Creating Waves of Awareness
This debate would be the longest and never ending , when a patient comes its how fast you treat him with no other complaints for a longer duration of time with no relapse.
now the question is one remedy or a combination ? because we need to find out why many times a single remedy fails and a combination works so well
over many years i personally tried to find out what really acted so on each occasion of being ill i would experiment say for example diarrhoea,
one day I had diarrhoea and i took china ars just 3 doses ( each dose on each episode of diarrhoea )it was about 10- 15 mts intreval stopped it completely, ( now without medicines which i observed it would go on for many hours together.)
ok so happy with the result good i have a good remedy for diarrhoea , ok now i wait for the next similar episode again ok now diarrhoea started this time i took the same China Ars 200 and it did not work i had to pass watery stool for many hors and it was baout 6-7 times and i am sure its not working so this time i took verat alb 200 and it stopped in just 2 doses ( each dose on each episode of diarrhoea ) it was 15 mts apart. ( a dose is 4 pills of it dissolved in a cup of water and taken 1 table spoon )
now happy with the result.
ok again few months wait till next episode this time i tried verat alb same like last time and it did not work but china did. so all this experimenting is taking many hours and lot of episodes of diarrhoea.
so now i know its either China OR Verat alb thats working on me. irrespective of what i ate or drank and got infection .
Now again i waited for the next episode after few months. this time i wanted to take the risk of experimenting and stoping it in the shortest time so in a cup of water 4 pills of china and 4 pills of veratrum alb and mixed it and took a spoon on each episode so my suprise i had to take it totally only 2 times to stop the diarrhoea.
ok now the conclusion
1) mixing the remedy in this cases suited me as per my symptoms as earlier only these 2 benefited me best. so in a given time its either china or verat and by taking any one is working only.
2) if we mix we do get the result in emergency but we wont know which one acted so presenting such cases in front of people would only give negative feedback. (for me i needed to experiment to find the result as even if you go through Dr hahnemanns letter Dr Hahnemann writes said it worked very well but when he announced this to other homeopaths he only got a bad feedback due to the ongoing practice of allopathy which uses mixed medicines. he was going to put it in the organon and later removed it because the homeopaths did not accept it.
3) this is the reason you will find many combination works very well but there is no cure how long will you take it. ? and you dont know which medicine acted its not like all get mixed and form a new medicine it all been mixed but only one acts.
4) in single remedies to cure we know when to increase the dose etc. like if i know glonine 30 acts on me for 2 days only for my headache an increase to 200 acts on me for 25 days , but in a combination i cant increase. and wont be able to find out what worked well.
5) if a combination works well lets ay an unexpected result in 24 hrs then its better to try to find out which medicine in the combination really acted very well by giving them one by one as you know the result in 24 hrs in 4-5 medicines it will be possible to find out which worked well and then analyize the failure.
Well it is almost impossible to know which medicine acted well regarding a combination.Atleast, it will take many hours. While on the other hand if your selection of the single remedy is wrong, there are few chances that the patient will allow you to experiment, and he/she will definitely shift to another.However, It is my personal experience that the well selected single remedy acts quickly than any combination.
Single Medicines acts the best .
While it looks like you have solved the problem, all you have really done is complicate the case. In both instances, you have not carefully studied what is exactly the same and what is different in both cases. One may be choleraic and the other dystenteric, while having the same feeling of malaise.
Now if you had any idea of studying Materia Medica, you would look for the closest analogue to both, in the Remedy Relationships and thus find your single remedy, instead of leaving something untouched, which a combination always does, because we cannot see which remedy does what and how they influence the actions of each other. Materia Medica has more than just Verat alb and Chin ars as remedies for diarrhoea.
To me it shows the ease-lover, who cannot be bothered to find the right remedy - and that also by haphazard experiment, rather than by properly taking a case.
So the relationships of the remedies show us the full range of diarrhoea we may come across. In all its gradual differences and peculiarities and arranged by remedies that may control epidemics to those have have a constitutional cause and require remedies that go deeper, from the Elements or Nosodes. But hey, study is tedious business, what?
If you would study as I indicated, you would not grasp at straws, but find the lifeboat of the similimum very shortly.
It would be helpful to learn the etiology of each episode, the differentials in symptoms and full case, so we observe the logical selection of similimum remedy.
It's funny, I keep hearing that people get all these successes, but those homoeopaths local to me who use combinations do not get those same kinds of successes. In fact, assuming those patients have not become disillusioned with homoeopathy through the experience, when they come to me or my colleages they may even report new problems that have arisen because of palliation or suppression, or repeated dosing causing proving symptoms to be grafted on to their vital energy.
Presuming firstly that the reports are honest ones, I think the main problem here is in the definition of 'success'. My experience in discussing (or arguing) with combination prescribers is that our interpretation of 'cure' is quite different, just as the allopathic definition is different (but much like the one the combination prescribers use). This means that everyone can justify their propositions based on very disparate ideas of cure, and can do so with a degree of honesty.
If one looks at Direction of Cure, the Hierarchy of Symptoms, and the Holistic definition of disease then the combination prescribers are not referring to the same goal posts we are when they report their 'successes'. I try not to get into a 'right/wrong' argument with them anymore, but simply state that the level of cure I can achieve by matching one remedy to the largest and most important part of the case is different to theirs (obviously I believe it is better.
Every remedy has its own function, but then, we do find some of the other remedy that covers functions to clear every ailment presented to us, so yes, mixopathy does come into play