[Read in part before the 97th annual convention of the Ill Hom. Med. Assn., May 13. 1952. Adapted from one of three chapters by the writers for a 500 page book now being edited for publication].
Journal of the Amer. Isti. of Homoeo. November, 1954.
The accurate interpretation of the changes occurring after the remedy has been given is, in some respects, more important than the selection of the right remedy and the repetition of the dose. As Jahr so wisely remarks. “The physicians, be he ever so well acquainted with the remedies at his command, is unable to tell absolutely that his remedy is right. Jahr speaks with authority, for at the time he penned these words, he had practised according to the law of similars for more than forty years. His logical mind and long years of experience had taught him that, no matter how carefully he had chosen his remedy, he could not be sure in the majority of cases how the patient would react to it.
Kent  goes even farther when he says, “The whole future of the patient may depend upon the conclusions that the physician arrives at after the remedy has been administered.”
Roberts  adds his testimony regarding this phase of the art of prescribing. He says, It is upon the development of the reaction of the vital energy to the remedy, that successful prescribing largely depends.”
The correct evaluation of symptoms is peculiar to the Homoeopathic School. It is an absolute essential for the differentiation of remedies and the selection of the similimum. Nevertheless, it is sadly neglected by many of those physicians who call themselves homoeopathists. For this reason, the instructions given in this paper will mean little to the prescriber who persists in using only low potencies, repeats his doses over a long period of his patients.
The consequence is that normal reactions are interrupted or entirely obliterated by the long series of primary effects thus produced; the advocate of this method seldom sees them or if by chance they are able to manifest themselves, he is usually unaware of their significance. While there can be no doubt but that his results, especially in acute affections, are far better than those obtained by the antibiotics and palliative drugs of the dominant school, he fails to cure many deep-seated, chronic diseases that are amenable to correct homoeopathic prescribing.
During his thirty-three years of experience, from 1796 to 1829, when he published The Chronic Diseases. Hahnemann learned much concerning the reactions following the administration of the remedy and their interpretation. In the several essays he published during this period and in The Organon, he lays the foundation upon which the act of prescribing homoeopathically is based.
Those of his disciples who observed his instructions to the letter were the most successful prescribers in the history of our School, especially in the treatment of chronic diseases, as proved by the vast number of cures they have recorded in our literature of the past century and a half.
So eminently practical were Hahnemanns instructions that they could not be improved upon. All that these physicians could do was to define more clearly their application in the treatment of diseases and add a few rules for the use of the very high potencies. This can be readily understood. Hahnemann  published the first exposition of his new system of therapeutics only after six years of painstaking, methodical experimentation and research.
He wrote his famous “Essay on a New Principle for Ascertaining the Curative Powers of Drugs” in 1796. In it he give little more than an outline of the results of his labors. Another ten years elapsed before he felt that he could venture a more complete presentation. This he gives in an essay entitled. “The Medicine of Experience.”  which appeared in Hufelands Journal in 1805. The first edition of his crowning work, The Organon of Medicine, was not published until 1810.
This alone should have won the attention of all conscientious physicians who were looking for something better than they had. But prejudice, slavish adherence to tradition and the dicta of so-called authorities prevented any general acceptance of Hahnemanns revolutionary doctrines.
Moreover, since all who were concerted to Homoeopathy at that time came from the old school, it was quite natural that many, who were unable to divest themselves of their preconceived notions and what they were taught in college, would not accept Hahnemanns teachings in their entirety.