Search ArchibelDegroote F. Remedy interactions and Kingdoms
In this publication the author has put the accent on the understanding of the homoeopathic prescription, namely the necessity to prescribe a number of successive remedies over the lifetime of each patient.
We know already since Hahnemann that there exists a relationship between a lot of homeopathic remedies.
This means that even in the time of the founders of homeopathy there was a conviction that patients evolve during their lifetime from one remedy to another, and that there is not a lifelong personal remedy!
In normal life there is a lot of interaction between the patient’s inner state and his environment. This makes life dynamic. So patients change from constitutional remedies (during childhood) to more individual remedies in the course of their life.
Here we see the coming into action of:
- Allied and satellite remedies,
For example: When a Sulphur patient gets a head trauma, he will probably switch to Natrium sulphuricum which is its satellite remedy. - Hereditary remedies (nosodes)
- Remedies that are complementary or follow well.
For example in case of an acute disease when the acute remedy (soon after its prescription) has to be followed by its chronic complementary remedy – cf. Kent, Lecture XXXVI : calcarea carbonica after belladonna (when calc. is the underlying deep acting remedy of the patient).
The remedy interactions list which Degroote composed, is a major extension of Gibson Miller's list and contains a lot of additions from different eminent authors of the last century and numerous additions from his 40 years of clinical experience.
So, big remedies are in this way extended to an even greater enumeration of remedies that also follow well.
Of particular interest is especially every rubric following a small remedy because those small remedies were previously not mentioned in former remedy-relation lists. The knowledge of their relationship with other remedies can often be very helpful to find the following prescription.
This list is particularly useful to consult when many symptoms have been eliminated by the first remedy and ‘new’ symptoms show you have to make a following (second) prescription.
Especially in defective cases, where the remaining or new symptoms are few in number, this list can be of great help.
At last, the author insists to remark that this list should be considered unlimited and that it only should be applied and used to facilitate the selection of the following prescription, when the previous remedy has done all its benefit, with respect to the homoeopathic law 'similia similibus curentur'.