Simple, Single medicinal Substance

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear John

Single medicinal substance is mentioned in the Organon many times.
An example would be Sulphur.

The first time we come across Simple, Single medicinal is

§ 272 Fifth Edition

In no case is it requisite to administer more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time.1
1 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.

So here Hn is reacting against what we now call polypharmacy. I believe you and I are together on this point.

In Organon 6 we have the next mention:

§ 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.

1 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.
Here as can be seen Hn is repeating what he had stated in 5th Ed and with the footnote that expands the meaning of simple.

Two substances, opposite to each other
So we take Sodium Hydroxide and Hydrochloric acid (two substances, opposite to each other, one an alkali and the other an acid). They are combined together carefully to give us neutral Sodium Chloride (Nat-mur). So our 'careful' mixture combines to gives us a constant substance.

So he mentions salts whose proportion (ie chemical formula in modern terms) remain the same - such as Natrum Salts - eg NaCl or common salt.

And middle Salts These are where we have two metals, or a metal and hydrogen. For example Potassium Bicarbonate KHCO3.

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

The key statement is "be considered as simple medicinal substances by the homœopathic physician".

Here the Master is defining SIMPLE MEDICINAL SUBSTANCES - IT IS A HOMEOPATHIC TERM or jargon - whether they be Phosphorous (ie a single element) or ethers produced by distillation of alcohol, and acids which can involve a number of elements.

We also know that when Hn mentions remedies and medicinal substances in this late stage of Organon, he is not talking about crude substance but potentised substances.

This I believe confirms what I have been saying - that the term SIMPLE MEDICINAL SUBSTANCE means any material that has been potentised.

My conclusion is that if you potentise a substance, be they a single element or a plant extract or sarcodes etc., they become a SINGLE SUBSTANCE.

Please let me know if this is acceptable to you.

If I am reading the English incorrectly, then please be kind enough to advise how I am reading it wrong.

Once I know your reply, I will progress with my reply if necessary.

Regards

Soroush
Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

[John Harvey]

Hi, Soroush --
Are you wholly familiar with the difference between a chemical compound and a mixture?
Cheers --
John
2009/7/26 >

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear John
As some one who was ace Chemistry Student at A level and part studied Chemistry at my Uni course - I guess the answer would have to be YES!
See how is it is to answer yes or no - I would recommend it.
Now tell me - what do you understand by the words
to be considered as simple medicinal substances by the homœopathic physician ?
Have a nice w/e.
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 26 July 2009 01:58
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Simple, Single medicinal Substance
Hi, Soroush --
Are you wholly familiar with the difference between a chemical compound and a mixture?
Cheers --
John
2009/7/26 >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

[John Harvey]

Hi, Soroush --

I'm puzzled, then, as to how you

(1) confuse Hahnemann's clear reference to chemical compounds with mixtures of medicines -- as in "They are combined together carefully to give us neutral Sodium Chloride (Nat-mur). So our 'careful' mixture combines to gives us a constant substance" and "Here the Master is defining SIMPLE MEDICINAL SUBSTANCES - IT IS A HOMEOPATHIC TERM or jargon - whether they be Phosphorous (ie a single element) or ethers produced by distillation of alcohol, and acids which can involve a number of elements" -- and

(2) confuse Hahnemann's reference to elements and compounds early in footnote 159 to § 273 with the insubstantial, dynamic properties of medicines to such an extent that you can imagine "that when Hn mentions remedies and medicinal substances in this late stage of Organon, he is not talking about crude substance but potentised substances"!

I could understand my earlier arguments going over your head if you had no knowledge whatever of chemistry. But if you actually understand the concepts, then I can only conclude that your inability to respond to those arguments derives from not having paid attention to them.

Regardless, the notion that you have raised, that mixing any two substances will result in a "single remedy", is one that remains
• without meaning;
• unproven; and
• of unexplained relevance to Hahnemann's meaning of "one single, simple medicinal substance".
You say that you have no intent after all to say what your concept of "single remedy" means, to offer any evidence that, whatever it does mean, it is a true product of a mixture, or to say how this concept may be relevant to the meaning of Hahnemann's "one single, simple medicinal substance" (a meaning whose complete plainness is apparent upon reading §§ 264, 273, and 274 in a context of his instruction in §§ 266 to 272).
That being so,
• Hahnemann's plain meaning in stating that it is "not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" in referring not to some essence but to substance remains unchallenged.
• The truth that Hahnemann's definition of the homoeopathy excludes the use of more than one such single, simple medicinal substance at one time remains unchallenged.
• Hahnemann's contention (§§ 273, 274) that it is unnecessary to use more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time remains unchallenged.
• Even the correctness of Hahnemann's express (§§ 274) view that the effects of using more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time are unforeseeable and uninterpretable remains unchallenged.
Rather than continue down this line to nowhere, why don't we simply agree that a mixture is a mixture and, whatever your "single remedy" may be, a medicinal mixture clearly comprises, in Hahnemann's terms, "more than one single, simple medicinal substance". If we take this commonsense approach to the terminology that we all understand -- terminology such as substance, mixture, single, and one -- then the discussion is much easier than if we attempt to pursue abstruse meaning in undefined terms.
If, on the other hand, you have some evidence that's relevant to Hahnemann's meaning and may alter our understanding of it, it would be interesting to know about.
As to your question, which presumable is to the point, though it's not clear what relevance you give it: those substances that Hahnemann instantiated in his opening sentence as some he considered simple medicinal substances were chemical compounds and elements, as argued in my "Of substance" breakdown of the footnote (1:35 p.m. GMT 13 Jul 09). Further detail is available in that message.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/26 >
________________________________

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear John
(Other colleagues, please comment also)
It is either the case that my understanding and analysis of English is poor or that the problem exists else where.
In your LONG email you have digressed to cover combination remedies etc which have never been in dispute between us. So what was the point?
Are you trying to imply that I support such practises? If so that would be grossly unfair of you.
You have also gone into Hn's instructions on the preparation of remedies and how care should be taken in their preparation and exact methods should be followed. Again I certainly have not disputed them - so why raise them in your reply?
What is being disputed in the origin or the Nature of the remedies and terminology.
As I had mentioned, the only reference to Simple Single medicinal substances is in 272 of Organon 5 and 273 of Organon 6 which I have sited below.
In a materialist sense, the only type of SIMPLE single remedies that can be made are those of pure elements, such Phos, Sulp, Arg met, Aur met, Cuprum, Zinc etc etc. Else by 'materialistic' definition they are NOT SIMPLE.
However, when we read fn 159 of 273, Hn is not talking about these elements on their own - He mentions Phos (a single element) amongst a number of mineral compounds, or extracts which are a mixture of compounds.
For ease of reference I requote fn 159:
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.
Here you will note that Hn has mentioned both a single element (Phos) and minerals and ethers etc and states that the Homeopathic physician many CONSIDER them as a SIMPLE medicine. We know that Hn was very careful with his words. So why is he calling these things that we know (and he knew) clearly are not simple substances in material terms (for we know them as organic or inorganic compounds or mixtures of compounds) as simple substance?
Well the key words here are "BE CONSIDERED". So Hn is coining a phrase Simple Medicinal substance to mean any such remedy.
One more clue here is the fact that he calling them simple - it is because the remedy after potentisation has become a single dynamic substance (as per Nux-v, Puls, Lach, Naja, Lake waters etc). By dynamic it means that we are no longer concerned with the chemistry of the remedy but its yet to be defined disease causing energy or power.
I repeat that after proving, any such substance is a SINGLE, SIMPLE MEDICINAL SUBSTANCE. (SSMS)
Let me add this also - taking one of the lake water remedies in question which will contain many compounds: organic (from many vegetation and animal sources; micro organisms) and inorganic - clearly a mixture of substances, potentising this, will make an SSMS. Also any of the Carcinocin remedies (not Carcin - which is single breast tumour tissue) which start as a mixture of various cancerous tumours, when well mixed and potentised will produce an SSMS.
Now so as to remove any doubt, one is not allowed to mix two potentised remedies and prescribe them. That is polypharmacy.
I hope I have managed to answer your questions with good logic. As I asked before, if you think my understanding of English of the Organon is flawed then please do let me know.
However, so that my limited understanding is assisted, I sincerely request that you reply to one issue at any one time and we have cleared it, we can proceed on wards.
With best wishes.
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 26 July 2009 15:44
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Simple, Single medicinal Substance
Hi, Soroush --

I'm puzzled, then, as to how you

(1) confuse Hahnemann's clear reference to chemical compounds with mixtures of medicines -- as in "They are combined together carefully to give us neutral Sodium Chloride (Nat-mur). So our 'careful' mixture combines to gives us a constant substance" and "Here the Master is defining SIMPLE MEDICINAL SUBSTANCES - IT IS A HOMEOPATHIC TERM or jargon - whether they be Phosphorous (ie a single element) or ethers produced by distillation of alcohol, and acids which can involve a number of elements" -- and

(2) confuse Hahnemann's reference to elements and compounds early in footnote 159 to § 273 with the insubstantial, dynamic properties of medicines to such an extent that you can imagine "that when Hn mentions remedies and medicinal substances in this late stage of Organon, he is not talking about crude substance but potentised substances"!

I could understand my earlier arguments going over your head if you had no knowledge whatever of chemistry. But if you actually understand the concepts, then I can only conclude that your inability to respond to those arguments derives from not having paid attention to them.

Regardless, the notion that you have raised, that mixing any two substances will result in a "single remedy", is one that remains
• without meaning;
• unproven; and
• of unexplained relevance to Hahnemann's meaning of "one single, simple medicinal substance".
You say that you have no intent after all to say what your concept of "single remedy" means, to offer any evidence that, whatever it does mean, it is a true product of a mixture, or to say how this concept may be relevant to the meaning of Hahnemann's "one single, simple medicinal substance" (a meaning whose complete plainness is apparent upon reading §§ 264, 273, and 274 in a context of his instruction in §§ 266 to 272).
That being so,
• Hahnemann's plain meaning in stating that it is "not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" in referring not to some essence but to substance remains unchallenged.
• The truth that Hahnemann's definition of the homoeopathy excludes the use of more than one such single, simple medicinal substance at one time remains unchallenged.
• Hahnemann's contention (§§ 273, 274) that it is unnecessary to use more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time remains unchallenged.
• Even the correctness of Hahnemann's express (§§ 274) view that the effects of using more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time are unforeseeable and uninterpretable remains unchallenged.
Rather than continue down this line to nowhere, why don't we simply agree that a mixture is a mixture and, whatever your "single remedy" may be, a medicinal mixture clearly comprises, in Hahnemann's terms, "more than one single, simple medicinal substance". If we take this commonsense approach to the terminology that we all understand -- terminology such as substance, mixture, single, and one -- then the discussion is much easier than if we attempt to pursue abstruse meaning in undefined terms.
If, on the other hand, you have some evidence that's relevant to Hahnemann's meaning and may alter our understanding of it, it would be interesting to know about.
As to your question, which presumable is to the point, though it's not clear what relevance you give it: those substances that Hahnemann instantiated in his opening sentence as some he considered simple medicinal substances were chemical compounds and elements, as argued in my "Of substance" breakdown of the footnote (1:35 p.m. GMT 13 Jul 09). Further detail is available in that message.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/26 >
________________________________
.

[John Harvey]

Dear Soroush,
I'm sorry that you find my writing so difficult for your otherwise penetrating mind.
I'm at a loss as to how to explain such words as one, single, and substance without those explanations' causing you grief. Do you have any suggestions?
I'll do my best to respect your wishes by restricting each of my replies to your message to just one of the several subjects that it addresses.
Kind regards,
John
2009/7/28 >

[muthu kumar]

Hi Soroush-

I agree with you entirely. For me anything that can cause symptoms can be curative also. I do not care what the substance is. In fact not even knowing the name of the substance but just labeling the medicines as Substance 0001, Substance 0002 so on and so forth will avoid a lot of signature prescribing, conjectures, periodic table jumping, vital sensation conjectures etc. and at the same time probably preserve pure proving based prescription.

Aqua marina for example is water collected from the sea. Not a single compound- it is a mixture. All the milk remedies that we use- I would ask - is that a compound or mixture or suspension or what? What kind of liquid is Milk?

I have mentioned before of all the Siddha and Ayurvedha medicines that I have used. Some of these are metallic compounds that get mixed, ground and burnt in a kiln in specific temperatures- and go thru such tortuous processes to get the ultimate medicine - and are usually combinations. When the patient takes them do they find an effect - either cure or aggravation or new disease? Yes they do find an effect - and that is all that matters.

Plants have effect as a whole, as a part or even as alkaloid. There are variations and nuances. Obviously Nat.mur is not Aqua marina. If we say that because Nat.mur is in Sea water, Sea water can cure all the problems that Nat.mur can cure- then it IS foolishness. The case against combos rests on this premise.

At the same time, you take a mixture, ( let us do a double blind study) give it to a bunch of folks and if they produce symptoms then whether you know the physical or chemical nature of the substance or not, you know what kind of symptoms it can treat.
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote: