As homeopathy becomes more popular (yay!) we see a lot more homeopathic products pop up on the shelves. Many of them rely on what I’ll call “the spaghetti approach:” throw a bunch of remedies at the problem and hopefully something will stick. If something works, you’ll never really know which remedy it was. And if it doesn’t work, or makes your symptoms worse, you also won’t know.
This is probably not so important with a flu or cold that’s likely to resolve by itself within days or weeks anyway. But in treating chronic symptoms, and with constitutional treatment, the difference is critical.
One way to look at it is, it’s just good science. As all my clients know, I take copious notes. Why? I’m following the threads of multiple symptoms as we work together. You start on one remedy, and we watch the effects of that one substance. If most of your key symptoms show good improvement on it, we continue, adjusting the dosing along the way. If they don’t, we try a different (single) remedy. Why do classical homeopaths operate this way?
Here’s the back story: Each remedy in our homeopathic repertoire was tested individually. Meticulous records were kept on how each substance affected every aspect of the person who took it.
Before the word “holistic” had even been coined, Samuel Hahnemann (discoverer of homeopathy) wanted to know what effect homeopathic Sulphur had on all parts of the human system: not just the skin and the digestion, but the person’s mood and motivation. These drug tests, known as “provings” are a source of vast knowledge. BUT, the knowledge is specific to watching the effect of one substance. Sulphur only. Not Sulphur and Chamomila and Pulsatilla combined.
As a classically trained homeopath, I want to know what works. I want to know what is NOT working. I need to establish cause and effect. That’s why much of my work is tracking leads.
I can build on that. Because the path becomes much clearer when you know where you’ve been. And the outcome–an unfolding of overall health and well-being*–can be just amazing.