An intercurrent remedy is a homeopathic remedy given between doses of the remedy indicated by the patient’s acute or chronic complaints, in order to further the action of the indicated remedy. It is commonly given within the time period during which the previously given remedy is ordinarily considered to be active, thus in effect arousing its activity.
For example, Sulphur, which is said to have a duration of 40-60 days action (Sankaran, 1975), was prescribed by Hahnemann in rapid daily alternation with Thuja (also 60 days action), both well within the limits of their respective activities (Handley, 1997).
As it happens, Sulphur and Thuja are both considered to be anti-miasmatics, Sulphur being anti-Psoric and Thuja anti-Sycotic (Hahnemann, 1896); so each would presumably act on the patient from a different miasmatic side. This is ordinarily called an intercurrent prescription, but we might also consider it as “semi-concurrent”, due to the considerable overlap of timing of the stated action of the 2 remedies employed by Hahnemann.
One might expect some synergy between their actions when both are indicated, especially since both are considered to have some kind of mutual affinity or complementarity. The so-called complementarity (or “affinity”) of many commonly employed remedies with respect to each other has been investigated by Boenninghausen (1908) and others (Sankaran, 1975).
The overlapping intercurrent (or “semi-concurrent”) prescription of mutually complementary remedies is an example of what can be called “dual remedy” prescribing.
A review by Verspoor (2003) of the history of dual remedy prescribing is worth reading for its valuable collection of source materials on this subject.
It seems that Hahnemann originally wrote a letter, dated 15 June 1833 (quoted from Bradford, 1895), in response to a letter from Dr. Aegidi recounting his successful practice of using dual remedies.
Hahnemann responded that two remedies can be given in combination, and that “two medicinal substances (in smallest dose, or by olfaction) should be given together only in a case where both seem Homoeopathically suitable, but each from a different side….I think, too, that both remedies should be given together; just as we take Sulphur and Calcarea together when we cause our patients to take or smell Hepar sulph, or Sulphur and Mercury when they take or smell Cinnabar.”
If Hahnemann was indeed stating his personal opinion, then we can presume that according to his “understanding guided by experience” it was a valid statement. In fact, Hahnemann wrote that he was going to add the following to the not-yet-published 5th edition of his Organon:
“§274b. There are several cases of disease in which the administration of a double remedy is perfectly homoeopathic and truly rational; where, for instance, each of two medicines appears suited for the case of disease, but each from a different side; or where the case of disease depends on more than one of the three radical causes of chronic disease discovered by me, as when in addition to psora we have to do with syphilis or sycosis also. Just as in very rapid acute diseases I give two or three of the most appropriate remedies in alternation; i.e., in cholera, Cuprum and Veratrum; or in croup, Aconite, Hepar sulph. and Spongia; so in chronic disease I may give together two well-indicated Homoeopathic remedies acting from different sides, in the smallest dose. I must here deprecate most distinctly all thoughtless mixtures or frivolous choice of two medicines, which would be analogous to Allopathic polypharmacy. I must also once again particularly insist that such rightly chosen Homoeopathic double remedies must only be given in the most highly potentized and attenuated doses.”
However, he was prevailed upon by his colleagues to drop the entire matter, not because of the falsity of the statement, but because of its injudiciousness: because, in spite of his cautionary statement against polypharmacy, it was felt that it would open the door of homeopathic practice to the bad habit of giving multiple remedies for multiple symptoms.
Boenninghausen and Hahnemann had experimented with dual remedies at the suggestion of Dr. Aegidi, but due to the polypharmacy issue the option of giving 2 remedies by simultaneous ingestion was apparently given up by all three (Bradford, 1895); whereupon they most probably switched to overlapping intercurrents to avoid harmful repercussions to their developing science of homeopathy (Handley, 1997).
However, homeopathy is now relatively well fortified with plenty of superego against the polypharmacy danger (cf. Kent, 1987); and homeopathic mixtures are still being recommended by reputable pharmacies with claims of effectiveness for a number of specific complaints (Mathur, 1975). Thus, we feel that for the sake of the long-suffering patient the judicious administration of dual remedies as originally suggested by Hahnemann can be re-investigated and made available for use as needed.
Here is what we find in the 6th edition of Hahnemann’s Organon (1921), his cautionary statement regarding this matter: (§273) “In no case of cure is it necessary to employ more than a single simple medicinal substance at one time with a patient. For this reason alone, it is inadmissible to do so. It is inconceivable that there could be the slightest doubt about whether it is more in accordance with nature and more reasonable to prescribe only a single, simple, well-known medicinal substance at a time in a disease or a mixture of several different ones. In homeopathy – the only true and simple, the only natural medical art – it is absolutely prohibited to administer to the patient, at one time, two different medicinal substances.”
Hahnemann’s phrase “at one time” targets simultaneous ingestion of multiple remedies, and ignores overlapping intercurrents. Hahnemann’s stated intention was to strongly discourage polypharmacy; but he still did not discourage Aegidi from publishing his good results with dual remedies (Verspoor, 2003).
Unfortunately, the above prohibition has created a negative fixation in homeopathic thinking regarding dual remedy prescribing. The 2 reasons implied by Hahnemann for the prohibition are (1) lack of knowledge of the remedy combinations (the knowledge that comes with clinical experience and/or provings); and (2) simplicity, but when treating dual miasms, which is simpler: 2 remedies in alternation, or a dual remedy of known activity targeting both miasms together?
Hahnemann’s example Cinnabar (Merc. sulphide) has at least 2 anti-miasmatics in its composition (Merc. sol contains Nitric acid): in Clarke’s Dictionary it’s stated useful in Sycosis, Syphilis, and Syco-Syphilis.
Which is really “simpler”: to give Cinnabar (or its major components Sulphur & Merc. mixed together); or to give its components unmixed, in overlapping alternation? Will they have the same effectiveness taken together as when the components are given separately? Reading between the lines, Hahnemann’s antipolypharmacy stance in §274 can be understood to recommend the proper investigation of dual remedy combinations of special interest.
Multiple miasms are becoming more and more prevalent nowadays. The times are a-changing, as Roger Schmidt pointed out in response to a letter (1978): “Your experience with the single remedy in a single dose is quite correct. It seems that at the time of Hahnemann it worked very well, as I found in my own practice fifty years ago. But since the beginning of this century the widespread use of drugs, vaccination, injections, etc. from an early age seems to have altered the genuine response of the human organism and necessitates the repetition of the dose, or the help of complementary remedies, one at a time, in various potencies.” We would add homeopathically indicated dual remedies for dual miasms to this list.
In Hahnemann’s day it was relatively simple. Hahnemann (1896) wrote that “In Europe and also on other continents so far as is known, according to all investigations, only three chronic miasms are found, the diseases caused by which manifest themselves by local symptoms and from which most, if not all, the chronic diseases originate: namely, first, Syphilis, which I have also called the venereal chancre disease; then Sycosis, or the fig-wart disease, and finally the chronic disease which lies at the foundation of the eruption of itch; i.e., the Psora… the oldest miasmatic chronic disease known to us.” Ghatak (1931) described the original Psoric miasm as the original externalizing mental itch, from which the seven deadly sins have sprung.
Ghatak wrote, “First there came in man a desire to think otherwise than God willed him, i.e., to think unnaturally; then there was actual unnatural thinking and this unnatural thinking gradually came to be manifested in his physical body in the shape of itches… Thus Psora is a condition of man, a condition that favours disease, just as the itching of the mind, as it were, favoured the appearance of itches on the body.”
Hahnemann has stated (1896) that he himself was free from Psora (“It was more easy to me, than to many hundreds of others to find out and recognize the signs of the Psora… by an accurate comparison of the state of health of all such persons with myself, who, as is seldom the case, have never been afflicted with the Psora…”).
Homeopath Ortega wrote (1983): “Only the concept of a spiritually and physically perfect human being could lead us to imagine the existence of someone free from miasmatic tendencies.”
Thus it appears that the only ones who are completely free from Psora would be truly dispassionate saints, with thoughts and feelings under complete control – and Hahnemann was apparently “in that number.”
Since Psora, with its attendant cure-obstructions “grief, vexation and ennui” (Hahnemann 1896), afflicts virtually all of us, and is the foundation of the other two miasms, we might be emboldened to give the chief antipsoric Sulphur more frequently, “when apparently well-indicated remedies fail” to act (Fergie Woods, 1970), as did Hahnemann (Handley, 1997).
The miasmatic combinations are: Psora with Sycosis, Psora with Syphilis, and Psora with Syco-Syphilis (since Psora is always present in mixtures of miasms).
Hahnemann discussed mixed miasms and their symptom-treatment in Organon (§40-2); treatment is chosen (and re-chosen) according to relative miasmatic quality of currently predominating symptoms.
