single or multiple remedies

[Kerry]

The following extract from "How to secure and arrange symptoms for the
purpose of grouping and ranking them" by George Royal MD might be of
interest, not just from the remedy point of view but also from a
single remedy point of view:

"Homeopathists believe that remedies should be given singly and
uncombined. Mixtures of drugs or alternating remedies cannot be
justified. In order to show this experimentally the following
experiment was performed: A strip of small intestine from a rabbit was
mounted in oxygenated Locke's solution at a temperature of 38C and
then subjected to the influence of a very dilute solution oof Tabacum.
The effect of the drug immediately manifested itself and consisted of
a pronounced stimulation and an increase in tone. Gradually the
stimulation became less pronounced but the increased tonicity
remained. Another strip of smooth muscle, prepared in the same manner
as the first, was subjected to the action of Sabadilla. An immediate
effect was produced, presenting an entirely different picture from
that obtained by the use of Tabacum. Both drugs caused an immediate
pronounced stimulation, but in the case of Sabadilla the increase in
tone was much more marked and persistent and it was also characterized
by extreme irregularity. Both drugs were used in the same degree of
strength or dilution, consequently the difference in their effects can
only be attributed to inherent properties and not to differences in
the concentrations employed. Sabadilla and Tabacum were employed in
the experiments because both drugs have a similar symptomatology,
relative to the intestinal tract and indications in diarrhea. For this
reason there might be a tendency among careless prescribers to
alternate them or to use mixtures of the two remedies in cases when
one or the other seems indicated.

A third experiment was done upon another strip of small intestine
using a mixture of equal parts of the two drugs, each present in the
same concentration as was employed before. A result was obtained
totally different from any of the preceding. The single initial
stimulation was obtained but was accompanied by many others of
practically the same intensity. The whole effect was more uniform and
constant than any results following the use of the drugs singly. The
increase in tone was constant and practically uniform and
irregularities in the tone were not prominently marked.

It thus appears that Tabacum and Sabadilla each produce a
characteristic yet different effect upon smooth muscle; that a mixture
of the two drugs also produces a definite effect yet totally different
from that obtained from using either remedy alone. This being the case
it is difficult to see how the remedies given together, or alternated
could prove effective in homeopathic practice. The tracing obtained
from Tabacum may be said to represent the symptoms upon which the
remedy is prescribed. The tracings obtained from Sabadilla has the
same meaning and no other. Obviously Tabacum cannot be indicated when
Sabadilla is the remedy, nor can Sabadilla prove effective upon
Tabacum indications. The physical basis for the indications of each
remedy may be entirely different, hence there must a a difference in
the symptoms or indications calling for the one remedy as compared to
the other. If both remedies are given together a physical basis for
symptoms is produced, but we do not know accurately what the
indications for symptoms thus resulting would be."

Kerry

[domenicstanghini]

Thanks for posting this. very interesting results of this experiment.

Domenic

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, kerry wrote:

[Ellen Madono]

The whole effect was more uniform and
constant than any results following the use of the drugs singly. The
increase in tone was constant and practically uniform and
irregularities in the tone were not prominently marked.
Hi Kerry,
Thank you for the interesting experiement. I am having trouble understanding the logic.
From the above statement, it looks as if the combination was more effective. I don't know what the word "tracing" means. Maybe that is why this analysis is not clear to me. I would think that irregularities in tone or the rabbit intestine muscle would be similar to the diarrhea thus not desirable. Obviously that is not the conclusion of the last paragraph.
Best,
Ellen
--
English: tokyohomeopathy.com
Japanese: tokyohomeopathy.jp

[Kerry]

Hi Ellen

The experiment was showing that the remedies worked in different ways and would therefore not be applicable to the same disease symptoms. The combined remedy had a different effect to both single remedies, so in a proving would produce different symptoms to the ones produced by either remedy. If both remedies were given because someone thought that either remedy might be applicable, but wasn't sure which to give, they would not cure because they produce different symptoms when given together than when given singly.

Kerry

[Ellen Madono]

Hmm. I see that logic, but article does not address the effect on the rabbit intestines . It would seem that testing the combination has an affect of unknown meaning. (proving might be better than putting it on the dead rabbit tissue).

[Roger Van Zandvoort]

who cures is right, but...
how are we going to update our MM and repertory info with this?

[domenicstanghini]

the only way that makes any sense is to have a separate COMBINATION Materia Medica where only combined remedies are included based on combined provings similar to single remedies in our typical Materia Medica. In this way you can make sense of all the combo homeo meds like Unda, Reckeweg etc. etc. a combined remedy may not have the desired effect that one would expect from a single remedy. etc. etc.

Sounds like a gigantic undertaking but would have to come from the "combo" remedies crowd.

Best Wishes

Domenic

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Roger Van Zandvoort wrote:

[Ellen Madono]

Yes, I agree Roger. Gotta think practically.

[John Harvey]

Kerry, thank you for this!

As Ellen points out, the experiment may not offer any "meaning" in terms of prescription indications; but then I'm sure that it had no such end.

The meaning it does hold for us is nevertheless important. It is that the particular temporal pattern (as characterised in a "tracing" of muscular response) of physiological effect on the muscles of the bowel wall of the mixture of substances was qualitatively distinct from the pattern of effects of either of the mixture's constituent parts. It's instructive that such a qualitative distinctiveness was apparent even in regard to a symptom that was apparently similar between the two substances and could be expected to be identical between them, in a single physiological action!

That this should be so -- that any two substances, even two substances producing the "same" symptom, should produce it in two dynamically different ways -- is of course intuitively obvious from the results of Hahnemann's pathogenetic trials. It should be obvious from a little thought as to what occurs in a pathogenetic trial, and it follows from recognition that the (deranging) dynamic effects of no substance have ever been known to alter over time and become identical with those of another. In short, the understanding that a medicinal substance develops in the organism an entire and unique dynamic pattern of derangement leads ineluctably to the conclusion that even a symptom that appears to be identical in the two substances' pathogeneses is actually different.

It is inherent too in what Hahnemann repeatedly observed as to the non-interchangeability of medicinal substances.

It is inherent also in Hahnemann's observation that -- aside from a genuine aetiologically definable disease with a single cause operating identically in a population -- no particular syndrome or symptom (to take the present case, a particular kind of diarrhoea) represents a single category that may meet its homoeopathic match in the same medicine from person to person, but arises and progresses differently in each (i.e., there are no specific medicines).

It is, perhaps most clearly of all, inherent in the fact that even in two cases of the one genuine disease (acute, as in measles or influenza; or chronic, as in old syphilis or a strain of malaria), the medicine homoeopathic to one may be entirely unsuitable for the other.

These are not hifalutin matters of merely hypothetical or dogmatic importance. They are understandings central to the understanding of what one is doing when one practises homoeopathy: that, rather than attempting to target a choice symptom by any means necessary, one is attempting the exacting task of finding an entire dynamic match between two entire dynamic entitities: between an extant derangement over time of the patient's health and just such a pattern of derangement by a substance.

The homoeopathicity between these patterns has never, ever been reliably identified by doctrines of signatures, by guesswork, or by a single symptom; it is identified, and identifiable, in genuinely homoeopathic practice only by taking into account the entirety of the pattern in each case. That reason alone suffices to show, to those with a disposition for any thought, that two medicinal substances, with two distinct patterns of pathogenesis, even appearing to share an identical symptom, in fact do not -- and cannot.

A symptom may appear to be identical in every respect in two pathogeneses; what must always differ, however, is its place in the entirety of their dynamic derangement. Mixing two substances together having two distinct dynamic derangements should not be expected by any rational person to offer a new pathogenesis with any predictable features.

Kind regards,

John

[Kerry]

I wouldn't say that you would update the rep or MM with this. The rep and MM should come from the provings done on human beings where a totality of symptoms can be seen/felt and documented. My personal belief is that it is not necessary or acceptable to be experimenting on animals (dead or alive) and that the information necessary to work cases is documented from well done provings that follow Hahnemann's guidelines. As this experiment had already taken place it seemed applicable to the discussion taking place regarding the use of single or multiple remedies.

I recall Chris Gillen giving details of a proving of two remedies (my memory tells me it was Bryonia and Rhus but I could be remembering incorrectly) that again showed that two remedies given together produce different effects to each individual proving of the remedy. Perhaps someone on the list still has that info and could post it???

Kerry