing one - a
completely different situation from the one where there is a first
and second response.
I see nowhere H says anything about secondary symptoms for provings
as you claim. Any secondary ones re by H's explanation (in APh 60
onwards to the one referring to narcotics as an exception) is only
pertinent to allopathic suppression being resisted by the life force.
Where in the Organon do you feel he connects a secondary response
with anything other than allopathic suppression being resisted?

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Dale,
In this case - do you have H's published Paris case books. They are
both in French and German.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi Irene,

David Little ----> his students, readers of his site incl. Luc de
Schepper-------> the readers of his books ------->...

say that Hahnemann in the 6th Organon instructed to take the LM's in a
wait-and-see manner: i.e. Give a dose, see that it does, then give
doses -- see what they do --

They say: H. did NOT instruct to give them at a pre-set dosage until
the next appointment, i.e. "take one teaspoonful every day"

I had an argument with David Little about that several times. People
being on the side of David, some of them attacking me quite violently
because I backed-up my opinions (for this reason Luc de Schepper even
enrolled on minutus some yers ago for a few posts)

Well, just read the paragraph in the Organon and see what H. says. The
translation is very good.

Similar for the instruction on giving watery C potencies in the 5th
Organon. There the statement is a little less straightforward. PERHAPS
one can read David Little's interpretation from it. But reading H's
casebooks it is absolutely clear that he did exactly that with the c
potencies also, all the time: at appontment A he would set the dose
and frequency to be taken until the next appointment. Little said he
had read the casebooks and this is not true.

Well - I can back up my statement any time from the casebooks. Only
that would mean translatiion - and then I would be held to have
falsified this translation.

This is just one example. I have in my posts often said: "May be that
is right, but Hahnemann did not say so". If you keep the mails you may
find those posts by entering in your search program: "Hahnemann did
not say".

If not: give me a rain check. There will be again statements about
what Hahnemann said in his Organon. I was not going to bother about
correcting any longer - but for your information I will:-)

Regards

Luise
give me a rain-check:-)
Hi Irene,
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Dear Luise,

I am not a scholar of the Organon, but as long as it is easy to
communicate with a patient and I have the time, I am going to base the
dose on what happens after the first dose. Just now, a patient is
getting more pain from an ovarian cyst during her period. I know her
remedy is working, but during her worst time, her period, it makes
sense to allow her to take the 6c remedy more often than she was
taking it before. It seems to help with the pain. I can do that
adjustment because I have email and the phone. Obviously H. did not
have that luxury, and no doublt he was much more confident than I am.
Each to his own skill level and confidence level. no?

Best,
Ellen

Hi Ellen,
I said nothing, ever, about how people should treat. I said nothing
about the valeu or non-value of anyone's approach.

I myself am right now treating a patient more or less the way David
Little et al. suggest. C 30 dissolved in water - once a day - stop if
aggravation occurs. If it does, call me.

But I am not saying that this is how Hahnemann instructed.

Doen's anyone see the difference, my goodness?

You say you are not an Organon scholar. Why should you be? As long as
you don't tell people that Hahnemann said A where it is plain to read
that he said B.

WHY H. instructed the way he instructed, why he worked the way he did
- I don't know and no-one else does.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

If I felt my French were up to the Paris casebooks, I'd have them. It isn't and I don't.
Peace,
Dale