Inimicals

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Dr Gafar

Thank you for your advice which is well established regarding the treatment
of deep pathology. I liked your expression of 'blind faithful'.

However, is it not correct that in a case for two remedies to be inimical,
the first MUST HAVE ACTED.

If say in a 'causticum' patient we prescribe Phos, it will not work.
Then when the case is re-analysed and we come to the conclusion that Caust
is the remedy, then caust can be given without hesitation.

Rgds
Soroush

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:27:42 +0400
From: "Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama"

Subject: RE: Digest Number 1810-Inimicals

Dear Rafi,
About inimicals; You should be rather care full than giving the 'seemingly'
indicated remedy right away. Because some times serious damage can occur. As
explained below.
Consider diseases like a deficiency and homoeopathic treatment like
supplementation. When disease occurs two process takes place. The body
suffers from the deficiency and at the same time through a set of symptoms
and signs it asks for the supplement to those who can listen (for e.g. here
a homoeopathic physician). These two process may not necessarily have same
implications. For e.g. in a case of cancer the disease slowly work its way
in destroying the body due to some deficiency in the ultra minute
"sole-psyche" system of life. The vital force which is actually a bit
superficial -to us- than this 'system' asks for the supplement -the remedy-.
When we supply the remedy apparently the vital force is satisfied and we get
a palliation but the disease advances till termination because the actual
deficiency remains. This is because some diseases are pre destined to
destroy the organism for reasons not yet known (like many malignancies
advanced tuberculosis and the like).
Now Inimicals are interestingly very similar remedies (take Apis and Rhus)
with each other and a similar condition -as of the above example of cancer-
occurs when you administer them instead of 'the similimum'. The vital force
apparently thinks the deficiency over but the disease remains. This wont
cause much trouble except a delayed cure of the illness as after a period of
time the vital force again perceives the deficiency and asks for the
supplement again, because the remedy being only similar -not the similimum-
it can never fully satisfy the deficiency and as each remedy has its time of
getting exhausted in the system it exposes the deficiency again. This
not-much-harm-done theory is true as far as truly dynamic diseases of higher
planes -more away from the physical organism- are considered. But in case
of organic diseases especially of advanced pathologies like pneumonias or
even acute appendicitis this can be deleterious.
Now come back to the first instance -of cancer- and see why it is being told
that in cases like cancer or advanced pathologies do not -even- give the
indicated remedy (the similimum) first but to give a superficial palliative
remedy and after the organism getting down a few steps on the ladder you try
with the (then) indicated remedy -similimum-. Here the similimum may act
just like an inimical. (Incidentally this is one justification for the
homoeopath knowing all the allied medical areas also, other wise he will
become a faithful blind!)
So it is always better to try a superficial palliative remedy or an
antipsoric in high dose but very minute quantity before you administer the
inimical drug.
Best regards,
Dr. Abdul Gafar, BHMS, DNHE.
Editor-in-Chief,
"Homoeopathic Medical Panorama"
International Quarterly published from India.
www.homedpa.com