Subject: ON THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ACTIONS OF DRUGS
Author: rpautrey2Date: 24 Jul
ON THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ACTIONS OF DRUGS
by Peter Morrell
This article is divided into two sections. The first section addresses
the primary and secondary actions of drugs, beginning with some quotes
on this theme from Hahnemann, Kent and other sources, and then
proceeding to a discussion of the whole topic.
Part two presents and discusses some brand new experimental data,
drawn from pollution studies, to illustrate the fundamental claim of
homeopathy - that small doses produce a stimulating effect on
biological activity and high doses cause inhibition. I expect most
homoepaths to find this data extremely interesting.
PART 1: Primary & Secondary Actions of Drugs
Stuart N. Close Lectures on Philosophy (Chapter 13) pp184-5
"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 --
morbific influences;
vital force activity;
primary and secondary effects;
small and large dose effects.
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
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_prima.htm
| ON THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ACTIONS OF DRUGS |
| 24 Jul | rpautrey2 |
