GENERAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question: Cana person’s own intention prevent or facilitate the action of a remedy ?
George : That is good one. The answer in no. What they can do is not let you know what they are doing. The action will be there but they do not want to acknowledge and they will not let you know it. I have seen cases where we have treated with Lyc. She comes back next month and says such and such and so we wait with a placebo. She comes the third month with Nat-m. and says,”I am the same.” She comes back and is Calc. and says, “I am worse, really worse”. She is given Thuj., and she says still that she is worse. She will tell you. “In the beginning I was perfect”. You say, “Perfect?” and she will say, “Yes”. She will say, “The first remedy you gave me was the right one.” You can go crazy. There was no clue because she went through the months always saying she was the same. So eventually we will have antidoted the case and she says, “Oh, now I am back again to where I was in the beginning”.
What can I do in these cases ? If I see a slight hesitation, it might indicate that she may not tell the truth exactly. I said, “Yes, I understand that you are exactly the same, but I must tell you that in homoeopathy there is one remedy out of 2000 which will cure you. So the remedy might have started doing something. Or it might not. I don’t say that in your case,there has been any change. No, you are the same. But if it has started and you are 20 percent better and you do not tell, then I am going to give you another remedy, which is going to be wrong of course, because the first has started a cure and you will feel better and better. So I would try a third and a fourth remedy until the end of 2000 months that you will be coming here until we find a remedy and still we cannot find it, and so we will have to go back to the first one and start all over again. Now, how are you really?” (Laughter) Then they might tell you that they are 4 percent better. (Laughter) Give them a placebo and let them go. This is a big trick for those who try to play a trick. They play this with me once or twice. So to tell them what I have said works all the time because they will understand their responsibility in the matter. “I don’t want you to tell me that you are better, because if you tell me, then I am going to make a mistake. Just tell me the truth about whether you are the same,better, or worse”. And so then they will say, “I am better”. That is usual. You feel that there is something there when the remedy has acted. You may he able to experience and understand that The difference is not so much the first month, but in the third month they come and tell you that it was the right remedy. You will then repeat the remedy.
Question : What if someone attends a spiritual group or practises some kind of discipline? And you give them the remedy and all sorts of things which they have been suppressing start coming up. Yet they have this practice with which they control such things coming up. They squelch the reaction.
George : It is a problem. They may have a very rigid discipline and the spiritual leader is not aware of those changes, there is possibility that you will not be able to get the truth. They don’t really know themselves what is happening. They will attribute this and that, and say, “Yes” or “May be” and they will start to mix you up. It is not that the remedy will not work. It will work, but they will mix you up because of the practices. You expect for instance to have … Okay, you give Sep. You expect that the sex level will rise. They will never let you know. They have a kind of seminal emission during the night and they will consider this a sin. It is not allowed. They will say, “What do you care about that?” In the meantime during two months of treatment he had five seminal emissions in the night which he did not have before. The sex level is working, but they may not tell you, or they will tell you that things are the same. It is difficult also with spiritual leaders. I was treating some of them and trying to get symptomatology on the emotional level. Unless you have a case like Don brought, where he has broken down completely and is under a tremendous fear.
Question : Do you find this problem to be associated with some remedies more than others?
George : I would not be able to say. Bring whatever questions you have tomorrow and we will cover them as much as possible.
Question : Could you talk about the relationship of acute and chronic diseases? If you give someone an acute remedy for an acute condition and they have a chronic problem?
George : Okay. We will talk about that. There are different possibilities. The question is, “If you treat somebody constitutionally and an acute crisis comes on, are you going to give a remedy or not.
Question: And also, what does it mean?
George : What does it mean?
Question : Could I elaborate the question a little further? If the acute disease occurs right after you give the constitutional remedy as opposed to say 3-4 weeks after the constitutional has been given,what should be done?
George : So let us say thar the first case was easy to treat and that you have given a remedy which has acted constitutionally. This is a remedy which has acted and an acute crisis develops. We presuppose that the remedy has acted, no? If this acute condition comes immediately, the first or second day of your remedy, what does that mean ?
Answer : They were already predisposed to it, according to Kent.
George : What it means is most probably that the person was going to have an acute crisis the next day – a cold, a cystitis, a nephritis, an influenza, or whatever it is – and this breaking out of the acute crisis coincided, but we suppose that the remedy is correct. We take the presupposition that the remedy is correct. In this case we cannot know whether it is correct or not, but we want to give it a chance.
Now this is a rather unfortunate thing that has happened. So what you are doing is that you are allowing yourself to observe how much that has acted, depending on the observations, the time, and the severity. You have to observe that condition which is acute and has come on closely. You will be in touch with the person every day. And you say, “Wait!” If the crisis goes to a dangerous state, according to your estimation, whatever it is, you must prescribe a remedy, depending on what you have done in the beginning. There is a possibility that the severity will slow down and the person will become better without taking another remedy. You wait then to see what is going to happen. The ailments for which you prescribed chronically may eventually be getting better. There is a possibility that because that coincided, the remedy has exhausted itself due to the acute state and you are going to see an amelioration for a short time. The amelioration is only for a short time. You prescribe and then most probably what you are going to see is a short amelioration and a return of the symptoms. This is the most likely probability. In that case there is also a probability that the case will do well for a long time and it is not necessary to examine it from the beginning again. If the acute condition was slight and it did not withhold the energy of the remedy, then wait In any case, either you prescribe on the third or the fourth day or you don’t prescribe until afterwards. Do not suppose that because the person had that acute crisis that your remedy is antidoted and that you must repeat the remedy. DONT PRESUPPOSE THAT THE REMEDY HAS BEEN ANTIDOTED by the acute crisis and the acute prescribing and that you have to repeat the remedy. There is a possibility that what you may see is that after the acute prescribing or not prescribing there is a kind of amelioration, but the appearance of a new layer. You may see that when the perso.’ comes out of that acute crisis that they will be worse for one month or maybe better for one week, depending on how short the amelioration was, and when they return ir does not have to return to the same remedy. It might become then … may be you gave a dose of Rhus-t.
or Bry. Here in this case.
Question : Is it a person with a weak vital force who would do that?
George : Yes. So we have examined that ease and we go to the second possibility where your remedy has acted.
Question : In that situation where you say there may be a brief amelioration and then there may be a new remedy, are you presuming that this is a worsening of the pathology in the new layer?
George : No, it is definitely a better pathology, but the new layer… You see a new layer when it will come up with some disturbing symptoms will come up … No, I will give you a different case.
You give Rhus-t., Okay? And the person is doing well, but he is getting tired and does not get enough sleep. He is in a stressful situation and then you see that he develops a picture of Bry. That means that the picture of Bry. was produced by the stress and because it found the organism in a had situation.
If that was not happening and we had an ideal situation after the Rhus-t. it might have taken two years before the organism will present the next symptomatology.
Question : Meaning a Bry. state two years later ?
George: The Bry. is underneath. You takeaway that, and the person remains in an ideal situation. It is not going to present real Bry. symptoms to you. After two years, because of the tiredness of the organism, he will give out the next layer. But if that person is under stress only a month after Rhust, this layer will spontaneously produce itself. If that stress is not antidotal to what we have done so far, this case would rather return to Rhust. It that person with Rhus-t., takes dental treatment, takes drugs, takes antibiotics, most probably that person will return to the Rhus-t. state. But there is also a probability that we will return to the Rhus-t. state, but the underlying remedy which he is next. That means that after Rhus-t. his organism became quite strong, but then the organism was suppressed with antibiotics etc. Then the next remedy comes.
Question : What you are saying right now is not necessarily relating to the earlier panorama of having an acute development in 1 – 2 days? George : The acute condition is a stress.
Question : So what could speed it up?
George : It can speed it up to the next layer. But this stress can bring about the same condition and that means a repetition of the remedy. You have to be very conversant with these theories. It is absolutely necessary. otherwise you are going to mess up the case and you will not understand what is going on.
So things are not so simple. We just examined one case in which there were very unfortunate and rare situations which happened to come together. You give a remedy and then chills start, and the next day you have a fever. You do not say, “This is a reaction from my remedy,” and you wait, because the chills and fever may foreshadow a bronchitis or broncho pneumonia, or a severe kidney infection, or a pericarditis, endocarditis, etc. You don’t sit back and wait, wait, wait, and see what happens with the remedy. So the seventy of the case will show you whether you have to jump into the picture and give a remedy. And the more you watch and wait, of course, the better it is in that case : the more clear the remedy is. Don’t get excited that there is fever and things like that and then jump and give a remedy. No. Nobody dies with a fever within 1 – 2 days. Who can tell what kind of fever it is, and all of these things you can judge.
And as you wait, you will see the picture of the remedy. Maybe on the fourth day, you can see the picture, and can see that it is not going towards recovery. It may go into something which is going deeper.
But now we have the possibility that we gave a remedy here which we think has acted. And after ten days-actually between 7 and 20 days-this person (we suppose that it has acted)develops an acute condition.
The assessment is that your remedy has done nothing for that person. And therefore you must treat the acute condition. A remedy which goes deep will not allow an easy breaking out of an acute crisis.
An acute crisis occurs when the organism is weak and the stress is great. So if the stress included a situation where the child was dying or his wife was ill and it was an emergency, and then three days later he has pneumonia. You would have to treat the acute situation, but that does not mean that the remedy has not acted. So here we suppose that the stress is a normal circumstance. He develops an acute crisis 7 – 20 days after the constitutional remedy. Most probably the remedy has not acted in this case. Otherwise it would have protected and made him stronger. What he used to think of as a stress would not now affect him. That person will say, “I put myself into the same stress as I used to when I was getting a cold, and now I did not get a cold”. If that is the case where he put himself in a situation which was normal and he still got a cold, then your remedy has not acted. Therefore you have to treat the acute only if the acute is severe enough to require treatment. This is a general rule I am giving you.
The general rule for acute ailments is not to give any remedy for acute conditions if they are simply bothersome and not dangerous. Let the body react to the basic constitutional remedy and recovery by itself takes place. The body must learn to bring about its own defenses. So watch and wait. Many times they come and say, “I have a cold and it is going to be terrible for me. Please give me a little bit of the remedy”. If you want to give something, give a placebo. Let it develop unless he gives you a very clear case of another remedy – an acute remedy. But never prescribe for these little things. You are succumbing to the patient’s demands at that moment. But you may be confusing the case. I have seen in asthmatic patients where they could be doing fine. Then he comes and says, “I have a cold. I know that if I have a cold, I am going to have an asthmatic attack.” Their nose will be red, but nothing else. So you suppose that the charge is accurate and say to yourself, “I will give you All-c. in one dose of 30.” With that prescription, he may have the asthma the next day. You may become overexcited by thinking that you had cured that case and now it is relapsing and so you jump and give the previous remedy. It does not act and so you give another. It may take another 1-2 months before you can bring him back again. Especially in that case be careful never to give a remedy for that little bit of nose running. You may cure many and the cold will go,but may be he needs Ars. and not All-c. If you give All-c. and it is close to the case, then it will immediately go into the bronchial system. If you let this alone, most probably it will not go anywhere. Sometimes it will, but most probably if your treatment was good these people can go through minor colds without the cold going into the lungs.
SO HERE IF THE CASE NEEDS TREATMENT BECAUSE OF A SEVERE CRISIS, YOU GIVE IT, AND THEN YOU START ALL OVER AGAIN.
Question : I am not sure if you would include everything in your acute illness. For example, if you have someone who has recurrent tonsillitis and they get a flare up.
George : You are asking if after you have given treatment for a chronic condition and there is a great swelling of the tonsils? If there is no fever and there is a sudden flaring of the tonsils, then it is an aggravation. If there is no fever, invariably you will see this happen in children that there will be an improvement of their appetite. The child will start eating well. There is a general improvement because of this element, and the tonsils are going to burst out. If you are experienced and you want to help a little, you can just press them a little and it will come out. But l have seen it…
Question : I have this case where afrer a vaccination they were not well fora long time and there was a tremendous aggravation. The child had all kinds of glandular swellings as well and all of that subsequently sort of settled out. I was quite frightened by it all. It might have been a reaction and it was amazing. There must be situations where it is not clearly an acute thing or some sort of aggravation.
I have also had people with a sinusitis with a very sudden and drastic discharge. In general, I have tried not to treat this. I have had this happen in the 7-20 days range and wondered which are the acute and which are not. I supposed you just have to interpret on the basis of what they say.
George: With your experiences as doctors, you know what is going on and you can interpret things. If there is only swelling of the tonsils, it does not mean anything. It is a normal situation in 6 percent of the children. They have chronic, swollen tonsils, which they have had for years, may be. But if there is a bigger swelling which does not produce fever, and does not indicate an inflammatory process but rather a process of pleural illumination …
Question : You don’t think there will be inflammation with it?
George : Not always. If there Is an aggravation from the remedy, it is not going to be associated with fever.
Question : You arc saying then that acute illnesses, acute infectious illnesses, are not aggravations and that aggravations are always just discharging,without infection? Like people are not going to get a urinary infection or tonsillitis or ear infection as an aggravation?
George: Yes. Another thing that you must understand is that chronic and acute stages are a series of processes in the health of the patient which suggests when and where we shall prescribe a remedy. In an aggravation, you may be forced to prescribe a remedy during the aggravation. It is a series of processes. If the aggravation is really dangerous and it is an aggravation, you have to prescribe the remedy which is indicated next.
Question : If it is an aggravation ?
George : Yes, if it is an aggravation. And if it is very threatening.
Response : I thought that you had told us that you had never seen a really threatening aggravation.
George : No. I told you that there are aggravations… Okay, you are tteating an acute colitis (ulcerative colitis), and you prescribe Nit-ac. and the person starts having 25 stools instead of 5 per day, with blood. Now this is not going to last long if you will wait. There is definitely an aggravation from your remedy. You have given it and the stools went from 5 to 25. You wait one or two days, and on the third day he has been losing blood and I can see signs of anaemia coming. But if you wait and watch, what you will see is an image of a new picture rising during the aggravation. And there you have the salivation starting. There is constant urging, with pain, and before you are out of the bathroom you have to be back again. With this symptomatology, you have a picture of Mere., Mere-c. If you don’t give it, the person may die. But whose fault is that? Is it our fault that we were not able to see the remedy which was indicated at that moment. These are threatening cases. I have seen that.
I explained to you why Kent says, “If you have a severe case and you give a high potency, and you see an aggravation. You must antidote, because you are going to lose the patient.” These are his observations. What he had seen was what he observed also. But what I say which is different from what Kent says is that whenever you see an aggravation, never mind how big it may be, you can save the patient. You can bring him around. There is the possibility for him to be cured. But if in that same case, we give Nit-ac. to a severe situation; that person has been exhausted for years and you give 200 and he goes immediately into recovery. lie feels better and will do so for 14 days or so, and then he goes into a relapse. This is not a good aggravation.’ Supposing that your remedy is correct, this shows that the case is incurable. Most probably you have a cancer case.
So immediate amelioration in a very severe case should be suspected as cancer. In a very severe case I don’t like to see this reaction. Kent also said that incurable cases will show an amelioration. But he was contradicting himself when he was saying that the aggravation was necessary and that the person would do well. Then in another observation he says, “You give a remedy and it is too deep, you are going to kill the patient”. That is a contradiction for the observation. The solution of that is that whenever you see an aggravation and an amelioration, you must observe to give the next remedy, even during what you think is the aggravation, as long as the health of the patient is certain at the moment. Just to make it clear for you to remember that.
Question : So is what you are saying, “If there is no aggravation, it indicates a very bad sign.”
George : Not when somebody says, “I have a pain here in my joints” and you give Cauct. and the pain goes away without an aggravation, or has a little arthritis etc., and you give a remedy and he has been well a lot. You do not have to have the aggravation for little things like that.
It can be an amelioration with imperceptive aggravation for a few minutes or one hour, which the patient does not even take notice of, and he goes on to recovery. I am talking about severe – really severe -conditions. You have a tuberculosis which is active at the moment and you prescribe Sulph. Immediately you have to search for your next remedy and give it.
Question : Say that you are treating an asthmatic and you have used the right remedy. Then they get a severe asthmatic attack which is so severe that you must treat it, or do you know that they are going to recover in 24 – 36 hours?
