Combo meds

[Shannon Nelson]

I heartily agree with that!!!
And rather than trying to change the language usage of the entire world, some of us do a bit of verbal jiu jitsu, and use terms such as "classical homeopathy" in distinction with other "forms" of "homeopathy". Yes some of us hate the thought that there could be "forms" or "types" of homeopathy--so good luck with that thing of changing the linguistic habits of the whole world! Have fun.
? Who was it that said that combo remedies are not polypharmacy? I seem to have missed that part.

[Sheri Nakken]

excellent way of explaining it
Soroush
Sheri
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
Well Within
Sheri Nakken, R.N. MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com
http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com
email homeopathycuresyou@gmail.com
Homestudy Courses for Nurses, Online Homeopathy & Vaccine Dangers Courses; Vaccine Dangers Information; Homeopathic Consultations

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

This college has a lot to answer for!
________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MMGM
Sent: 05 December 2010 01:01
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Combo meds
http://college-of-practical-homeopathy.com/

Useful to learn more than only classical Homeopathy.
This is in UK
size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center>

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3296 - Release Date: 12/04/10

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Varun
If you are the example of health that this combo system offers, then I have great fears!
Hahnemann was a great experimenter. Ideas may have been presented to him which he may have thought brilliant, but experimentation and deeper thought may have made him change his mind. Do not also forget that in the early 1800’s it was not so easy to publish a book, apart from the expense of it and the inconveniences of wars, a number of publishers did not want to print Hn’s work. So there were large time lapses between his organons. But in actual fact, there are a number of differences between Organon 5 & 6 – the reason being that through experimentation he found better and safer way of doing things.
Also you must note that Hn had only the provings of some 90 remedies to work with. But if one understands Hahnemann’s work and writings and has a good teacher to teach the art and science of homeopathy, then there is absolutely no need to resort to combo’s of any kind.
When a remedy is being chosen for being prescribed, it is like being on jury deciding the fate of the accused. You have to be sure. No ifs and no buts. You must remain an unprejudiced observer and cannot think, there may be another remedy applicable here unless there is evidence for it. If there is doubt, then there is more research and work to be done.
Tell us Varun, have you read Organon 6 in its entirety?
If so, have you found any other mistakes that Hn may have made?
Hope you get well soon.

Rgds

Soroush
________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Varun Gupta
Sent: 05 December 2010 01:05
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: -----SPAM----- Re: -----SPAM----- Re: [Minutus] Combo meds
I’m against premade combinations as it does not take care of individuality of patient.
However, let’s come to combinations based on individuality of a patient by proper case taking as we do in single remedy too.

A simple thought can be given to the fact that it is categorically laid out in Organon that we can follow one remedy after another. The reasoning that one must let the symptoms of the next remedy clear by giving only one remedy first also seems very valid. But doesn’t this actually mean that symptoms of the other remedy too were present in the individual earlier itself, but just because of preponderance of the symptoms some other remedy first, we could not properly infer symptoms of the next medicine.

When we give one remedy first and then wait for symptoms of another remedy to get clear then it is not that symptoms are coming from somewhere outside. They are coming from within the patient himself and were in him earlier too.
What if we could infer this next remedy earlier itself by proper principles and give them together, thus saving the patient’s time as well as speeding up his cure process.
We already know of complimentary medicines and follow well and precede well remedies. Doesn’t one’s mind irk that if at all Homeopathy were about one medicine for a patient only then there would have been no such things as complimentary medicines and precedes well of follows well remedies.
This is just a small hint into the exploration of new principles. However, what if we could find a great set of new principles!!!
Dr Aegidi was the first to use two medicines at a time, but only two and he even could not give proper reasoning to it as to why. Dr Aegidi’s profile: (http://www.homeoint.org/seror/biograph/aegidi.htm )
Even Hahnemann accepted it when it was proposed by Dr Aegidi. This is what he had to say then: (Source: http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/an- ... -remember/ )
“Dear Friend and Colleague,
Do not think that I am capable of rejecting any good thing from mere prejudice, or because it might cause alterations in my doctrine. I only desire the truth, as I believe you do too. Hence I am delighted that such a happy idea has occurred to you, and that you have kept it within necessary limits; ‘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.’ Under such circumstances the procedure is so consonant with the requirements of our art that nothing can be urged against it; on the contrary, homoeopathy must be congratulated on your discovery. I myself will take the first opportunity of putting it into practice, and I have no doubt concerning the good result. I am glad that von Bönninghausen is entirely of our opinion and acts accordingly. 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. Permit me then to give your discovery to the world in the fifth edition of the ‘Organon,’ which will soon be published. Until then, however, I beg you to keep it to yourself, and try to get Mr. Jahr, whom I greatly esteem, to do the same. At the same time I there protest and earnestly warn against all abuse of the practice by a frivolous choice of two medicines to be used in combination. (Haehl, Vol. II, p. 85, bold added)”
Hahnemann even added a special addition in the Aphorism 274 as Aphorism 274b, one of the same aphorisms that I say is wrong. And this is what he added it then:
Section 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 of 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 thatsuch rightly chosen Homoeopathic double remedies must only be given in the most highly potentized and attenuated doses.” (Thomas L. Bradford, The Life and Letters of Hahnemann, p. 486, bold added)
But unfortunately coz of the criticism that was going against Homeopathy from conventional physicians at that time he had to finally opt in favour of removing this aphorism from published version of Organon, just to save Homeopathy from dying a death coz of unwarranted criticism. He ruled against a genuine truth to give Homeopathy a breathing space.

A Truth was suppressed to give another Truth a chance to survive with the hope that the Suppressed Truth will be raised at appropriate time later.

But none allowed it to raise head as we were not having any scientific basis of Homeopathy ever and nor so thus to support in favour or two medicines at a time.
I’m categorically even saying to mix more than two remedies, be it three, four or more, but based on individuality of a patient again and not as any premade combinations.
Sulphur, Calcarea and Lycpodium can be surely mixed together if it agrees with individuality of a patient. Here I mean if we could infer initially that after Sulphur symptoms of Calcarea are bound to come and after Calcarea of Lycopodium then we can surely give them together. I know it’s not easy to infer. But if we can with new techniques we will be doing a lot good to that patient as well as to our pathy. More so it won’t be possible every time initially itself to find the required mix. Thus, at those times it would always be better to give one remedy first and then wait for next one’s symptoms. And as I’ve said earlier too, after we are clear of both or even more than two remedies by follow up method, then later we can give them in mix very easily as and when required for the same patient, while repeating doses.
I’m now saying to mix remedies on proper scientific principles and on many newly discovered principles, not to forget scientific basis of Homeopathy too. But still the criticism keeps on coming and this time not from allopaths but from Homeopaths themselves.
Varun

http://eyevarun.blogspot.com
http://varunstheory.com
http://facebook.com/eyevarun
http://twitter.com/eyevarun
Based on this argument, then, you would "fail to see" how it is any less professional (in your word, "worse") to prescribe Sulphur, Calc. carb., and Lycopodium together in combination than to prescribe them cyclically as the indications for each arise.
Would you therefore do that too?
The reason you do not have time to go into Soroush's simple questions in great detail is the same reason that you do not have the time to take a case professionally, study it diligently, and either prescribe accurately or refer the matter to another for help. You clearly suffer from a significant overload of patients.
Okay, Liz, let's grant that you can rely on the shortcuts and cheat sheets (give this and that and the other all together any time your patient has a cough, to give him enough relief to keep him coming back till you can get yourself sorted out!) and ultimately save yourself the work requisite to practising homoeopathy. Let's grant that as a result of these shenanigans some eye doctor has given up on his patient, or that he sees no further trouble developing. Is that your standard for medical success? Having sent the patient away with this junk cocktail, you have thereby violated the promise to treat her homoeopathically.
That is no mere philosophical point of difference. It is not even merely a departure from homoeopathic practice. It goes to the heart of ethical conduct. The point is that if you are going to practise as an allopath, you misrepresent the rest of us and you misrepresent and sully the meaning of homoeopathy when you identify the shenanigans as homoeopathic practice. Call yourself something else: an allopath, an eclectic, or some name of your own invention. But if you continue to represent as homoeopathy such idiocy as you embrace, then you paint yourself as either a fool or a charlatan. To continue pretending blissful ignorance in the face of the undeniable is not something that earns the respect of anybody whose respect should matter to you.
The path you follow here is entirely of your own choosing. Homoeopathy is not too difficult to practice. It has not ceased to be successful when it is practised. It has merely become unfashionable because it still, even in the iPod age, requires a little work. Switch off your distractions, turn on your study lamp, and get to work, and you may yet have a chance of putting your ideals into practice. Waste time instead defending for indefensible reasons the incomprehensible to the uncomprehending, and you waste the gift of your life.
John


Dear Soroush
I do not have the time nor the energy to go into all these questions in great detail. However, my own use of these remedies has been very satisfactory. - particularly where time has been of the essence, as in an injury (and I have had this experience with myself and with my own son) where, once Arnica has done its work, you cannot get a proper case because the symptoms chop and change - I have often heard it advocated that you should swing between two or more remedies in this case, so I fail to see how the Narayani remedies are any worse, particularly as there is a steady amelioration with them.
One of my most sucessful cases was that of an elderly lady who suffered from macular degeneration. When I first saw her, she was a clear case of Pulsatilla, or so it seemed to me, complaining of being left alone by her family, better for fresh air, thirstless, needy and very lonely etc. etc. Six weeks later, her macular degeneration was no better, although her Pulsatilla symptoms of loneliness and abandonment were better. Nothing seemed clear; I desperately wanted to halt the macular problem, so I put her onto a cocktail of Narayani remedies specifically for the retina, for circulation to the eye etc. When I saw her again three to four months later, not only had she evolved into a clear case of Calc. Carb., complete with the anxiety that she was beginning to lose her mind, but her eye consultant had discharged her with the advice that she carry on with whatever she was doing and not to worry any further unless the other eye began to trouble her.
I had given nothing else but the Narayani remedies...and everything progressed smoothly.
As for a relapse, i haven't come across this yet.
Liz
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center>

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3296 - Release Date: 12/04/10

[Fran Sheffield]

I don't agree with Soroush's first statement about messed-up acutes messing up the chronic state.

I think this is one of our myths. If we wish to draw on what Hahnemann thought, he only spoke about crude allopathic treatment creating suppression, not potentised remedies.

I have never seen a c
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com

[John Harvey]

I'd just add:
(1) that challenges to the authenticity of this document last time it was waved around by the polypharmacists on this list went unanswered; there are strong suspicions that it was cooked;
(2) accepting, for the sake of argument, that it was not cooked: that on the face of the document itself, Hahnemann's intent to shovel this last-minute idea into the fifth edition was based on none of his own experience;
(3) that even Hahnemann was capable of being wrong (though, unlike many of us, he was also capable of recognising that); and
(4) that what would most efficiently destroy the credibility and indeed the existence of homoeopathy (and therefore would seem to place the document beyond all credulity as being of Hahnemann's authorship) would be to publicly disseminate -- and indeed have the homoeopathic community accept! -- a definition of homoeopathy that was self-contradictory and impossible to put into action. And this, of course, is exactly what the document Varun has relied upon here does. What is the single thing that even the cretins here can agree must figure in homoeopathic practice?
As Shannon and I sorted out years ago and she's forgotten again, that single thing has nothing to do with result. If, despite one's laziness and wilful ignorance, by sheer chutzpah or by sheer accident or by sheer luck one happens to prescribe a medicine perfectly homoeopathic to the patient, the patient will respond accordingly. That is because the result of the non-method was a prescription of a medicine homoeopathic to the patient, and not because the non-method was any for of homoeopathic practice. Having, I hope, sorted that out yet again…
The single thing that even our cretinous members will agree must figure in homoeopathic practice is the comparison of the patient's symptoms (plural; not just his cough, Jeff and Liz and Shannon!) with the symptoms of medicines in order to seek the most symptomatically similar.
And what do even the cretins on this list acknowledge disappears once we mix two or more medicines together into a new medicine?
Anybody?
That's right: we lose our knowledge of the new medicine's primary effects. We lose all knowledge of its symptomatology, its pathogenesis. We lose the capacity to compare its pathogenesis with the patient's symptoms. Homoeopathic practice with that medicine is impossible.
That is what disappears.
That is what makes polypharmacy not a fuddy-duddy arbitrary pet hate of real homoeopaths but antithetical to homoeopathic practice.
Now, Shannon would argue -- and has in fact argued -- that one can manage to prescribe a homoeopathic remedy by sheer statistical fluke by throwing enough remedies simultaneously at the patient. Acknowledging (sometimes) that this is not homoeopathic practice as such, she argues that if one sees, for instance, the green discharge from the child's ear cease to flow as an evident result of the prescription, then the prescription was, by accident of by design, homoeopathic to the patient. Her argument is that though the method was not homoeopathic, the result can be. So far, so good.
From there, she has argued that since the method works (i.e. on this occasion something happened that she classes as a win), the method too must be inherently homoeopathic.
What this double argument overlooks, though, are:
(1) that the medicine that stopped an ear discharge may have had a clearly allopathic relationship to the patient's state, just as penicillin usually does in a case of a discharging ear infection;
(2) that, therefore, "getting better" (or failing to) is no dependable predictor and no measure of homoeopathicity or of allopathicity; and
(3) that an art is not defined by its results, but rather is defined by how it is practised, and reproduces the results of the prior art when practised well.
In short, improvement in the patient's cough (remember the cough, Shannon?) tells you nothing whatever about the medicine's homoeopathicity to the patient. And its homoeopathicity to the patient tells you nothing about the method by which it arrived in the patient's mouth.
Hahnemann's frustrated declaration that the cretins of his own time would like nothing better than for the correct remedy to fly into the mouths of their patients like roasted pigeons ready to eat, antiquated as it is, describes perfectly still the cretins of today, who would like nothing better than to be called homoeopaths though, having the attention span of a gnat, they can interest themselves in no more than a single symptom at a time; they refer to no materia medica; and they make no attempt at an intelligent medical decision but rely instead on the patient's body to choose the medicine for them -- from amongst all those medicines they so confidently declare are better suited to this patient than is any one of the medicines whose known primary effects actually appear in books that they never deign to examine.
Varun, if the document you quoted turned out to be genuinely authored by Hahnemann -- and I'm reasonably certain that Hahnemann could never have suffered such a mental aberration, but supposing he did -- then it's unarguable to any intelligent reader that he was, on this occasion, simply wrong.
Incredible as such a notion may seem to some others, I know that you'll have no difficulty with it in principle, as you plainly think that he was wrong about many things. But if the above argument doesn't convince you that this particular assertion concerning double remedies -- as well as your own assertions concerning multiple ones, which apparently rest on the unsubstantiated belief that symptoms that exist today must also have existed yesterday -- is contrary to homoeopathy's single basis, then either I'm beyond explaining it or you're beyond reason; take your pick.
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .

[J tikari]

What I Meant to say was that I do not use combos normally - but I have on occasion used them......OK?
Homeopathy today is bigger than you, me, and HN put together. Its progress can not be halted.
It will grow in ways that may seem non homeopathic. But it is homeopathy, nevertheless.
Using a minute dose of a simillimum in combination with other minute (potentised) doses IS homeopathy - say
what you wish. And I very CERTAINLY give combos to my dog and other animals with very gratifying results.
If ever I need a follow up medicine, it's no problem. I just study the case as it now presents and give an
appropriate remedy.
Call me a cretin if it salves your ego.
Jeff Tikari

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Jeff, you wrote:

“If ever I need a follow up medicine, it's no problem. I just study the case as it now presents and give an appropriate remedy.”
So why not do it from the start and stick with homeopathy?
Rgds

Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J tikari
Sent: 05 December 2010 13:54
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds


What I Meant to say was that I do not use combos normally - but I have on occasion used them......OK?
Homeopathy today is bigger than you, me, and HN put together. Its progress can not be halted.

It will grow in ways that may seem non homeopathic. But it is homeopathy, nevertheless.

Using a minute dose of a simillimum in combination with other minute (potentised) doses IS homeopathy - say

what you wish. And I very CERTAINLY give combos to my dog and other animals with very gratifying results.

If ever I need a follow up medicine, it's no problem. I just study the case as it now presents and give an

appropriate remedy.
Call me a cretin if it salves your ego.
Jeff Tikari
size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center>

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3297 - Release Date: 12/04/10

[Liz Brynin]

Try them John before you preach!
Liz

[John Harvey]

Thank you, Jeff; but, in all that, you forgot to answer my question! Yes, you've clarified what you meant when you said that you don't use these patented combinations: you meant that you don't use them once they fail, but instead take the case and give an "appropriate" medicine. But you didn't say why you reject only the patented ones that fail.

That was the thrust of my question: why have you diverted a discussion of polypharmaceutical corruption of homoeopathic practitioners to the topic of whether (and, now, of why) you reject patented medicines, only to state the obvious: that it's because they fail?

Yes, of course they fail! Unlike the dumb luck that may enable a prescriber to hit upon a homoeopathic remedy by prescribing the most obvious polychrest, the prospects of true success in shotgun prescriptions are -- for all the reasons given to you many times over by Soroush, Fran, Chris, Sheri, Kerry, Joy, Magda, Rik, and others -- nil.

And if you understood the basis of homoeopathy, you'd also understand why the certainty inherent in the medicine of certainty is not available in the medicine of indecision; why it is that both patented and unpatented combinations must always fail to cure. The explanation lies in the scientific underpinning of homoeopathy's discovery.

Jeff, Liz, Varun, Shannon: underpinning Hahnemann's discovery of the principle Similia similibus curantur -- the one aspect without which no homoeopathic practice may be said to exist -- was a scientific principle of discovery. That principle is fundamental to all scientific discovery. In medicine, Hahnemann was the first to apply it to discovery in medicine, and it resulted in a gift to the practice of medicine that is more fundamental than the principle of homoeopathy. Can you describe it? Do you have the least clue how we come to inherit a two-century history of medical cures toward which the dominant medicine of trial and error cannot hope to aspire? Or are your patients doomed to see you repeat the errors of all the other geniuses who have reinvented polypharmacy as an original way to circumvent their aversion to the work of overcoming their ignorance?

If you need a clue, just ask.

Cheers --

John