ON THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ACTIONS OF DRUGS – Peter Morrell

Main

“The homeopathic doctrine of dosage, like the law of cure was
based upon the discovery of the opposite action of large and small doses of medicine . It
is another application in medicine of Law of Mutual Action – the third Newtonian law
motion – “Action and Reaction are Equal and Opposite”. Every one at all
acquainted with the action of drugs knows, for example, that Ipecac in large doses causes
nausea and vomiting and in small doses, under certain conditions, will cure the same; that
Opium in large doses will cause a deep sleep or narcosis, and in small doses, under
certain conditions, will cure the same.”

“Closely allied to this is the so-called primary and secondary
action of drugs, in which we see many drugs, in the first or primary stage of their action
producing one group of symptoms, and in the second stage a directly opposite set of
phenomena; as when the deep sleep of the primary action of Opium is followed by much
longer lasting wakefulness; or where the diarrhea induced by a cathartic is followed by a
longer lasting constipation. This applies, of course, only to drugs given in tangible form
and considerable quantities, in what are called “physiological doses”.

Para 59 in the Organon (New 1996 Edition)

“For a persistent tendency to sleepiness during the day the
physician prescribed coffee, whose primary action is to enliven; and when it had exhausted
its action the day – somnolence increased; – for frequent waking at night he gave in the
evening, without heeding the other symptoms of the disease, Opium, which by virtue of its
primary action produced the same night (stupefied, dull) sleep, but the subsequent nights
were still more sleepless than before; – to chronic diarrheas he opposed, without
regarding the other morbid signs, the same opium, whose primary action is to constipate
the bowels, and after a transient stoppage of the diarrhea it subsequently became all the
worse; – violent and frequently recurring pains of allkinds he could suppress with opium
for but a short time; they then always returned in greater, often intolerable severity, or
some much worse affection came in their stead…”

Para 63 Organon (New 1996 Edition)

“Every agent that acts upon the vitality, every medicine,
deranges more or less the vital force, and causes a certain alteration in the health of
the individual for a longer or a shorter period. This is termed primary action. Although a
product of the medicinal and vital powers conjointly, it is principally due to the former
power. To its action our vital force endeavors to oppose its own energy. This resistant
action is a property, is indeed an automatic action of our life – preserving power, which
goes by the name of secondary action or counteraction.”

Para 64 Organon (New 1996 Edition)

“During the primary action of the artificial morbific agents
(medicines) on ourhealthy body, as seen in the following examples, our vital force seems
to conduct itself merely in a passive (receptive) manners, and appears, so to say,
compelled to permit the impressions of the artificial power acting from without to take
place in it and thereby after its state of health; it then, however, appears to rouse
itself again, as it were, and to develop (A) the exact opposite condition of health
(counteraction, secondary action ) to this effect ( primary action ) produced upon it, if
there be such an opposite, and that in as great a degree as was the effect (primary action
) of the artificial morbific agent on it, and proportionate to its own energy; – or (B) if
there be not in nature a state exactly the opposite of the primary action, it appears to
endeavor to indifferentiate itself, that is, to make its superior power available in the
extinction of the change wrought in it from without (by the medicine), in the place of
which it substitutes its normal state (secondary action, curative action)….”

Paragraph 112 to 115 Organon
Paragraph 161 Organon
Kent’s Homeopathic Philosophy discussing Paragraph 63

Discussion

I now wish to discuss the above quotes, tease out their main points and
attempt to compile a summary of this topic.

Hahnemann proposed that any drug has first a primary action and then a
secondary action and that knowledge of both is essential for practice. He also proposed,
supported with many examples, that the two usually produce symptoms which are very opposed
to one another in character. In actual fact it is difficult to determine to what extent the
so -called secondary action is due to the drug OR due to the reactive power of the organism
in response to the primary action of the drug.

It would be interesting to know in greater detail what Hahnemann’s views
on that were. In his Essay on a New Principle for ascertaining the Curative Power of Drugs
of 1796 (which set the whole homeopathic ball rolling), and also in his Essay on Coffee
(1803) he describes with numerous examples, the primary and secondary actions of many drugs.
Yet as far as I can tell, he does not specifically assert what the origin of the primary and
secondary actions are. It is probable that the secondary action so-called, is merely what we
today might term the action of the body’s ‘homeostatic powers’, re-establishing order by
initiating a sequence of opposite effects to those caused by the drug. This would also
explain the curative action, which Hahnemann quite rightly describes as the ‘awakening of
the reactive power of the organism’ as stimulated by the potentised drug. We might therefore
come to view the secondary effects as being composed of both later, subtle effects of the
drug combined with reactions of the body to the primary action. The primary effects ‘upset’
the natural balance of the system and the body reacts to this by asserting opposite
secondary symptoms. That is one way of describing it. There is thus a ‘see-sawing’ of
symptoms.

In summary, I therefore provisionally conclude from the above that the
primary action of a drug is its main impact, in crude dose, upon the organism in the first
stage and this defines its main characteristic properties. This is like the ‘first splash’.
Second, that the secondary action is not primarily a drug-effect but derives mainly from the
organism’s reaction to the primary impact. It is the Newtonian ‘action and reaction’ of
Close and the ‘reactive power of the organism’ or ‘vital force’ of Hahnemann.

As Close says (p30-31):

‘Hahnemann starts… with the conception of Life as a real or
substantial entitative power or principle… the Dynamis and the Life Force. This is
Hahnemann’s greatest discovery, and the absolute bedrock of his system.’

This of course, strongly implies that homeopathy is not only holistic but
fundamentally vitalistic. And it is this element, in my opinion, which resonates with and
feeds the metaphysical and religious ideologies which have underpinned and nourished the
intellectual and spiritual lives of so many homeopaths down the generations to the present.
It is an essentially uplifting, affirmative and optimistic view of life, man and the
universe.

We might liken the secondary effects of drugs to ripples and ‘aftershocks’
from the ‘first splash’. And these represent the body’s attempts to ‘right the ship’ after
receiving the shocks of the primary effects. In other words, by its own innate ‘homeostatic
powers’ we mean that a living organism has a clearly observable tendency to take steps in
all circumstances to maintain an internal equilibrium and order. Any change which disrupts
this is met slowly or quickly with a resistive force to correct the disruption. A good
example here is the reaction of the body to extremes of temperature, where bloodflow and
metabolic rate are adjusted to increase or decrease body heat. This is clearly the body’s
attempt to maintain constancy in the light of a disruptive external stimulus. This knowledge
is stated in all books on physiology, which mainly tend to stress the co-ordinated actions
of the endocrine and nervous systems, but it is also more poetically expounded upon by the
Greats within homeopathy. Examples include:

Close, p62:

‘Any disturbance of conditions at the central power station is
immediately manifested externally at some point in the system; any injury to or break in
the external system is immediately reflected back to the central station.’

And further on:

‘…the internal life principle, which is the living substance of the
organism. This reacts and produces external phenomena through the medium of the brain and
nervous system which extends to every part of the body… resistance to morbific agents is
from the center where life reigns. Vital resistance is the defensive reaction of living
substance to noxious elements… in obedience to the inherent instinct or law of
self-preservation, which belongs to life in organism.’

And one would be hard pushed indeed to express it more accurately or
indeed more beautifully!

Third, that homeopathic doses of drugs simulate, (ie. mimic, imitate) very
closely the secondary effects of drugs, while primary effects seem to most strongly
reflected in and to stem largely from the direct impact of large physiological doses.
However, we must note here, that Hahnemann was most insistent that BOTH the primary and the
secondary effects of a drug be included in its drug picture. And that is how it should be –
we need to be aware of both in the selection and use of homeopathic drugs.

