The Condition for Successful Self-treatment: Time Needed to Observe the Effects of a Set Dose
Some people who originally treated themselves by autopathy on their own and did not have satisfactory results in self-treatment, have occasionally contacted me for consultations. I notice that they often make the same mistake — they do not determine in advance one important variable connected with the dosage of the autopathic preparation: the minimum period needed to observe the effects of the three set dosage parameters. Some people work with it consciously, or even unconsciously, when choosing the dosage, but there is a portion of people who either overlook it or do not attach to its determination the importance that, in my experience, it deserves.
The minimum observation period can, in other words, be described as the shortest period that needs to be defined in advance before starting with a given combination of dilution, preparation method, and frequency of administration, so that changes in chronic problems of the body and mind, deeply rooted by many long years of duration, can be registered. According to the development during the period that has passed, we then decide on the next steps the dosage for the future. In general, it can be said that the lower the vitality of the treated person is, and the longer his or her problems have lasted, the longer the period of observation of the holistic development we must set in order to be able to assess the effectiveness of the given dosage well and, on that basis, choose the next procedure.
The “stumbling block” of self-treatment in those people practicing autopathy who do not have satisfactory results after the first few applications of the preparation is, to a certain extent, understandable impatience and an effort to “speed up the effects” of autopathy, mainly by hastily increasing the potency after just the first few days. This often leads to exceeding the dilution into a level at which the preparation no longer resonates with the individual’s vital force. In order to avoid such hasty action, it is necessary to define in advance the minimum period for observing the effects of the dosage and to keep to it, because the effects of the correct potency in chronic conditions often appear only after some time of its regular application.
Another, somewhat less frequent action in this situation is that, during self-treatment, people change the preparation method too soon out of impatience. I consider such a decision less harmful than the above-mentioned hasty change of potency, because any chosen preparation technique, at the correct dilution, brings at least some positive effects — highly potentized information from the body of the treated person generally has a holistic effect.
In general, I see the shortening of the pre-set period for observing the effects of the chosen potency as an influence that brings considerably more harm than benefit in the treatment of chronic conditions. If the amount of water is not left at the same level for an adequately long time, it is not possible to evaluate the holistic development correctly according to Hering laws. Such action usually does not lead to sustainable long-term results in treatment.
In self-treatment, these hasty steps based on the momentary feeling happen even to experienced consultants, with whom I am in close contact in consultations too. When treating themselves, they act contrary to what they otherwise commonly recommend to their acquaintances or clients. It is understandable — they do not have the necessary distance from themselves, the necessary perspective; they are too emotionally involved, and an objective assessment of their own holistic development, which would lead to determining the optimal procedure in dosage, is missing. This is not meant as a reproach on my part. For these reasons, it is not exceptional for consultants themselves to consult their own cases with colleagues in the field, who set a treatment plan for them.
How do I determine the minimum period for observing the effects of the chosen combination of dilution, frequency, and preparation method? I distinguish three categories.
Short period, 1–5 days
We set it mainly in suddenly arising conditions, which may include a cold, fever, injury, mental strain, insomnia, fatigue, or food poisoning. In an acute worsening of chronic symptoms. When addressing long-term problems by the method of Prana. We may also set it in some cases when we are returning to a potency that we have already used successfully in the past — the specific potency is not unknown to the vital force, and so the reaction to repeated administration is sometimes faster than with potencies that the person has not had in the past.
Medium period, 6–21 days
We determine it in advance when putting together the dosage for chronic conditions, both in cases of high and medium vitality, but also in some cases of low vitality in children. Most cases of chronic diseases of the body and mind that we commonly encounter fall into this category.
Long period, 21 days and longer
Here I include serious long-term conditions connected, for example, with oncological, neurological, and very severe mental problems. Typically these are people of low vitality, often with problems lasting for decades. Also people over 75 with moderately serious long-term illnesses such as rheumatism, digestive difficulties, diabetes, migraines, and many other chronic complaints.
I do not recommend that people consider an earlier change of potency before the set period has passed. We resort to such a step with clients only in exceptional cases, when there is an unfavorable holistic development going on for several days in a row in contradiction to Hering laws of cure. This does not mean, however, that such a holistic worsening has been caused by autopathy. It is due to the fact that there is no resonance between the vital force of the treated person and the preparation, and the condition develops as if the person were not doing autopathy. It is also important not to confuse this unfortunate development with the so-called “homeopathic aggravation,” which, on the contrary, is a positive prerequisite for good holistic development in the future and can be recognized by certain specific features, which can be reviewed at any time in autopathic textbooks.
The importance of observing the set minimum period for observing holistic development is illustrated by this case from my consultation practice:
A 60-year-old woman with more than ten years of experience with autopathy. Last years, however, she had not been preparing the preparations, despite the original encouraging experience, and after a longer period of worsening of her condition she began again the self-treatment as follows:
She prepared AP 1.5 l from unboiled saliva. She did not feel any effects, and so already the next day she increased it to 3 l, where at the same time she changed the method to boiled saliva, and she applied the preparation in this way for less than a week. Then she increased it to 5 l and, shortly afterwards, after a few days, to 8 l. Her health condition did not change for the better in any way.
She contacted me for a telephone consultation and wished, in her words, to have her “chaotic conduct” in dosage guided. For the purpose of what I would like to point out, it is not necessary to go into too much detail in describing the case.
She had diabetes and had been taking tablets three times a day for 15 years.
She was troubled by great fatigue; often she was “unable to function” even for the whole day.
She had fatty liver and probably related repeated pains under the ribs.
Even several times a week, limiting pains of various joints appeared, always lasting several days before they eased somewhat.
All these ailments were long-standing.
Recommended dosage:
For two weeks, which is the minimum observation period, prepare 3 l, once every two days, and alternate boiled breath (BB) and breath without boiling (B).
For the next two weeks, 4.5 l, still every other day, and continue alternating BB and B.
The check-up to evaluate the effects of the dosage took place after more than a month.
In the first two weeks on three liters, she did not register any deviations from the usual fluctuations of her long-term condition.
Only at the beginning of the fourth week of treatment, in other words in the second week after increasing to 4.5 liters, did she begin to feel changes. She noticed that her blood sugar values were overall markedly lower than in recent years. She even stopped taking the diabetes tablets, which in the past had always brought worsening; this time, on the contrary, the improvement persisted, and she reportedly “felt fantastic”. After another week, she resumed to taking the tablets again. When occasional higher blood sugar values occurred, she was no longer as tired as before.
From the second week of using 4.5 liters, the troublesome pain under the ribs did not appear even once.
In the second week on 4.5 liters, the intensity and frequency of joint pains also began to decrease by about 50%, and she stopped taking pain medication. I recommended replacing the bottle already after a month, given the marked shift compared with the original condition before treatment, and continuing still with 4.5 liters, every other day, BB and B.
Over the following months, three more check-ups took place. She spontaneously reduced the amount of diabetes medication by two thirds; only exceptionally did some joint hurt her, and to a tolerable degree. When stagnation or slight declines occurred, we increased the potency very cautiously; mild changes of 0.5 l proved suitable for her.
Let us notice that the penetrating effects of the four-and-a-half-liter potency occurred only after more than a week of its regular application. Had I recommended a shorter period for observing the effects at the beginning of treatment, for example only five days or one week, the changes for the better would not have had time to appear, and we would not have learned that the potency of 4.5 liters would be suitable for her also in the future. In the past, during self-treatment, the client had already moved cross these levels of dilution, but she had not given any of the potencies used enough time for changes in the body to manifest. She increased quickly, which resulted in not registering any improvement. The period she gave for observing the set effects of the three parameters — potency, interval, and preparation method — was only a few days, which later proved to be insufficient.
Determining a sufficiently long period for observing the effects of individual potencies is very important, especially when using the treatment strategy of the so-called gradual increase, which I often recommend in the consultation practice. In such a case, I plan for the client to go through several dilution levels before the check-up consultation. At the check-up, we evaluate changes in symptoms after the chosen potency, method and frequency of preparation, brought during the given period, and think about the potential they will have in continuing treatment or maintaining health in the future. With this awareness, it is always necessary to determine in advance a sufficiently long minimum period for observation and assessment of the holistic development under the chosen dosage.
