Ask Questions about Health, Homeopathy, Medicine - Get Answers from Experts and Peers!
Please confirm you want to mark all topics read
Not logged in
It is a kind of warning!!
I had done the mistake of giving lyco. after sulphur due to lack of MM knowledge before some 3yrs with a disastrous outcome in a case of hyper-acidity.
But this time for the sake of philosophy & experiment, i did the same mistake with the same outcome with an arthritis patient and i am really angry with myself for not showing respect to pioneer's practical observation.
When i first show the patient, symptoms were kind of mixture of sulphur and lyco. and i opt for sulphur which reduced the pain to a point that she could travel to kedarnath a 2000-3000 km journey without any unbearable problem(that is a 50%) and then i observe lycopodium's symptoms.
In these kind of situation i tend to give calc. followed by lyco but i gave lycopodium straightaway. And the result is 100% return of pain which is increasing.
Experiences of others are appreciated but don't throw your philosophy without any strong practical observation.
Really sorry to hear Mrinal.
We all face challenges in our practice, and this is a way for us to learn and keep ourself on our toes... it is great to have tools like Hpaty to help us share our experience.
You can try the following tip from Elaine: http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-p.....on-zapper/
I have used that, and I tend to ask my clients to take all their remedies in water.... the improvements are not as dramatic and take a bit of time, but I have not had aggravations for a long time.
Good luck, allternatively, retake the case or use the "antidote" section of the repertory. This can be quite useful.
Thanks Dr. clerc, I have started sulphur again because sulphur follows lyco. very well, Lets see.....
I don't think, i am going to apply Diana's idea, particularly on this patient besides i am really skeptical on Diana's method of antidoting on a wrong choice of remedy. It may be helpful if the chosen medicine is correct already and you don't want to antidote the effect completely.
Yes, I too use wet dose now a days but the repetition and amount of dose is equal to dry dose 2-3. And a daily dose of ******* wet dose with stroke. Reaction time is identical, just a psychological satisfaction that i can repeat if improvement is slow.
I have given Lycopodium after Sulphur without any specific problems. I have used remedies in 'forbidden' sequences to the benefit of patients. As long as the patient was clearly not under the influence of the first remedy, did not clearly still need the first remedy, and clearly did not present with some other kind of issue that might provoke a too powerful an aggravation, then either there was improvement or there was no effect (depending on my skill at choosing that remedy).
I am not sure what advice to offer here, it is hard to say what has happened. For me I suppose I would be looking at the other reasons a person's pathology over-reacts to a medicine, which certainly could include the fact that Lycopodium was the wrong choice. I am just not of the opinion that Lycopodium must be the wrong choice for all patients who have had Sulphur - it makes no sense to me and conflicts with my personal experience with such patients.
Take that with a grain of salt though, because I am not a great supporter of following the sequences when choosing remedies anyway, so perhaps my experience with using remedies in groups likes this is not large enough to be valuable.
Thanks David for your input, but after experiencing many rapid cures, now a days, when it's a time for either higher potency or different medicine i don't really wait & watch for so long that medicines like Sulphur, Lyco, Graphites, Nat. Mur., Nat. Sulph. etc... can exhaust completely.(Nothing perceivable is happening does not necessarily means the medicinal power is obsolete) I don't really believe in improvement for years and years and yearsssssssssss with a single medicine, that's ridiculous in my view if the patient is below 50yrs old and the treatment is not purely constitutional one. Having said that, relationship of medicines is one of my primary weapon after an accurate 1st prescription, even in failure of well selected medicines at 1st prescription.
Knowledge of relationship of remedies can certainly save your time and shorten the period of suffering of patient if used correctly logically, you can't give a medicines that is not at all similar in any way, nor physically, nor mentally, nor generally.
There are brilliant cures in my pocket with sul-calc-lyco repetition. And i some how can predict a patient needing the same treatment. Symptoms of sulphur & history/course of disease of lyco with a physical figure & few gen. of calc.
