नवम्बर 2007 के Hpathy .com पर जरमी शैएर का एक साक्षत्कार छपा है , विषय मनीष भाटिया ने उठाया है कि क्या जटिल रोगों ( chronic cases ) एक ही सिमिलीमम काफ़ी है या इससे भी अधिक सिमिलीमम हो सकते हैं . मुझे याद है कि कुछ दिन पहले डां प्रतीश पटेल ने भी यह प्रशन आरकुट मे एक कम्यूनिटी मे एक पोल के जरिये से उठाया था । होम्योपैथी मे औषधियों के स्त्रोत कई जगह से आते हैं जैसे वनस्पति ( plant kingdon) , जन्तु ( animal kingdon ), रसायनिक स्त्रोत ( minerals & chemicals), सारकोडस (sarcodes) और नोसोडस (nosodes) | इसके अलावा impondrebalia ग्रुप जैसे x-ray इत्यादि। इतने व्यापक समूह से आने वाली औषधियों मे से अगर यह कहें कि इतने बडे ग्रुप मे सिर्फ़ एक ही सिमिलीमम हो सकता है तो यह अन्य होम्योपैथिक औषधियों के साथ नाइन्साफ़ी होगी । लेकिन स्वयं हैनिमैन ऐसा नही मानते , उनके अनुसार सही रुप से चयनित की गई औषधि का दूसरा कोई विकल्प नही है । आपके अनुसार :
As certainly as every species of plant differs in its external form, mode of life and growth, in its taste and smell from every other species and genus of plant, as certainly as every mineral and salt differs from all others, in its external as well as its internal physical and chemical properties (which alone should have sufficed to prevent any confounding of one with another), so certainly do they all differ and diverge among themselves in their pathogenetic – consequently also in their therapeutic – effects.1 Each of these substances produces alterations in the health of human beings in a peculiar, different, yet determinate manner, so as to preclude the possibility of confounding one with another.2
1 Anyone who has a thorough knowledge of, and can appreciate the remarkable difference of, effects on the health of man of every single substance from those of every other, will readily perceive that among them there can be, in a medical point of view, no equivalent remedies whatever, no surrogates. Only those who do not know the pure, positive effects of the different medicines can be so foolish as to try to persuade us that one can serve in the stead of the other, and can in the same disease prove just as serviceable as the other. Thus do ignorant children confound the most essential different things, because they scarcely know their external appearances, far less their real value, their true importance and their very dissimilar inherent properties.
लेकिन जरमी शेऐर कुछ और ही सोचते हैं । जरमी पिछले २५ सालों से होम्योपैथिक के अध्यापन से जुडे हैं ।
I have a lot to say about this. Your observation is very correct. If homeopathy worked only by one simillimum, there would be no homeopathy. We would all be out of business. Even if it worked with only five remedies for a patient, we would still be out of business. After 25 years of teaching and presenting cases, I know that in a class of twenty students you can get fifteen different suggestions for a case. Then the teacher says that I gave this particular remedy and the whole class thinks, �Oh! I am wrong because the remedy mentioned worked and the teacher must be right�. And therefore it propagates this thing about the simillimum. I think that quite a big range of remedies can work for each patient. I have traveled across the world and have seen how different homeopaths give different remedies and get results. Like you said, everybody is successful to some degree. This is so important. For instance, if in a class, your suggestion is different from the teachers, you should not lose confidence and think that he was right and you were wrong. It could be that your suggestion is right as well. That is one ramification of it.
The next ramification of it is that building up materia medica from cases is very secondary, of much less importance than provings. Because you can say that you saw three or four cases of a certain remedy, but in those cases the remedy could really be just a similar or partially similar. Then you are including all the data from these partial cases into the essence of the remedy, but I don�t think that all the data necessarily belongs to that remedy. Even if you give a partially similar remedy it has the power to sweep away many symptoms in the case that do not belong to the remedy. To know whether a remedy is the simillimum or not, there is a very strict criterion. For instance Kent gave the definition that if you give the simillimum, then there should be an aggravation of the existing symptoms, then the symptoms should get better and then there should be a relapse of the original symptoms.
So now let�s look back at what Hahnemann has said. Hahnemann definitely said that there is no such thing as the simillimum. He said that the simillimum is a theoretical concept. In Paragraph 156, he says you can not fit a remedy to a case like two triangles with equal angles and equal sides. This will not happen. There can not be �a� simillimum. Because by definition if you say �this simillimum�, there could be only one remedy that will work for the case. But if you give Pulsatilla nigricans, maybe Pulsatilla nutalliana could be more similar, or maybe Pulsatilla from some other continent would be better, or perhaps a spider remedy we don�t know.� All these remedies could help to different degrees, but logically you can never tell if there is a better remedy round the corner.
Remedies are like poems. Some touch you more and some less, but you can never say that there is one ultimate poem to touch a person, there might always be a better one.