When is a single remedy not a single remedy?

[Paul Booyse]

Hello Anna,

Anythings possible, but I seriously doubt it. It would need to have an
inner disease state which has resulted from the union of two different
disease processes. try comparing that with natural processes and try
combining pulsatilla with a lachesis. Not even venus flytrap comes close.

Calc and Sulphur can combine as a process to give hepar, or with oxygen to
give Calc sulph. Different processes and results giving different remedies.
Anthroposophical medicine uses mineral /plant combinations, where the
mineral is fertilized into the soil of the plant (e.g. Urtica ferro culto or
nettle and iron) But to use this homeopathically we must do a proving.

I just don't know of any disease state that would be matched by 6 single
remedies chucked together and then potentized and proved.
In
i.e.
same
petals.

Hahnemann
disease

Not at the same time and this was in the case of mixed miasma, so e.g first
sulphur (dealing with active psora) then nit ac for the sycosis etc. Always
treating the active state, one remedy at a time. hepar is considered "one
remedy" as is Causticum, Calc carb etc. SIlica is silicon and oxygen etc.
Always a proving first, then apply homeopathy.

Regards,
paul

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Shannon,
OK. Let's say we take component A (e.g Sulphur) and component B (e.g Calc
carb). While we are still at the chemical stage we add them together and the
chemical interaction between them yields a new, third component, C, which
you could regard as the "progeny" of the two original components. A and B
are still present, but their overall character is now modified by the
presence of C which is the sum total, whatever that might be, of their
interrelation.

Now, with this chemically enriched mixture, which we can call D (=A+B+C), we
set out to carry out a proving and ultimately create a dynamised remedy,
D(dyn). In the provings we see that the remedy will have slightly different
characteristics to a remedy merely composed of A+B. The extra
characteristics are attributable, we imagine, to the factor we call C.

Now, in principle if we could isolate C as a chemical substance on its own,
potentise it - C(dyn) -, and then combine it with a pre-potentised A and a
pre-potentised B, how do we know we won't arrive at a duplicate of D(dyn)?
So hypothetically, A(dyn)+B(dyn)+C(dyn) = (A+B+C) (dyn).

Given that it contains all the same "stuff", even though potentised
separately. How do we tell the difference? If there is going to be energetic
interaction between the parts, this could still happen at this point.
But the fact is that at the point where you create the dynamised remedy, the
parts have changed: they have become the sum of the two original components
plus the result of their chemical reaction, and this *before* dynamisation.
So in effect, we might say we have A+B+C and the final remedy is in fact no
more than the sum of its parts. On this basis, there would be no difference
between a pre-dynamisation combination of these parts and a
post-dynamisation combination of the same parts - assuming that they are the
same parts.

Warmly,
Anna

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

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Paul, Dr Rozencwajg, Shannon,

I am very much enjoying all these stimulating ideas. I am going to have to
take a short break from this group, as it has diverted me from doing a lot
of other work that I have to catch up on now! These subjects fascinate me
more than my current work, but I must drag myself away temporarily. I will
try to get back to you on these questions, having thought it all over in the
meantime.

Warmly,
Anna

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

[Jon van Hoffen]

Dear Anna,

You wrote
"Now, with this chemically enriched mixture, which we can call D (=A+B+C), we set out to carry out a proving and ultimately create a dynamised remedy, D(dyn). In the provings we see that the remedy will have slightly different characteristics to a remedy merely composed of A+B. The extra characteristics are attributable, we imagine, to the factor we call C."

I don't know what you mean with your "factor C". Homoeopathy is not mathematics. You insist on a "scientific" explanation of why the potentisation of two elements combined differs from the combinatin of two potentised elements.
In homoeopathy we use a set of rules which combine to "homoeopathic science" This may differ from your understanding of "scientific", but if you want to discuss homoeopathy on this list you will have to keep within the homoeopathic paradigm.
In homoeopathy the effects of a remedy, may it be a single elements or a more complex substance, are determined by a proving of the potentised form of that substance and by clinical results achieved with the remedy.
The provings show that Hepar Sulph is different from Calc Sulph. Why? I do not think anybody knows. We are not advanced enough in our homoeopathic science to answer these questions. This does not mean that homoeopathic science is inferior to mainstream science. I am sure that after a few thousand years we will be more advanced, as will hopefully be mainstream science.

So, giving Hep Sulph to a patient is going to give a different effect than giving Calc Sulph. Giving a combination of Calc carb and Sulphur is gong to be different again. With the first two we have a means of evaluating the effect of the remedy. WIth the third option this would be more difficult, because there is no single proving we can refer to.
Increasing the number of different remedies in different potencies given as a combination only increases the complexity. It soon becomes too hard to evaluate the effects sensibly.
Using homeotoxilogy works on completely different principles, as Dr. Rozencwajg has explained, and should not be confused with homoeopathy.

I hope I have been clear,

Kind regards,

Jon van Hoffen

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

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Anna,

(Jump below)

on 3/8/04 5:09 PM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:
Well... No... Hepar sulph is a different entity. Just as when you
chemically combine hydrogen and oxygen (under proper conditions) you get
water, which is not hydrogen and oxygen but something different.
It could have utterly and completely different characteristics, just as
water has utterly and completely different characteristics from its
component elements. I think that in the case of a salt more of the two
individual pictures are retained, compared with some other forms of chemical
combination. It would be an interesting study to see which "combined" forms
retained much of the individual pictures and which do not, and see whether
that can be generalized in this way.
I'm not sure just where your thinking is going here. If two substances have
chemically reacted, then you no longer have two substances, but only the
third. Well, except in the case of a dissolved salt...
Ouch... I think you need to give me a specific example with specific
substances. Everything from here down is just too ambiguous; could be some
specific examples where it might apply, could be others where it would not.
Give me some specific substances to try?

Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

on 3/8/04 5:19 PM, Paul Booyse at pb000014@pixie.co.za wrote:
Also, Hahnemann emphasized that, altho you might want to *guess* what your
following remedy *might* be (e.g., "I'm going to give Lyc now because that
seems to fit his most pressing problems, but I'm betting we'll move on to
...) BUT you *always* take the case again before re-prescribing. Hahneman
emphasizes -- and I think most of us have experienced -- that sometimes
we'll be surprised by what follows; sometimes you won't need *anything*
beyond that first remedy, and sometimes the picture that emerges next is not
what you'd expected.

Shannon

[Julian Winston]

At 10:42 PM +0000 3/8/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:

[snip]
One again, it must be looked at in the historical context.
The need to "zig-zag" in prescribing was well established by
Hahnemann. Sometimes one remedy just can't do it all.
You thus give ONE remedy, the closest you can find, observe the
result, re-take the case, then give another most similar for the new
case.

A combo will not do because you can't SEE the whole thing at first.
You have to "peel it" one layer at a time. That's what Hahnemann did,
and many have followed in his path, right up to present day.

If you use a combo, you have NO WAY of evaluating the result.
And what you want to do is that: evaluate the result of what you
did-- so you can then know where to go.

You say you've been studying for years. You obviously seem to have
missed a big piece of the homeopathic process.
Giving remedies is not enough. You must be able to evaluate the results.

JW

[Shannon Nelson]

I'm sure we can all relate!
Happy up-catching.

Cheers,
Shannon
on 3/8/04 5:43 PM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:

[Sheri Nakken]

I can't believe you can't understand this

Do you know what a proving is? Why they are done? What is produced by
them? Why we need them?

And homeopathy doesn't KNOCK DOWN ASPECTS OF A DISEASE
THAT IS ALLOPATHY

At 10:42 PM 03/08/2004 +0000, you wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL
OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[Chua Ching Yee]

Whether a person can or cannot understand homoeopathy has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
to do with her/his level of (formal) education. Otherwise all the allopathic
doctors would be homoeopaths by now.

C
on 9/3/04 9:25 pm, Sheri Nakken at homeopathycures@tesco.net wrote: