Minutus

Don't forget to add Nux for the nerves and the GIT, and perhaps Digitalis for the heart

________________________________

De : Sheltiekriebels
À : minutus@yahoogroups.com
Envoyé le : Mardi 13 mars 2012 17h23
Objet : [Minutus] Can I give Ignatia Amara 200K at the same time with Amylium Nitrosis 200K ?
Hi all,

I have a question, today I had an appointment with my holististic vet for my dogs with an mitochondrial disorder. She prescribed Ignatia Amara for 3 weeks (1 granule a week) and Amylium Nitrosis 200K as remedy for the mitochondrial disorder. But she did not know If I could give these two at the same time. Is anyone of you knowing I can give these two at the same time?
Jacqueline

Is this what you wanted to know?


Glon Lach

Cact Stry Ergot
It antgidotes – chloroform and Strychnine
As you see Ignatia is not mentioned.
Hi Rochelle,
We don't have in the Netherlands the Remedy Amylium Nitrosis, it is a remedy that is adviced by a American vet. We can't buy it in the Netherlands too. But we know it's the remedy for these girls. That is why she did not know if it could be given at the same time! Because this remedy is'nt available and unknown in the netherlands.

Thank you for you're answer!
Jacqueline

Hi Rochelle,
Yes, the similar remedies are Glonoine (lachesus also) Glonoine is much colder as Amylium Nitrosis and Lachesus is again Colder than the Glonoine.
Thank you! Good to know that I can give it at the same period.

Jacqueline

Nux moschata seems to fit too in this list for mitochondrial disorder. Digitalis would be a good option for one of the girls who has a irregular heartbeat (and slow) Thank you I will discuss this with the Holistic vet.

Jacqueline
________________________________

Rochelle said:

"Would you not be better seeing a homeopathic vet as this holistic vet
obviously has not had sufficient homeopathic training if she doesn’t
know that you *don’t prescribe 2 remedies to be taken at the same time.*
(my * * - hjd) With classical homeopathy only 1 remedy would be given to
cover all the symptoms. "

It is remarkable to conclude from this: "Good to know that I can give it
(= both remedies - hjd) at the same period."

Hennie

Op 13-3-2012 23:59, Sheltiekriebels schreef:

> It is remarkable to conclude from this: "Good to know that I can give it
These are my words, not the from the holistic vet. But later on I thought it
is'nt good to give 2 remedies at the same time, because you will never know
wich reaction is from wich homeopatic remedy.

Jacqueline

Something that got overlooked here, I think: Jacqueline drew her conclusion not from the paragraph you've quoted, Hennie, but from a paragraph following (and contradicting) it, saying: "The 2 remedies could be taken at separate times of the day", which misled her in appearing to affirm that in homoeopathy one could treat with more than one medicine at the same time (as long as they're given at different times of day).

Kind regards,

John

Hi, Susan --

The escalating uncertainties that your own description indicates arise from multiplying treatments, despite your enviable ability to ascribe the effects to their causes, are the kind of thing that led Hahnemann to the only system that allows both predictability and rational post-treatment analysis. That system applies a certain principle. It's the (unique) requirement by the system for that principle that Sheri was referring to, as I understand her message.

Production of cases, successful or not, can't alter that relationship. I can assure you, from long exposure to Sheri's discussions, that she has more than a clue as to what is going on in homoeopathy, beginning from the beginning: what it is. It seemed that that was the topic under discussion: whether in homoeopathy two medicines might be used to act simultaneously in the one case of illness (even a case with two concurrent chronic illnesses). So Sheri's answer is perfectly to the point, as well as perfectly accurate. Homoeopathy cannot use two medicines.

The reason for this becomes obvious only when we return to first principles and recall:

(a) that homoeopathic treatment is based on the known ability of a medicine to reproduce or mimic the patient's symptoms in the healthy;

(b) that such knowledge does not and cannot arise from the administration of two medicines acting simultaneously; and, even if it could arise and had arisen,

(c) that there is no experimental evidence whatever to suggest that the primary effects so obtained and known would hold a homoeopathic relationship to the combination of illnesses they mimic.

In short, (1) the simplistic addition of pathogenesis A to pathogenesis B is already known not to result in the pathogenesis of the mixture A+B. (2) Were it to reliably give a pathogenesis C, and we knew what it was, and if its relationship with particular subsets of pathogenesis A or pathogenesis B was calculable, then we still would know nothing about the effect of pathogenesis C either on pathogenesis A or on pathogenesis B, let alone on the combination of the two.

These compounding uncertainties alone were, as you'll appreciate, ample reason for Hahnemann's declaration that by definition homoeopathy uses no more than one single, simple medicine at any one time (even if at different times of the day). Hahnemann's statement in this regard is neither dogma nor preaching nor even interpretation; it is simply a definition of what the system he created requires. It tells us what homoeopathy is.

The gift that, of all medical systems, homoeopathy alone offers as a consequence of excluding use of more than a single, simple medicine is the gift of certainty. Medical science becomes possible only through distinguishing a single medicine's primary effects; medical art becomes possible only through distinguishing its secondary ones. The certainty that monopharmacy enables was the first certainty in the history of medicine, and in fact enabled homoeopathy's discovery and development. In contrast, polypharmacy of any stripe leads directly to complex hypotheses unfalsifiable by experiment; to claims with no possible substantiation; and to widespread failure. More relevantly, for the very good reasons mentioned above, homoeopathy excludes it by definition. That, I think, is the point that Sheri made much more succinctly than I just have. Others will always come along and claim to know better than Hahnemann just how two or even more drugs behave together. Let them claim it; it has no relevance to homoeopathy.

Kind regards,

John