Dear Mr Winston,
Thank you for this detailed analysis. Hopefully this is a sign that we can
return to some kind of rational discussion!

So it is not a question of the "totality of symptoms", then. This is also
what Dr Reckeweg says.
Yes, I understand that in theory. But it would still be homeopathy. Might be
less precise homeopathy (from a classical point of view), but still
homeopathy because the one of the two remedies that "did the job" is working
exactly as it would on its own. The "wrong" remedy simply becomes
superfluous. This is analogous to Bach rescue remedy, as someone has pointed
out to me privately. When the combination is administered, maybe only 3 of
the 5 components will have "work" to do, and the rest fall by the wayside.
In effect it is just as though only 3 had been given, but the use of the
combination increases the probability of hitting the right note. Logically,
I see the same analogy working for 5 or 10 remedies, which could have been
selected based on the fact that they were typically used for a given problem
or range of symptoms and their causes.
I did not say the imbalance was a waveform, although I am cognisant of the
physics of molecular resonance. I applied this term to the remedy itself.
That is a moot point! He will often squeeze an acute intercurrent remedy so
tightly between regular "plussed" doses of another remedy that they are
basically being given at the same time, within hours of each other.
Yes, but that has more to do with the fact that he is working at the extreme
fringe of disease. He knows what types of cancer will respond better or less
well. He has a structure, and interestingly tends to use the same remedies
for the same problems, more or less. Which is rather akin to homotoxicology,
which groups the typical remedies indicated for a given pathology and then
designs the combo so that non-indicated components simply fail to act.
One tries...
But does it work?

But when you reach a point where 3,500 people in one study group, all with
the same "disease name" (which, let's face it, is only a description of
their symptoms, and given the fact that we are all made of the same stuff
there are bound to be strong similarities in the underlying reasons why they
developed them) you are learning much more than "this combination happens to
help sometimes, by chance". In no way does the Dr Reckeweg system approach
disease allopathically. In fact it is less allopathic than much of the
symptom-based approach in classical homeopathy. See below..
(I rolled your two questions into one for ease of answering) Say a person
has a skin problem. The classical homeopath may apply Sulphur only, just
looking at the outward symptom. But the appropriate homotoxicology combo
will bring into use not only the symptom-orientated remedy but will also
look at the biological processes that gave rise to the symptom. It will
consider the symptom as a manifestation of a phase in the table of
homotoxicosis, e.g. deposition / reaction phases. The remedies will attempt
to address underlying liver damage, iatrogenic toxicity, miasmatic
predisposition as well as the symptom itself. So if the symptom is the
body's way of eliminating the toxins and re-establishing homeostasis, the
Reckeweg approach may actually be seen to be working more in harmony with
the body's processes and assisting a retrogression of the events that led to
the formation of the symptom. This is negative vicariation, helping the body
regain equilibrium, which Hahnemann says "thus cures disease". So I
personally can see ways that the classical approach could be more
suppressive.
What if only one remedy out of the combination were actually having an
effect, and the others were designed (by the use of low potencies and
potency chords) so as not to cause any kind of proving if given
superfluously? The one effective remedy (or potency chord of one remedy)
within the complex would then surely be working homeopathically. I think the
mistake is to regard the combination as a new entity, more than the sum of
its parts. Each part within it is available to be used or not, as the case
may be. So each one is potentially homeopathic, as an individual, to the
case. Its individuality is not lost within the combination.
Another issue is the duration of the action of a remedy. I have heard
homeopaths saying that they regard the remedy almost like a "microchip" that
works away in the body and does not dissipate quickly. I have also heard the
opposite, that the remedy's direct effect is extremely short-lived and the
effects seen in terms of symptom change are an indirect result. If the
former theory is right, it would suggest that alternating remedies, which
seem to be accepted in classical homeopathy, would in effect be the same as
giving them together. As mentioned above, in the Ramakrishnan example.
But what about the fact that a given pathology will tend, based on proving
symptoms, to respond to a relatively narrow band of remedies? Applying a
cluster of remedies, based on careful clinical observations, is not very
different from applying one remedy.
I can understand that many practitioners may choose the single remedy
approach as their personal preference, but I still don't see why the
assertion "it's not homeopathy". Why not just accept that it is a different
branch of homeopathy?
Further to this, I have been looking through my papers and found other
references suggesting, and sometimes stating, that Hahnemann did use
multiple remedies. I don't suppose it is worth typing them up, though.
Say Henry Ford, father of the modern motor car, had written a strict
definition of a car that stated it had four wheels. Most do, certainly, and
this is our common view of what a car is. But a friend of my father's
(trolls do have fathers), years ago, had a six-wheeled car, a Panther. It
was a different kind of car, but nobody could say "it's not a car". Maybe in
some ways, homotoxicology is just a six-wheeled car. It is in a class of its
own, but still belongs to the same basic category of design. There are also
parallels in architecture, where people in the past have strongly opposed
new design concepts. One fantastic design in the US, which really worked and
was an organic part of its environment, was labelled "anti the american way
of life" because it was minimalistic. One thing architects don't do, though,
is call one another "trolls".
Warmly,
Anna
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger