When is a single remedy../my statement Digest Number 1424

[Cl.Mennel]

Hi folks,
Dear Anna,

it is very simple to prove that there is a difference between a
substance of different indrediences being diluted and dynamized and
different dilted and dynamized remedies mixed together or given at the
same time.

3 to the power of 4 plus 3 to the power of 4 = 162 (81 plus 81)

But

3 plus 3, which is 6, to the power of 4 = 1296

See the difference (1215 in this case)
and that was just a very simple mathematical example.

How much more diffrerence is there in real life.

An other thing you fail to take into account isa the issue of proving.

Homoepathic remedies are proven, that to say the totality of symptoms
occuring after the remedy has been taken by healthy provers constitute
the remedy picture according to which the remedy is given to patients
who show the similar symptoms, modalties and charactericica. (Organon §
6, § 19, § 26, and many more)

"Similia simillibus curentur" - im Gegensatz zu - "contraria contrariis"

Another importent point ist that homoeopathy does not concentrate on one
single symptom.

§ 6 Sixth Edition of the Organon
The unprejudiced observer ... takes note of ... the changes in the
health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents,
symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that
is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state
of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself,
remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these
perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is,
together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the
disease.

As far the use of "double rememdies" are concerned, you might like to
read that letter by Hahnemann to Bönninghausen:
(taken from http://simillibus.com/combinations.html)

Here is a letter from Hahnemann to Boenninghausen on the topic, near the
close of these brief experiments (it may be found in Haehl's biography
of Hahnemann, vol. 2, p. 253; the emphases were added by David Little):

Cöthen, October 16, 1833
Your eloquence would have easily persuaded me, if I had been in your
position, that is, if I had been as much convinced as you are from a
large experience of the possibility or even great utility of giving
double remedies. *BUT FROM MANY ATTEMPTS OF THIS KIND ONLY ONE OR TWO
HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL, which is insufficient for the incontrovertible
establishment of a new rule*. I was therefore, too inexperienced in this
practice to support it with full conviction. Consequently it required
only a slight monentum to induce me to alter that passage in the new
"Organon" which results in this, that I concede the possibility that two
well chosen remedies may be given together with advantage in some cases
BUT THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE A VERY DIFFICULT AND DOUBTFUL METHOD. And in
this way, I believe I have done justice to truth on the one side and to
any inner conviction on the other. I should be sorry if in that way I
have receded too much from your wishes.
Samuel Hahnemann

Hahnemann in 1833 had the trouble that to few homoeopathic remedies had
been proven in 1833. He describes this problem in § 162-184 of his
Organon (&th edition). But the materia media grew tremdously in the
following years, solving the trouble to find the most similiar remedy
for each patient and case.

Thus Hahnemann came to the following conclusion:

§ 274 of Organon 6 th edition.

As the true physician finds in simple medicines, administered singly and
uncombined, all that he can possibly desire (artificial disease-force
which are able by homoeopathic power completely to overpower,
extinguish, and permanently cure natural diseases), he will, mindful of
the wise maxim that it is wrong to attempt to employ complex means when
simple means suffice, never think of giving as a remedy any but a
single, simple medicinal substance; for these reasons also, because even
though the simple medicines were thoroughly proved with respect to their
pure peculiar effects on the unimpaired healthy state of man, it is yet
impossible to foresee how two and more medicinal substances might, when
compounded, hinder and alter each other's actions on the human body; and
because, on the other hand, a simple medicinal substance when used in
diseases, the totality of whose symptoms is accurately known, renders
efficient aid by itself alone, if it be homoeopathically selected; and
supposing the worst case to happen, that it was not chosen in strict
conformity to similarity of symptoms, and therefore does no good, it is
yet so far useful that it promoted our knowledge of therapeutic agents,
because, by the new symptoms excited by it in such a case, those
symptoms which this medicinal substance had already shown in experiments
on the healthy human body are confirmed, an advantage that is lost by
the employment of all compound remedies.1

1 When the rational physician has chosen the perfectly homoeopathic
medicine for the well-considered case of disease and administered it
internally, he will leave to irrational allopathic routine the practice
of giving drinks or fomentations of different plants, of injecting
medicated glysters and of rubbing in this or the other ointment.

So that's all to it:
"the wise maxim that it is wrong to attempt to employ complex means when
simple means suffice"

... "nach dem Weisheitspruche: "daß es unrecht sei, durch Vielfaches
bewirken zu wollen, was durch Einfaches möglich ist.""

All the best
Claudia