Minutus

This is a discussion that is going on since Hahnemann's time. Hahnemann
himself said in no case is it possible to give more than one medicine.

What I have noticed is when people give a lot of different medicines the
patient actually feels a difference in the symptoms in the beginning. This
could be either due to a stronger dissimilar disease suppressing another
dissimilar disease or one of the remedies could actually be homoeopathic to
the case. So far so good unfortunately the problem comes during the follow
up. If the medicine worked which one worked. If it was simply a case of
two dismilar diseases the medicines stop acting in a few days. But even if
one of the medicines is the indicated one the other medicine only hampers
its work. After the initial improvement how do you know which medicine to
give in a higher dose and so on.

But one thing we have to remember that single remedy means single remedy at
one time. Many times as explained by Dr. Hahnemann after giving the initial
remedy you a get a series of new symptoms that actually help you find a
better remedy. In many chronic diseases we have to go through a series of
remedies sometimes even four or five and in different potencies. But always
one remedy at a time and that too guided by the symptoms.

Best regards
Elham

You wrote:
" This is a discussion that is going on since Hahnemann's time.
Hahnemann
himself said in no case is it possible to give more than one medicine."

That sentence is truncated: in no case is it possible to give more that
one medicine FOR ONE DISEASE is the complete citation

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

one medicine."

give more that

well -
let's be really accurate, then ... :

"... one medicine in 'a' disease.... "

[[ ' nur einen einzelnen, einfachen, wohl gekannten
Arzneistoff auf einmal in einer Krankheit zu verordnen... ]]
- ... only one single, simple, well-known medicinal
substance
at a time in 'a' disease... -

Throughout the Organon Hahnemann uses the words
'Krankheit' /disease, and 'Krankheitsfall'/case of disease
rather interchangeably -
nowhere, that I have found, does he specifically note any
distinction in
the meaning of the terms that the reader should be aware
of -

Two doctors in the elevator:
(Dr Roz correct me if my image
of doctor's elevator-talk is naive and faulty )

" ... by the way, colleague John, I need to talk to you
about
the case in room 347 ....
you know ... the patient with the inherited
kidney-malfunction, and
heart disease, ... he now also came down with a
strep-infection ....
and wouldn't you know it.... his wife just left him...he's
emotionally
devastated ... I have come to my wits' end - I would like
you to
help me with some ideas for treatment....."

These Doctors do not talk about a man who has
4 cases of disease within him ....
this is still just one *case of disease* - one
'Krankheitsfall' for which
a 'single' simple, well-known medicinal substance is to be
administered
at a time ' -
this man may 'have' various 'diseases', depending on
definitions,
yet even so, Hahnemann clearly writes of 'timely
alternation' of appropriate
medicines in cases of more-than-one-disease -
besides, he speaks of miasmas coinciding, not of
'heart-disease' and kidney-trouble',
or of someone who has arthritis and also experienced a
grief, and took drugs, hen fell off the ladder... etc ...
as many 'diseases co-existing' ....
but that would lead to another topic ...

In any case (pun intended
to translate as 'one medicine 'for one' disease', and
especially the, as has been done, 'one medicine 'per'
disease',
is quite a stretch of the German original text -

... I like to call it a
personal translatory interpretation -

All this to say that I make no comment on
whether it is 'right or wrong' to give more than one
known substance/remedy-in-potency at a time (although
I have come to a strong view on this for my own practice) -
But what I do say is, to not say that multiple
remedy-practice is
what *Hahnemann* taught, and to not put words into his
mouth/pen
that are not from him -

One may argue the double-remedy experimentation and the
vageuities of
political-allopathic-homoeopathic reasons for not
encouraging
such double-remedy practice ... around 1833...
considering, however, that Hahnemann since still had another
ten years of practice and experimentation, and a complete
manuscript for yet another new Organon finalized just
those ten years later ...... well, I cannot but think that
had
Hahnemann indeed intended to even vaguely hint at any
validity of more-than-one-remedy, we would today not need to
search and
read between the lines of his writings and would not need to
summon
the aid of theoretical-intellectual interpretations, and
require the
allowance of translating freely in order to make the
oint -

So there's my bit -
good enough

enjoy your seasonal chocolate -
take care
peter quenter

That is the problem with translations and interpretations...........

With my meagre understanding of German, I am under the impression that
"einer" can be translated as "a" OR as "one"........... am I wrong here?

The doctors in the elevator are talking about a patient, not a case of
disease.

So we have to define what is a disease......... in Hahnemann's
mind/writing.......

Let us see if I get it right:

-arthritis, renal failure, headaches.......... diseases? No, conditions.
-psora, sycosis, measles, .......disease? yes.