Hahnemann’s insistence on the number of miasms being three only, brings up the point of whether the number 3 has an unalterably sacrosanct quality in this connection. We quote Gurdjieff on this point (from Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous):
Before examining… the laws of transformation of Unity into Plurality, we must examine the fundamental law that creates all phenomena in all the diversity or unity of all universes. This is the ‘Law of Three’ or the law of the three principles or the three forces. It consists of the fact that every phenomenon, on whatever scale and in whatever world it may take place, from molecular to cosmic phenomena, is the result of the combination or the meeting of three different and opposing forces. Contemporary thought realizes the existence of two forces and the necessity of these two forces for the production of a phenomenon: force & resistance, positive & negative magnetism, positive & negative electricity, male & female cells, and so on. But it does not observe even these two forces always and everywhere. No question has ever been raised as to the third, or if it has been raised it has scarcely been heard.
According to real, exact knowledge, one force, or two forces, can never produce a phenomenon. The presence of a third force is necessary, for it is only with the help of a third force that the first two can produce what may be called a phenomenon, no matter in what sphere.
The teaching of the three forces is at the root of all ancient systems. The first force may be called active or positive; the second, passive or negative; the third, neutralizing. But these are merely names, for in reality all three forces are equally active and appear as active, passive, and neutralizing, only at their meeting points, that is to say, only in relation to one another at a given moment.
The first two forces are more or less comprehensible to man and the third may sometimes be discovered either at the point of application of the forces, or in the ‘medium,’ or in the ‘result.’
But, speaking in general, the third force is not easily accessible to direct observation and understanding. The reason for this is to be found in the functional limitations of man’s ordinary psychological activity and in the fundamental categories of our perception of the phenomenal world, that is, in our sensation of space and time resulting from these limitations. People cannot perceive and observe the third force directly any more than they can spatially perceive the ‘fourth dimension’….
We should add that Ortega’s remarkable Notes on the Miasms seems to affirm the threefold nature of the miasms. The Tubercular miasm is stated by Ghatak (1936) to be the “hereditary fusion” of Psora and Syphilis; elsewhere he stated that “Tubercular consumption” arises from the “malignant combination, through suppression, of Psora and Sycosis,” and that “Cancer is only a form of TB”.
These apparent discrepancies are resolved by Ortega’s assertion (1980), that everyone has all 3 miasms in varying proportions, though the third miasm may be relatively latent. He helpfully describes miasmatic indications for symptom evaluation of treatment choice.
The differentiating qualities of the 3 miasms stated by Ortega seem to derive from the 3 gunas, the Universal Qualities of the Bhagavad Gita (Burroughs, 2001). The miasmatic qualities (with associated guna-qualities in parentheses) are restraint (purity), excess (passion), & degradation (ignorance), respectively, in conceptual correspondence to Kent’s (wrong) thinking, desiring, & doing (1926). The guna-qualities are naturally modified in effect by their mutual combinations with each other.
Sub-miasms representing miasmatic combinations still have value. For example, Ghatak would give Tub. bovinum (a sub-miasm nosode representing Psoro-Syphilis) often intercurrently, “whenever the symptomatic remedies would not give happy & expected results” (1936).
A mixed nosode-combination was used to treat cases of Syco-Syphilis by Haraprasanna Das Gupta, who wrote (1949): “Syco-Syphilinum: I now relate here my experiences with this nosode whose literature I could not procure even after much searchings. Dr. H.C. Allen in his book on nosodes* merely casually mentions the name of the remedy without giving any literature. I enquired of it from my homeopathic colleagues but most of them did not even hear its name, not to speak of its literature. Though disheartened, I meditated upon it and came to the conclusion that as the remedy is a combination of the two nosodes, Medorrhinum and Syphilinum, its curative symptoms must also be the combination of both of them. On this basis I began trying its effects upon patients and I am glad to state that my efforts have been rewarded with unqualified success.”
We now turn to Sycosis and Syco-Psora. Ghatak (1931) writes that: “Sycosis was a miasm that was very rare in his [Hahnemann’s] time, while there is hardly anybody today who is free from it.” Historically, Paracelsus (1951) characterised the three miasms as Sulphur, Salt, & Mercury. In inorganic
* (p 487) “Enlargement of cervical glands and… warts on neck: cured by syco-syphilinum”
chemistry, a salt is a combination of a cation plus an anion. Thus it appears that a shift has occurred in the expression of the Salt miasm: Hahnemann recognised it in his substitution of the plant remedy Thuja to represent a sycosis re-defined with a strong venereal component.
Allen wrote (1904): “Sycosis may be said to be the most venereal of all venereal diseases… It is a disease of lust in the broadest sense of the word… He thinks, he wills, he acts, and out of that false triune develops the lust disease.”
Kent wrote that (1926): “Thinking, willing, and doing, are the three things in life from which finally proceed the chronic miasms.” Lustful desire-actuated thinking is Psoric, passion-fueled willing is Sycotic, and separative “doing” from the ignorant body-identification is ultimately Syphilitic.
Meher Baba said (Kalchuri, 1986): “Lust is not bad. Because of this lust, you have been born as human beings. It is due to this very lust that you will turn from men into God! But even if lust is there in you, don’t put it into action.
From the spiritual point of view, lust is the worst possible weakness. The real hero is he who successfully fights it.” Meher Baba would use the term “lust” in a broad way to designate selfish gross desire; it is the selfishness that distinguishes lust from love (Kalchuri, 1986). If the expressions of hydra-headed selfishness (the so-called 7 deadly sins) are controlled through loving interactions, homeopathic medicines can help alleviate miasmatic physical complaints which could divert potential spiritual aspirants from achieving the “higher purposes of our existence” (Hahnemann, 1996).
Syco-Psora may be the most prevalent of the multiple miasms. Hahnemann wrote (1896): “But if the patient was at the same time affected with other chronic ailments, as is usual after the violent treatment of fig-warts [etc] by allopathic physicians, then we often find developed Psora complicated with sycosis, when the Psora, as is often the case, was latent before in the patient.”
Allen wrote (1904): “Today the psoric miasm is, to great degree, blended with sycosis; fully 80 percent, we are told, have sycosis in some form, therefore catarrh is now the prevailing expression we meet.”
The allopathic suppression of catarrh is common (nearly universal) practice, combining sycosis with psora in a large percentage of our homeopathic patients. It seems that dual miasms are becoming the rule, rather than the exception. It is likely that to some extent intercurrent remedies and concurrent “dual” remedies can have similar effectiveness when applied to chronic two-miasm illnesses. Check out what Boenninghausen wrote about his use of Thuja as an intercurrent remedy below:
Boenninghausen’s Article: Thuja as an Intercurrent Remedy (1862) Every Homoeopathist knows the value, indeed the indispensable necessity, of an intercurrent dose of Sulphur in many cases, of both acute and chronic diseases, in which a remedy, though accurately selected and strictly homoeopathic, does not act. However this experience may be sought to be explained, this much is certain, that it often occurs and that the favorable result is often truly astonishing.
A somewhat similar observation has been made by myself and several others, in secondary Syphilis, and even in mercurial diseases, a new dose of Mercury being given in one of the highest potencies and in the smallest doses, whereupon the other remedies, which corresponded accurately to the symptoms and were for the most part antidotal began to unfold anew and actively their healing power.
On the other hand, so far as I know, a similar use of our great antisycotic remedy, Thuja, has not hitherto been customary, and it may not be amiss to call attention to it. If it is true that Variola and Cowpox belong naturally to the order of Sycosis; that this miasmatic poison must have received a prodigious propagation through the customary process of vaccination, and that finally many chronic affections of the worst character prove intractable under our best remedies and show no signs of improvement, until recourse is had to a remedy which has the power of acting favorably upon diseases of a sycotic character – if these things be true, then the circumstance is of sufficient importance to warrant a few words. We shall therefore briefly discuss the three propositions already stated.
If I am the first to utter the conjecture that condyloma and Variola (or Vaccinia) belong to one and the same disease, I base my hypothesis on the fact that both affections, so long as they present themselves without complication, find their surest and most complete cure in one and the same remedy, viz.: in the juice of the Thuja occidentalis, and in no other.
The specific curative power of this remedy, in Smallpox, which so far as I know, was first discovered and published by me, has since been confirmed and demonstrated in manifold ways and from various sources…
The general distribution of this sycotic poison, which was indicated even by Hahnemann as one of the miasmatic poisons out of which chronic diseases spring (Chronic Diseases) through the practice of vaccination, needs no further discussion if it be conceded that our first proposition is correct.
We need only call attention to the thousand-fold experience, that many children who were previously in perfect health, begin, not long after vaccination, to become ailing and, what is most remarkable, they become ill of such varieties of chronic diseases as required most frequently such remedies as are related to Thuja and such as may even be called in play in treating real Condylomata. …
If now it be true, and the experience of the majority must have satisfied us that it is true, that many chronic diseases offer an obstinate resistance to remedies chosen with most accurate observance of the homoeopathic law, and administered with the utmost propriety, and only manifest improvement – and that often incomplete & unsatisfactory – when one or another of the above remedies is administered, it seems to me we are almost justified in concluding – risum teneatis amici! – that in such cases Sycosis lies hidden in the background & hinders the cure, just as in other cases Syphilis & Psora do.
It appears then of no slight importance, so far as practical results are concerned, in certain cases and especially in those in which the above remedies are indicated, to administer an intercurrent dose of high potency of Thuja, just as we give in parallel circumstances a dose of Sulphur or Mercurius.
I can myself, from my own experience, strongly affirm the advantages of such a treatment, and even though the soundness of the above propositions should be on many grounds called in question, nevertheless, in this view, indisputable facts speak in its favor – facts which have for us a greater weight than simple ratiocination or an individual hypothesis.
* * * * *
Nitric Acid as Intercurrent
Nitric acid is well-known as an antisycotic. Its psychological symptom picture has been well-described (e.g., the amusing description by Vithoulkas, 1988). We have found that Nitric acid can be substituted for Thuja in many cases of sycotic illness, when indicated, with good effect.
Indeed, Hahnemann used Thuja and Nitric acid in alternation for the radical cure of sycosis (Hahnemann, 1896). Meher Baba has stated (Kalchuri, 1986) that “America has great energy, but a great deal of it is misdirected. And misdirected energy produces destructive complexes, and these, in turn, produce fear, greed, lust and anger, which result in moral and spiritual decay.”
In a third-world culture in which Psora is the predominating miasm, the psychic conflicts induced by the invasion of modern Westernizing influences, including Western medicine itself (often sycotic in quality: demanding vaccinations, & unnecessary operations, cortisone suppression, etc.), on an unsophisticated population, often requires homeopathic remedies which can directly act on the pervasively errant sycotic influence itself as well as on the specific acute/chronic symptoms described by the patient. Of course Westerners also often need antisycotics; as Twentyman wrote, “in this century the will has become amoral” (1989).
The choice of Nitric acid can be made in similar manner as the choice of an anion to add to a suitably chosen cation in elemental two-component prescribing (Scholten, 1993). Kent was criticised for synthesizing “new remedy” pictures for clinical use by selecting the common symptoms of the separate cation-anion remedies (Kent, 1926); however, experience tells us that such synthetic remedy pictures can have value (Vithoulkas, 1988).
Scholten supplied some guiding keynotes for Nitricum (1993): enjoyment; need for space, expansion; going out; congestion, explosive; tension; relaxation. Combined with the keynotes for acids, the essence of Nitric acid is described as “the feeling that they have to exhaust all possibilities of enjoyment, or, the feeling that all possibilities have already been exhausted.”
The Nitrogen ion (the explosive component in gunpowder and “fertilizer bombs”) often adds an actively demanding element to the remedy picture. One does not have to be clairvoyant to feel these things in a patient.
Johnson describes his nitricum picture (2008): “Desire for freedom vs. fear of losing control is a polarity which runs through the different nitricum rubrics, and of key importance in recognizing a nitricum remedy…
We could say that nitrogen is “happy” in its free N2 state, and “unhappy” in the trapped state of nitrate, NO3, but this is not entirely true. Neither state is completely satisfactory–complete freedom with no boundaries equates to a lack of control, but complete control by the circumstances creates a sense of panic and a desire to escape. One can often find a history of unpredictable chaos and explosive anger in the nitricum individual’s childhood.”
For a striking example of the usefulness of Nitric acid in combination, oft-times we have seen a tough Pulsatilla, perhaps a mild-natured but disgruntled weightlifter with no aim in life, beaten down as a youth by his parents’ general dissatisfaction and angry at the world for its arrogant insensitivity.
Pulsatilla alone often has very little effect in such a case, but when Nitric acid is added, the resultant enhancement of effect can be remarkable. This is only one example – there are many other such useful combinations with Nitric acid (we have used
Ars. alb, Calc. carb, Kali carb, Lycopodium, Nux vom, Phosphorus, Pulsatilla, Sulphur, etc.). We have come to recognize some of these dual combinations as one might distinguish Cinnabar from Sulphur (Organon §274). The reactivity of people who have been abused, by family, spouse, employer, or the often false promises of allopathic medicine – these can create a person with Nitric acid as a component of their curative similimum, whatever their constitutional type might be otherwise.
An example is Sepia with Nitric acid, a very useful combination in a culture where subtle gender-abuse is common in both sexes (Sankaran, 1997: “the Sepia woman…is forced…to do what she doesn’t want to do”).
Consider the striking number of women who have been abused in their Kaliyuga childhood. We have given this mixture many times to gender conflicted men and women with good effect for a variety of symptoms.
Conclusion: It is up to the individual prescriber to discover for himself the potential applicability of dual remedy techniques to his own homeopathic prescribing.
References (most of the older homeopathic books have been repub. by Jain:
Allen, H.C. (1910): Materia Medica of the Nosodes. Phila: Boericke & Tafel.
Allen, J.H. (1904): The Chronic Miasms, Sycosis, vol 2. Chicago: Author pub.
Boenninghausen, C. von. (1862, Sept.): Thuja as an intercurrent remedy. Amer.
Hom. Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 117-20. Retrieved from: www.scribd.com/doc/97314113
Boenninghausen, C. von. (1908): Drug affinities. Lesser Writings. Phila: Boericke & Tafel.
Bradford, T. (1895): The Life & Letters of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann. Phila: Boericke & Tafel.
Burroughs, K.C. (Ed.). (2001): Bhagavad Gita: Annotated and explained. (Trans. by Shri P. Swami). Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths.
Clarke, J.H. (1900). Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica. London: Hom. Pub. Co.
Das Gupta, H. (1949): Efficacy of the Invisible. Calcutta: Author published.
Retrieved from: www.scribd.com/doc/104408215
Fergie-Woods, H. (1970): Essentials of Homoeo. Prescribing, Essex: Health Science Pr.
Ghatak, N. (1950): Chronic Disease, its Cause & Cure (trans. P.N. Banerjee). Bengal, India: Banerjee & Co (orig. 1931).
Ghatak, N. (1936): Lectures on Tuberculosis. Calcutta, India: Hahnemann Homeo. Pharmacy. Retrieved from: www.scribd.com/doc/316433140
Hahnemann, S.C. (1896): Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature & their Homeopathic Cure. Phila: Boericke & Tafel.
Hahnemann, S.C. (1996): Organon of the Medical Art (transl. S. R Decker), 6th edition. Redmond: Birdcage Books (orig. pub. 1921).
Handley, R. (1997): In Search of the Later Hahnemann, Beaconsfield, U.K.: Beaconsfield.
Johnson, D. (2008, Feb.): Nitrogen, desire for freedom vs. fear of losing control. Hpathy Ezine.
Kalchuri, V.S. (1986): Lord Meher. N Myrtle Beach: Manifestation, Inc. Retrieved from: www.lordmeher.org.
Kent, J.T. (1926): New Remedies, Clinical Cases, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms and Precepts. Chicago: Ehrhart & Karl.
Kent, J.T. (1987): Alternation as practiced by Hahnemann. Kent’s Minor Writings on Homoeopathy. Heidelberg: Haug (orig. 1889).
Mathur, K.N. (1975): Principles of Prescribing. Delhi: Jain Pub.
Ortega, P.S. (1980): Notes on the Miasms. Delhi: National Hom. Pharmacy.
Ortega, P.S. (1983, Jan.): Chronic miasms. British Hom. Journal, vol. 72, no. 1.
Ouspensky, P. D. (1940). In search of the miraculous. NY, NY: Harcourt, Brace. Retrieved from: Paracelsus, T. (1951): Selected Writings (ed. J. Jacobi). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP.
Sankaran, P. (1975): The Clinical Relationship of Homoeopathic Remedies (6th ed.). Bombay: Homeopathic Medical Pub.
Sankaran, R. (1997): The Soul of Remedies. Bombay: Hom. Med. Pub.
Schmidt, R. (1978, Feb.): Response to a letter. Hahnemannian Gleanings, vol. 45, no. 2.
Scholten, J. (1993): Homeopathy and Minerals. Bombay: Hom. Med. Pub.
Twentyman, R. (1989). The Science and Art of Healing. Edinburgh: Floris Bks. Verspoor, R. & Decker, S. (2003): An Affair to Remember: the Curious History of the Use of Dual Remedies. Heilkunst. Retrieved from: www.heilkunst.com Vithoulkas, G. (1988): Essence of Mat. Medica. Delhi: Jain Pub.