George: As I told you yesterday, I started treating patients after a few months of studying homoeopathic remedies and philosophy, and so in the beginning I did not know what asthma really meant or what it meant to have acute asthma. I would just give the remedy and wait. The information which !got back was, “Yesterday I almost died” ALMOST. They will say, “I just made it”. (Laughter) They will ask if it was the remedy. No, it was not the remedy, it was an aggravation. This was invariable. Now that we have a center where we are treating thousands of people, we cannot go through all of that. So what we say is, “Try not to take any remedies”. People with asthma will come with the medicines they are taking. They are already taking medicines. We say to them that if it is absolutely necessary to use the inhaler or the medication which does best for the person. That is important. Do not prescribe another allopathic drug for emergency crises from the one that has been used and which the individual knows helps him.
Question : Even if it is Cortisone?
George : No, if it is Cortisone, don’t lake the case. If he has been taking Cortisone for the last six months or last six years, you are going to have a lot of trouble in bringing about such an answer. You will have a lot of trouble. I have done it a few times, but in the beginning I did not have too many patients and I could tend one patient very carefully, and I could do it.
Question : I am looking forward to your finishing your statement. And I have two questions: One is that do you find that the same is true of the topical Cortisone? Do you find that that is equally as disastrous as the people who are on systemic Cortisone ?
George : There is …
Continuing : It seems useful for getting them off Cortisone – as an interim step?
George: Maybe. This is your responsibility. If you want to undertake cases like that and you want to try to see what happens, then do it. But I suggest that you do not try it at this stage of your experience. You can try it later on when you are more confident and you have treated asthma cases and see how they are managed and how they get along. You can gradually do it. Asthma which has been managed only by Cortisone is going to be severe and you may need a hospital.
Question : Say that in this ulcerative colitis case I am unable to see that next Merc-c, or whatever it happens to be, then the thing to do would be to give blood or something and try to avoid all of the other allopathic stuff. How would that…
George : If you hospitalize the patient and you have privileges in a hospital and you have the possibilities of giving oxygen, blood, and the support he needs, then that is the best.
Question : My question though is whether it is better to just give supportive therapy, even including blood, and not including enemas and stuff, and let the Nit-ac. sort of go through, or is it better to give them Cortisone for relief ?
George : No. Merc-c. is going to be needed, even with the supportive therapy. It is going to go into a state where his symptoms will call for Merc-c.
Question : So that will be the remedy which effects the chronic cure?
George :That next layer will appear very soon-five days later OT even the next day – and that is the next layer. Then you give it, and the recovery will follow.
Question : But it is not an aggravation as such? It is just a new layer?
George : From appearances, it will be an aggravation of your remedy. They have had 5 stools and now they are having 25 – that would be an aggravation. And I believe that is what Kent was saying. Because then he talks about a pharmacide. You give a high potency and you give it to a dying patient. In “Lesser Writings” there is a chapter in which it says,”You have a cancer or asthmatic patient who cannot breathe, you can give Ans. 50 m” He says that you will see an immediate amelioration. The person will last another five days instead of dying after 3 days, but he will be ameliorated and he will die with less suffering. And that is an observation which I don’t like to see. Of course there are homoeopaths who say that they never saw an aggravation. We don’t. (Laughter) They don’t know themselves what they are doing.
Question : I wonder about this exception. What if you treat a person with a chronic degenerative illness of some sort and in 7- 20 days, they get a severe cold, but they have not had a cold for 10 years …
George : This is the next observation that I am going to give you. I will tell you when they will get a cold. So we went too far, I think. There is an assumption that the remedy is not correct, and you have to consider a new remedy. Your remedy has acted. You don’t just THINK that it has acted. And after another two months or six months or even a year, that person develops a very severe bronchitis or pneumonia, or a severe kidney infection. This is very severe. This is after a period of time – quite a long one – in which he was quite well. Usually what you will hear is that “I used to have that type of thing for the past ten years”.
“I used to get this severe bronchitis, and now it has come back.” Now the observation is that the remedy has acted beautifully, but the patient is going back to an old symptom. If the acute crisis is really a bronchopneumonia, you MUST treat it. Most probably in such cases you will see that if you have given Sil., in this stage you will need Puls. If you have given Lyc., in this stage you will need Nat-m. Or you will need a complementary remedy of your first remedy in general. You will need a remedy which is closely related to the last one that you have given and it has acted.
Question : And then, having treated that acute, do you presume then that it will be time for another chronic remedy or the acute remedy again?
George : Now, the further observation that you will sec from that treatment onwards, the patient really will not bother you anymore. From that moment onwards you will hear perhaps if you meet him by chance after a year, or somebody else tells you that he is absolutely well. It will run theoretically to Si!., Puts., Kali-s. These are the layers which exist. So you took away quite a lot and there you have a flare-up of that layer which most probably is based on another one, but the person on that layer is quite happy. The acute crisis actually … what they will tell you is, “1 used to get these colds and influenzas easily.” That means that there is a predisposition that was bringing about the colds. If you give a remedy which is connected with this one and your treatment during the acute crisis is really good,then you are going to see a deeper amelioration. There will be further amelioration after this acute crisis. But if, instead of giving Puls., you do not seethe remedy and you give Bell. and Bey. and Ars. and Acon. , you will not see the amelioration go any further. And the person, after some time is bound to have another crisis. Until you are able to see the connection and we give tee right remedy and then it has really worked well, that state can be very difficult.
Question : Aren’t there also times when you would give a lower potency of the original remedy at that time, if it fits ?
George : Most probably it will do nothing. It is gone. It is a good observation, but it is gone. That stress did not bring back that level. She needs the correct remedy here.
Response : So it is really a different remedy picture?
George : Yes. I had a case, a terrible case, in which I had given 3-4 remedies which had all acted, but she was not quite happy. At a certain moment, one month or six months later, she developed a bronchitis which was severe and she had a tremendous cough. There was no appetite, she had to stay in bed, and she was exhausted. What are you going to do? You think maybe it is a tuberculosis. Then I prescribed 3 remedies before I could see the one following, which was complementary to the last one l had given. I said to myself, “Oh, this is a Puls. case“. We gave it and there was an immediate recovery. Since then, this patient has not asked me for any other remedy. It has been 3-4 years now. She used to say, “Help me, help me. I have headaches, and nausea, and I cannot lie down. I have to be propped up in bed.” There was arthritis and all that. She had this weak constitution. She was nervous all the time. She had been taking homoeopathic remedies from Paris and so on. It is a doctor who puts about 50 needles and 50 homoeopathic remedies into your treatment – who had a very good reputation. (Laughter) He is very famous. There had been a lot of suppression and that patient was really a wreck.
Question : What happens if the acute illness is not so severe? You said “terrible” bronchitis and “terrible” pneumonia. What happens if they start getting colds again. You are not going to rush in and treat it then ?
George : No. If it is acute, wait, wait, wait. This is the best advise I can give you. Wait, wait, wait. (Laughter)
Question : If this acute crisis indeed represents a previous predisposition that was suppressed by whatever happened and then Si!. was there. Okay, so the Sit. was given and the person was cured at that state. Then this acute question comes up and antibiotics are given, could we assume that it would not go back then into the Sil. state but rather it would come back with another acute crisis and another acute crisis ?
George : Most probably. There is also a possibility that it would fall back with antibiotics. The stress is a lot !
Question : If they had not been having colds and then after three weeks they get a cold …
George : After three weeks … you see this kind of observation I gave …in seven days you cannot evaluate your remedy really. Neither in 10-15 days, although sometime, rarely, you can. But if an acute crisis comes with a little stimulation and it is a severe one, your remedy most probably is not acting. You see it is a case of judging how exposed the person was.
Question : I am saying that a person years ago used to get colds and then when he got sicker, he went down to a worse level, and now the remedy seems to be acting and he is starting to get colds.
George : That is a case where the colds will be of a minor intensity. You wait. You have indications already that the remedy has acted. The cold is minor. The organism now must act better than before if your remedy has acted. So if you used to get severe colds, now these colds are going to be minor and support the organism. Your remedy has acted, because you have seen an aggravation and then amelioration. In this case you wait and don’t do it When you see a severe aggravation and then immediate amelioration for up to two days, then this is a case which is the best. And this is a case which will not be disturbed. If that case gets a cold, it is going to be minor. The answers are not simple. You have to have this information. It is absolutely necessary. Otherwise you cannot judge your case or the case of somebody else. A patient will come from another doctor, say, and you have to judge what actually happened.
We are disposed to say that the other has done wrong, but that is not always so when he comes with a crisis. The crisis may now be another layer and you have to admit that this doctor had hurt him. Likewise, we can say for sure if he has been helped. All of this would depend on the ethics which you are following you know for yourself what has really happened. Again an amelioration … he says, “I went there and I had constipation and desires for this and that, and this is a bit better”. He may say, “It has helped me a little bit”. Most probably it has done nothing because of the level of the irritation and depression being perhaps a little worse now.
Question : I had a patient who was like that, with asthma, and I gave Sil. to him. There was an aggravation and then the person became better. Then 3 years later, there was testicular swelling. I did not understand well and I gave him a placebo. I understand now it should have been Puls.
George : This can be an aggravation and we can wait. He has some pain and swelling, but it is not a threatening situation where you have to act, and so you can just wait. And your asthma has been beautifully ameliorated after an aggravation. So this is going to take cam of itself without any further remedy.
Response: I suspect thar he is going to be needing Puls. at some point.
So is it all right to wait
George : It is all right. It is okay to give it and it is going to help him further.
What l talk about here is 2,3, or even 6 months. There is a time space between the mishap and what comes. There is another situation where your remedy has acted and on the 6th day or the 7th day, or the 25th day, an ailment from which he was suffering in the past, has come back. Don’t treat a good aggravation in the beginning. There will be an amelioration and then whatever symptomatology was there before it is going to cure itself. You don’t need to give another remedy.
Response : Of course it may stay.
George : If it stays – you will usually see this with leucorrhoea, sinusitis, skin eruptions, fissures, warts, arthritis – just wait. Again I will say that it depends on the severity of the case. Of course if there is a big skin eruption which covers the body, you will try to find a remedy quickly. That person is going to need a remedy for this strong condition. The intensity will show you. Therefore you wait. Give them a placebo and ask them to come back after ten days.
Question : What is the timing ? The symptoms come and they have had an aggravation and they had had an amelioration and then when does the symptom come ?
George : Within the fifth and the twenty-fifth day. It comes back around the fifth or the twenty fifth, more or less. A return of an old symptom can come the third day but usually…I just give you indications.
Question : Can it come much later then ?
Question : Three or six months later, or a year later ?
George : Yes, even after five years. The patient will not bother you all these years. One day he will come and say, “I have an eruption now”. They might say that it started two years ago and then became a little more and a little more and then he comes after quite a good eruption, after 3-5 years. This is after the initial remedy. The indications of the eruption may start one year after your treatment, or two years after your treatment.
