Because Classical Homoeopathy is the only Homoeopathy. It is a science based on logical principles and provings of single doses, as set out by Samuel Hahnemann - not on trial and error. He proved that a medicine acts on the whole person, therefore the remedy must be similar to the totality of the case, and a person cannot be both x remedy and y remedy at the same time. I do not see any logic in multiple dose or multiple remedy prescribing, both of which are unable to bring about cure, and I see no need to consider them further. A remedy is non-material and acts on the non-material vitality of the person. The way it acts follows certain laws, as Hahnemann discovered. The vitality has to perceive the remedy during its primary action and then respond to it. The response to a 200c potency can take as long as 6 months or a year before it reaches completion in chronic cases. A 1m, 10m, 50m or mm can take 6 months to two years to run their courses in people with the miasmatic levels that exist today(the time varies depending on the individual and whether the case, and its corresponding remedy, is slow/energetic in its mode of action).
It is like the hand in the bucket of cold water analogy. Only when the hand is removed from the cold can the benefits of the heat that is being produced by the vitality be felt.
Only by working within these laws does any true restoration/regeneration occur.
What is the need for prescribing multiple doses or multiple remedies, or for me to consider what a prescriber has found when practising in these ways? Either a remedy is right, and we wait for the whole transformation of the suffering person, or it is wrong (as indicated by the appearance of significant new symptoms) and we must antidote it immediately.
With the right remedy we see an initial aggravation followed by a curative action. With a wrong remedy we see the person having an initial amelioration, as the primary action of the stronger dissimilar medicine suppresses the symptoms, followed by an aggravation, as the symptoms re-emerge. The prescriber who does not understand the principles then repeats the remedy, trying to re-create the action first seen. Sometimes another wrong remedy is given, again looking to use its primary action. This creates total chaos, as it is then impossible to know what is going on in the person. Cases treated in this way come nowhere near restoration/regeneration.
At worst, repeating a remedy before the response is complete pushes the vitality back into the state that it is trying to leave, locking the internal person between the two states. This is extremely difficult/impossible to antidote.
I know that it can be difficult to understand what is happening in a case during the action of a remedy, and that it is often easy to think that another remedy is required too early. Much depends on how deeply the homoeopath has understood the case in the first place, before making the prescription.
Only when the action of the remedy is entirely complete is the picture of the deeper miasmatic level and the next remedy revealed. Amazingly, this almost always corresponds to a remedy listed by Kent as "follows well".
I know many might disagree, but this is what Homoeopathy is. This is its logic, which is based on deductive reasoning and the experience of provings and clinical cases. This is its method, the only one by which remedies can be used to undo deep chronic miasmatic disease, which is the only way any real restoration/regeneration can come about.
Potencies are being used today in many ways, but those ways are not Homoeopathy. They are not logical and they cannot bring about cure on a chronic miasmatic level. They act in the ways outlined above, exactly as Hahnemann said they would in paragraphs 30-40 of the Organon.



[This message has been edited by Martha (edited 05 October 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Martha (edited 05 October 1999).]