REMEDIES COMPLEMENTARY, INIMICAL AND ANTIDOTAL


Usually the beginner learns to recognize Aconite and Belladonna among the earliest remedies in his armamentarium; to the older student of materia medica they present marked differentiating symptoms, but the novice sees chiefly marked similarity.


The grouping of remedies is a problem that presents itself to the mind of the homoeopathic student as soon as he beings to gain some insight into the personality of remedies and their application in individual cases. The first step along this line of thoughts is the inevitable comparison of remedies as brought out by the study of even a few remedies, and the necessary differentiation between remedies as soon as the beginner begins to comprehend the similarities that exist in almost any group of remedies.

Usually the beginner learns to recognize Aconite and Belladonna among the earliest remedies in his armamentarium; to the older student of materia medica they present marked differentiating symptoms, but the novice sees chiefly marked similarity.

The comparison of symptom similarities as exhibited by drug provings undoubtedly set the minds of the early homoeopathic students into the problem of remedy relationships. There is no question but that the problem of the similimum as against the similar arose even in the mind of Hahnemann, as may be inferred from his reports of cases, especially that of the mental case in which he prescribed first Belladonna and then Hyoscyamus – remedies which certainly have many similarities.

Whether or not Hahnemann himself devoted serious consideration to remedy relationship is a point we have not been able to check definitely. We do know, however, that from his ear on careful observers and students have given much thought to the problem of remedy relationship, and with all the statement of observations, little explanation has been advanced.

Even a cursory examination, however, seems to indicate that the key to the problem of complementary, inimical and antidotal remedies lies in similarity in some form – similarity of derivation, or similarity of symptom grouping.

Knerr, in his Repertory to Herings Guiding Symptoms, heads his interesting chapter on Drug Relationships (Indian ed., v.2, chapter 48, p.1697) with the following definitions:.

Collateral. Side relations (congeners) belonging to the same or allied botanical family or chemical group.

Compatible. Drugs following well.

Complementary. Supplying the part of another drug.

Inimical. Drugs disagreeing, incompatible, do not follow well.

Similar. Drugs suggested for comparison by reason of their similarity; usually compatible, unless too similar, like Nux vomica and Ignatia.

There is a well defined standard by which we can compare any two well proven remedies for similarity. This is a problem which takes in but two major factors: the sifted symptoms of each remedy, so that (insofar as possible) personal idiosyncrasies do not interfere with the comparison.

Hahnemann, in his preface to the Materia Medica Pura, tells us how carefully symptoms were sifted so that none might appear that were not pure drug effects; how all symptoms were derived from healthy provers who were under similar conditions and on a similar regime; how all symptoms which appeared after deviation from the normal regime (such as fright, shock, or other psychic or physical causes) were not recorded in the provings; and how such symptoms as appeared after lesser deviations from the normal were included in brackets as being of doubtful value.

Unfortunately, not all later provings have been so carefully guarded, and we are not always sure of the symptom – whether it be of the remedy or of the prover himself – unless there have been enough provers under similar regime to provide adequate control conditions. However, clinical verifications have tested some symptoms which were brought out under seemingly uncontrolled conditions to the point where the verifications have provided a sound basis for the elimination of the idiosyncrasic element in comparisons.

Collateral is a term so basic in our consideration of remedies as to admit of little question. It frequently provides a similarity simply because of this common derivation: between plant remedies, for instance, of similar or closely allied groupings, or between plant and mineral remedies when the plant shows marked selectivity for certain chemical reactions in the soil; or between chemicals having a similar or related formula; or between groups of elements having approximate atomic weights.

A notable illustration of the similarity that exists in a collateral botanical group are the symptoms produced by the provings of the Anacardiaceae: the tendency to certain mental symptoms (or to mental symptoms having a general trend), the universal restlessness, the universal skin symptoms, and the similarities of the modalities marking the group; while the individual differentiations mark the specific indications for the individual member of the family.

The relationship between plant and soil is well known fact, and while we may find a fairly wide range of symptoms present in provings of different parts of a plant because of localized functions, Hahnemann himself noted the similarity of action produced by the chemists of his day, as he put it, by torturing the substance to produce different reactions from the different parts. Thus certain characteristics of the individual plant will run through provings of both root and branch, and provide interesting comparisons with provings of the basic soil elements. Thus Belladonna and Calcarea have symptom relationships; we find the mineral is compatible and complementary to the vegetable.

The relationship between any individual members of the groups of compound salts furnishes evidence of collateral relationship, and provides the solution for the similarities which exist within any chosen group. The compounding element, too, furnishes the link between the primary group and the outside member, and with this element, also, we expect to find, and do find, certain family likenesses.

Still another relationship of which we do not often think is that which exists between elements having approximate atomic weights. Thus Phosphorus and Sulphur, coming next to reach other in the Mendeleev scale, have certain symptoms closely similar while maintaining definitely individual characteristics; just as these elements occur in nature under similar conditions, so in their provings their indications trend toward similar conditions.

We have suggested why the collateral relationship of plant and mineral remedies may provide the basis for complementary relationship, because we recognize that just as the plant reaches into the soil which is rich in certain elements, and partakes of those elements and the same elements become a part of the plant itself and necessary to its very existence – its very essence is dependent upon those deeper elements which it assimilates. So it is with the double or compound salts, which partake in varying degrees of the nature of the parent elements; and very frequently we find that these compound salts are complementary to the individual element which offers itself as the basic element.

Thus we realize that some remedies are complementary to others because they have certain characteristics in common, certain similarities, yet they probe deeper into the constitutional state than the first remedy to be given, which may have been more superficial in nature, more acute in its indications, or possibly more single track in its applicability. Complementary remedies usually have a certain similarity, their basic action must be in a similar direction, yet they are not so closely similar as to be presumably antidotal in action.

Of course, in considering the complementary relationship we must consider the provings and their similarities, aside from the symptomatology of the sick individual, and we must also take into consideration the symptoms of our sick patient before we can tell which remedy, among several possibly indicated remedies, may be complementary in that individual case. It is not sufficient to say that Calcarea carb. complements Belladonna; the remedy called for in a sick patient may be quite different in its deeper action than those classically considered in the textbooks. In each case the individual must be considered first and most prominently.

In spite of family relationships and even in spite of close symptomatic similarities, we cannot assume that remedies will always be compatible or complementary. According to Knerrs definition, “Similar drugs are usually compatible, unless too similar, like Nux vomica and Ignatia.” There are many differences of opinion as to these relationships, especially as to compatibility of drugs, and perhaps no definite standard has been set up whereby we may judge them with any degree of assurance.

It has been said that many of our authorities differ in almost every particular when it comes to judging the safety of following one remedy with another. It may e like the sage advice given by Hering as to the administration of Lycopodium – that we should never open a chronic case with Lycopodium unless that remedy is overwhelmingly indicated. We submit that Lycopodium, or any other remedy, should never be given in any acute or chronic case unless in our best opinion it is truly indicated.

H.A. Roberts
Dr. H.A.Roberts (1868-1950) attended New York Homoeopathic Medical College and set up practrice in Brattleboro of Vermont (U.S.). He eventually moved to Connecticut where he practiced almost 50 years. Elected president of the Connecticut Homoeopathic Medical Society and subsequently President of The International Hahnemannian Association. His writings include Sensation As If and The Principles and Art of Cure by Homoeopathy.