Question : Becoming worse all the time?
George: Yes. And then he will come to be treated for these eruptions. You will see haemorrhoids which were suppressed initially coming back. Question : I saw a patient once last year and gave her Phos. She improved for six months and then she became pregnant. Then she came back with the skin on her forearms swollen and cracked, very red,and very painful. She had taken Cortisone for this many years ago. This all started coming out again when she was pregnant. I took the case again and gave her a dose of Sulph. 10 m. It was a very clear case. She left the office and within an hour her hands were suppurating with pus coming out. She got a fever and she became very very upset. Sol have two questions in regard to this: One is what is the effect of pregnancy to chronic cases? Do new layers come out with the effects of pregnancy? And is that kind of situation where there is a direct result from the remedy and it gives the same picture as the remedy…
George : What happened after Sulph.
Response : I didn’t hear. We just kept trying to wait and gave her a placebo.
George : Oh, you waited with that.
Response: Yes, we just kept waiting and waiting. She was in pain and she was extremely upset about it. Question : Did she have a fever 9 Response : Yes. She had fever.
George : She had fever and then you gave her Sulph.
Response : No, we gave Sulph. and then she got the fever and pain.
George : And then you waited?
Response : Yes, we have been waiting.
George : When the eruption came after Phos., you waited or you immediately gave another remedy?
Response: Six months after she received Phos., she became pregnant. After she became pregnant, she began having these symptoms. She was probably three months pregnant at the time.
Question : How long did you wait before you gave the Sulph. ?
George: I understand now. As soon as he saw the case, he prescribed Sulph. After Sulph. there was a further aggravation.
Response : She had had the eruptions for about three months at this point.
George : Okay, you saw the picture and it was Sulph. This woman is cured now. If there is an aggravation of the eruptions after your remedy and there is an immediate further aggravation, it is going to be cured. Now how long shall we wait for that ? We cannot wait for very long if she has fever. Fever means that there is an infection there. For how long has she had the fever ?
Response : When I left, we had been waiting for four or five days.
George : How much fever?
Response : 101°F
George : Were there any indications other than for the fever?
Response : I was not thinking of it in terms of a case. I was not prescribing at that point. I was either going to wait or give her antibiotics.
George: What you have to do in such cases is be sure that there is no possibility that they go into …
Response : Nothing like that. It was all local. It had not gone into the extremities at all.
Comments : The fever would indicate a generalized reaction.
Question: It seems like what you said before-about the tonsillitis and the fever. You said that when you get an aggravation you usually do not get a fever, in that kind of inflammation.
George : No. This is inflammation from an infection. You see, she got an aggravation from Sulph. the skin broke open and it was sensitive to infection. She may go and touch something or wash something and then there is a staphylococcal infection.
Response : I realize that, but if this is a curative response, she should be stronger. She is a young, healthy woman and would not expect her to get this.
George : Not necessarily. If she gets the staphylococcal infection because she is exposed, she must protect herself there. She should wear gloves. It is a very sensitive period where she can have an infection. It is Ike leaving the most sensitive part of your body open to stress. So you have given a remedy and an eruption breaks out, many times it will get inflamed and infection will occur and fever comes on. In this case you will have to treat it and in this case it most probably would have needed another dose of Sulph. A high dose.
Question : Within two days ?
George : Within five days, yes. If the fever is not high, that means that the organism responds and can cope with that infection. The infection does not spread upwards. You will not need another remedy. That person is going to be cured. A dose of Sulph. will he needed. When? You must learn to think by yourself, because you cannot possibly remember all of these things. You must see the underlying principle.
You have an infection. You give Sulph. and it has acted. Okay. But that person goes and touches something with her hands which is infectious and gets an infection.
And the infection gets bigger and bigger and you see this spreading and there is a swelling of the glands. What does that mean? You have to think. You have given Sulph. and there is an infection which the organism does not want and does not keep. There is a low fever. It means that the boost which you have given with Sulph. is not enough and therefore you imagine that it has been counteracted by the new force of the disease. It is as if you have a new case at that point. Do not expect that because you have given Sulph. that it is warding off the ease. The reaction of the patient is towards the center. The Sulph., inspite of having acted only five days, has exhausted the reaction and the person relapses under this severe stress. Then you repeat the higher potency. This is the idea.
Response: The response that I would have is that the remedy was not the right one.
George : No. It can be the right one, but there is a big stress, exposing the organism to a great stress. A big stress will counteract your treatment. Question : What are you calling a “big stress” ?
George : The infection.
Response : Having the sores and having them exposed directly to bacteria.
Response : But there are those who will have sores and get an infection and keep it right there.
George: Then you don’t need a remedy. In Lauren’s case, he said that the fever was there but the infection remained local. Then my tendency would he not to give another remedy but the action of Sulph. is warding off the infection and that he is going to be cured. But you see that the infection or whatever it over takes the defense mechanism and it is going towards the center. But of course it can be that you have not given the right remedy. Or we can presuppose that the remedy is correct. Why ? Because it has aggravated.
Let us suppose that we do not have enough time to see whether it is going to be ameliorated after the aggravation and the day he gets an infection. I presuppose that the remedy has acted and that the stress (infection) is so severe that it counteracts the remedy and so the patient needs another push.
Question: Would it be likely in that situation that he would need Bell. or another acute remedy for that infection ?
George : It is possible. But it is most probable that you will need the deep remedy and he has given Sulph. And especially because Sulph. is a specific remedy for these conditions. Of course you may see Bell., or Bry., or Calc., or whatever it is.
Question : What are the possibilities of his giving her Sulph. and she had a proving of the Sulph. which broke open the skin and then she got an infection? It seems to me that if it was the right remedy that Sulph. would have strengthened her system. Everybody comes into contact with staphylococci. It is everywhere. It does not mean that they get infections every time.
George : Sure. But you see I have seen, after giving a remedy for a chronic asthma, the breaking out of an eruption. Okay? I have seen that several times. And we wait. We wait to see what happens with that. The remedy has acted definitely, because it has brought the asthma to the surface. And many times we see that this will go to a staphylococcal infection. This is SEVERE. And then this needs another remedy. We do not have proof for that case that it was right. But if we suppose that it was
right it can happen that a STAPHYLOCOCCAL CASE CAN OVERTAKE THAT PERSON AND ANTIDOTE IT.
George : Who sleeps against the wall ?
Response : Bry.
George : Who sleeps to the left?
Response : Nat-m.
George : The muriaticums and Calc., Dry., and sometimes Sulph. Which is the remedy which is impossible to sleep on the back ? It is IMPOSSIBLE.
Response : Acet-ac.
George : Which are the remedies which sleep on the right side?
Response : Phos., Lyc.
George: Lach. and Sep. because of the palpitations. Not Phos., Phos., is on the right side. If that is my observation, then it is out of cases.
Response : Sep. is a one on the left and Phos. is a two.
George : Why are we rejuvenated when we sleep ? Response : There are philosophical religious speculations that it is in essence a return to the cosmic source, being bathed in cosmic energy and being renewed that way.
Response : Also we shut down a lot of the things that take energy by not moving or thinking in a conscious way and not worrying and we don’t have to work as hard,
Response : On a physiological level, all metabolic processes slow down during this time.
Response : That doesn’t explain to me why I could feel better in the daytime when I just fall asleep and then wake up again. In just five minutes, I feel a lot more energy. I don’t know why that is.
George : In sleep, what happens in a mechanical way, we say that the body – the astral body or the vital body – leaves and goes outside. This is speculation. Okay ? How do we have a confirmation for that ?
Response : There are some sporadic accounts of people having dreamed of situations that have actually occurred.
George : That is one. The second is that during operations people have recorded that they were seeing. So the consciousness comes out and they are observing their own body being operated upon.
But them is a thing which everybody knows.
Response : One thing is that when you have moved from your usual place of sleep to another one, you will sort of have trouble getting back in because you don’t know where you are.
George : There is a confirmation that the body is out by a process which happens to all of us sometimes. Haven’t you ever dreamt that you were falling and then there was a jerk and you would wake up. This consciousness does not enter smoothly into the physical body and there may be a jerk because there has been a loud noise or because of a dream and there is a jerk on the whole body the moment that it re-enters. That is one thing that we fall know. And that is in the process of falling (down).
Now what is the second observation about sleep? We speculate. Why do we get re-charged? What do we lose?
George : Consciousness. So if we leave consciousness, there is a mechanism that we can leave consciousness and we can eliminate the logic which goes with the consciousness, then there is a process of recharge which takes place. Now, we leave out out personalities in sleep.
We are giving up ourselves – our egos. We are not ego conscious. Therefore, at that moment it becomes possible to give a chance to the universal forces to be united with us. It is our ego action – our ego consciousness – which separates us. If we want to see how much we are separated, we can take two people in society and observe that they are. every egotistical, and each one has each point of view. They are like two poles and they won’t move. Therefore, they will always be separated. But if they give up their ego and come together, they will feel much better and more re-charged. They have energy which is not flowing between them. Actually we can be separated from the universe by coming into an ego-centered place. That is how the idea of space is created. If there is a thing which has no form, we are dissolved into a kind of mass. There is the idea of space. Imagine that you are dissolved in the universe. Where then is the idea of space? You are a point in the universe and the whole universe together. As soon as you come up with a kind of ego consciousness, it is like putting a post in this space and then you have the first post from which you can measure space. To my right there is so much space and to my left there is so much space. If another ego comes up, then there can be measurable space. That is where the idea of space comes from. Then we live in space and we live in time. The idea of space and time is something which we have here in this world.
In sleep we give up this position – this I – the ego consciousness, and we don’t stand up against the universe as ego-centered individuals.. And we let the universe come through us. Due to the re-charging forces of the universe, we get this energy during sleep. So if we wanted to have really good health and in this case we would not need the slightest portion of sleep, what we have to do is to give up ow’ ego.
Then we would be united with these forces all of the time. We would be re-charging ourselves all the time, because we would not be spending energy against the universe. That is what happens in sleep because we cannot do it in the waking state. That is why we are sick. WE ARE SICK. That is why I said selflessness is the highest state which we can attain. Then we shall really become healthy. Only then will we become healthy. Until then we will need sleep and we will need the remedies, and this and that. So you see how the idea of sleep ties in with the definition of health on the one hand, but also it ties in with something else – that our remedies act on our bodies. If you get deep into that idea, you will understand why our remedies act upon our bodies. Because that which is the remedy and that which is the body on a sub-atomic level, actually is the same level. It is the universal force that goes through us. The energy within the atom is nothing else but that universal force which sustains us. Therefore, the stone can affect me. You take Sil. and it can affect me. The plant can affect us. If my body is in that material state and the remedy is also in that state – the ethereal state – we actually take the ethereal body out of the medicine, out of the plant, and then we match the Iwo. They tally. These are things which are going to be discovered over the next thirty or forty years. It is not nonsense. So sleep ties in very much with what we were talking about.
Question : Something goes wrong with my logic. Maybe you can help me. I followed what you were saying about ego-consciousness in sleep, and therefore time and space really have no meaning and therefore we can be re-charged. What I don’t understand then is why there is a difference between having a half hour of sleep and having eight hours of sleep if in the state of sleep time is not really relevant, or are we talking also about resting the physical body as a part of that ?
George : I thought you were going to ask why the person who has the full consciousness – the selfless man – the realized man, the Mahatma, etc. is re-charged without sleep while he is conscious and able to talk and so forth, where we have to go to sleep. Why we knocked off here (indicating) and he is not? The process is the same. We are knocked off because of our ego. We cannot do otherwise. In order to re-charge ourselves, somebody knocks us off for the moment. Otherwise, we cannot be re-charged. But the one who is self less does not need to go to the process of death. We are going through the process of death and rebirth every day of our life. But the man who is REALLY selfless does not have to go into that state. Therefore he is the one who is going to live in eternity as a being on the astral plane, or whatever it is.
Question: Why is time involved?
George: That is a good question. The better is the health in the terms we are talking about, the less sleep we need. We need to function. I have to have five hours of sleep or I cannot function. If my health was better , then five hours of sleep would give total energy. Another person who is better than I am would need three hours.
So a really healthy individual is re-charged much more easily because his body does not put obstructions in the way of the re-charging process.
Question : Do you mean healthy mentally, emotionally and physically ?
George: Yes. That shows that you are in good health. You re-charge quickly and quite a lot.
Question : Do you mean healthy mentally, emotionally and physically and not just physically ?
Question : So with people who have difficulty getting to sleep, does this imply an intellectualizing, egotistical person who does not surrender to the universe ?
George : The way that you put it is correct. On the surface, it appears to be an anxiety, a worry, a fear. A person will say, “I am anxious” or “I am worried”, but underneath there is fear. What is fear? If you dig down in this idea, you will see the egotistical energy that is there in one form or
Was this clear? Was it too fast?
Question : What I don’t understand is how the remedy acts.
George : What we do with the remedy is extract something from the plant or from the mineral which is the same that comes out from the body. That which is extracted during sleep is the place on which we are acting with our remedies. This is the vital body. So the vital body from the plant or from the mineral is that which we have in the remedy.
Question : I have understood that there are four bodies and which part is that which is connected with the vital force ?
George : That is a good question: I don’t know if there are four, but definitely there are levels of energy which are different. I say that because … we have some phenomena, for instance, that one can reach through sleep. The second phenomenon is catalepsy. What is the difference between sleep and catalepsy ? Then we have another phenomena – fainting. So what is the difference between sleep, fainting and catalepsy ? Then there is still another phenomenon – the meditation state in which we lose a little bit of consciousness and the five senses are withdrawn and we do not hear or see. But there is another state of meditation which we are told is the externalization of the body. That is a deep meditation in which the body stays immobile. The body does not move. So what is the difference in energy levels between all of the states? It must be a difference in energy level which the body exudes. It may be more energy and more energy and more energy at another level. So most probably what we see is a complex of energies. I don’t know how many; perhaps 5, 6 or 7. There are 7 basic realms of energy or vibrational frequencies or whatever you call it. The defense mechanism, if we are balanced, is a part of the viral force which is moved as soon as rhere is stress. Then we have an appearance of the different mechanisms. Otherwise the vital force is there and it is working, and is doing its job.
As soon as there is stress, there is a mechanism which is put in action which actually says what to do. The sympathetic system contracts. The hormonal discharge is more. There is an order which is given by a specific mechanism which we call the defense mechanism. This is a part of vitality of the person, of the force or the energy of the person.
Question : Would a person have less dreams as they are getting healthier?
George : No. I have found in my experience that persons who are suffering emotionally very much, but are not really psychotic or completely broken down, will usually say that they have no dreams. Once they get better, they start seeing dreams. Tome, it is that they are seeing dreams but they cannot remember them. And dream states are necessary. There have been experiments with cats. What they did was to find out the dream state by EEG tracings, and when the cat was dreaming they would wake it up and not allow it to go into the dream state. The cat died within 20 days. It was getting sleep, but as soon as it would get into the dream state it would be awakened.
Question : Isn’t it true that Valium and other sedatives tend to prevent the dream state also ?
George : I have found that people need Valium and this type of medicine and I believe it is because they cannot cope. Dream state is the subconscious coming up and you have to deal with it. And they are not in a position to deaf with it. Once their health becomes better, then they can deal with life better.
Question: I have a theory that diurnal temperature goes down at night and if a person uses an electric blanket, that is prevented. Most people find that if they use a down comforter and allow the temperature to go down they will get a better sleep.
George : Yes. These are the mechanisms of sleep. There definitely is a change in circulation. There is a change in temperature. That is why we perspire in sleep. So there is a change in temperature and in the intensity of circulation. Circulation is sedated.
Response : And if the body is working fast, then that might prevent your going into this state.
George : But what is really underneath is that the egotistical level prevents you from being asleep.
Of course, you may ask why a person sleeps one day and does not sleep on another. Would you say that he was not egotistical one day and the next day he became egotistical? What is the answer?
Response : Conflicts probably arose.
Response : Something he is net able to let go off.
George : It brings the issue into more vivid focus. Something happens – anything. It might be a stress.
Question : In the rubrics there is no mention of ailments from childbirth.
George : You will see it in the sub rubrics.