By reducing the size of his doses from the material into the subtle,
Hahnemann moved away from the damaging, crude, toxic and primary effects of drugs, and came
to explore more and more deeply the gentle, subtle and permanently therapeutic effects of
the secondary actions. This was certainly a ‘happy accident’ on his part in the beginning,
but he deliberately thought this through more and more and matched his thoughts with
meticulous observations of patients. We should remind ourselves that he first began
‘tinkering with dosage’ so as to reduce the toxic effects of drugs in his patients – a good
example of his wonderful pragmatism. But moving further into subtle territory, he
inadvertently (?) encountered the strange and wonderful realm of directly mimicking the
action of the vital force through the use of infinitesimal doses. Rather than the powers of
a drug being diminished by lowering the dosage, he discovered the amazing fact that its
power actually increases. Not its toxic power, but its therapeutic power. And this on the
proviso that dilution is always combined with violent succussion. As long as the toxic
powers were attenuated, he found, so also were the therapeutic powers correspondingly
enhanced.

Thus we can say that the minute doses of homeopathy stimulate the innate
reactive power (vital force) to rally against the naturally residing morbific agent
(disease) gently and swiftly and do so in a way which is broadly very similar to the
‘homeostatic reaction’ of the organism to ANY external change or shock. Thus homeopathy
appears to work by directly stimulating the vital force, not by shock or injury as a gross
physiological dose would do (and so capsizing the boat!), but through gently and subtly
awakening and boosting the body’s natural vital power to resist disease with an ‘equal and
opposing force’, and thus coming to neutralise it.

Driven on chiefly by his intuition, Hahnemann, at an early stage in his
homeopathic life, seemed to focus most of his considerable research energies upon the toxic
and therapeutic properties of drugs. And for homeopathy this turned out to be an immensely
fortuitous turn of events. He then discovered (uniquely) that the toxic properties of drugs
belong mainly to their ‘crude-dose impact’ or primary action, while the truly therapeutic
and often subtle properties stem from the infinitesimal dose and the secondary action.
Homeopathic drugs therefore mimic very closely the secondary action (=action of the vital
force) rather than the physiology the vital force controls. Speaking militarily, homeopathic
drugs stealthily gain direct entry to the power source and control room of the organism
rather than focussing their effects in the parishes, regions and outer departments of the
organism – which seems to be the precise (and non-curative) ‘combat theatre’ of crude drugs.

Alcohol affords us a classic example of primary and secondary effects. It
initially produces light euphoria, relaxation and sleepiness. That is then followed by
depression of spirits, sleeplessness (or excessive wakefulness at the wrong time) and
tension. Another good example is Opium, which produces diarrhoea followed by constipation,
euphoria followed by depression. Cannabis indica also produces dryness of mouth followed by
salivation, euphoria followed by stupor, anuria followed by excessive urination, etc.

PART TWO: New Data

I have taught Environmental Science for 21 years. Recently I have been
preparing a Science Homepage for my College when I noticed something very interesting about
the data I was using. It is data from two experiments my students have routinely carried out
year on year. They are the ‘Effect of Sulphur dioxide on Cress seeds’ and the ‘Effect of
Gamma Rays on Barley’. The results I was using were those from actual experiments the
students have carried out. I noticed that in each case a small dose of the agent increases
growth while high doses retard growth. I expected the latter and of course that is the point
of doing the experiments. But the increase in growth for small doses was not in line with
expectations. But I recently had a conversation with a student which set me thinking. He
asked why it was that a small dose of gamma rays should actually increase growth compared to
the control plants, and why a small dose of SO2 should stimulate growth compared to the
control plants? Good questions.

My answers were not very good and ran something like this: a small dose
stimulates the reactive power of the plant, just as a small dose of radiation used in cancer
treatment will stimulate the growth of cells. The small dose of sulphur dioxide can be
explained, I went on, because the small amount of sulphur is insufficient to harm (below
toxicity level) but is sufficient to stimulate growth, as it is like more nutrient than the
control plants. The student seemed quite happy with these answers. But I wasn’t. And later I
set to thinking about the replies I had given. I decided that it is not true to say that a
small dose of radiation can cause the cells to divide more, as that would imply that a
little radiation is good for you! It also invalidates the basic claim of cell biology that
radiation damages cells by damaging their genetic material, which in turn disrupts cell
division (mitosis) and therefore growth. How could a small dose ever be good for you?

I decided to check the results from previous years. I have lots of old
student work going way back, so this was easy to do. You can guess already what I found!
Yes, virtually every year the experiment showed a similar pattern: slightly higher growth at
low doses and retarded growth at high doses compared with the untreated control plants. This
again baffled me and made me quite worried that I had been deceiving students with
half-truths for years! How’s that for professional misconduct?

It then suddenly occurred to me that this data was a good confirmation of
Hahnemann’s idea of the primary and secondary action of drugs, which forms, it can be
argued, the solid and central basis of his dosage system. Without this knowledge, arguably,
it is simply not provable scientifically that small doses stimulate and high doses retard.
And thus a fundamental claim of homeopathy is potentially cut from under it. Yet here was
some unsolicited evidence of my own, that had been sat right under my nose for 20 years!
Well, here is some of the students’ data and you can judge for yourself whether it has any
value at all in the way I have described.

SO2 and Cress Experiment

In this experiment 10 cress seeds are placed in screw cap jars on
moistened cotton wool and left for 7-14 days. They are moistened with different strengths of
a solution of Sodium metabisulphite, an unstable compound which releases sulphur dioxide in
direct proportion to the strength of the solution. 0.1 Molar solution was diluted 1-10 to
obtain a range as shown. The approximate SO2 concentration is indicated. The heights of the
seedlings (in millimetres) and the number germinated in each jar are recorded. A jar with 10
seeds in tapwater are also used as a control for comparison. The jars are then all stored
together under the same conditions of light and temperature.

The Effect of Radiation on Barley seeds.

This experiment clearly demonstrates the *primary action* of a ‘morbific
influence’ upon health. And also to the effects of moderate and high doses. As seen in the
following quotes…

Gamma Barley Experiment

In this experiment packets of bought gamma-irradiated seeds are opened and
10 of each are grown in pots of moist potting compost for 7-21 days. The heights of the
seedlings are measured every 7 days. Germination is also recorded. The doses were 0, 5, 10,
25, 50 and 100 Kilorads (an old unit of radiation dosage that has been replaced with
Seiverts).The jars are then all stored together under the same conditions of light and
temperature.

Results for day 12

dose (kRads)	number germinated	average height (mm)	height range (mm)
0	4	100.3	79 – 148
5	6	103	5 1- 152
10	7	85.4	36 – 160
25	6	99.7	3 – 125
50	2	44.5	39 – 50
100	4	2.3	1 – 4

‘The less irradiated plants are now growing ahead of the higher doses. We
can clearly see that at 5KR the Barley seedlings are growing better than the control plants
which have received no radiation dose. At 10KR and higher the toxic effect then begins to
take over and inhibit growth. It shows that a small dose stimulates groth but higher doses
retard growth.

The results of this experiment are also in accord with other
pollution-type experiments we do here each year on the effects of Sulphur dioxide on the
growth of Cress seeds. Again, low doses (10-50ppm) tend to stimulate plant growth compared
to the controls while higher doses (100-300 ppm) retard growth very markedly. These
experiments have been conducted over a long period repeatedly and I only recently noticed
that for many years past the results (which I tend to keep) always show this increase in
growth at low levels and a depression of growth at higher levels. It only recently occurred
to me that this is an example of the primary action of a drug as stated by Hahnemann.

In this experiment, the moderate doses (5KRads to 10KRads) of the Gamma
rays stimulate the organism just as Hahnemann says above. But in higher dose (50KRads &
100 KRads), the action of the vital force is greatly depressed much below the level of
normal functioning. Thus the results of this experiment are clearly in accord with
Hahnemann’s teachings and act to confirm his views about the primary actions of drugs on the
healthy.

What would be nice to see are the effects of even smaller doses of Gamma
rays and the effects of potentised Gamma rays on the plants which had received various
doses. This could certainly be done and thus the experiment reveals a method of approach
eminently suitable for future work by anyone interested in conducting it.’

This experiment appears to confirm the uniquely Hahnemannian notion that
low doses have a stimulating effect on the reactive power of the organism, but at higher
dose, there is a depression of its reactive power. These results are therefore completely in
accord with the expectations of a homeopath trying to substantiate these essentially
homeopathic concepts. Yet these experiments were NOT conducted with that aim in mind and
derive purely from pollution studies. Thus no prejudice or ‘bending of data to fit
expectations’ can be imparted upon the observers who collected the data – none of whom had
ever even heard of homeopathy!

Interesting though it is, we should perhaps be slightly cautious in
overinterpreting such data as presented above. They do not utterly confirm the claims of
homeopathy, and much more exhaustive studies of this type would be required in many
different places and under different conditions and endlessly repeated in large-scale trials
by independent folks to do that. But I am confident that could be done – though not by me!
Another factor which could then be tested would be plants receiving potentised gamma rays
compared with control plants and the effect of potentised gamma rays on gamma-irradiated
plants. Such studies might then confirm further aspects of homeopathy.

Hahnemann, Kent and Close on This Topic:

In relation to the idea of what a ‘medicinal substance’ is, Hahnemann in
the Organon gives some ideas about that. The following quotes relate also to the primary and
secondary effects:

‘…primary action is to suppress every irritation;… Cantharides to
stimulate the urinary passages… large doses of purgative drugs… which excite the
bowels to frequent evacuation;…stimulates only in its primary action… stimulating in
their primary action only…’ (p58) Aph 59

‘..electricity and galvansism, with in their primary action greatly
stimulate muscular action… this action is only a primary action, and that the organism,
after it has passed, most certainly falls back, in the secondary (antagonistic) action,
into still greater stupor and immobility…’ (p59) Aph 59

‘Every agent that acts upon the vitality…deranges more or less the
vital force…this is termed the primary action…’ (p61) Aph 63

‘…after the primary action of a medicine that produces in large
doses a great change in the health of a healthy person….’ (p62) Aph 65

‘…in experiments with moderate doses of medicine on healthy bodies,
we observe only their primary action…’ (p83) Aph 114

All quotes come from the combined 5th/6th edition of Boericke and Dudgeon.

Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge my grateful thanks to Julian Winston for
obtaining some of the reference material used in this article, which is much appreciated.

FURTHER THOUGHTS

First of all I will just say that I first suspected something was ‘wrong’
when a student asked me to explain why sulphur dioxide and gamma rays should *stimulate*
growth at low levels. I could not produce a valid answer and this set me thinking. I then
found that all the old data for the same experiments from previous years, which I had stuck
away in drawers etc, showed exactly the same pattern. Then I read some Organon and ‘saw’
what Hahnemann meant about small and high doses of a ‘toxic’ material. This is a perfect
illustration and I am sorry but you are wrong in what you say about those passages. I will
try and show how.

If you read them very carefully you will see that what he means is that a
‘morbific influence’ –ie anything which can affect health –stimulates in low dose and
depresses in high dose. It really is that simple. The only variant is the dose.

The plants were NOT exposed to the dose at different times or to varying
amounts, just one blast and then they were packeted and sent out to folks like me who
purchased them. Just on a conveyor belt or something they pass under a gamma source just
like those packets of sterile hospital syringes. They are sterilised in the same way by
passing under a strong gamma source. I am still waiting for some data from the manufacturer
about their dosage pattern BUT I am pretty sure the above is correct.

The central factor in this is of course Hahnemann’s initial breakthru’ in
realising, just like Paracelsus before him, that it is the *toxic* nature of a substance
what gives it its therapeutic power. Its ability to influence health IS its
therapeutic/toxic power, just as it is its healing power. They are the two sharp edges of
the same sword. Why else do you think that Agar, Bell, Ars, Nux, Hyos, Lachesis, Naja,
Strych, Stram, Veratrum etc are in the materia medica? Their toxic power IS their healing
power. The only difference is the dose. [see Sam’s essay: What are Posions? What are
Medicines?] That is what makes homeopathy what it is and that is what Hahnemann was doing in
1798 –tinkering around with dosage was the key which led Hahnemann out of the maze where
Paracelsus and the WHOLE of previous medicine had got lost.

Hahnemann found that only by adjusting dose downwards can you elminate the
toxic effect and still retain the therapeutic effects. He discovered that in 1798 and never
lost it or abandoned it till he drew his last breath in July 1843. Adjusting the dose
downwards was the ‘Ariadne’s thread’ which led him out of the ‘Minotaur’s maze’, which
enabled Hahnemann to triumph where everyone –EVERYONE –before him had failed. He stumbled
upon the golden key of dose adjustment accidentally and fortuitously.

Gamma rays are a morbific factor just like anything else which affects
health. Hahnemann also gives the example of heat and cold. Go and plunge your arm in cold
water and then take it out and look at it and feel it. Heat and cold are morbific influences
–forms of energy just like light, magnetism, radiation, sound, etc. All of this is of
central importance to understanding very clearly what Hahnemann was saying. He is still
centuries ahead of CURRENT medicine. He was talking largely to himself. No-one understood
the contents of the Organon beacuse no-one had seen what Hahnemann had seen or had conducted
the experiments he had done or had read the works in 8 languages he had read. He was unique
–utterly unique in the whole of medical history. That is why he was so frustrated in his
attempts to convey his ideas and why he was so explosive when challenged by the fools (like
us!) around him who could only dimly grasp what the hell he was talking about.

We need to read and read and read over and over again everything he wrote
because he was onto something no-one else knew about. Completely new knowledge.

Much of the confusion in this subject comes from mixing up the
primary-secondary effects of drugs and the low-high dose effects of drugs. All those
Aphorisms in the Organon tend to confuse these two aspects and mingle them all together
somewhat, and thus it is hard to disentangle it all. In the gamma Barley experiment,
previously described, the primary and secondary effects don’t seem to even enter the frame
–it mainly relates to the low-high dose effects.

It is very useful to think about what Hahnemann says and undertake a few
simple experiments for yourself, Aaron. For example, anyone can experiment with harmless
substances and heat and cold and prove to their own satisfaction what a ‘morbific influence’
is and how it stimulates the activity of the vital force. Once you understand that clearly,
then the subject of low-high doses and primary and secondary effects becomes a lot clearer.

Experiments with Heat and Cold

I myself have made several observations about this over the years. For
example, after taking a hot bath do you notice how the skin and body feel thoroughly warmed?
Yet when you feel cold you cannot seem to get warm whatever you do and then must resort to
rapid exercise, say, to stimulate the vital force, or to a long hot bath. I noticed recently
when swimming at baths that I was cold the whole time I was in there with my daughter, only
feeling warm afterwards in the hot shower –albeit only briefly. But on coming out and
waiting for the children, having some chocolate, etc, I suddenly noticed how the cold
feeling had ebbed away and how hot I then began to feel. It was as if the ‘small dose of
cold’ had eradicated the ‘bigger cold’ and thus stimulated a natural and
internally-generated warm feeling. My skin felt much warmer after being in cold water and
then later my face was truly glowing! A relaxing, uplifting and invigorating effect that
persisted for several hours. To summarise: I was cold before I went in the baths, I could
not get warm in there and I felt cold afterwards, but then this gave way to a feeling of
increasing and relaxing warmth.

Note that the warmth was spontaneous, internal and generated by the
organism. These are the characteristic trademarks of the vital force kicking into action.
Compare that to the artifically acquired heat of a hot bath. Another good example is the
cooling effect of a hot drink, like tea, compared with ice-cream, when you are overheated in
the summer. The ‘natural heat’ which leads to free sweating after drinking the hot drink,
stems from the vital force and is followed by free sweating and thus rapid cooling of the
body. Ice-cream (externally applied cooling) does not cool you no matter how much of it you
eat on a hot day. This introduces the similars and opposites theme which confuses the issue
slightly, but I hope you can view this example purely as VF activities, which is the main
theme we are looking at here.

I am also reminded here of the old directions for dealing with fevers.
‘Sweating it out’ using diaphoretics like Elderflower (Sambucus sp) and Peppermint tea and
also Capsicum tincture and tincture of Rhubarb used to be THE method. Right up to the 50’s
in country districts. You can still buy Composition essence and Elder Flower/Peppermint
mixture at herbalists. It is great fun to play with! (in moderate dose for the healthy of
course) Sweating follows very rapidly. This was use of a crude form of similars by using
more of what the body was already doing and thus mimicking the natural efforts of the VF.
Likewise the idea of ‘piling the blankets on’. But nowadays the good old allopaths blast
with fans and strip their fever patients bare in beds with no sheets! For chrissake –talk
about pushing the ‘law’ of opposites to its ultimate extreme!

Getting back to the main thread, two further examples might be useful. In
many topical applications for rheumatic pain, there are Capsicum type ingredients which
cause burning heat and redness of the skin. Methyl salicylate also used in this respect. If
you think about chilly peppers and the effect they have if rubbed upon the skin, then you
can see an example of a primary action, a stimulating action of burning and this stimulates
the local blood vessels to dilate and produce heat and redness. Which allegedly relieves the
pain.

Another good example is cold water. For a short time I experimented with
cold baths as part of nature cure. Getting into a cold bath and completely immersing
yourself in it is, well, an interesting experience, shall we say! It is the effect of
staying in cold water for 20 minutes or so and then getting out which is extremely
invigorating. Some ‘puritans’ use snow baths! What you find is that the vital force responds
by firstly feeling cold and unpleasant and then the water feels warm after a very short
time. Then you gradually feel very comfortable. Then, when you get out your skin feels
incredibly warm and comfortable, and it is a very invigorating, relaxing and bracing
experience. And what you can observe is the vital force being stirred directly into activity
in this way through the action of an external stimulus –coldness.

The same experience can be had, if you are observant, in frosty weather
when you go outside. Initially you feel very cold. Then you gradually warm up and then, when
you go back indoors, the rooms feel surprisingly too hot and you must shed some clothing.
The mechanism in every case is the activity of the vital force adjusting the metabolism to
the prevailing conditions.

The vital force is a homeostatic mehanism, always working for the good of
the organism, always trying to ‘right the upturned ship’, always seeking to neutralise and
balance things out. It matches external disruptive change with an equal and opposite
internal force so as to restore normal functioning and to reduce or eliminate a morbific
influence, whether it be environmental or chemical –internal or external. We can observe
these phenomena in ourselves. We are our own laboratories for these life processes. Patient
observation is all that is required to confirm these things.

It really is very much worth your while, Aaron, for you to undertake some
experiments of this type for yourself if you wish to understand this section of the Organon
more thoroughly. All such observations enable us to confirm Hahnemann’s writings about four
things —

1. morbific influences;
2. vital force activity;
3. primary and secondary effects;
4. small and large dose effects.
5. Well, we could even add a 5 –similars and opposites.

These are centrally important aspects about homeopathy (about natural
medicine) none of which are recognised within allopathic medicine. They are not even
mentioned. That shows how much value allopathy places upon actually looking at a living
organism and observing it breathe and behave and how it goes about its life, responding to
changes in its environment. Hahnemann based almost everything he said upon his own personal
observations of life processes. Now just think that through. It is a staggering fact. How
many modern scientists and doctors can actually make that claim in truth? Very –very —
few. Almost none at all, in fact. Most of their so-called knowledge is secondhand received
dogmas obtained in lectures and from textbooks. Let’s face it, this is the way it is.

I hope this clarifies what I was saying before. We must also remember that
Hahnemann was *enormously and profoundly* knowledgeable about all aspects of all types of
medicine. And much more than all his contemporaries. He was a very learned man with a very
sharp intellect, that could easily penetrate through into the profoundest subtleties. A
brilliant observer and speculator (thinker after causes). Very systematic and much like the
best of modern-day scientists. And he was an incurable experimenter, with an insatiable
curiosity about health matters.