Why? Because of the way they express themselves: the true diseases have
common, permanent symptoms and signs that will appear almost invariably
in each and every patient, PLUS the symptoms and signs specific to the
patient.

The conditions are only patient-related expressions of deeper diseases.

That is my understanding, maybe with a lot of interpretation, but it
works for me.

And no, I will not get trapped into the double remedy tar pit........
)

Comments please.......

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

> That is the problem with translations and interpretations...........
No, you are right,

Jan
(German)

common, permanent symptoms and signs that >will appear almost invariably in
each and every patient, PLUS >the symptoms and signs specific to the
patient.

a good definition. and this means they are ontologically distinct from the
patients suffering from them.
I wonder if Peter and Piet have any explanation for #43. It seems not to be
their favourite section of the Organon.

andrew

> > With my meagre understanding of German, I am under the
impression that
am I wrong here?

Yes, certainly correct -
the word on its own can be translated
as 'one' -

Yet, the whole paragraph #273 is about giving *one* remedy
'at a time' ... ' to the sick person' !

In that context, if one were to wish to make a point of it
meaning
'one'/ as in 'each one' / 'for each one' disease...
it would be rather unlikely to just write
' ... single medicine in 'einer' Krankheit ...' -

For it to be interpreted as meaning
'... one for each disease...'
one would more likely write
'...single medicine.....
fuer jede Krankheit - for each disease/
or
in jeder Krankheit - in each disease /
or
in jeder gleichzeitig vorhandenen Krankheit
- in every at-the-same-time existing disease/
or
various other wordings ....

if it just says
'...in a (even 'one') disease...'
and the sentence just previously highlights to give
'one simple single medicine at a time *to the sick
person*...'
and the sentence following highlights to *not* give
'... two medicinal substances at a time *to the sick person*
...'

then it remains a stretch of interpretation to translate as
"...'...single remedy...in einer Krankheit... '
as meaning
'...in/for (every) one disease (existing at the same time )
... '
even more so when the terms 'Krankheit' and
'der Kranke' (the sick person) and 'Krankheitsfall'
( case of disease, as I just mentioned in previous post)
are consistently used in the same context throughout
the Organon without any note of pointing out any
important distinction in meaning -

and nowhere other in the Organon or
Chronic Diseases does he ever say anything
faintly resembling
'two remedies or more at a time *to a sick person*/
and neither does he anywhere hint at
'more than one remedy at a time *to a/in
a 'Krankheit'/'Krankheitsfall* / 'sick person' ... -

if one wishes to make a point pro- more than
one remedy at a time, I remain stead-fast on it
that one needs to find their arguments
elsewhere-other than in Hahnemann's writings ....

liebe Gruesse
peter quenter

I am not talking about polypharmacy or combos..........

We are all making interpretations of a translation (at least for me),
which IMO is already an interpretation..........

But one thing is clear, to me: all along the Organon, H is talking about
treating diseases; the problem I see is the meaning of the word disease,
which is different for different people.

The notion of "The patient, not the disease" (Blackie) is post Kentian
and not necessarily Hahnemanian. What we must consider, is the patient
with his disease, or the interaction of the disease with the patient.

We all know and agree that the same disease will be expressed
differently by different patients and the same expression in different
patients may be related to different diseases. What happens is that we
try to artificially separate disease and patient; that is the source of
many problems.

As for what H would have written, that is pure speculation: we must
remember that for him, it was very clear and there was no need to
emphasize notions that were evident. I know that for a fact having done
that mistake myself in a few articles I tried to write, where the
reviewers quite correctly pointed out to me that my affirmations were
just....affirmations and needed to be explained and expanded on for the
readers for whom my background knowledge was not available, hence what I
was claiming was not so evident.
H did not have reviewers for his publications......... and it is quite
difficult to answer the type of question "what did he mean by...". Who
knows? The only honest answer would be "MY understanding of what he
wrote is...."

Have a wonderful holiday, whatever it is you celebrate.........

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

Thank you.

This simply shows how the understanding of one translator can modify a
concept, and that is just with one single simple word.

So before we start arguing vehemently, we should carefully read
different translations of the same concept and try to see it with
different angles of vision, then only use it the way we are comfortable
with, bearing in mind that others who use it differently might be the
right ones.

No criticism of anyone implied, of course.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

>The notion of "The patient, not the disease" (Blackie) is post Kentian

Seems to be from Hering, according to Nash ("Leaders..." - Calc carb -
giving indications in tuberculosis)

"Of course there is generally cough, and it may be tight or loose, yet the
case rests mainly on the symptoms outside the cough
- This remedy in this disease and the success attending its use is one of
the illustrations of the soundness of Hering's advice when he says "treat
the patient, not the disease." [I. 71 to 76]"

regards,
Arun