Suppression Of Disease In Homeopathy

[Guest guest]

SOME THOUGHTS ON SUPPRESSION

by Peter Morrell

 

 

This is a far more complex topic than it appears. Many of the ideas

about suppression which are banded about are more likely to be myths

rather than realities and the subject suffers from a general lack of

clear understanding. I give here a survey based upon general

principles and thinking the topic through. It is a subjective topic

just like vaccinations --some people believe in it and some don't.

 

The best I can do is to list a summary of the main points followed

by

some discussion. This is then followed by some quotes from Close,

Kent and Hahnemann about this topic.

 

The main points about suppression are as follows:

 

1. in general terms it can be defined as the apparent amelioration

of

a group of (usually localised) symptoms in a case, either by a non-

homeopathic drug or technique, or by a homeopathic drug that is not

the simillimum for the case, and which only covers some of the

symptoms;

 

2. suppression is any unaccountable change in a case; it is usually

a

medicinal effect --ie. the effect of a medicinal substance upon

health; not all substances are medicinal, but those which are can

either be used toxically or therapeutically;

 

3. it produces an effect nearer to the 'toxic' end of the

toxotherapeutic spectrum;

 

4. it is not an effect produced by the simillimum;

 

5. it is not a healing effect, but is detrimental to health in the

short or longer term;

 

6. it is often seen when a medicinal substance is applied to the

skin

for conditions like eczema, psoriasis or warts; another good example

is haemorrhoids; the healing of wounds is not included and nor can

the killing of bacteria with antiseptics (including natural ones)

realistically be viewed as suppression; antiperspirants suppress a

natural bodily function and thus can be included, as can creams,

sprays and ointments for fungal infections like Athlete's foot; or

those which relieve muscular pains; and zinc oxide creams for baby's

nappyrash;

 

7. there may be a short or long gap in time between the use of a

suppressive substance and the appearance of its suppressive effects;

 

8. it often results from the abuse of material doses of drugs;

 

9. it can also stem from too frequent repetition of homeopathic

drugs, which are ill-suited to the case; and especially if this has

been done over a long period and in high potency;

 

10. the suppressive remedy is often a minor remedy;

 

11. the suppressive remedy often covers only a small compass of the

patient's symptoms;

 

12. not being the simillimum, it is not acting as a form of

similars;

the suppressive remedy is related to the case, but one which matches

it only imperfectly;

 

13. the suppressive remedy can be a remedy the patient is

particularly sensitive to, but one which is incapable of generating

a

healing response;

 

14. most of surgery, herbalism and allopathy are regarded by most

homeopaths as forms of suppression; there is at best only

conflicting

evidence in support of this view;

 

15. suppression is especially beloved by the dogmatic Kentian

school,

and therefore finds special emphasis by American homeopaths in

general; they seem to accept the whole concept as an act of blind

faith and thus become very angry against those who question at a

more

fundamental level the value, nature or even existence of suppression;

 

16. suppression sits hand-in-glove with Hering's Law; yet Hering's

so-

called Law was never a law, but merely a set of obseravtions which

can sometimes be made; that it has become a fixed dogma so easily

again testifies to homeopaths' apparent desire for mythologies

within

their belief system; I would question how many people actually

observe Hering's Law or suppression to be occurring unless they

are 'out hunting' for it anyway; should we genuinely rely upon the

biased testimony of someone wanting to see something happen as

evidence for its actual existence?

 

17. any change within a case must flow either from an action of the

Vital Force, or from the action of a remedy; if we can ascertain

that

it is neither, then it must be regarded as the result of a

suppression from a medicinal substance;

 

18. all changes in cases can be viewed as either events of healing

or

events of disease --this good rule-of-thumb allows us to analyse

more

clearly what is happening;

 

19. cases progress under their own steam; the patient gets better or

worse under the influence of treatment; there is a problem relating

to how long we decide to view an aggravation as 'temporary' before

we

choose to review the case or intervene to alleviate the patient;

patients must only be allowed to suffer for so long; badly managed

cases and those with a long history of allopathic abuse necessarily

require stoic use of sac lac and the courgae to keep going even when

unpleasant symptoms are still emerging from old suppressions;

 

20. we must always strive to be good neutral observers; we watch how

the case changes under the influence of a remedy; we try our best to

interpret those changes; it is often very hard to decide which

changes are due to the healing action of a remedy, which to the

Vital

Force and miasms, and which to a suppressive agent; entertaining

fixed dogmas greatly hamper this process of neutral observation as

they bring to the case a pile of preconceptions about what is

actually happening and 'crowd-out' our direct perception; we must

strive to view the case neutrally and assess what is happening as

either healing and therefore GOOD, or suppressive and therefore BAD.

