2. Can a combination palliate the case? Yes or No?
I don't know but 95% homeopaths use combinations and all also claim cure from them. What I see that those who are using combinations have more patients at their clinics then classical homeopaths. Patients are more satisfied from combo homeopaths then classical. Classical have less income then combo Drs.
3. Does the action of a combination is based on symptoms?
Those who consider combinations do have some results then to them my first question is. Does Combination act like same like similimum remedy or it has some different action? Although these combo do not cure patients but if these combos only palliate then definitely the combinations have some action also, my question is, what was that action who brought palliation? was that action similiar to single remedy or it's action is different then combo?
To my sense and opinion, I am not sure, combinations also act on the body exactly in the same manner as single remedy does act (if combo results do exist....?). I mean to say, if two remedies (if have results) are capable to palliate the case then to me, a single also act in the same manner. My question is, how did that combo brought palliation in the case? I need to to know the action or direction of cure?
I conclude here that if combos can palliate the cases then these combos can also cure the cases. Either you deny that, combos have no result entirely and it can not bring palliation then we can build further opinion
Practising with combination & patent medicines & getting good result is almost like HIT & SEE.
The result is good or bad, no one can describe Homoeopathically & even no one can confirm that which ball hit the wickets.This is a subject of worthless talk only now a days just like " Nakkar khane me tuti Or Bahre ke saamne gana gana"
"How these doctors are getting success" is not a serious matter, but the very serious matter is that "How CCH & CCRH allow the patent in the market?" Now for a Homoeopath its better to make combinations of Natural Food Supplements along with Homoeopathy, which is not only authentic, will provide more better results .
We are speaking about TWO different subjects here;
#1-combination polypharmacy-3-10 different remedies and potencies in one combination pill (formula)
#2- prescribing an acute,and constitutional remedy (or many acutes while on a constitutional rem) Progression of antimiasmatic remedies to clear the field (AKA nosodes to remove a block)
#1 is not classical homeopathy-merely marketing via homeopathic drug lab to sell remedies to layhomeopaths+consumers not trained in prescribing using the rep.
Such Bottles indicate; "for flue,For cold,for allergy....etc" We know this does nOT WORK and this is not how homeopaths prescribe.
Read my blog on the subject. There I argue that the combination may remove some of the symptoms, but will also set up reactions due to the other medicinal substances in the combo and thus constituting a proving, creating new symptoms. That is not cure and thus not successful. It only appears that way.
As Gina Tyler says, these combos are prescribed in an allopathic way - for flue, fever, etc. This is allopathy, which Hahnemann condemned and forbade, because - and this is crucial - it is not homoeopathy.
Respected Dr. MAS
Combination of Natural Food Supplements along with Homoeopathy will be a successfull affair in near future because the Natural Food Supplement acts like catalist & increases the action of Homoeopathic medicines ( helping to make them a Remedy ).
Natural Food Supplements are :-Natural - Vit.c,Vit.B,Omega-3,Soya Protein with essential amino acids,Glucosamine,Cal.,Mag.,Iron,Alovera,Milk of mango,Masharoom ,etc ....
These all things are available in the market with different brand names( mostly made in USA,Malasiya, India).
Where is the concept of single remedy in this approach? Out the window. This is allopathic thinking.
Soy protein is indigestible for humans. Ayurveda says soy is for pigs. We lack the enzyme to process soy.
Aegidi was the one who first used complexes. He claimed cures with that. He did this at a time when the MM contained possibly no more than 70 remedies and when alternating remedies was a necessity. Von Boenninghausen wrote to Hahnemann and told him about it and Hahnemann at first concurred.
However, soon afterwards, Hahnemann saw the dangers in allopathising homoeopathy and realised that in double remedies - as they were called in his time - we cannot know which cured what and how. He quickly abandoned the practise and forbade his followers to use them.
In the 6th edition of the Organon he says that such practise is ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED IN HOMOEOPATHY.
He also says that we have at our disposal thousands of substances found in nature.
Therefore with the amount of remedies now available we can use them even less, for if you cannot find the similimum among those remedies now in the MM, you might as well stop treating people, because it is obvious you "do not have the matter in you".
So it is clear that such practise is neither homoeopathic nor very effective, if you read my blog on Mixopaths and What To Do?
We are homoeopaths and not mixopaths. Polypharmacy is the reason Hahnemann developed homoeopathy in the first place. We should move forward and not backward.
Organon aphorism §273
In no case under treatment is it necessary and THEREFORE NOT PERMISSIBLE to administer to a patient more than ONE SINGLE, SIMPLE MEDICINAL substance at one time. It is inconceivable how the slightest doubt could exist as to whether it was more consistent with nature and more rational to prescribe a SINGLE, SIMPLE (159) medicine at one time in a disease or a mixture of several differently acting drugs. It is absolutely not allowed in homeopathy, the one true, simple and natural art of healing, to give the patient AT ONE TIME two different medicinal substances.