I may have chosen the wrong remedy for this case and i will surely gonna take the case keenly again and decide accordingly.
Will try to make a video testimonial if successful but i doubt if she can speak english.
I wasn't meaning to imply I didn't think using remedies in pre-determined sequences works, I just meant to say that I do not use them in practice too often. For me, standard sequences of remedies (and conversely avoiding certain remedies in prohibited sequences) is a type of bias I try to avoid. I prefer to approach each case without any predetermined ideas about which remedy the patient might need, so that I don't miss any possibilities. I hear many practitioners say they get good results this way.
Indeed, Predetermining any medicines without a complete analysis of case is a crime in homeopathy. But believe me it is about "as it is termed" Kent specifically mentioned that if lycopodium is indicated after sulphur then you should give calc. followed by lycopodium because lycopodium tend to corrupt the case if given after sulphur. if aconite is indicated after sulphur you don't have to give any other med. but aconite only. I have given antidote remedies where the antidote is also a good follower like say sulphur & sepia, so often called for. But these things are not pre-determined but more pre-defined. You see cases, observe em, cure em, gain experience. Now prescription upon your experience is not equal to predetermining like say Suplh. 2@@ 2 times N Nux 3@ 3times for bleeding piles.... it's ridiculous HaHa
I have always wondered about advice such as Kent gives in your example. 'If Remedy A is indicated, give B instead where C has already been given'. Why is the indicated remedy not to be given? How can it be incorrect if it is indicated - does not indicated mean it is the most suitable by law of similarity? How can a remedy 'corrupt' a case if it is indicated by the symptoms? I can understand using the experience of previous homoeopaths to help us find the next indicated remedy, but what I cannot understand is warnings to not use indicated remedies. The suggestion is that a remedy can be similar, but still wrong, which flies in the face of my understanding of homoeopathy.
I worry that such advice tends to remove the understanding of what happened to the patient by laying blame on some kind of invisible relationship between certain remedies - 'oh it was Causticum I used after Phosphorous, that is why things went wrong'. How does one learn from that? What exactly was wrong? By laying such blame, the true reasons are lost behind a kind of superstition. Hahnemann himself warned us against having favourite remedies, prescribing or avoiding remedies on the basis of our experience with them.
I believe there are many reasons why patients worsen after being given a remedy - extensive pathology, long histories of suppression, naturally sensitive constitutions, faulty dosage or selection of potency. I would always be looking along those lines of investigation first. For the most part, I don't really have a big issue with the use of complementary relationships to move from one remedy to another, as long as similarity is still be attended to. We all know how difficult finding a second and third remedy can be, and any help is gratefully received. It is the negative use of such relationships to keep us away from prescriptions that most concerns me.
Not only Kent but also William Boericke. Besides there are always few contradictions in every science. Finding the exact source is time consuming but will surly try.
About all other philosophies, I don't want to discuss, as i have already said in my 1st post.
I am sorry Mrina,l you did say you didn't want to get into a discussion about philosophy. My apologies, I just can't seem to help myself sometimes. I love discussing homoeopathy in all its various colours and types.
Thank you for the time you took to talk about it anyway. I appreciate your knowledge and experience and passion.
This old guys knew some aspects of the medicine you cannot know now anymore.. and cannot extract from the books.
This was based on experience and insight in the remedy.
Actually I can know it, because I can read their books, read through their cases. I just believe it is a prejudice to see a patient needing a specific remedy after another specific remedy, instead of allowing the case to unfold without any preconceptions. Hahnemann stresses we must be the unprejudiced observer which I personally believe cannot happen if I am looking to prescribe particular remedies just because of what has gone before.
This is also based on experience and insight into remedies. Clinic teaches you quite a lot that the books do not.
Having said that, I am not saying by any means that such sequences do not work. I am just saying I personally do not tend to follow them. I know that many homoeopaths use them with good results. I am not suggesting the observations of previous homoeopaths have no relevance to what we do of course.