When is a single remedy not a single remedy?

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Minutus,

One of the people who emailed me privately pointed out that many single
homeopathic remedies are in themselves made up of many parts. This has set
me thinking, and I am wondering about the basis for calling a remedy a
single remedy. I am no chemist, but I believe it is true to say that things
such as Sulphur and Phosphorus can without doubt be called
single-constituent remedies.

However, when it comes to others it may be a different story. One example is
Hepar Sulph. I quote the following from one of Dana Ullman's books:

"This medicine was initially conceived by Samuel Hahnemann. He mixed finely
powdered oyster shells with elemental Sulphur and burned the mixture for 10
minutes at white heat. Hahnemann, who in addition to being a physician was a
chemist and an avid experimenter, frequently tested various mixtures of
substances. He developed Hepar Sulphur from an oyster shell, which is the
source of a major homeopathic medicine, Calc Carb (Calcium Carbonate), and
Sulphur, another extremely common homeopathic remedy. Typically, when two
medicinal substances are mixed together, the mixture creates symptoms which
are characteristic of both substances..." Looking at the materia medica, one
can see that Hepar does combine elements of its constituent remedies. So, is
Hepar Sulph a single remedy, or a combination remedy? Does it matter that
the components have been added before the homeopathic remedy-making process
and proved together as though they were one?

Plants are another example of remedies containing wide ranges of chemical
constituents. Allopathy often isolates a particular constituent, but if a
whole plant or a particular part of a plant such as a leaf, root, etc, is
used medicinally we are making use of a whole variety of minerals and
chemicals. Potter's Herbs on Colchicum, for instance, gives us:

"Constituents: 1) Alkaloids, the most important of which is colchicine, with
demecolcine, 2-demethyl colchicine, colchiceine, N-formyl - N-desacetyl
colchicine, lumicolchicine and many others [380]; 2) Flavonoids, including
apigenin [381]; 3) Plant acids, including chelidonic, 2-hydroxy-6-methoxy
benzoic and salicylic [381]; 4) Miscellaneous - sugars and phytosterols etc
[381]"

Note that Willow (Salix Alba) also contains salicylic acid among many other
components and also shares certain anti-inflammatory properties with
Colchicum. I may be wrong, but I believe aspirin also makes use of salicylic
acid for its anti-inflammatory properties.

So is there not a case for saying that one remedy normally considered
"single" is in fact a huge combination in its own right, drawing on the
chemical properties, now homeopathically rendered, to address a whole
variety of potential problems?

Another example is Symphytum or Comfrey. To take from Dana Ullman again:

"Comfrey is rich in calcium, phosporus, potassium, iron and magenesium, as
well as vitamins B, C and E. Looking at the law of similars, one might
wonder how and why a herb that is rich in calcium would be useful in
homeopathic dosages for people with fractures. Calcium is indeed valuable
for building strong bones; however, because overdoses of calcium actually
cause brittle bones, homeopathic doses of calcium can help to strengthen
them."

This might also point to another area in homeopathy, namely where
"homeopathic" remedies are really working antipathically. But that isn't the
point here. It is interesting that within Comfrey we are seeing another
remedy at work, i.e. Calcium. So is Comfrey a single remedy? What if Comfrey
is given in a case where it is its Calcium component that is needed? Then,
is it not the Calcium that is doing the work or at least a significant part
of it? Would a calcium-depleted form of Comfrey still fulfil the same
function? What is the difference between giving Comfrey on its own and a
combination of this and Calcium?

Anas Barb. is made from the heart and liver of a duck. Is this not a
combination remedy, drawing on the relative properties of the different
organs? Dana Ullman tells us this is currently the favourite flu medicine in
France, and offers the theory that the different organs may carry certain
viruses that can then become the active homeopathic agents to combat the flu
virus. So, a remedy within a remedy within a remedy? If we can break the
remedy down into so many component parts and (theoretically) put it all
together again, aren't we making a combination?

Nux vomica is a cocktail of strychnine and a whole variety of other chemical
components. It is a combination, too.

I am suggesting that if one probes at the slightly deeper science behind
these remedies, we begin to see that things are not as simple as they look
at first glance. I am wondering where classical homeopathy draws the line
between a single-constituent remedy and a multiple-constituent remedy, and
what differentiation it makes then between what one might call a
"micro-combination" (i.e a "single" remedy made of many parts, which can be
used as remedies in their own right) and a "macro-combination" (a
combination made of many parts which are themselves also used as single
remedies)?

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

What make a single remedy single is that it is proved as one; it is not the plain addition of the effects of different constituents.

It is quite true that a complex salt or a plant will have many symptoms of its constituents, but it will have many more that are typical of that particular substance.

So Hepar Sulphur is one remedy, a single one, whereas combining the remedy Calc carb with the remedy Sulfur in the same bottle will never give you the range of action of Hepar Sulphur.
And to reinforce that, consider the remedy Calcarea Sulfurica which is a naturally occuring salt (as opposed to the artificially created Hepar Sulf); you will see that there is common stuff but extensive and extreme differences in their actions, provings and clinical uses.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Dr Rozencwajg,

Thank you for this explanation. So, you are saying basically that if the
components are mixed before homeopathic preparation, they become effectively
more than the sum of their parts, whereas if they are put together after
homeopathic preparation they are *merely* the sum of their parts. Am I right
in this interpretation?

Warmly,
Anna
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Yes except in semantics.

I would talk about dynamization of the remedy, not homeopathic preparation, as a substance has to be homeopathic to something.

That is what got you into hot water with the homotoxicology issue: homeopathy "mirrors" the remedy with the patient's symptoms as perceived during consultation; homotoxicology, herbalism, homeobotanical therapy prescribe remedies according to a perceived physiological process often without including the personal reaction of the patient (the modalities in homeopathy).

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Dr Rozencwajg,

OK, so the idea is that when the material components are put together
*before* the process of making the mixture into a dynamised remedy with
potential homeopathic uses (I trust this is in order as a definition), the
finished remedy becomes more than the sum of its parts. As opposed to the
combining of remedies that have each individually already been through a
systematic dilution / dynamisation process beforehand.

Can you explain how this happens?

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

[Shannon Nelson]

Tho substances mixed after potentization ("combos") might not necessarily be
"the sum of their parts" in that you could (or so I gather) have
interactions among the "parts".
Shannon
on 3/7/04 4:25 PM, Dr.J Rozencwajg at jroz@ihug.co.nz wrote:

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Shannon,
Can you expand on this? I don't quite understand what you mean.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Hennie Duits]

('as' a definition..)

H.

[Hennie Duits]

No, this is not in order of a definition, and you should know that by now.

Hennie

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Hennie,
Explain, please?

Anna
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger