 Recently, I posted To repeat, or not to repeat? Acute version. I gave many examples of “classical”* homeopaths recommending the rather frequent repetition of the remedies for acute cases. If classical homeopaths are in agreement it’s OK to repeat remedies acutely, why do a lot of classical homeopaths think it’s not OK to repeat remedies when addressing chronic issues? Once again — keeping the individual as the main focus is the Let’s recap from last week:
When we get to chronic treatment, these guidelines are often set to the side… pushed away… locked up… verboten. Small Doses, Big Results by Karl Robinson, M.D. (2014, p xv) begins his introduction thusly: "There is only one medicine, holistic or otherwise, that treats mind and body at the same time with only one medicine and does so with one dose repeated infrequently." Lisa Strbac (2024, p 22) explains the classical thinking quite succinctly in The Trailblazer’s Insight into Homeopathy: "‘I felt so good on my remedy; why can’t I keep taking it?’ Homeopathy follows the principle of the minimum dose — using the smallest amount of remedy needed to stimulate the body’s healing response. Repeated doses of a well-matched remedy, especially when not needed, can disrupt the healing process with a risk that the individual may prove the remedy. Once improvement is noted, it’s best to stop taking the remedy and only repeat if symptoms return." Dr. Lockie (1993) adds: "In chronic conditions, 6c remedies are usually taken 3 times a day for up to 14 days, and 30c remedies every 12 hours for a few days.” “for a few days”… hmmm I have noticed classical homeopaths actually often repeat doses, especially at the beginning of treatment, even when they otherwise do not recommend repeating doses. I frequently hear or read of classical homeopaths opening a case with a “split dose” (another name for a single repeated dose, e.g., take a dose at night and repeat it the following morning); or, they may repeat a dose for 3 to 5 days in a row, right off the bat (as above), and then stop and see what happens. Aren’t they risking disrupting the healing process? I could spend hours listing all of Hahnemann’s aphorisms and Dr. James Tyler Kent’s lecture points and digging through all my books, but I’m not going to do that. I am going to ignore them when it comes to whether or not it is OK to repeat dry remedies. What?! You’re going to ignore the masters?! Yes. Instead, I am going to turn to Dr. Francisco Xavier Eizayaga** (1991, p 211) who decided to test these theories: "This subject has always worried us. After about eighteen years of collecting a rich experience with many thousands of patients, we decided to put some order to the matter. We have usually followed certain traditional rules according to the powerful influence Kent exercised with instructions stated in his Homoeopathic Philosophy [first published in 1900]. In the chronic cases we employed only one dose followed by placebo… We had always started with a 200c or MC potency and we waited for the results. The great majority of our patients suffered the initial homeopathic aggravation followed by the different contingencies described by Kent in his Lecture XXXV.…" We disregard the position taken by Hahnemann and Kent concerning the dangers of repeating doses because they never justified their reasons for this position by performing experiments, collecting statistical data, or mentioning clinical experiences. "This question intrigued us for a very long time as certain clinical experiences of ours seemed to deny this presumed truth. After a lot of thought, we decided that the only acceptable way to solve this problem was the objective, strict, clinical experimentation, leaving all theoretical speculation aside… We thus decided to experiment on ill individuals under homeopathic treatment, not with healthy individuals as Hahnemann required for his pathogenesis." Cutting to the important bit for this article [emphasis from original text, pp 214-218]: "The second point was whether the administration of identical (‘unchanged’ according to Hahnemann’s terminology) doses which were repeated every day during weeks and months could cause the damage announced by Hahnemann and Kent.… We carried out strict experimentations on more than a thousand patients during more than three years.… Two hundred and fifty (250) cases treated with the method of potency repeated in globules.… - Therapeutic result: high efficacy in all cases studied. Without appreciable differences to the Plus Method,*** but with results very superior to those obtained with the unique dose followed by placebos. We do not think we are cheating ourselves if we affirm that we have obtained the highest satisfactions of our life as physicians by employing this simple, positive method. We do not ignore that these conclusions will cause surprise and will even be resisted by many traditional homeopaths who blindly believe in Kent’s and in some of Hahnemann’s statements. … Instead, his opposition to the method of repeated potency is seemingly not confirmed by experimental or clinical facts.…" So, what’s the upshot? Dose repetition by means of globules does not bring on the inconveniences stated by Hahnemann in paragraph 247; on the contrary, there are many patients who take high potencies† for months and even years without showing the least bother. (p. 218) "-Some patients only feel well while they are having the remedy, not while they are having the placebo.… -There is no difference between the homoeopathic aggravation due to a unique dose or due to repeated doses, even when taking a remedy during the reaction. -The late aggravation of which Hahnemann speaks takes place in 4% of cases, some of them susceptible to being interpreted in another way, and, in any case, it never is anything more than a temporary bother with no other pathological significance.… When an individual has daily and repeated doses, we are referring to a chronic case, only one of those doses will modify that susceptibility, by either aggravating first and then causing recovery, or causing recovery directly…. The proof of this is that the patient’s response to the therapeutic action is the same one with a unique dose as with repeated ones…." Many colleagues fear that repetition will bring on an added or late pathogenesis, As a reminder, I was “raised” on the Banerji Protocols which repeat doses often, so, to me, this was normal and “right.” Then, I attended classical homeopathic training which told me repeating doses was very bad. I was left a little perplexed for a few years. Repeating doses was working for myself and it was working for my clients. What was I missing? Then I read Dr. Eizayaga and it turns out I wasn’t missing anything! The research conducted by Dr. Eizayaga was enough for me to put any hesitation I had been harboring about repeating dry doses away for good. Phew! So, what are we talking about in terms of repeating doses for chronic situations? #1 — the individual is the most important piece of this decision making process. I can’t stress this enough.
Now, let’s do a little comparison between “classical” and “practical” dosing. Most of the books written for home users list primarily acute conditions, so I turned to Hemorrhoids which is often a chronic condition for many people. Drs. Jonas & Jacobs (1998, p 222): "For acute†† hemorrhoidal problems, take the remedy twice daily in the 30c potency or 4 times a day in the 12x. Stop the remedy as soon as improvement occurs, or after two days if it is not giving relief." [They recommend one of 5 remedies: Aesculus, Sulphur, Nux vomica, Nitric acid or Hamamelis.] Dr. Andrew Lockie (1993, p 258) recommends the same selection of remedies, plus, Aloe, Collinsonia, Pulsatilla, Ammonium carb or Causticum “to be taken 4 times daily for up to 5 days.” The Banerjis (2013), on the other hand, recommend for hemorrhoids in their first line of treatment:
Interestingly, in this instance, we see a similar repetition of remedies between classical and practical methods††. So, to repeat or not repeat? Is it even still a question? Julia Coyte, CHom Classically Practical homeopath #wellnessawaits *For this article, “classical” refers to homeopaths using one remedy at a time; “Practical” refers to homeopaths who use multiple remedies at one time. **If you can find this book, buy this book… You won’t be disappointed. ***Plus Method, according to Eizayaga (1991, p 213): "…if the succeeding dose is changed slightly every time, namely potentized somewhat higher then the vital principle may be altered without difficulty by the same medicine (the sensation of natural disease diminishing) and thus the cure brought nearer.” †Eizayaga does not clarify what he means by “high potency.” ††To be accurate, the “classical” recommendations are not necessarily referring to chronic hemorrhoids, but let’s be real — hemorrhoid pain is hemorrhoid pain! Reference list
Banerji, P. and Banerji, P., 2013. The Banerji protocols : a new method of treatment with homeopathic medicines. India: Pratip Banerji. Eizayaga, F. X., 1991. Treatise on Homoeopathic Medicine. Estilos Graficos S.A. Jonas, W. B. and Jacobs, J., 1998. Healing with homeopathy : the doctor’s guide. New York, Ny: Warner Books. Lockie, A., 1993. The family guide to homeopathy : the safe form of medicine for the future. New York: Simon & Schuster. Robinson, K., 2014. Small doses big results : how homeopathic medicine offers hope in chronic disease. Strbac, L., 2024. The Trailblazer’s Insight into Homeopathy.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Julia Coyte, CHomI am passionate about homeopathy and I love sharing this passion. Having a working knowledge of homeopathy shouldn't be kept a secret. If people have the ability to help themselves, their children and their friends when they have minor ailments, life just gets better for everyone. That is the purpose behind Ruminating on Remedies. Archives
October 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed