This was the posting from Chris Gillen to Minutus on the 19/9/2006 at 8.31 am
"Several years ago, a proving of a combination remedy (Bryonia and
Rhus tox) was conducted at a homoeopathic College in Australia. The
general effects observed were that the known modalities of each remedy
were mostly cancelled out, and a host of hitherto unknown effects were
produced."
This post discusses someone being given two LM remedies at the same
time, with problems occurring, and the above comment was made
alongside Chris pointing out the problems of giving two remedies.
Kerry
combination remedies
-
Lynn Cremona
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: combination remedies
Here is Chris's response and discussion on the subject:
I find myself wondering somewhat sacrilegiously, what happens if you do a combo of plant (or any) remedies that have already been potentized, and do a proving on that.
Can that kind of combination be considered stable?
Does it count as a simple single substance?
I think there has been some discussion of this on the list, but don't remember what was concluded.
Vera
--------------------
Hi Vera,
There was a test done here several years ago written up in the Similia homoeopathic journal,
a proving of a combination of Rhus tox and Bryonia in potency.
The characteristic modalities by which we differentiate both single remedies (e.g. Rhus tox: continued movement;
Bryonia: at rest) did not appear as proving symptoms in this test.
This makes sense if you consider that at a single moment in time, a person can't be aggravated by motion and ameliorated by motion in the exact same location. It's either one or the other - which means the homoeopathic practice of alternating single remedies, if necessary, is FAR superior to combining two remedies in one dose.
The Vital Force responds to the stimulus of the drug, and if there are two drugs producing completely opposite stimuli at the same moment in time, then it is hardly possible to predict the outcome.
The Vital Force *might* go one way or it might go the other, or the combined stimuli are completely nullified (as happened in the combo proving)
In any case, it is hardly the window of reliability and predictability that we are looking for when prescribing *homoeopathically*.
------------------
I think very often the experts are right (the ones I agree with, of course...) - but I believe that everyone has to come to their own independent understanding of each issue, and it's important to debate until that happens.
Just noticed something in the footnote 273 - maybe it's too much nit-picking but Hahnemann does say that the combo may "be considered as simple medicinal substances..." he doesn't use the word "single" here.
---------------------
The way I understand it is this.
In Aphorism 118, Hahnemann stated that each medicine acts in a single way, which is why each single drug needs to be proven first, so that we can really know its medicinal properties to be able to differentiate it from another.
In Aphorism 119, he stated that each kind of plant is different from every other plant, just as every mineral and salt is unique in its chemical properties to every other. He was speaking of material substances, not potentized substances.
Each plant is an organic composite of its outer form, its own pattern of life and growth, and is different from every other plant species and genus.
He didn't describe a single plant as a mixture of albumen, gelatin, resin, acids, carbon, and silica components etc, he described it organically, as a single substance. So too are there *stable* unvarying chemical substances that can combine through chemical relationship in unchangeable or fixed proportions.
These chemical compounds are outlined in the footnote to 273, they are simple substances, not "mixtures" or "combos" any more than a single Chamomile plant is a mixture containing bits of Pulsatilla, Opium and Ipecac etc.
We only have a few examples of animal remedies used by Hahnemann (e.g. Calc carb, Psorinum).
While he was evidently aware of the existence of some infectious pathogens (he referred to "invisible animalicules") I can't see any attempt by Hahnemann to mix several "animalicules" (present day ciliates and bacteria) or nosodal materials together as one single *simple* substance.
In fact, a single, proven remedy can treat a bandwidth of similar viral or bacterial type infections without mixing several simple substances into a complex.
In Aphorism 273 Hahnemann stated that we only ever need to administer one single, *simple* medicine at a time. The reason is obvious as we need to interpret the response of the patient to the prescribed medicine.
No two medicines are exactly equivalent, and each simple substance works in its own different, but determinate way.
Hope useful,
Chris.
---------------------------------------------
Saturday, October 29, 2011 4:25 AM
--
Imagine Peace
I find myself wondering somewhat sacrilegiously, what happens if you do a combo of plant (or any) remedies that have already been potentized, and do a proving on that.
Can that kind of combination be considered stable?
Does it count as a simple single substance?
I think there has been some discussion of this on the list, but don't remember what was concluded.
Vera
--------------------
Hi Vera,
There was a test done here several years ago written up in the Similia homoeopathic journal,
a proving of a combination of Rhus tox and Bryonia in potency.
The characteristic modalities by which we differentiate both single remedies (e.g. Rhus tox: continued movement;
Bryonia: at rest) did not appear as proving symptoms in this test.
This makes sense if you consider that at a single moment in time, a person can't be aggravated by motion and ameliorated by motion in the exact same location. It's either one or the other - which means the homoeopathic practice of alternating single remedies, if necessary, is FAR superior to combining two remedies in one dose.
The Vital Force responds to the stimulus of the drug, and if there are two drugs producing completely opposite stimuli at the same moment in time, then it is hardly possible to predict the outcome.
The Vital Force *might* go one way or it might go the other, or the combined stimuli are completely nullified (as happened in the combo proving)
In any case, it is hardly the window of reliability and predictability that we are looking for when prescribing *homoeopathically*.
------------------
I think very often the experts are right (the ones I agree with, of course...) - but I believe that everyone has to come to their own independent understanding of each issue, and it's important to debate until that happens.
Just noticed something in the footnote 273 - maybe it's too much nit-picking but Hahnemann does say that the combo may "be considered as simple medicinal substances..." he doesn't use the word "single" here.
---------------------
The way I understand it is this.
In Aphorism 118, Hahnemann stated that each medicine acts in a single way, which is why each single drug needs to be proven first, so that we can really know its medicinal properties to be able to differentiate it from another.
In Aphorism 119, he stated that each kind of plant is different from every other plant, just as every mineral and salt is unique in its chemical properties to every other. He was speaking of material substances, not potentized substances.
Each plant is an organic composite of its outer form, its own pattern of life and growth, and is different from every other plant species and genus.
He didn't describe a single plant as a mixture of albumen, gelatin, resin, acids, carbon, and silica components etc, he described it organically, as a single substance. So too are there *stable* unvarying chemical substances that can combine through chemical relationship in unchangeable or fixed proportions.
These chemical compounds are outlined in the footnote to 273, they are simple substances, not "mixtures" or "combos" any more than a single Chamomile plant is a mixture containing bits of Pulsatilla, Opium and Ipecac etc.
We only have a few examples of animal remedies used by Hahnemann (e.g. Calc carb, Psorinum).
While he was evidently aware of the existence of some infectious pathogens (he referred to "invisible animalicules") I can't see any attempt by Hahnemann to mix several "animalicules" (present day ciliates and bacteria) or nosodal materials together as one single *simple* substance.
In fact, a single, proven remedy can treat a bandwidth of similar viral or bacterial type infections without mixing several simple substances into a complex.
In Aphorism 273 Hahnemann stated that we only ever need to administer one single, *simple* medicine at a time. The reason is obvious as we need to interpret the response of the patient to the prescribed medicine.
No two medicines are exactly equivalent, and each simple substance works in its own different, but determinate way.
Hope useful,
Chris.
---------------------------------------------
Saturday, October 29, 2011 4:25 AM
--
Imagine Peace
-
Lynn Cremona
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: combination remedies
Hello Thanos,
I think you misunderstood the forwarded post
the text in blue was from Vera
the text in Black are Chris's responses to Vera.
People who want to use combos, are the people who should go about proving them.
Those of us who are using one remedy at a time have enough to keep us busy !
Best,
Lynn
--------------------------
Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:43 PM
________________________________
________________________________
Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:09 AM
________________________________
--
Imagine Peace
I think you misunderstood the forwarded post
the text in blue was from Vera
the text in Black are Chris's responses to Vera.
People who want to use combos, are the people who should go about proving them.
Those of us who are using one remedy at a time have enough to keep us busy !
Best,
Lynn
--------------------------
Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:43 PM
________________________________
________________________________
Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:09 AM
________________________________
--
Imagine Peace
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: combination remedies
My apologies, all; I didn't see that Chris's old message had already appeared twice more!
John
John
Re: combination remedies
Actually the post I got Chris' response from was a different one to the one that both you and Lyn posted so I will post it below as it also has some bearing on the dosing of LM potencies:
Hello Gail,
Some general thoughts on your post. Of course, a patient who is prescribed two remedies at once isn't actually receiving *homoeopathic* treatment at all, so let's clarify your opening sentence from the outset. You may understand and agree already, but please! let's not refer to this practice as homoeopathy amongst ourselves. If we make the effort to think like homoeopaths, then perhaps we can better understand remedy reactions.
Any LM prescription needs to be stopped at suitable intervals so we can ascertain the effects of the secondary Vital reaction to the primary action of the drug. If a patient experiences *blinding headaches* on 3 occasions after stopping a remedy, (let alone after 2 remedies at the same time) this would suggest to me that the Vital Force is having to react too intensely in order to counteract the primary stimulus of the drug. This is NOT a good reaction in homoeopathic terms as far as the patient is concerned as the disruption sets back treatment and causes undue discomfort to the patient. It could also be a sign that there is just too much confusion caused by heterogenic energetic effects of 2 drugs at once in the system. It is entirely unlikely that the LM remedies could produce a material or physical type of addiction, but as homoeopaths we know that unwarranted repetition of remedy can still set up a palliative effect in the organism.
Speaking simply, each drug itself may produce a wave of primary, secondary or alternating effects upon the organism and then the Vital Force responds to this primary stimulus in an opposite counter-reaction. The way to produce a *gentle* homoeopathic cure is to moderate the dose and repetition of the single remedy so that there is minimal disruptive counter-reaction produced by the Vital Force. A powerful aggravation will more likely cause the Vital Force to go awry and there will be no healing outcome. A combination remedy has an array of different primary, secondary or alternating effects with some effects possibly acting in disunity within the pronounced symptom-complex (totality of symptoms) of the case.
Several years ago, a proving of a combination remedy (Bryonia and Rhus tox) was conducted at a homoeopathic College in Australia. The general effects observed were that the known modalities of each remedy were mostly cancelled out, and a host of hitherto unknown effects were produced. With regard to the above example, Sepia headaches have the characteristic quality that they are exacerbated by slight motion and relieved by hard motion (Hering). Kali phos headaches are relieved by gentle motion (Boericke). The Vital Force is not a rationally intelligent entity that logically decides which is the best remedy to respond to, it just reacts automatically and instinctively for self-preservation to all influences. Sometimes though, self-preservation means sacrificing an important organic function! So which remedy is doing what? From a homoeopathic point of view it's anyone's guess because we are trained to analyse the symptom-complex of a case and match it to the known characteristics produced by a single remedy. It is also worth mentioning that traditionally each drug in the Materia Medica was observed to have its own duration of action, and while some homoeopaths consider this information to be totally meaningless, (I don't feel so myself), we can see how in prescribing combination remedies this sets another disadvantage in knowing how often to effectively repeat the dose.
Best,
Chris.
Hello Gail,
Some general thoughts on your post. Of course, a patient who is prescribed two remedies at once isn't actually receiving *homoeopathic* treatment at all, so let's clarify your opening sentence from the outset. You may understand and agree already, but please! let's not refer to this practice as homoeopathy amongst ourselves. If we make the effort to think like homoeopaths, then perhaps we can better understand remedy reactions.
Any LM prescription needs to be stopped at suitable intervals so we can ascertain the effects of the secondary Vital reaction to the primary action of the drug. If a patient experiences *blinding headaches* on 3 occasions after stopping a remedy, (let alone after 2 remedies at the same time) this would suggest to me that the Vital Force is having to react too intensely in order to counteract the primary stimulus of the drug. This is NOT a good reaction in homoeopathic terms as far as the patient is concerned as the disruption sets back treatment and causes undue discomfort to the patient. It could also be a sign that there is just too much confusion caused by heterogenic energetic effects of 2 drugs at once in the system. It is entirely unlikely that the LM remedies could produce a material or physical type of addiction, but as homoeopaths we know that unwarranted repetition of remedy can still set up a palliative effect in the organism.
Speaking simply, each drug itself may produce a wave of primary, secondary or alternating effects upon the organism and then the Vital Force responds to this primary stimulus in an opposite counter-reaction. The way to produce a *gentle* homoeopathic cure is to moderate the dose and repetition of the single remedy so that there is minimal disruptive counter-reaction produced by the Vital Force. A powerful aggravation will more likely cause the Vital Force to go awry and there will be no healing outcome. A combination remedy has an array of different primary, secondary or alternating effects with some effects possibly acting in disunity within the pronounced symptom-complex (totality of symptoms) of the case.
