Creating Waves of Awareness
Single Remedy vs Combinations
My question is if only one similimum is required for cure then how these doctors are getting success?
Tags: Single, combination, community, homeopathy, remedy, world
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nilay Trivedi on -
Gud Morning Sir,
You are right in what you are saying, but can you please tell us, what would be the correct way of approaching the Case, especially for practitioners who have just begun or are practising from just 1.5-2 yrs like me? I take the case in detail: Chief Complaints, Modalities, Physical Generals, Mental Generals and then repertorise n prescribe. How do you approach, Sir? kindly Guide me.
Thankyou Sir
-
Permalink Reply by Nilay Trivedi on
-
Good Morning Sir,
Greetings from me..
1> Sir, by low potency I meant potencies that still haven't liberated their dynamic properties within them, like 2X, 3X, 6X. Such combinations are available in the market with numbers ascribed to them.. No.1 for this disease n No.2 for that disease. Each combination is a mixture of 6-7 drugs.. they are bound to act only on physical level n they are often used, esp in india, as deficieny supplement.. viz, Nat Mur 6X, 3X, Calc Phos 3X 6X
2> Correct remedy would be the only one to work in a combination prescription because only the most Similar one works on the Vital Force.
3> The prinicple is of the 'Similimum'.. the most similar medicine to the constitution of the patient. The principle Single remedy.. of Minimum Repetition
Regards,
Thankyou Sir
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Gary Weaver on -
Dear Nilay
If 3 is correct, how do you arrive at the answer to 1?
Either the similimum is the similimum and will work because of similarity or not. Many of the proving were done with tincture or low potencies, and many thousands of patients were cured on deep levels with MT. So how do you arrive at the conclusion that dynamisation only occurs and is present when material substance disappears?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that in a combination remedy that it acts only on a physical level if its low potency? Can you give me a reference for this? Also, it has always fascinated me why the incorrect theory of supplements in the form of homoeopathic remedies is continued to be thought as correct.
Finally, how do you conclude that only the similar remedy in a collection of mixed remedies is the only one working when the collection of remedies together form a new "drug" of which you dont know the proving and are not sure if suppression has taken place?
g
-
Permalink Reply by Dr Dushyant Kamal Dhari on -
See post in the Journals Group Single Remedy vs Multiple or Combinations or Patents
-
Permalink Reply by Dr Dushyant Kamal Dhari on
-
" Body cannot be a post office, sorting out and correctly delivering at the appropriate place the different ingredients in a mixture without the same inter-acting on other parts of the system."
Dr. Diwan Jai Chand.
-
Permalink Reply by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on -
Great analogy!
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. MAS on -
Quote: Dr Piyush Kumar on September 26, 2010 at 12:17pm
Dr Mas , With all respect , i would answer all your queries....(3) i.e I dont Know.
-----
That is also my answer :D but even then I am homeopath and using the medicine. It is unlawful I think. We don't know about homeopathy and doing practice ;)
-
Permalink Reply by Dr Piyush Kumar on -
I know about Homoeopathy as a Science and Art . I know Homoeopathy as an art of Individualization. I know Homoeopathy as science based on dynamism . I know Homoeopathy as branch of Medical science which has shown its effects but still the exact mechanism is not known of its action.I know Homoeopathy through the symptoms of remedy and symptoms of the patient.
I know Homoeopathy as biggest mystery for the present science , its beyond their instruments, beyond Avogadro Number .
I know very little about Homoeopathy.
Homoeopathy is in my mind. My job is to feel and match the symptoms of patient and medicine.Select potency and dose.
What these medicine do and how it do ? and why it does?
I leave it again on scientists fraternity.
What i know is to try to practice Homoeopathy in a manner as said in Organon and chronic disease.
-
Permalink Reply by Debby Bruck on -
I wish we had "like" button on NING because I would "click" it here. Thank you Dr Piyush.
-
Permalink Reply by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on
-
No I have not deleted anything and you know that. I asked for a refutation of Hahnemann and you still refuse that by using the excuse that I would delete it. It simply shows everyone that you have no legs to stand on.
Discussion of what Hahnemann said is of course allowed - the radio talks about the Organon prove that to everyone's satisfaction - and if you can refute his experiments by your own experiments, I am all for it. The fact that you then don't do that and simply promote your book, is disingeneous. Prove to use he was wrong - just don't make claims and not back them up.
For instance, when Hahnemann says that the remedy must be stronger than the disease, then he undermines his own Law of Similars and that is simply a fallacy in reasoning. He says that cure has nothing to do with the strength of the remedy first - to refute allopathic massive doses - and then goes on to say the remedy should be stronger.
That is a faulty notion, which cannot have any validity, because if this were true, then taking the remedy would always cause a proving. That is simply not the case. For a remedy stronger than the disease would simply replace the disease symptoms with drug symptoms and cure would be impossible. An aggravation can occur, because when two negative forces combine in the body, an initial increase in strength is a logical conclusion. On that basis, Hahnemann thought that the remedy is stronger than the disease, but then the aggravation should be permanent, which it is simply not, because two negatives cancel each other out.
So there is nothing wrong in calling out the wrong points in the Organon. But to claim something and not back it up is critique without foundation, that's all.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Gary Weaver on
-
It must be me or too early or 18 hours of study and clinic... whatever... but Im not understanding this... can you rephrase what you meant here so my fuddled brain gets it?
That is a faulty notion, which cannot have any validity, because if this were true, then taking the remedy would always cause a proving. That is simply not the case. For a remedy stronger than the disease would simply replace the disease symptoms with drug symptoms and cure would be impossible. An aggravation can occur, because when two negative forces combine in the body, an initial increase in strength is a logical conclusion. On that basis, Hahnemann thought that the remedy is stronger than the disease, but then the aggravation should be permanent, which it is simply not, because two negatives cancel each other out.
-
Permalink Reply by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on
-
If the remedy is stronger than the disease, a single dose should be able to either establish permanent cure or permanent aggravation. While in some cases a permanent cure does occur from a single dose, this is never due to the strength of the medicine but solely to its symptoms similarity.
© 2013 Created by Debby Bruck.
