Definition of a single remedy

[Dana Ullman, MPH]

Anna,
When a plant, animal, or mixed mineral remedy undergoes a PROVING,
the symptoms that it causes are the symptoms of this SINGLE (mixed
ingredient) substance...and this is a single remedy. When you take 2
potentized substances (after potentization) and prescribe them together,
this is a double-remedy or a combination medicine.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.

Whether Hahnemann says double-remedies OR not, each person must
decide what makes sense to them (though we all do need to use Hering's law
of cure to evaluate results). I don't know a single cardiologist who says
that William Harvey is the be-all and end-all of cardiology info. I honor
Hahnemann, but he wasn't a God, nor do I believe that he had or has the
end-say on all things homeopathic.

Dana Ullman, MPH
Homeopathic Educational Services
2124 Kittredge St.
Berkeley, CA. 94704
(510)649-0294
(800)359-9051 (orders in the US only)
(510)649-1955 (fax)
dullman@igc.org OR mail@homeopathic.com
http://www.homeopathic.com

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Dana,

Thank you for your response.
I understand this definition. What I am attempting to explore is the real
difference, if any, between these two things. I believe that this
distinction is absolutely crucial to the debate over single and double
remedies. It appears to hinge on whether the "single" remedy somehow becomes
transmuted into something other than, or greater than, the sum of its parts
in the process of its creation. If it does, we need to see 1) a scientific
proof to confrm that it does, and 2) a scientific explanation of how and why
this is able to happen. This may seem like nit-picking, but it is important
due to the enormous insistence of classical homeopaths that the "single"
remedy, even though it may be made up of many separate components, is
something other than a "double" or "multiple" remedy that is made up of
other substances pre-potentised. If we cannot clearly establish what the
difference is, then we arrive at the fact that there is no scientific or
objective basis for saying that a single remedy (other than a true
single-constituent remedy, e.g. elemental Sulphur) is different from a
combination remedy.
I agree, to a certain extent. There is a place for all of these things.
Ideally, though, there should be a structured and scientific understanding
of precisely what one thing is vis-a-vis the other, and what the functional
relationship is between them. This is all the more important, given the fact
that many homeopaths would evidently burn people at the stake over these
matters. Perhaps, without the fanatical dogma that seems prevalent, these
issues would be much less important except to scholars and technicians.
I agree. I would also add that we may not actually know for sure exactly
what Hahnemann said, in its entirety!

Thank you for your kind, measured and wise input.

Warmly,
Anna

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

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Anna,

An interesting line of thinking, but a good part of whatyou ask would be
answered for you if you study and gain some experience with single-remedy
prescribing. If you will do that first -- learn both homeopathy, and also
homotoxicology, and learn them *well* -- these questions would I believe
fall away, and you might instead come up with some other questions and/or
answers that could really move our understanding forward. But it would save
a lot of time and confusion if you could simply learn the material *first*,
and *then* explore for weak places in the fabric. Because at this point,
altho I honor the intensity of your interest, you're belaboring what would
seem to be some pretty obvious points. E.g.:
on 3/8/04 1:27 PM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:
Anna, how will you define each of the "parts", and how will you determine
whether the combination is "more" or "less" or "same"? Will you do it thru
clinical usage, or provings, or some other way? Because the "clinical
usage" and "proving" parts have been done, and it's on these bases that
we're giving our answers.
If this were the case then Sanicula (water from a particular mineral spring,
which contains many individual minerals) ought to be effective in treating a
person who needed any of the minerals it contains. Many of us have found,
to our sorrow, that this is not the case.

Or nux-v, which contains strychnine, should work also for a person
exhibiting a strychnine picture -- but it does not.

And most any plant ought to effectively cure anyone needing most any mineral
-- but they do not.
In all of the "mixed remedies" above -- and many more -- the differences are
quite plain, on basis of both their proving pictures and clinical
effectiveness.
In some cases a combo might indeed be simply "the sum of the parts"; in
other cases there may be energetic reactions among the remedies. The only
solid way to *know* would be to prove the combo. If this were done, it
would be entirely acceptable to use the combo as a "single remedy".
Do you mean the "fanatical dogma" concerning what is to be *called*
homeopathy, or are you referring to another?

Shannon

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H20

Sodium chloride is a different compound that hydrochloric acid and caustic soda; try to put each of them on your food and tell me that the sum of the parts is not different from each part.........

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

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Shannon,
That's what I am trying to do. I have been learnng homeopathy for quite a
long time.
Either, both. Going back to the original material, analysing, comparing.
Hahnemann (Aphorism 285): "The fact that medicines can be administered
through the skin explains those rare miracle cures where chronically
crippled patients (whose skin was nevertheless whole and unblemished) were
rapidly and permanently cured after a few mineral baths. By chance, the
medicinal constituents of the baths were homeopathically appropriate to the
old malady."

So, perhaps the remedy as tried by "many of us" was simply the wrong remedy.
This is not compelling data. Just anecdotal evidence and a sign of poor
case-taking or a lack of structure perhaps.
No? So it is *less* than the sum of its parts, or perhaps was used in the
wrong potency? Has this been verified objectively? I see many similarities
between Nux and Strychnine in my book. Convulsions, jerking limbs,
excitability, irritability, blackouts, toxicity..
This would no longer be homeopathy, though, would it? But rather mineral
replacement therapy, for which you would be better off using tissue salts or
Celloids, which in turn are found in any plant. You also would need to know
how far the disease has progressed, etc. (Which knowledge is offered by
homotoxicology but seems lacking in most conventional homeopaths)
So if we took something like a Heel combo and repotentised it all together
as one, it then ceases to be a combination and becomes a single remedy
again? God knows what the potency value would be, but you concede that it
could then be counted as one remedy? Or, if we conduct a proving of, say,
Traumeel, and note down the proving symptoms (ignoring the fact that the
potencies have been arranged to make it hard to prove / aggravate), then the
combo can be seen as a single remedy?

This reminds me of the Ourobouros, the mythological snake perpetually eating
its own tail.

Warmly,
Anna

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

[Julian Winston]

At 11:43 AM +1300 3/9/04, Dr.J Rozencwajg wrote:

In the nature of an experiment....
It was terrible.
It destroyed the food. The lettuce started to fizzle.
Made a terrible mess.
I tried picking it up with my fingers, and it burned really badly.
Rather use sugar....

JW

[Julian Winston]

At 7:27 PM +0000 3/8/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:

[snip]
Why? Maybe YOU need to see an explanation that will explain it to you
within your model of what science is. *I* do not require this.
Pulsatilla, which is made up of a number of chemical components, is
NOT those components. Mix them all together and see if it produces a
beautiful Pulsatilla flower. I am content to know that a proving of
Pulsatilla or Agaricus (which is out in the pine woods here right
now) is that of the unique plant and NOT that of the components.
It's like all those "scientists" trying to evaluate the action of
tetrahydrocannabinol back when, and not understanding that when you
smoke good weed it is MORE than just the THC that is working.
Allopathy looks for "active ingredients" and "plausable mechanisms of action."
Neither of those interest me in the slightest.
A friend of mine, an electrical engineer, said that on his first day
in school the teacher said, "There are two things you should know
about electricity: It is magic, and you don't stand in water and
touch it."
That's good enough for me.
I've been using homeopathic remedies for about 30 years. I've had
failures, but the large number have been successes based upon the
selection of the single remedy based upon the concept of simillimum.
That's all I am interested in knowing.
The rest is, as they say here, a big mental wank.
And Hahnemann spoke clearly about that in the footnote of paragraph
one. It is excellent advice.

JW

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi again!

on 3/8/04 5:34 PM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:
Okay, great! Are you taking a formal class, or taking a different approach?
How far along are you (if that's not too personal or too difficult to
answer)?
This is already done very thoroughly in the cases of remedies such as hepar
sulph vs. its components, the salts versus their components, and all of the
other examples I gave. What that study demonstrates is that "the whole is
more than the sum of the parts". At least in those particular cases.
I'm missing your point here. Yes, of course it was the wrong remedy. My
point was that in this case the mixture we call Sanicula acts *as a whole*,
and *not* as "the sum of its parts". The mixture will not stand in for its
constituents.

A person taking baths in the physical waters might be a different situation,
I'm not sure. I suspect that the number of "chronically crippled patients
[who] were rapidly and permanently cured after a few mineral baths" is quite
small; I have never had the impression that these were expected to be a
permanent cure. But that's hypothetical; all I can say is that Sanicula "as
a whole" acts *as a whole*, and not as a collection of parts.
Less or more, whatever; if it doesn't suit the case, it won't work. If
strychnine is needed, nux-v won't work (generally speaking), and vice versa.
Yes indeed, there are many similarities.
Why?
Er, yes, you'd certainly be better off using physical doses for mineral
replacement. That's because as a *remedy*, as an energetic stimulus, it
doesn't work to use the wrong substance. That was my point; did we miss
each other?
?? Different terminology. Can't say much, since I don't know
homotoxicology.
Seems so to me.
Yes, so far as I can see.
Now if the combination of potencies does make it that much harder to get a
proving, that could indeed be a problem. There are a number of
"traditional" remedies in use which haven't had good provings, and/or where
some of the important indications have come from clinical use rather than
provings. So there's definitely some "gray area". There are some
homeopaths who will not use any remedy that doesn't have full provings, but
most are happy enough to include clinical indications.

As I've said, I have no trouble at all accepting the usefulness of Heel and
Homotoxicology and etc., and some homeopaths will use them alongside
homeopathic work. Why is it a problem if they are considered Homotoxicology
and not Homeopathy? That's the point that still baffles me.
Meaning you consider it a circular argument, or a meaningless one, or ?? To
me it seems meaningless in that the *definition* of homeopathy is clear, and
I don't know why that causes problems in anyone's mind. If you mean it's a
circular argment, I'll need you to explain why.

Cheers,
Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

As you seem to have an interest in architecture - a building is a sum of
more than its parts - the parts being bricks, mortar, wood, roof,
foundations etc. Once built it gains a life that might exhibit all the
blood, sweat and tears that went into building it, it gains a history, it is
imbued with the lives of the people who live in it, it gains a 'feeling',
smells, sensations, ghosts, wear and tear etc.

Likewise a single remedy is always more than the sum of it parts because,
during a proving, it develops a symptom picture (which is always somewhat
but not entirely distanced from the original substance) - symptoms which
might range from strange delusions, characteristic mental, emotional and
physical symptoms, modalities, sensations, right down to the merest and
seemingly unimportant (but still vital) skin eruption. For example, how can
Iodum know it has a 'desire to kill' without that proving. How can Dulcamara
be 'abusive without being angry' - no-one knows until the proving is
conducted.

Your question (1) - we have the scientific proof - it is the provings.

Your question (2) - we have the scientific explanation - it is called
Homeopathy, and explained to you admirably, many times, by people on this
list.

Go study the remedies and you will understand.

Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 8/3/04 7:27 PM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:

Dear Dana,

Thank you for your response.
I understand this definition. What I am attempting to explore is the real
difference, if any, between these two things. I believe that this
distinction is absolutely crucial to the debate over single and double
remedies. It appears to hinge on whether the "single" remedy somehow becomes
transmuted into something other than, or greater than, the sum of its parts
in the process of its creation. If it does, we need to see 1) a scientific
proof to confrm that it does, and 2) a scientific explanation of how and why
this is able to happen. This may seem like nit-picking, but it is important
due to the enormous insistence of classical homeopaths that the "single"
remedy, even though it may be made up of many separate components, is
something other than a "double" or "multiple" remedy that is made up of
other substances pre-potentised. If we cannot clearly establish what the
difference is, then we arrive at the fact that there is no scientific or
objective basis for saying that a single remedy (other than a true
single-constituent remedy, e.g. elemental Sulphur) is different from a
combination remedy.
Warmly,
Anna
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]