quote: "all combinations are different- classification is only possible by matching the remedy , its main keynotes , to the patient ."

i don't think i can agree with this. first, matching the remedy to the patient would be a prescription, not a classification of the remedy as "this type" or "that type." second, the fact that all combinations are different has no necessary connection to whether the various "combinations" are classifiable according to this or that set of standards (i assume that by "combination" you mean the original proving substance, ars-alb, for example, and not a "combination remedy" as is so often found these days in non-classical homeopathic or alt-med applications).

for example, remedies can be classified according to their sources in the physical environment: animal, vegetable, mineral. this is easy to do, in fact. harder, is figuring out whether the classification has any meaningful contribution to make concerning remedy relationships.

my question would involve finding out, to state it in simplest form, whether all xxx-alb remedies shared a common sub-set of symptoms that revolved around a theme of "great prostration," for example.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.