Therefore, we may say that compatibility is a problem that is based upon several factors: Similarity and the degree of similarity of the remedies; the characteristic symptoms of the patient and the degree in which they present and call for a certain remedy; whether any remedy is really indicated to follow one already given; whether the indications of the patient are sufficient to call for a remedy against which there is any adverse evidence which might prevent its administration in the present relationship.
This matter hinges largely upon the matter of the first prescription: whether it was indicated; how much reaction resulted; how far we have taken the patient on the remedy? And again, what are the idiosyncrasies of the patient – his personal reactions in the matter as reflected through the symptoms produced? And the question turns searchingly upon ourselves: How well have we prescribed? Does the patient require another remedy? How soon are we considering another remedy? If soon after the administration of the first, have we failed to elicit all the symptoms, or have we neglected our study of materia medica? If some time has elapsed, the question of compatibility need not arise, because the remedy given some time ago has probably ceased its action if the patient is now calling for another remedy.
Compatibility and incompatibility are two facets of the same problem; and incompatible and inimical apply to the same angle of the problem differing only in degree. Granted that a second prescription is required within a short time after the first remedy has been given, and the problem of inimical remedies must be considered, we find ourselves inquiring why some remedies seem to be inimical to others. We can only answer that occasionally certain remedies, frequently those having similar action and perhaps from a congenial source, seem to have the power not only to thwart each others action, but to throw back upon itself in disorder the natural flow of vital energy in the patient as stimulated by the remedy first given. The vital energy of the patient in its individual expression in sickness, and the vital power within the remedies which has been developed by potentization, are the underlying factors.
Remedies listed by some of our observers as having inimical relationships show a close relationship symptomatically, such as Nux vomica and Ignatia; Lachesis and Ammonium carb.; Zincum and Nux vomica; Rhus tox. and Sulphur; Rhus tox. and Phosphorus – and others classically considered as unfriendly in sequence. In many of these groupings we trace the symptomatic relationship through more than one sphere of action, or it may come with peculiar force through the nervous system, the glandular system, or some other derangement that has its basis in a deeply reactive function in the individual. Thus we find that the animal remedies are very frequently contraindicated in close proximity, and the greater the similarity of the symptoms the greater the risk; the more closely similar the remedies, the greater the antagonism between them and the more certain the second remedy will injure the case.
Antidotal remedies are such as may have a similar potential power to inimical remedies, but in this case the adverse action of the first remedy is checked without the impact, and the vital energy which was thrown back upon itself in disorder by the first remedy is now met with a similarity which meets the disordered pace symptomatically and the natural order is restored. Moreover, in the case of an antidotal remedy, we rarely use one of similar morbific trend. Thus we would not consider using an animal remedy to antidote another animal remedy; we would go to a different basic derivation. Antidotal remedies have definite symptomatic relationships; usually, however, the general action of the antidote is of a milder character and it meets the disordered condition with greater sympathy.
Some remedies which have a wide range of action are very effective antidotes for a wide range of remedies; this antidotal action seems to be a part of their symptomatic picture without such marked similarity to the remedy requiring antidote. Or perhaps we may say that such remedies as Nux vomica and Pulsatilla, having naturally a wide range of action, have a certain similarity to many other remedies and because of that similarity are frequently used with great success as antidotes.
The problem of remedies in their relationships, compatible, complementary and inimical, have to do with several factors of which few offer fixed standards. Here we are dealing with the proven remedy, applied in a flexible condition as reflected in the patient, and we cannot gauge accurately the reaction we may receive from any combination of remedies in any sequence.
The solution lies in our case taking – accurate observation and careful recording; in our knowledge of materia medica – the selection of the remedy and accurate prescribing – with all factors well considered. Then we shall have the minimum cause for having to consider the relationship of remedies, except such as may be complementary to carry through a protracted case, for we shall have the least number of cases that will demand the consideration of a close sequence of remedies.
DERBY, CONN.
DISCUSSION.
DR. KAPLOWE: Dr. Roberts has presented a subject that is very difficult and that requires a lot of study.
I remember one case where Causticum given after Phosphorus produced such a terrific aggravation that the patient was swept off her feet, and I guess I was with her. It was strange in that case that Causticum didnt even come close on the repertorial analysis by Boenninghausen. I dont know how Phosphorus would follow Causticum. I repeated that, tried Causticum again on the patient, and it worked the same way.
DR. HUBBARD: Could I ask Dr. Roberts a question? He made the statement that animal remedies should not be given near together, often, particularly if they are very similar, and he made the statement that the antidotal remedy is often found in a different kingdom. Is there any set relationship, whether a vegetable remedy is more frequently the antidote, or is there any interplay between the kingdoms?.
DR. DIXON: Dr. Roberts has reentered a field which evidently received considerable study from the older homoeopaths and of later years has been neglected. If this had not been so we would never have had these relationships given in our textbooks. It shows how much more of an insight the older men had in the materia medica and how they studied the finer points of homoeopathic prescribing.
DR. FARRINGTON: Some of them even went deeper. I have a letter from Dr. Timothy F. Allen to my father in which there is mentioned the color, the natural color, of the flowers of plants, and in regard to some relationship between remedies made from those plants. Those men almost split hairs, you see, in studying the various means of differentiating their remedies.
In the same letter the idea was expressed which Dr. Roberts gave in his excellent paper about the effect on a plant of the soil in which it grew. I dont remember what the plant was, but it was some plant that grew in a soil rich in iron.
I think this is a useful discussion, and a very useful paper.
DR. MOORE: Dr. Burnett, of England, was one of the greatest users of the nosodes, and I have frequently seen where he has repeatedly used one following another, and I was just inquiring, the same as Dr. Hubbard, on this same point of the nosodes following each other. Dr. Roberts evidently has some very good reasons for what he said.
DR. GRIMMER: Speaking of the animal remedies not being given together, they may be and likely are, as Dr. Roberts says, inimical under these conditions, but I have seen a case of rattlesnake bite that was very quickly relieved and cured with Lecithin.
DR. ROBERTS: Answering Dr. Hubbards question with regard to the statement that animal remedies should never be followed by another animal remedy, you do well to go to another kingdom. You are very apt to aggravate and bring out all of the poisonous effects of the condition and of the remedies and mix the case. It is probably better to go from the animal kingdom to the vegetable kingdom and get a similar remedy. Even the vegetable kingdom is much better than to go into the mineral kingdom. It is a transformation of the elements that are in the vegetable kingdom that will help to make up and complement the animal. The animal assimilates the vegetables, the vegetable assimilates the mineral. There is a matter of progression – relationship.
