The ABC Homeopathy Forum
Dual remedy in homeo practice
Dr. Hahnemann's diary:Dear Friend and Colleague,
Do not think that I am capable of rejecting any good thing from mere prejudice, or because it might cause alterations in my doctrine. I only desire the truth, as I believe you do too. Hence I am delighted that such a happy idea has occurred to you, and that you have kept it within necessary limits; that two medicinal substances (in smallest dose, or by olfaction) should be given together only in a case where both seem Homoeopathically suitable, but each from a different side. Under such circumstances the procedure is so consonant with the requirements of our art that nothing can be urged against it; on the contrary, homoeopathy must be congratulated on your discovery. I myself will take the first opportunity of putting it into practice, and I have no doubt concerning the good result. I am glad that von Bönninghausen is entirely of our opinion and acts accordingly. I think, too, that both remedies should be given together; just as we take Sulphur and Calcarea together when we cause our patients to take or smell Hepar sulph, or Sulphur and Mercury when they take or smell Cinnabar. Permit me then to give your discovery to the world in the fifth edition of the Organon, which will soon be published. Until then, however, I beg you to keep it to yourself, and try to get Mr. Jahr, whom I greatly esteem, to do the same. At the same time I there protest and earnestly warn against all abuse of the practice by a frivolous choice of two medicines to be used in combination. (Haehl, Vol. II, p. 85, bold added)
Indeed, Hahnemann was so impressed and convinced of the consonance of Aegidi's discovery with his own work that he wrote to von Boenninghausen,[3] two days later, on 17 June 1833, stating:
I too have made a beginning with smelling two suitably combined remedies, and hope to have some good results. I have also dedicated a special paragraph in the fifth edition of the Organon, to this method, and in this way introduced it to the world. (Haehl,, Vol. II, p. 253, bold added)
Section 274b. There are several cases of disease in which the administration of a double remedy is perfectly Homoeopathic 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 of 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.e., in cholera, Cuprum and Veratrum; or in croup, Aconite, Hepar sulph. and Spongia; so in chronic disease I may give together two well-indicated Homoeopathic remedies acting from different sides, in the smallest dose. I must here deprecate most distinctly all thoughtless mixtures or frivolous choice of two medicines, which would be analogous to Allopathic polypharmacy. I must also once again particularly insist that such rightly chosen Homoeopathic double remedies must only be given in the most highly potentized and attenuated doses.' (Thomas L. Bradford, The Life and Letters of Hahnemann, p. 486, bold added)
had suggested dividing the remedies into two classes, the one of which should act upon the body and the other upon the soul. He thought that these two kinds of medicine should be combined in a prescription in order to supplement each other.
mazharmhm on 2008-04-19
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
It is indeed true that Hahn did write such a letter to Aegidi and did experiment with double remedies later on.
If you read further you will know that after experimentation he didn't get the results he was expecting and has abandoned it.
Let me dig out that. It may take some time.
Murthy
If you read further you will know that after experimentation he didn't get the results he was expecting and has abandoned it.
Let me dig out that. It may take some time.
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
This is the conclusion Hahn.came to after experimenting with dual remedies.
*****************
'Hahnemann to Boenninghausen:
C[ö]then, 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.'
*************
If anyone is really interested to read the whole story with commenntary for and against the dual remedies, there is no better article than this.
http://www.heilkunst.com/little.html
Murthy
*****************
'Hahnemann to Boenninghausen:
C[ö]then, 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.'
*************
If anyone is really interested to read the whole story with commenntary for and against the dual remedies, there is no better article than this.
http://www.heilkunst.com/little.html
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
Though Hahn. was in favour of adding the para about dual remedies in the fifth edition , he abandoned the idea after his experiments.
In fact when the 5 th edition was published , he added a foot note denouncing the practice of giving dual remedies, thus setting at rest the controversy created by his letters.
***************
Half truths are dangerous than deliberate lies. They mislead the unsuspecting public faster than a lie :-)
Murthy
In fact when the 5 th edition was published , he added a foot note denouncing the practice of giving dual remedies, thus setting at rest the controversy created by his letters.
***************
Half truths are dangerous than deliberate lies. They mislead the unsuspecting public faster than a lie :-)
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
****************
Thus, instead of the proposed new paragraph, Hahnemann altered the existing paragraph by adding a footnote to the existing Aphorism 272. Far from being a condemnation of the double remedy approach, Hahnemann here repeats essentially what he had written to Boenninghausen on 16 October 1833, that the footnote concede(s) 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.
Some homeopathists have made the experiment, in cases where they deemed one remedy homeopathically suitable for one portion of the symptoms of a case of disease, and a second for another portion, of administering both remedies at the same or almost at the same time; but I earnestly deprecate such a hazardous experiment, which can never be necessary, though it may sometimes seem to be of use.
**************
If you want to know the minutest details and the total story read this.
blank">http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/verspoor-affair.asp
Murthy
Thus, instead of the proposed new paragraph, Hahnemann altered the existing paragraph by adding a footnote to the existing Aphorism 272. Far from being a condemnation of the double remedy approach, Hahnemann here repeats essentially what he had written to Boenninghausen on 16 October 1833, that the footnote concede(s) 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.
Some homeopathists have made the experiment, in cases where they deemed one remedy homeopathically suitable for one portion of the symptoms of a case of disease, and a second for another portion, of administering both remedies at the same or almost at the same time; but I earnestly deprecate such a hazardous experiment, which can never be necessary, though it may sometimes seem to be of use.
**************
If you want to know the minutest details and the total story read this.
blank">http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/verspoor-affair.asp
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
Thanks for bringing such a good thread.In the present day so many combined medicines are being manufactured in Germany,France,India as well as all over the world.They mixed very low potencies of similar group of medicines against disease directly and after application the patient get quick relief from troubles.No return of symptom within a year or never just after taking those suitable medicines.I have seen during my 15 years of practice,if the name of disease can be detected properly after investigation.The combind medicine will work so quickly leaving wastage of time and suffering.One aged lady came to me with MRI REPORT.Simply she was suffering from compression of nerve in dorsal region and she was adviced to go under neru surgery.After applying Rhus tox (pentarkan) alongwith Cal Flour 6x and within 4days she was able to walk with less pain and after a month she was completely free.Since last 4years she is still in good health.Regards,malaker
♡ Dr.Haran ch malaker last decade
The first post of this thread gives an impression as if Hahn. endorsed the idea of dual remedies, which is not a fact.
As to the efficacy of the combination remedies I repeat once again that the manufactures themselves declare them as suitable only for 'temporary relief'.
They do advise to go for a single remedy therapy sooner than later.
Had these combinations are so succesful there is no need of any doctor/therapist for the majority of the patients as all most all imaginable conditions are covered by these combinations and all they have to do is to go to the pharmacy and pick up the labelled medicine.
But the fact is that they rarely help in the long run. The possibility of the case becoming complicated after usin these combinations is great and it can't be brushed aside lightly.
The oft repeated argument that they have a good market doesn't cut much ice in favour of them as allopathic medicines too have a greater market share, but we know how harmful they are.
A homeopath who prescribes these combinations is either lazy or is clueless in arriving at the correct remedy.
And if he happens to be a qualified one it is much worse and better avoid those homeopaths in your own interest.
Murthy
As to the efficacy of the combination remedies I repeat once again that the manufactures themselves declare them as suitable only for 'temporary relief'.
They do advise to go for a single remedy therapy sooner than later.
Had these combinations are so succesful there is no need of any doctor/therapist for the majority of the patients as all most all imaginable conditions are covered by these combinations and all they have to do is to go to the pharmacy and pick up the labelled medicine.
But the fact is that they rarely help in the long run. The possibility of the case becoming complicated after usin these combinations is great and it can't be brushed aside lightly.
The oft repeated argument that they have a good market doesn't cut much ice in favour of them as allopathic medicines too have a greater market share, but we know how harmful they are.
A homeopath who prescribes these combinations is either lazy or is clueless in arriving at the correct remedy.
And if he happens to be a qualified one it is much worse and better avoid those homeopaths in your own interest.
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
Mr.Murthy a qualified doctor can determine the suffering of human and what kind of investigation is needed to find out the real cause of suffering is very near to us and thats the gift of modern science.No chance of wild guess is necessary as when in last it was completely on wild assumption,as when pain increase and decrease,movement aggravate if so we look at Rhus as well as on Bryonia.I need to apply single remedy after relief of severe nature of suffering.Manufacturer of combind medicine always take help of good homeopathic doctor or who knows well pharmacopeia.Thanks its all right its from my idead.No harm to test those medicines coming in combind formation.Malaker
♡ Dr.Haran ch malaker last decade
The philosophy of homeopathy prohibits the use of combination medicines. In the name of modern thinking one should not deviate from the fundamental philosophy.
When even an unqualified homeopath like me is able to achieve results with the single remedy philosophy, why can't the qualified do it?
The problem is people lap up exotic ideas without understanding the wealth of information Organon provides regarding treatment techniques.
How many modern doctors are aware and give the split dose to their patients?
How many know the efficacy and advantage of a water dose compared to a dry dose?
How many know how to assess the patient after the first dose is given when he comes for follow up?
The answers to all these and much more are available in that small book called Organon.
The one who follows the teachings contained there in letter and spirit don't need any other methods. It is unfortunate that the present lot of 'qualified' doctors know so little about Organon. If they really understand it and follow it they will rise to the level of a Dr.Luc, Dr.George Vithoulkas and Dr. Vijayakar to name a few.
If they don't do it they will remain mediocre and keep struggling for existence as their cure rate will be too low.
I am afraid that a few of those qualified homeopaths hang around forums like these to try and entice the patients to their private practice.
If they really know how to cure a patient and not be happy with palliation and suppresssion, their name and fame will rise to heights automatically and they don't have to resort to gimmics like soliciting practice through these forums.
I know that there are many good qualified homeopaths on this forum who are advising the patients to their best of ability and I respect their wisdom and they do it without expecting any returns. My above comments are directed against the black sheep among them.
Murthy
When even an unqualified homeopath like me is able to achieve results with the single remedy philosophy, why can't the qualified do it?
The problem is people lap up exotic ideas without understanding the wealth of information Organon provides regarding treatment techniques.
How many modern doctors are aware and give the split dose to their patients?
How many know the efficacy and advantage of a water dose compared to a dry dose?
How many know how to assess the patient after the first dose is given when he comes for follow up?
The answers to all these and much more are available in that small book called Organon.
The one who follows the teachings contained there in letter and spirit don't need any other methods. It is unfortunate that the present lot of 'qualified' doctors know so little about Organon. If they really understand it and follow it they will rise to the level of a Dr.Luc, Dr.George Vithoulkas and Dr. Vijayakar to name a few.
If they don't do it they will remain mediocre and keep struggling for existence as their cure rate will be too low.
I am afraid that a few of those qualified homeopaths hang around forums like these to try and entice the patients to their private practice.
If they really know how to cure a patient and not be happy with palliation and suppresssion, their name and fame will rise to heights automatically and they don't have to resort to gimmics like soliciting practice through these forums.
I know that there are many good qualified homeopaths on this forum who are advising the patients to their best of ability and I respect their wisdom and they do it without expecting any returns. My above comments are directed against the black sheep among them.
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
The aim of the physician is to cure.
The cure must be rapid , gentle and permanent.
From 19th century to 21st century the treatment has undergone a revolutionary change. The approach to disease and its treatment has become more advanced. Man always desires a rapid cure when he is indisposed. To provide comfort during indisposition is the secret of the success of a pathy. Empirically prescribing medicine one after the another to test the tolerance level of different people is a mokery of a cure.
Most of the time the patient do not know whether it is aggravation or the disease is going bad to worst.
Disease never remain static at one level. At this forum most of the time the medicine is prescribed for the symptoms expressed at that moment, but procuring prescribed medicines takes a longer time or some times a patient is already taking some treatment or medicine. Where the prescribed medicine becomes futile and invalid for the disease.
The futility of transcendental speculation which can receive no confirmation from experience, be his power of penetration ever so great .(Aphorism)
So there must have a coordination between the patient and the prescriber to evaluate the progress of disease or recovery.
Science is never rigid, many theories, concepts and hypothesis has become obsolete. New approaches are always better and suited to the prevailing time and way of life of new generation, in health and disease.
Cure does not mean that a person will never fall ill . Health and disease are synonymous. One has to differentiate between the two acutely and act accordingly. Even our daily food at times makes us ill and makes us healthy and energetic every day and night.
The cure must be rapid , gentle and permanent.
From 19th century to 21st century the treatment has undergone a revolutionary change. The approach to disease and its treatment has become more advanced. Man always desires a rapid cure when he is indisposed. To provide comfort during indisposition is the secret of the success of a pathy. Empirically prescribing medicine one after the another to test the tolerance level of different people is a mokery of a cure.
Most of the time the patient do not know whether it is aggravation or the disease is going bad to worst.
Disease never remain static at one level. At this forum most of the time the medicine is prescribed for the symptoms expressed at that moment, but procuring prescribed medicines takes a longer time or some times a patient is already taking some treatment or medicine. Where the prescribed medicine becomes futile and invalid for the disease.
The futility of transcendental speculation which can receive no confirmation from experience, be his power of penetration ever so great .(Aphorism)
So there must have a coordination between the patient and the prescriber to evaluate the progress of disease or recovery.
Science is never rigid, many theories, concepts and hypothesis has become obsolete. New approaches are always better and suited to the prevailing time and way of life of new generation, in health and disease.
Cure does not mean that a person will never fall ill . Health and disease are synonymous. One has to differentiate between the two acutely and act accordingly. Even our daily food at times makes us ill and makes us healthy and energetic every day and night.
mazharmhm last decade
I totally agree that the aim of the physician is to cure and it has to be rapid gentle and permanent.
Hahn. worked hard to see that the cure is permanent and the book 'chronic diseases' is a result of that.
He wanted the cure to be rapid and has invented the split dose concept just to achieve that.
He invented the LMs to see that the cure is gentle.
He has told us everything as to how to achieve a rapid, gentle and permanent cure.
I am yet to find a theory or thesis which surpasses his Organon till date. A few empirical observations by handful of experimentalists is no match to the dedicated effort the master has made and all his observations are valid still today.
A new theory has to show that it is better than the old one and should stand to logic and stand to scrutiny.
We are conveniently forgetting that homeopathy is based on matching the symptoms of the patient with those of the 'provings' of the medicine.
The proving data is available for single medicines only. When you combine two medicines their effect on the individual is not the sum total of their individual symptoms, but will be altigether different.
Without a proving data for these combinations how do you match the symptoms?
The fundamental requirement for these combinations to be accepted as useful is to have provings conducted after standardising the contents of these combinations. When each manufacturer has his own contents, his own choice of potencies , for the same complaint, how do we justify their use?
The other way these combinations can be accepted is if reliable 'clinical' data is available with each manufacturer. If they have such data why are they afraid to say so, and why do they take cover under the pretext of for 'temporary relief'?
They neither have the 'clinical' data nor 'proving' data. The allopathic medicines are atleast extensively tested before they are released in the market. Even then they do cause harm. Where is such safety with these combinations and dual remedies?
The idea of experimenting with these combinations or dual remedies stem from the fact that the prescriber is not aware of the full potential of the homeo medicines. As I often repeat homeo medicines are energy medicines and if you handle them callously the damage to the patient will be much more serios than with allopathic medicines.
The Organon has so many checks and balances like a single medicine, minimum dose and repetetion only when required to see that the patient is not harmed if not helped.
This is because the founder know how potent homeo medicines are and the damage they can cause. Only those who don't believe the dynamic and potent nature of homeopathic medicines can dare to do these dangerous experiments.
Murthy
Hahn. worked hard to see that the cure is permanent and the book 'chronic diseases' is a result of that.
He wanted the cure to be rapid and has invented the split dose concept just to achieve that.
He invented the LMs to see that the cure is gentle.
He has told us everything as to how to achieve a rapid, gentle and permanent cure.
I am yet to find a theory or thesis which surpasses his Organon till date. A few empirical observations by handful of experimentalists is no match to the dedicated effort the master has made and all his observations are valid still today.
A new theory has to show that it is better than the old one and should stand to logic and stand to scrutiny.
We are conveniently forgetting that homeopathy is based on matching the symptoms of the patient with those of the 'provings' of the medicine.
The proving data is available for single medicines only. When you combine two medicines their effect on the individual is not the sum total of their individual symptoms, but will be altigether different.
Without a proving data for these combinations how do you match the symptoms?
The fundamental requirement for these combinations to be accepted as useful is to have provings conducted after standardising the contents of these combinations. When each manufacturer has his own contents, his own choice of potencies , for the same complaint, how do we justify their use?
The other way these combinations can be accepted is if reliable 'clinical' data is available with each manufacturer. If they have such data why are they afraid to say so, and why do they take cover under the pretext of for 'temporary relief'?
They neither have the 'clinical' data nor 'proving' data. The allopathic medicines are atleast extensively tested before they are released in the market. Even then they do cause harm. Where is such safety with these combinations and dual remedies?
The idea of experimenting with these combinations or dual remedies stem from the fact that the prescriber is not aware of the full potential of the homeo medicines. As I often repeat homeo medicines are energy medicines and if you handle them callously the damage to the patient will be much more serios than with allopathic medicines.
The Organon has so many checks and balances like a single medicine, minimum dose and repetetion only when required to see that the patient is not harmed if not helped.
This is because the founder know how potent homeo medicines are and the damage they can cause. Only those who don't believe the dynamic and potent nature of homeopathic medicines can dare to do these dangerous experiments.
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
To post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register
Important
Information given in this forum is given by way of exchange of views only, and those views are not necessarily those of ABC Homeopathy. It is not to be treated as a medical diagnosis or prescription, and should not be used as a substitute for a consultation with a qualified homeopath or physician. It is possible that advice given here may be dangerous, and you should make your own checks that it is safe. If symptoms persist, seek professional medical attention. Bear in mind that even minor symptoms can be a sign of a more serious underlying condition, and a timely diagnosis by your doctor could save your life.