Several years ago, a proving of a combination remedy (Bryonia and Rhus tox) was conducted at a homoeopathic College in Australia. The general effects observed were that the known modalities of each remedy were mostly cancelled out, and a host of hitherto unknown effects were produced. With regard to the above example, Sepia headaches have the characteristic quality that they are exacerbated by slight motion and relieved by hard motion (Hering). Kali phos headaches are relieved by gentle motion (Boericke). The Vital Force is not a rationally intelligent entity that logically decides which is the best remedy to respond to, it just reacts automatically and instinctively for self-preservation to all influences. Sometimes though, self-preservation means sacrificing an important organic function! So which remedy is doing what? From a homoeopathic point of view it's anyone's guess because we are trained to analyse the symptom-complex of a case and match it to the known characteristics produced by a single remedy. It is also worth mentioning that traditionally each drug in the Materia Medica was observed to have its own duration of action, and while some homoeopaths consider this information to be totally meaningless, (I don't feel so myself), we can see how in prescribing combination remedies this sets another disadvantage in knowing how often to effectively repeat the dose.
Best,
Chris.
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: combination remedies
Thanks, Kerry; I don't seem to have previously received that message of Chris's!
Kind regards,
John
Kind regards,
John
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: combination remedies
Thanos, Vera's question of what occurs when two substances are mixed arbitrarily and used in a pathogenetic trial of their combined medicinal effects can be answered only by repeatedly performing that experiment, not by any number of clinical trials.
Chris's response nicely answered the presumption that one might intelligently guess the pathogenetic potential of mixing two (pathogenetically) well-known substances: the presumption is obviously groundless.
Vera's question of whether a mixture could acquire the properties and value of a single medicinal substance through pathogenetic experiments was equally relevant, not on some merely doctrinal basis but because it reflects a question of pathogenetic stability and, consequently, the problem too of experimental reproducibility.
Our ability to regard a medicinal substance as having properties we can predict and depend upon is a function of the stability of those properties from sample to sample and from potency to potency: a stable pathogenesis. Simply put, single, simple medicinal substances are well-established in having a stable pathogenesis. We know no such thing about mixtures, and in all likelihood can never know it, as any mixture's pathogenesis is likely to change from potency to potency, at least in the lower potencies; will certainly depend upon the proportions of the ingredient substances; and may very well depend upon influences deriving from the mixing process itself or deriving from the relationship between the potencies combined -- influences that we will not even attempt to control, because we have no least idea of them.
All in all, the future for rigorous pathogenetic trials seems particularly bleak -- not only because it would require very rigorous work and a strong leaning toward mixtures clearly derives from disinterest in rigorous work, but also because such a trial entails all the uncertainties of trialling a single, simple medicine and adds to them the uncertainties deriving from ignorance of the influences of each medicine on the other(s) and on the others' dynamic effects and deriving from ignorance of the influence of potency in mediating all those relationships.
Cheers --
John
Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:43 PM
________________________________
Chris's response nicely answered the presumption that one might intelligently guess the pathogenetic potential of mixing two (pathogenetically) well-known substances: the presumption is obviously groundless.
Vera's question of whether a mixture could acquire the properties and value of a single medicinal substance through pathogenetic experiments was equally relevant, not on some merely doctrinal basis but because it reflects a question of pathogenetic stability and, consequently, the problem too of experimental reproducibility.
Our ability to regard a medicinal substance as having properties we can predict and depend upon is a function of the stability of those properties from sample to sample and from potency to potency: a stable pathogenesis. Simply put, single, simple medicinal substances are well-established in having a stable pathogenesis. We know no such thing about mixtures, and in all likelihood can never know it, as any mixture's pathogenesis is likely to change from potency to potency, at least in the lower potencies; will certainly depend upon the proportions of the ingredient substances; and may very well depend upon influences deriving from the mixing process itself or deriving from the relationship between the potencies combined -- influences that we will not even attempt to control, because we have no least idea of them.
All in all, the future for rigorous pathogenetic trials seems particularly bleak -- not only because it would require very rigorous work and a strong leaning toward mixtures clearly derives from disinterest in rigorous work, but also because such a trial entails all the uncertainties of trialling a single, simple medicine and adds to them the uncertainties deriving from ignorance of the influences of each medicine on the other(s) and on the others' dynamic effects and deriving from ignorance of the influence of potency in mediating all those relationships.
Cheers --
John
Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:43 PM
________________________________