 

Discussion

 

While most of the above points are, I hope, self-evident truths,

there is a need to expand upon some of them in greater detail.

 

In point 8 and 9 it is clear that suppression involves a material

dose or very frequent or long-continued abuse of a potentised drug.

In both cases the organism is brought under excessive influence of

the drug and not only suffers directly for that, but also starts to

actually become a proving of that substance.

 

In points 10 11 and 12 it is clear that the suppressive drug is not

the simillimum and covers only a portion of the case. It therefore

follows that proper use of the repertory and taking of the full case

should never lead to suppressions of any kind.

 

The problem with point 16 is that this view of suppression derives

from Swedenborgian dogmas about the nature of the organism and all

those Kentian hierarchies with mind and nervous system at the top

and

skin at the base. One is at liberty to accept those dogmas or reject

them. There is only conflicting evidence at best, that the organism

actually works in that way and it is better in my view to just keep

your own counsel and watch how the organism operates for yourself.

 

In the Kentian viewpoint suppression and Hering's laws are gleefully

grasped as important dogmas which confirm each other and the rest of

the hierarchy ideas. They use one dogma to confirm belief in another

and like dogs chasing their tails, they call that science. Its a

weird form of science that never bases its assertions upon direct

observation of living things, but upon preconceived dogmas. It is a

rigid and inflexible belief-system, which most self-styled

classicalists seem keen to push at the rest of homeopathy.

 

Hahnemann, Kent and Close on SuppressionIn 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 supress 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 galvanism, 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.

 

Close:

 

'Suppression or palliation of disease is the removal of the external

symptoms of disease by external, mechanical, chemical or topical

treatment; or by means of powerful drugs, given internally in

massive

doses, which have a direct physiological or toxic effect but no true

therapeutic or curative action.' [pp.75- 76]

 

Kent:

 

'Do not apply externally the indicated remedy. If it does no good

there is no use in using it. If it cures it does so by healing up

the

external disease before the internal one is cured and thereby

leaving

no opportunity for the internal disease to come out.

 

The healthier the patient becomes the more likelikood there is for

an

eruption upon the skin. The vital energies must be sufficient for

this. A cure progresses from within outward.'

 

'It would seem that the most natural thing to do is to remove

external obstructions, but I warn you, anything that comes from

within must be treated from within.' [from his Lesser Writings]

 

Hahnemann frequently discusses suppression The following is merely a

guide to some of the more important references to it in the Organon.

 

In aph 46 he says that a case of blindness was brought on 'for two

years after the suppression of a scalp eruption.'

 

In Aph 59 he talks of suppressing coughs with Opium '..in its

primary

action it suppresses all irritation...if the physician continues to

suppress it with increasingly strong doses of this palliative, fever

and night sweats are added to the disturbance.'

 

In Aph 69 he states that 'the palliative remedy makes the vital

force

insensible to the natural disease...'

 

In Aph 185-206 he discusses at length with many examples the horrors

of treating 'local diseases' using internal and external drugs in

various doses as a great folly and entirely unhomeopathic.

 

In Aph 235 he discusses the pernicious effects of the suppressive

treatment of fevers.

 

In Aph 276 he discusses again the ill-effects of high doses

in 'local

diseases'.

 

In Aph 285 he discusses the ill-effects of suppressing skin

eruptions

with local applications.

 

Likewise in Aph 289 he returns to the discussion of various forms of

suppressive events and practices.

 

The above quotes are from the Kunzli/Naude translation.

 

Sources:

Close, Stuart, 1924, The Genius of Homeopathy, Jain reprint

Hahnemann, Samuel, 1981, The Organon, Kunzli, Naude translation

Hahnemann, Samuel, c1930, The Organon, combined 5th/6th edition,

Dudgeon & Boericke

Kent, James Tyler, c1900, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms & Precepts, Jain

 

Homeopathe International

 

--- End forwarded message ---