His approach was always to focus on the knowable and cut out all the crap.
He focused very clearly upon a problem then dismantled it like a watch. Unpicked, it would
just fall apart in his hands. Then solutions just seemed to come to him like moths out of
thin air. That was his astonishing genius. It doesn’t matter which aspect of homeopathy you
look at, he followed the same systematic game-plan every time. He did it with historical
studies, with allopathic textbooks in foreign tongues, with drugs, single doses, provings,
dose adjustment, law of similars, miasms –you name it, every aspect he picked apart as an
individual problem and then solved it. Then he rebuilt them back into a whole system of
curative medicine which works, keeping what worked and discarding what didn’t. Remarkable
man. He was very rarely satisfied with someone else’s explanation or observation and HAD to
confirm everything for himself through primary observations and experiments. Again, we see
him so like a modern-day scientist.

We would do very well indeed just to copy him in at least some of these
respects, rather than expect to be spoonfed all our lives with secondhand knowledge and
dogmas from books. Think for yourself and experiment for yourself.

The primary effect is the stimulation of the VF by a low dose and the
higher dose depresses VF activity. It is possible to confuse high dose vs low dose with
primary and secondary action. They are related of course, but ‘separate’ too!

Growth is a manifestation of the effort of the vital force which has been
more or less damaged by the dose of gamma rays. Get it? Hahnemann sometimes refers to the
effort of the VF as the secondary action, but not always. Sometimes he calls the secondary
effect due to the drug and then at other times he ‘remembers’ that it is ‘really’ the
reaction of the VF to the drug. I don’t think this matters overmuch. The point is that there
are two activities and they are opposite and they come first and then second. It is not
massively important whether it is the VF or the drug –the secondary effect exists and can
be observed. That is the key point.

The higher dose depresses the action of the VF –it does not stimulate it
further. That is the ‘toxo-therapeutic action’ of any drug, which I think should be called
‘Hahnemann’s Law’ –as he discovered it. And it seems to be the fundamental basis for
homeopathic posology. Good examples here are Alcohol, Cannabis and Opium which all stimulate
activity in small dose but then depress in larger dose. Most drugs acts in this way, but
some stimulate in higher dose and depress in lower. It depends upon the nature of the drug,
but the general principle holds true. Coffee was the example you used. Coffee stimulates and
then depresses. Alcohol likewise.

The primary effect is elicited by the drug and the secondary action is the
matching force or reaction from the VF. As Hahnemann says, drug pictures tend to contain
both of these elements. The primary effects can be seen as the purer imprint of the drug and
the secondary to be the reaction of the VF. Any morbific influence actually produces all its
effects at the same time in a sense so it is kinda hard to observe closely exactly what is
going on. But good old Sam managed it! The effect of VF, the primary and seconday and the
similars-opposites all get triggered at once that is the problem. Growth is a manifestation
of the activity of the vital force.

It was a one-off situation. The seeds were exposed before germination and
are in effect genetically damaged. Then they grow or not as the case may be. They cannot
outgrow anything. What *would* be of interest would be the effect of potentised gamma on
gamma damaged seed.

SOURCES:
Bonninghaussen, Karl, Lesser Writings, Jain Bks, India
Close, Stuart, 1924, The Genius of Homeopathy: Lectures and Essays On Homeopathic Philosophy
Dudgeon, Robert E, 1853, Lectures On the Theory & Practice of Homeopathy, Jain Reprint
Hahnemann, Samuel, 1981, The Organon of Medicine, Kunzli/Naude translation
Hahnemann, Samuel, c1930, The Organon, combined 5th/6th edition,
Dudgeon & Boericke
Hahnemann, Samuel, 1996, The Organon, new translation of Wenda
Brewster O’Reilly
Hahnemann, Samuel, Lesser Writings, Jain, India
Kent, James Tyler, c1900, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms & Precepts, Jain Kent, James Tyler,
1900, Lectures on Philosophy

Main