[ARH-Hom] Pros & Cons of Combos

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Liz
I am pleased that this thread has caused such a level of reaction.
I am delighted that you have asked what Hahnemann would have thought on this issue. Well, his thoughts are very clearly stated in the Organon.

So if re-reading the Organon is ‘HEAVY’ , then this what you have. The foot note of 272 below completely answers negatively the proposition you put forward in your post. After more experiments and consideration his statement in 273 is even stronger.
§ 272 Fifth Edition

In no case is it requisite to administer more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time.

FN: Some homœopathists have made the experiment, in cases where they deemed one remedy homœopathically suitable for one portion of the symptoms of a case of disease, and a second for another portion, of administering both remedies at the same time; but I earnestly deprecate such a hazardous experiment, which can never be necessary, though it may sometimes seem to be of use.

§ 273 Sixth Edition

“In no case under treatment is it necessary and therefore not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time. It is inconceivable how the slightest doubt could exist as to whether it was more consistent with nature and more rational to prescribe a single, simple1 medicine at one time in a disease or a mixture of several differently acting drugs. It is absolutely not allowed in homœopathy, the one true, simple and natural art of healing, to give the patient at one time two different medicinal substance.”

He obviously stops at two, but the situation is of course worse with greater than 2 remedies.
And the definition of simple substance is given in the footnote to §273:
“Two substances, opposite to each other, united into neutral Natrum and middle salts by chemical affinity in unchangeable proportions, as well as sulphurated metals found in the earth and those produced by technical art in constant combining proportions of sulphur and alkaline salts and earths, for instance (natrum sulph. and calcarea sulph.) as well as those ethers produced by distillation of alcohol and acids may together with phosphorus be considered as simple medicinal substances by the homœopathic physician and used for=patients. On the other hand, those extracts obtained by means of acids of the so-called alkaloids of plants, are exposed to great variety in their preparation (for instance, chinin, strychnine, morphine), and can, therefore, not be accepted by the homœopathic physician as simple medicines, always the same, especially as he possesses, in the plants themselves, in their natural state (Peruvian bark, nux vomica, opium) every quality necessary for healing. Moreover, the alkaloids are not the only constituents of the plants.”
So as I mentioned Causticum which is a mix of a number of elements, and the minerals you have listed, because each is triturated and potentised as a chemical remedy and proved as such is then regarded as simple substance and not ‘combination’ which is the mixture of a few ‘simple’ substance remedies.
Ditto an organic remedy like Apis, Puls or Lyc with multitudes of organic molecules is regarded as a ‘simple substance.

==
This is not just pure theory on the part of Hahnemann. As you can see from 272 (fifth edition) he had received a proposal from one of his students regarding combos and at first he also thought it was a good idea (like a lot of people on this forum) and started to experiment. However, the results of his experiments led him to write aph 273 of sixth edition even more strongly.
I hope this has helped.
Kind regards

Soroush
From: ARH-Homeopathy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARH-Homeopathy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 8:54 AM
To: ARH-Homeopathy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [ARH-Hom] Re: Pros & Cons of Combos
Hi Soroush

I don’t want to wade into a heavy discussion on this, but I can’t help wondering what Hahnemann would have thought?

I feel he would have shown enormous interest, then tried them himself and noted down the results of his research. But then he was a chemist and had an enquiring mind. Many people use combos based on colleagues’ evidence rather than research….doesn’t mean they’re not valid, especially if people concur in praising the results they get. It just needs someone with a bent for research to take interest in them. Most of us are too busy trying to treat people to have the time for such research (or the facilities, really)

And….hey! What about the combos that Hahnemann (or other ‘greats’ of homeopathy) put together and tested: Clalc. Fluor; Calc. Phos; Ars. Iod; Ant. Sulph. Auratum….the list goes on. Are these not combos too? Did Hahnemann not feel a need for a complex/mixed remedy? And would he not have classified them as homeopathy? I think so.

Where you find a partial picture of one remedy, and a partial picture of another (or others) in one person, a combo could well be one way forward. I’m not sure that it confuses the remedy picture, actually. I think it’s just as likely to clear the picture and take you down to a deeper (hitherto hidden) layer.

Just a thought!

Liz

From: ARH-Homeopathy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARH-Homeopathy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 06 April 2017 08:31
To: ARH-Homeopathy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [ARH-Hom] Re: Pros & Cons of Combos

But then Pauline has accurately stated why the practice of using combos is NOT homeopathy. Simply because they are unproven and therefore you do not know the combined effect. It is mixapathy!

The use of potentised substances does not make it homeopathic. Only selected on the basis of symptom similarity does.

So I beg to differ.

Soroush

From: ARH-Homeopathy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARH-Homeopathy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 8:58 PM
To: ARH-Homeopathy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ARH-Hom] Re: Pros & Cons of Combos

Well said.

Isn't homeopathy wonderful it expands and changes to meet the needs of a changing world while retaining its original form and this is still as relevant today as it always was.

What other therapy can achieve this level.

Su Berry

Sent from my iPhone
Soroush, In answer to your question, "And as always the question remains - which bit of the combination was curative and how does one follow on?"

The combination of several remedies becomes a different remedy - they act together as one - like a choir. It is the combination that works, not any one remedy within it.

The follow on remedy, if needed, usually becomes clear and we can prescribe the similimum in the usual way.

It would be a good idea to do provings of some of these combination remedies. That would be interesting for those of us who use them and reassuring for those who, like yourself, are not happy using them.

I don't know about you, but these days I find cases are often confused with symptoms being a result of medications or unresolved previous illnesses. It would be wonderful if every case was suitable for a straightforward classical prescription. Many of us do prescribe classically when possible, but also use other methods when appropriate including the use of combinations.

Pauline
Sent from my iPad

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Sheri Nakken]

oh my goodness...........it never ceases to amaze me (not a good way)
Sheri

At 12:49 PM 4/7/2017, you wrote:
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases