Minutus

Arnica, Byronia, Ruta, Gelsenium - 9CH (1 pellet) twice a day for a bad plantar fascitis plus a past finger injury.
Then, Sulphur and Nux 30CH and Argentum Nitr 15CH twice a day for severe hyperidrosis (Sulphur is also my constitutional remedy).
Makes sense - yes, not, suggestions?

Now, I know the anser is: makes no sense.
Could you tell me why, if you think so? Why if I take Arnica 9CH twice a dauy for 3 weeks makes sense, but if I do the same with Byronia and Ruta too makes no sense.

Besides, if this is true that Homeopathy does no harm, why I cannot collect the benefit from one of them even if the other 2 or 3 are "unnecessary"?

This is not Homeopathy: assuming Arnica is right, why it is no longer homeopathy if I add Byronia and Ruta?
And why it is no longer such if I add Sulphur, which is my constitutional one?

Thank you for your possible replies.
Alberto

ps if you are going to explain to me that I need to see a doctor and pay him 250 Euros (that's what you spend in Italy for one of them...), make this statement more credible adding also how you would readjust that prescription (for yourself, say, with plantar fasctis and hypridrosis)

Alberto-

I assume you are a good person- Please, please, please do not start this discussion again. Search the past postings - on "combinations" etc. Every 3 or 4 months this comes up-

Personally - if you want to take this bunch- go ahead and do it... better still - get a 100 medicine kit or something , open and pour all of them together, mix well and use it for any disease-

sure why pay the doctor esp when the economy is so bad? There are so many other things you could do also - learn tailoring ( probably you have done this already) and get your jeans and shirts ready yourself, shoes must be really expensive - I know about Italian custom leather shoes - you know the solution for all of these-

There used to be a Count ( not Dracula) Mattei or some one who used to do Electro Homeopathy from Italy. He went on his own merry way to combine 30 + remedies...Well why should just Counts do it and not others, right...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "vallinis" wrote:

Hi Alberto,

The statement that it's "not homeopathy" goes back to the *definition* of homeopathy--which, confusingly and unfortunately, is not seen by everyone as the same. But the original (classical, Hahnemannian) definition of homeopathy specifies that (a) remedies are to be chosen on basis of symptom similarity (which may or may not be straightforward), and (b) that only *one* remedy is given at a time, and one re-evaluates the case before giving (if needed) a following re-dose or change of remedy.

To some people, anything that involves either "homeopathic remedies" or "potentized substances" is considered homeopathy; in fact, to some people, anything that involves *any* sort of use of *anything* used by homeopaths, is considered homeopathy!

Are the below lists of remedies prescriptions you were given by a practitioner?
If so, the question of whether or not it "is homeopathy" may be less important than the question of whether that practitioner is proficient with his tools, and has had solid training in the method he is using.

Below:
By classical homeopathy, *one* remedy would be chosen for your chronic state; there might (or might not) also be a separate remedy given for the injuries (probably but not necessarily before commencing the chronic remedy).
To follow homeopathic principles, you would choose the *one* remedy which best corresponds with your current state--or the injury or illness you are focusing on--and would change that remedy if needed, according to your response to the remedy. It's not a process that's easily described in the abstract, but to get a better look at it, you might look at e.g. "Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicine" by Ullman or "Homeopathy At Home" by --sorry, forgot--or another "home prescriber" text. Those have sections that describe the theory, and also the method for self-treatment of acute conditions (i.e. illnesses; prescribing for a chronic condition is more complicated).
Apparently that sometimes works, which is why the "combination remedies" do have their adherents. But single-remedy prescribing allows for MUCH deeper and more efficient work--if you know the process.

Wow, 250 euros... I assume that is the cost for the *first* consultation, and that follow-ups are only a fraction of that cost? At least that's how it is here, in the US. I remember when I first started as a homeopathy patient--now over 20 years ago--it took me MONTHS to work up to the huge leap of faith (and finances) of that expensive first visit. (And I was in an expensive part of the country at the time.) But follow-ups were about on par with e.g. a chiropractor visit (or MD visit), and it was quite literally life-changing for me. Wound up being MUCH cheaper, as well as infinitely more effective, than my prior efforts had been.

So I would say yeah, pay the 250 euros!
If you have prescriber(s) available who are well trained and well experienced, it will likely be very well worth the cost. What do you know about the homeopaths in your area?

Best wishes,
Shannon