Take the opposite, the complementary remedies. If you have a case of, lets say, Thuja, Medorrhinum is complementary. It doesnt mean you are going to give Medorrhinum. You will think of Medorrhinum and see whether its symptoms are indicated. You are more likely to think of it, but that is all; and the same with an antagonistic remedy. You might be careful in its choice, but just as little as you would be inclined to give Medorrhinum just because it is complementary, so you should be averse to give an antagonistic remedy because it is antagonistic. The symptoms decide; and if the symptoms strongly demanded it, we would forget the relationship.
I think this point of antagonisms and the complementaries is only a reminder, a repertory point to put our thoughts in one or the other direction, but nothing more. The last decision still will be the safest.
DR. JULIA M. GREEN [closing discussion]: I want to express my strong approval of having symposiums on remedies in these meetings. I think they are very valuable, and most interesting it has been to see one cast a light on both of the others in a symposium.
As to the complementary and antagonistic remedy idea, it seems to me that in the old days there was more thought given to that on the symptom picture than has been done in recent years; and that was done ignorantly of many things that we know now in connection with the way remedies work. When we have the opportunity or the ability to find out exactly how homoeopathic potencies work, then we will have a very definite basis on which to judge these antagonisms and complementary conditions and so forth.
