Hello Joe,
Yes, the narcotic drugs are clearly the most recognizable illustrations showing first- and after-effects (Aphorisms 112, 113) of drug action. Hahnemann also observed this pharmacological law of nature with many other vegetable substances too (when the dose was sufficient). However, it should be understood that not all symptoms will produce the same physiological effect and opposite counter-effect equally, and must be differentiated closely. For example, during a proving, symptoms of vertigo produced by a drug may simply peter out without any noticeable counter-reaction, while blood pressure might rise then drop sharply, diarrhoea can be replaced by constipation, pains can come and go. And what is the opposite effect of a stitching pain in the calf muscle
? A stabbing pain in the shoulder, no of course not. The opposite of a stitching pain is simply no pain. Hahnemann employed great powers of observation and discernment in his construction of the first materia medica. In fact, all the symptom lists in the Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases are first-effects of drugs unless otherwise indicated in footnotes. It's worth noting too, that after spending countless hours in Hahnemann's company, G.H.G Jahr wrote his 'Symptomenkodex', a materia medica which demarcated within every single symptom (!!) if it came from a proving only, and which parts were proving+cured, or if the symptom had no proving and had only been seen to disappear during treatment. Clearly, the depth of this type of demarcation of the characteristics by first generation homoeopaths should alert us to its importance.
In his essays, Hahnemann quoted many, many examples of the inconsistencies and wild speculations that had prevailed in the common (allopathic) materia medicas. Entries based on signatures came under special critical review as did the speculative nature of the causes of disease and the treatments that ensued. This is not to say that all herbal lore and use was completely unsubstantiated. Nearly every drug in the MMP and CD was already known and used by chemists and herbalists in some context. So there was an empirical basis for choosing those drugs for provings. Hahnemann needed to check the claims and substantiate medical facts from fiction. In Heidelberg there is an apothecary museum located in the grounds of the old Schloss, it was an eye-opener for me to see samples of nearly ALL our polychrest remedies in material form or tincture that had been in allopathic use centuries ago. So, I'm certainly not surprised that your research shows a common trail in the traditional uses of various modalities. Hahnemann's intention was to create a *reliable materia medica* with *clear logical principles* on which to prescribe those medicines, and this is what distinguished homoeopathy from all other modalities of his time.
Inductive reasoning is a system of logic that attempts to prove the veracity of a hypothesis based on the (mathematical) balance of probablities. It is an open-ended system of logic (compared to deductive logic preferred by modern scientists today) that allows a generalization to evolve from a suitable number of credible particulars, or local events. What this means essentially, is that having observed the pharmacological law of first- and after-effects in many singular instances, Hahnemann could through inductive reasoning, form a generalization, or an axiom, that if the direct action of a drug is imperfectly known one can still logically reason that it's first-effects will be followed by the exact opposite. And so, with the less potent drugs and in provings, Hahnemann could still demarcate between first- and after-effects based on the balance of symptoms evoked by the provers. The hypothesis was then tested and verified in the clinic. Conversely, many reputed cures published in the common (allopathic) materia medicas, especially those involving medicinal compounds which attributed a curative action to one drug in the mixture, only resulted in gross OVERGENERALIZATIONS that defied any system of logic!!
What does this information about first- and after-effects mean to us on a practical level? Importantly, it helps us to figure out whether a remedy is curing or palliating symptoms.
We hear from time to time "...I gave this remedy, it only helped for a while", or "...the symptoms have returned again..." If we are using first-effect symptoms of the drug and matching them to the complaints of the patient, we are prescribing according to the Law of Similars and the results will be curative and permanent. If we rely on secondary sources of materia medica containing *undifferentiated* clinical indications, we are quite possibly applying remedies antagonistically or palliatively. And then, the symptoms come back! Is it not important to know how to interpret the reactions in the patient after a remedy has been administered? We need to know what to do, and how to interpret these things for the sake of the length of the patient's treatment and also to relieve our own anxieties as a practitioner. I'll give a simple example of a case of migraine with vertigo, bruised sensations, red bloodshot eyes, cold, vomiting, she wanted to be left alone, very restless, couldn't lie still, she was also constipated. Arnica LM1 removed all the symptoms as well as the constipation. At least there were regular bowel movements - until the remedy was stopped, then the constipation returned. Everything else remained cured. Why? Because we can see from the proving that Arnica produces diarrhoea as a first-effect, therefore it acted only palliatively in that one symptom, constipation. While she was on the remedy, the bowels functioned "normally", as soon as she stopped the remedy, the secondary palliative effect also ceased. Okay, THAT example was a dead giveaway, but should the case be more serious it pays to have a good primary source materia medica which doesn't confuse first- and after-effects, and proving symptoms and secondary cured clinical indications.
Chris.