Minutus

Dear Mr Winston,

You wrote -
Yet I find this confusing. The following quotation is from Lutze's Organon
and is attributed to Hahnemann. Apparently this was suppressed by Melanie H.

"There are several cases of disease in which the administration of a double
remedy is perfectly homeopathic and truly rational; where, for instance,
each of two medicines appears suited for the case of disease, but each from
a different side; or where the case of disease depends on more than one of
the three radical causes of chronic disease discovered by me, as when in
addition to psora we have to do with syphilis or sycosis also. Just as in
very rapid acute diseases I give two or three of the most appropriate
remedies in alternation... I must here deprecate all thoughtless mixtures or
frivolous choice of two medicines, which would be analogous to allopathic
polypharmacy."

I have also read elsewhere that Hahnemann used more than one remedy at a
time. Now, if this is true, why not combine more together if they are
rightly chosen, as H suggests, and are suited to different "sides" of the
disease? Is that not what the homotoxicology remedies are doing? And if the
homotoxicology remedies work and gain results, doesn't this show in
retrospect that they were well chosen?

I look forward to your answer.
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband

Hi Ana,
If I just may add my interpretation to your question.......Yes it does state
""""Just as in
Donna E

Dear Dona,

Thank you for your input. But I think you may not have read my message
correctly. Yes, Hahnemann does mention giving remedies in alternation, i.e.
in quick succession. But the quotation I gave also mentioned very explicitly
the use of double remedies, remedies given together. Hahnemann also repeats
this later in the same passage: "I may give together two well-indicated
homeopathic remedies acting from different sides, in the smallest dose." I
didn't include this part of the quotation because I thought it was obvious
from the rest, e.g "administration of a double remedy is perfectly
homeopathic" etc.

I don't think these things are just a question of interpretation, or the
opinion of individual homeopaths. It seems they are based on solid facts.
Hahnemann is stating, it seems to me, that as long as the remedies are
carefully chosen there is no objection in principle to a combination remedy.

Anna
_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband

Dear Anna, you need to check with the correct German translations of this
and I think you should contact Vermeulen for this. My understanding is that
the remedies were given close to each other and following each other in
quick succession. Vannier also translated this section and you also need to
read his translations of this. From my learning of this section it is
translated to several remedies following each other BUT they are several
individual remedies.
Hahnemann did not have the ability to combine remedies together as the
laboratories do now? which tends to put some question as to your
interpretation. If he had combined remedies he would have rewritten the
premise of homoeopathy to "several Likes cures a Like".!!!!!
Liz Lalor

I assume that many of the "salt" remedies would initially have been administered as combinations -- e.g. Ars-i, Nat-sil, zinc-p, aur-m-n???? Certainly one often considers these remedies today in just the kind of circumstance Hahnemann describes, where both constituents seem equally reflected in the patient's symptoms.

Just a thought. Rosemary

Anna,
Which translation of the organon are you reading from? Yes I may have
misunderstood you but I dont remember anywhere in my studies about Hahnemann
administering two remedies at the same time. So I to am looking forward to
Julians reply on this one.
Donna E

Dear Liz,
I have the text right here in the original German. I studied German at
Cambridge University, England. Here is that passage (unfortunately my
keyboard doesn't have umlauts):

"Einzelne zusammengesetzte Krankheitsfalle giebt es, in welchen das
Verabreichen eines Doppelsmittels ganz homoopathisch und echt rationell
ist; wenn namlich jedes von zwei Arzneimitteln dem Krankheitsfalle
homoopathisch angemessen erscheint , jedes jedoch von einer andern Seite;
oder wenn der Krankheitsfall auf mehr, als einer der von mir aufgefundnen
drei Grundursachen chronischer Leiden beruht, und ausser der Psora auch
Syphilis oder Sykosis mit im Spiele ist."

There is more, but the English translation is perfectly close. The above is
saying that the use of double (or potentially even triple) remedies, well
chosen to address different sides of the disease, is perfectly homeopathic.
I understand that this may not fit well with some people's interpretation of
Hahnemann, but if this is what he said, it's what he said.
Well, it doesn't really, because he could have popped two remedies in the
person's mouth at the same time? Hence, "a double remedy".

Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

For anyone interested, there is an article on the topic of Hahnemann and
double remedies in AMERICAN HOMEOPATH 2000, the relevant section being
titled

Hi Anna and all,

There was a *LONG* discussion about this a couple of years back on the
Lyghtforce list, and here's what I recall: A contemporary and friend and/or
student of Hahnemann's began experimenting with dual remedies (two given at
the same time), and expressed great enthusiasm about it to Hahnemann.
Hahneman was initially supportive and interested, and dabbled with it a bit
himself, but came to feel that, in endorsing use of two at a time, he would
be seen by other homeopaths as endorsing that slippery slope of "many"
remedies given at the same time, and he did not want to go that far. An
exchange of letters was cited and quoted, in which he basically retracted
his enthusiasm and noted that a whole added level of complication was added
in attempting to learn the ins and outs of prescribing dual remedies, and he
chose instead to revert to his initial position, that "it is never
necessary, and therefore never permissible" to give more than one remedy at
a time.

So some were saying that Hahnemann's final insistence on "one remedy at a
time" was a political move rather than fundamental to the practice of
homeopathy. However, the fact is that that *is* how he chose to define the
practice of homeopathy, and if we decide to include multiple remedies under
that umbrella, then we have basically tossed aside *any* basis for defining
what *is* to be called "homeopathy".

Alternation of remedies was I believe done *as symptoms change*, rather than
"routinely", tho I couldn't swear to this. At any rate all of his writing,
so far as I'm aware, is very strong on the idea that remedies are given
*according to symptom picture*, so I would assume that he would alternate
only if and as required by those changes.

If anyone remembers this exchange differently than what I've written, I'm
interested to hear!

You said earlier:
...
I have also read elsewhere that Hahnemann used more than one remedy at a
time.
********* Where did you read this? As above, there was apprently a *short*
period when he experiment with and felt positively toward this method, but
it was only a short period and evidently he fully "repented".

" Now, if this is true, why not combine more together if they are
rightly chosen,

******"Rightly chosen" would be a matter of interpretation. The
homotoxicology remedies would be much closer to allopathic than to
Hahnemann's version of "rightly chosen", since they are not based on
individualization of symptoms.

"as H suggests, and are suited to different "sides" of the disease?
*********I'm not sure what "sides" of the disease would refer to. Anyone?

"Is that not what the homotoxicology remedies are doing?
********* Perhaps more so than drugs, but no more so than herbs. They are
formulated to apply to a broad spectrum of people having this or that
"named" condition. While I'm sure there are some homeopathic principles at
play in the formulation, the overall formulation is not prescribed according
to the principles of homeopathy, i.e. not prescribed on the basis of
individualized symptom picture, but more nearly according to the "name of
the disease" (tho not exactly that either).
"And if the homotoxicology remedies work and gain results, doesn't this show
in retrospect that they were well chosen?
******** Well... Behavior modification works too, and so do drugs, and so
does "measure twice, cut once". But they all work in different ways, on
different levels, and toward different ends. Altho I'm happy to concede
that homotoxicology remedies can be useful, I don't think they have very
much more in common with homeopathy than does herbalism. I don't actually
know much about homotoxicology so can't talk in any depth about it, but the
pace and rhythm and pattern and nature of *how* it works, what it does,
doesn't have a great deal in common with homeopathy as Hahnemann defined it
-- at least, not so far as I've seen.

Which, again, does not mean I'm saying homotoxicology is "bad". I would say
that the two systems are simply different, and each has its advantages and
disadvantages. Homeopathy I feel has a deeper potential, but also a steeper
learning curve and simply won't be available to everyone. And some people
will prefer the process of homotoxicology. No need to throw either
overboard IMO, but also no need to say they are the same -- they are not!

Best wishes,
Shannon

hi Rosemary,

A salt is different from a combination. A combination could be made of
chemically unrelated items, but a salt is *one substance*, based on specific
chemical bonds, and is a distinctly different substance than either of its
constituents. And the homeopathic picture of the salt, tho containing
aspects of each constituent, *also* contains parts of its picture which are
shared by neither element. Wish I were clever enough to have specific
examples...

Cheers,
Shannon
on 3/3/04 4:15 PM, Rosemary C Hyde Ph D at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com
wrote: