**SPAM** polypharmacy against single remedy

[Peter Quenter]

> I wonder if Peter and Piet have any explanation for #43.
It seems not to be

???

The whole Organon is my favourite section ... !

maybe a typo in the #-reference ???

#43, as I read it, introduces the following paragraphs on
Hahnemann's observations of Nature that are at the
very core of his 'Homoeopathy' ....
no ... ???

Or maybe #43 is cited in context of there being mention of
two diseases co-inciding...??
If so, then the following descriptions of how nature
cures by application of a similar disease, would
even more be argument *for* *single*
remedy/(artificial)disease
application !
According to #45 the similar diseases occupy the
same aspects of the organism, by fact of which the whole
idea of cure occurs in the first place -

Clearly, if one were to give more than one remedy
(with each medicinal substance having their very
own life-affecting character *different from each other*
#111)
to *one* disease, one of the remedies will be non-similar
and
create its own artificial disease with no counterpart for it
to
be extinguished to the 'feeling' of the Vital Force -

Now, also obvious, the argument may go
- so what when there are two *dis-similar* diseases ... ?!?
then giving two remedies, each covering their respective
aspects of the diseased organism would be a fine and
very possible idea ... yes?

Well, only if one believes to be able to correctly perceive
*which symptoms* belong to the one disease, and
*which other symptoms* belong to the other disease -

One would then need to be able to find two
(or more for some practitioners) remedies as 'similimums'
to each individual disease -
Anyone out there who says finding *one* is simple and easy
...?!?!

One would also need to be able to distinguish clearly which
case truly
is occupied by two or more dis-similar diseases -
it is easy to assume and speculate, but that is not good
enough to
base treatment decisions for other people's health on -

Additionally, this approach would presume that
one can affect the Vital Force selectively with individual
remedies given at the same time -

As well, we do not know for certain what and how
combinations
of potencies affect/alter the individual pictures of those
remedies -

And what about the mixing of remedies in regards
' ... 'anti-dotal', inimical, opposite modalities, etc ...
' .... ?!?

As for me -
too many 'don't know' for my liking ....
If one practices this way, I suggest to have a large
sign up over the office entrance:

" Note to clients:
Please be aware that the treatment approach in this office
is
quite experimental - it may or may not turn out to be
beneficial to your health"

---------
And while I'm at it and just to be clear,
let's differentiate this topic's specific focus on treatment
of
*diseases* from another common 'multiple-remedy' approach
which is to *not* match the various *symptoms* to each
individual *disease* and thus to find matching
similimums to those diseases,
but to make convenient assumptions as to
the presumed *causes* for those symptoms -

Then to administer the remedies known/(mis-understood)
to be 'specific' for such *causes* in an attempt to treat
the presumed diseases ...
and thus (allow me to make up an example - a realistic
one) a client experienced a car-accident....
he receives Aconite for the shock
of the accident, plus Arnika for the physical trauma,
plus Staphisagria for the presumed Anger that would
safely be assumed to be part of such picture, plus Rhus tox
plus Hypericum and, depending on paradigm of
treatment-philosophy add the 'constitutional' remedy
for good measure and strengthening .... oh.....almost
forgot...and Ignatia for the feeling of loss of the car now,
too ...
if he arrives at the office after having been to the
hospital and
taken care of first by allopathic means,
add Nux vom for the drugs he would have had ...

All the while none of the *actual symptoms* may have been
matched ....
---------
I will assume this latter kind of treatment is not
what this discussion is referring to -

ooppss ...
there went my Monday morning ....

good wishes to all
peter quenter

[Phosphor]

yes correct. sorry i should have explained.

of a similar disease, would even more be argument >*for* *single*
remedy/(artificial)disease application !
I should also have explained that I'm not arguing for the use of multiple
remedies simltaneously, though once could certainly make a case for it,
based on Hn's Paris practice and other practitioners like Ellis Barker.
bit this issue can be resolved only after another century or so of
experimentation.
*dis-similar* diseases ...
yes exactly.

exactly.

yes and this is the key point. so-called 'classical' homeopathy ignores this
problem and mixes apples with oranges [well, apple symptoms with orange
symptoms].

each individual disease -
yes, with certain provisos that I say below.

if there are two separate disease happening, to find two simillimums will
become *easier* than finding one simillimum for a 'stew' of 2 or 3 disease
symptoms sets.

yes exactly. very hard to do this in the early days, but now we have a lot
of MMs and case history to work with.

all homeopathy has a 'experimental' aspect to it as Vithoulkas says. we
can't be sure if we got the simillimum until after we see the results.

Force selectively with individual remedies given at the >same time
this can be deduced as a fact by virtue of Hn's original observation -
different diseases may occupy the organism simultaneously without mixing.
since homepathic remedies are refined disease energies it follows [at least
by implication] they can do the same.
we also know this through common sense. a patient with chronic asthma stubs
his toe. hypericum fixes the toe pain, but does nothing to the asthma. two
diseases. one is fixed immediately with the simillimum, the other disease
does not interfere with this.
i think these valid issues relate more to the simultaneous giving of
remedies. the fact that two or three diseases are present simultaneously
does not mean we must or should treat them simultaneously.

specific focus on treatment of *diseases* from another >common
'multiple-remedy' approach which is to *not* match the >various *symptoms*
to each individual *disease* and thus to >find matching similimums to those
diseases, but to make >convenient assumptions as to the presumed *causes*
for >those symptoms -
yes, convenient assumption about aetiology is not my point either [so do not
throw me in this pond ].

the provisos regarding this are, as I stated to Piet, where two apparently
separate diseases turn out on closer inspection to have common ground..
1. with similar ameloriations or types of pain etc
2. when put together, and in view of certain other tedious miscellanous
symptoms, suggest a chronic miasm.
2. when together with the mental profile and other generalities suggest the
'constitutional' picture. this last is a perfectly valid development in
homeopathy, but is not stated by Hn. so its a little odd to call this
'clasical' style, as is usally meant by those who call themselves
'classical' homeopaths. they could call themselves 'constitutional
homeopaths' if they feel the need to limit their armaments to one arrow in
the quiver.

look forwards to your comments.
andrew

[Arun]

Hi andrew,
in Aph 213,

"We shall, therefore, never be able to cure conformably to nature - that is
to say, homoeopathically - if we do not, in every case of disease, even in
such as are acute, observe, along with the other symptoms, those relating to
the changes in the state of the mind and disposition, and if we do not
select, for the patient's relief, from among the medicines a disease-force
which, *in addition* to the similarity of its other symptoms to those of the
disease, is also capable of producing a similar state of the disposition and
mind."

Hahnemann seems to be saying that we should consider "symptoms of disease" +
those of the "disposition and mind"
Sure he has not not elaborated on it like those after him, but he seems to
have made a beginning..... Some portions of his MM also gives the same
idea.

regards,
Arun

[Phosphor]

+ those of the "disposition and mind"
well i read it as he is merely emphasising to take into account the mental
state along with physical symptoms, even in cases of obvious physical
disease like measles.

have made a beginning..... Some portions of his >MM also gives the same
idea.
yes the embryo is in puls and nux descriptions. but that's all so far. the
first use of the word 'constitution' is in Dunham as far as i can see. its a
long long way from Coulter.

andrew