In a post from a few years ago someone seemed to say that it is impossible to antidote a correct remedy. Is that true?

Also in my own thread where I was discussing Lachesis, I mentioned about headache from pesticide exposure and Carbo Veg was suggested. I noticed that in one of my books it gives Lach and Carb. V. as antidotes to each other. (But not inimicals) I'm trying to understand how it would work out if one or the other were being taken as a main chronic remedy and the other were then taken as an intercurrent. Would each antidote the other and thus require a new dose of the other afterwards? Or if the first paragraph has anything to it would they, if a correct for either chronic or acute situation or both, *not* antidote each other?

Do antidotes work for both "aggravations" and for accidental "provings"?

Does and antidoting remedy just stop the action of the first remedy that is aggravating or proving, or does it also act itself? If the latter, what if an antidote is needed but none of them fits the symptom picture?

of Dr J H Clarke,s Clinical Repertory is very useful in this respect .

It list remedies that follow each other and also the remedies that antidote other remedies.

Often a remedy that "follows well" is also included in the "antidotes " section.
This provides a view of remedies that can be used in a series on a " Ladder of Cure" that Compton Burnett used to such good effect.