According to MIT view, homeopathic case ‘follow up’ after making the first prescription consists of keeping a constant watch upon the patient for ‘residual symptoms’ and newly ‘emerging symptoms’, and re-adjusting prescriptions as indicated by them.
After making a homeopathic prescription, whether it be ‘single’ or ‘multiple’, and ensuring that the doses are repeated in optimum frequencies, the physician should see the patient at reasonable intervals and carefully watch how the case is progressing.
Periodically watch for ‘residual’ symptoms that do not subside, as well as newly ’emerging’ symptoms.
If a particular ‘group of symptoms’ remain in spite of frequent repetitions of doses for a reasonable period, that means our current prescription failed to provide the particular ‘molecular imprints’ that were specifically required to remove the molecular inhibitions underlying that particular ‘group of symptoms’. Repertorise again using those ‘residual’ symptoms, find a similimum that cover those them, and add it to the original prescription.
If new symptoms ’emerge’, and they are not subsiding within a reasonable period, that means some ‘hidden’ molecular inhibitions not covered by the original prescription has come to the forefront during the removal of some other molecular errors. Find a new similimum for these newly emerged symptoms and add it to the original prescription.
We will have to continue this constant watch for ‘residual’ symptoms and ’emerging’ symptoms and adjust prescriptions all through the whole course of treatment, in order to ensure a total cure.
At this point, we have to discuss the issue of so-called ‘homeopathic aggravations’. This phenomenon is interpreted in different ways by homeopaths. It is true that in many instances we experience such aggravation of symptoms after prescribing homeopathic medicines. Some homeopaths believe that aggravations occur due to wrong prescriptions, whereas consider it happening as part of curative process due to ‘exact’ prescriptions. Some homeopaths differentiate between ‘medicinal’ aggravations which are harmful, and ‘homeopathic’ aggravations which are welcome.
In my opinion such ‘aggravations’ are not due to ‘prescribing wrong drugs’ or ‘exact drugs’, but due to prescribing drugs that cover only part of the ‘symptom complexes’ present in the patient. To follow what I say, one should be well aware of the concepts of ‘molecular errors’ underlying pathology, as well as ‘molecular imprints’ present in potentized medicines. As per our view, an individual will be having multitudes of ‘molecular errors’ caused by binding of diverse types of pathogenic molecules on different biological molecules. Each individual ‘molecular error’ may be expressed in the form of specific subjective and objective ‘symptom complexes’. If we select a drug as a similimum on the basis of some of the leading symptoms only, ignoring other symptoms, that similimum in fact covers only some of the molecular errors. The ‘molecular imprints’ contained in that similimum may remove those molecular errors only. But other molecular errors remain. The ‘symptom complexes’ representing those remaining molecular errors would become more expressive and come to the fore. In the absence of scientific understanding regarding the molecular processes behind this phenomenon, we happen to interpret these new expressions as ‘homeopathic aggravation’.
We experience many instances of wonderful cures that do not obey “Dr.Kent’s 3rd observation” or “Hering’s Law”. They are not universal laws of homeopathic cures. They are all only speculative theories based on isolated experiences. Many of such ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ will have to be abandoned as our scientific understanding of real process of homeopathic cure become more and more perfect and accurate.
Most of us would have experienced some initial aggravations followed by complete relief. We should understand ‘molecular errors’ not as singular static incidents. A particular molecular error caused by a particular pathogenic molecule may result in cascading of new molecular errors. It is like a traffic block in a city. A small traffic block may cause cascading of traffic blocks, ultimately resulting in total failure of traffic system in the city. When a molecular error occurs in a particular biochemical pathway in the organism, it may affect other related pathways also. That is why diseases progress expressing trains of new symptoms. When we start removing these molecular blocks, there may be readjustments happening in all these related biochemical pathways, which may appear as aggravations of symptoms. That is part of normal curative process.
That means, when studying the phenomena of ‘homeopathic aggravations”, both chances will have to be considered. “Re-adjustments’ happening in various biochemical pathways as part of curative process, as well as ‘appearing of remaining symptoms’ because of prescription being partial.
When we follow the method proposed by MIT, we prescribe a combination of drugs that would contain all the ‘molecular imprints’ required to rectify all the ‘molecular errors’ covering all ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by the individual. Hence, so-called ‘homeopathic aggravations’ are never experienced in MIT prescriptions.
100% similimum is a utopian concept. Nobody can find a 100% similimum for a given case. We can find only a ‘most appropriate’ similimum. Hence, offering ‘total cure’ for a patient with ‘single’ drug is practically impossible, whatever the claims are.
An individual will be having diverse types of ‘molecular errors’ in him, with diverse types of pathological conditions, expressed through different groups of subjective and objective symptoms. These molecular errors may belong to genetic, miasmatic, environmental, infectious, emotional, nutritional or such diverse causative factors.
When we match the symptom picture of a given patient with symptom picture of drugs in our material medica to determine a similimum, we are actually matching individual molecular errors in the organism with individual drug molecules contained in the drugs. A drug that contains maximum types of ‘molecular imprints’ matching to maximum types of molecular errors in the organism is considered to be ‘most appropriate ‘similimum. No drug would contain ‘all’ the molecular imprints required to rectify ‘all’ the molecular errors existing in a given patient. Hence, any similimum we select would be only a ‘partial’ similimum for the patient. As such, a ‘single’ drug can never ‘cure’ a patient in his ‘totality’. The similimum we selected would remove only the molecular errors matching to the molecular imprints contained in it, and hence, it would offer only partial cure.
For a ‘total’ cure, we will have to select additional drugs that would contain molecular imprints matching to the remaining molecular errors, which could be selected on the basis of symptoms that are not covered by the first similimum.
Here comes the relevance of the concept of ‘complementary’ prescriptions, especially if the physician is averse to using multiple drugs in a ‘single’ prescription.
The concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’ should not be confused with the concept of ‘complementary drugs’.
Concept of ‘complementary drugs’ is based on the arbitrary theory that such and such drugs are ‘complementary’ to such and such drugs. It is not based on study of similarity of symptoms. But the concept of ‘complementary prescription’ is based on the real study of symptoms in the patient that are not covered by the similimum selected as the first prescription.
In my opinion, the existing concept of ‘complementary drugs’ should be replaced with a new concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’, which seems to be more scientific and logical.
There is no need of any kind of restrictions for the number of ‘complementary prescriptions’. If the first ‘complementary prescription’ is not enough to complete the cure, we can look for a second ‘complementary prescription’ on the basis of remaining symptoms. We can ensure ‘total cure’ for the patient through systematic application of this ‘complementary prescritption’ method.
Whether the ‘complementary prescriptions’ are applied along with or after the first prescription, could be decided by the physician according to his perceptions.
REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY 