Dear Liz
“Narayani remedies are a group of combination homeopathic remedies that are being successfully used all around the world. They were put together in the '70s by Swami Narayani and hence the name. Practitioners have found that their patients respond very well to these remedies and their healing is faster.
In the current climate it is often difficult to get satisfactory results with single prescriptions only and this is where the Narayani remedies come in. The combinations have been put together to work in a particular direction and to help clear the way to a single remedy. The patient leaves with a remedy at the first consultation, which then gives the practitioner time to work on the case, knowing that the healing has already started.”
The above was from http://narayaniremedies.com/
Questions:
Homeopathic remedies are based on Symptom similarity, with the Similimum matching extremely well.
So how can these combos match? Best call them combo potentised substances.
How are these supposed to lead us to the single remedy – please explain.
The patient after one dose relapses, what do you do?
Repeat the whole thing? Or go to another combo? How do you know which element has worked?
How many times can you do this?
For my better understanding, please explain how you practise using these combos?
Also please give a full case where you think you could not find a single remedy.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Liz Brynin
Sent: 04 December 2010 18:22
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: -----SPAM----- Re: [Minutus] Combo meds
No - not at all, Soroush! That's the point about the Narayani remedies - they can make the simillimum picture clearer. They are not an alternative - they are a support. You need to move on to the simillimum always.
Liz
________________________________
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
-----SPAM----- Combo meds
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
-
Liz Brynin
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: -----SPAM----- Combo meds
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
________________________________
________________________________
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
________________________________
________________________________
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: -----SPAM----- Combo meds
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
________________________________
________________________________
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
________________________________
________________________________
-
Varun Gupta
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:00 pm
Re: -----SPAM----- 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
________________________________
________________________________
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
________________________________
________________________________
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: -----SPAM----- Combo meds
But Liz, isn't this (your story about the lady with macular degeneration) the same as we see with any close but poorly chosen remedy? It will aggravate the very symptoms that indicate the needed remedy?
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
-
Liz Brynin
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: -----SPAM----- Combo meds
John - I'm sorry - I can't even find the will to read your answer, as I know before I even try what the tone will be.
Sorry - this lady got better - much better!! And as far as I can see, she has derived nothing but benefit from it.
And here I stop - I do not wish to discuss this any further. I prefer to trust in evidence based medicine.
Liz
________________________________
________________________________
Sorry - this lady got better - much better!! And as far as I can see, she has derived nothing but benefit from it.
And here I stop - I do not wish to discuss this any further. I prefer to trust in evidence based medicine.
Liz
________________________________
________________________________
-
Liz Brynin
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: -----SPAM----- Combo meds
No - not at all. I don't see any aggravation here. How on earth do you deduce this? She came as a Pulsatilla - this was settled - the macualr degeneration had not budged and there were no other clear symptoms to choose a single remedy with - the macular degeneration was still there bothering her - this was tackled with Narayani remedies as an interim measure - after which she then presented with macular degeneration heaps better and the next layer - Calc. Carb. presenting clearly, with strong, clear symptoms that had NOT been there after the Pulsatilla. And as far as I know, she is doing very well.
No aggravations - a smooth transition from remedy to remedy.
Liz
No aggravations - a smooth transition from remedy to remedy.
Liz
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: -----SPAM----- Combo meds
Yes, Liz, and it's precisely this intellectual laziness -- your unwillingness to address a simple question -- that got you to the pinnacle you're now at: the presumption, deliberate ignorance, and recourse to slogans ("evidence-based medicine"!) that underpin all foolhardy adventures. A pity that it's your patients whom you're scrambling over and who pay the price of your adventures.
Isn't it time you got over yourself, grew up, learned something, did something worthwhile with your life, anything at all, rather than continue to inflict your ignorant presumptions on those foolish enough to trust you?
With best wishes in achieving something worthwhile, then --
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, .
Isn't it time you got over yourself, grew up, learned something, did something worthwhile with your life, anything at all, rather than continue to inflict your ignorant presumptions on those foolish enough to trust you?
With best wishes in achieving something worthwhile, then --
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, .