Thank you for your reply to my query on antidotal complementaries
I do not think I understand all it. I therefore request you to illustrate your query with concerete examples — eg: nux vomica and pulsatilla, or bryonia and rhus tox
Alright, here we go!
A medicine, though indicated by current symptoms, may not be able to bring about a complete cure because it may have limited scope of action or may not be deep acting enough or may be partially similar. A complementary medicine is one which completes the curative action of a given medicine in such cases. Let me explain this with Aconite and Sulphur. Sulphur is both complementary and antidotal to Aconite.
Suppose a patient comes to a homeopath with symptoms of fever resembling aconite. The homeopath prescribes aconite and the fever subsides. But aconite is a short acting medicine. If the person has recurring bouts of fever, aconite may not be able to remove this deeper tendency. In such cases, a medicine which is complementary to Aconite, like Sulphur (which not only has similar symptoms but is deep acting too), may be able to abort any predispositions. Thus completing the cure.
Now suppose a patient comes to a homeopath with symptoms of cold. The homeopath gives the patient aconite based on his/her understanding of the case. But if aconite is not indicated and is repeated frequently in very low doses, it can either suppress the case (the cold improves but fever/sinusitis sets in) or can create an artificial disease state resembling that of aconite (proving). In both cases, we have to remove the artificial state created by aconite. For this we will need a medicine which can create a similar and stronger state (law of simila – natural disease or artificial disease). Now sulphur is again a medicine which can create such a state (due to symptom similarity) and is deeper acting too. So Sulphur may help to antidote the dynamic effects of aconite.
I hope I have been able to clear the concept this time.