Minutus

"Lachesis should not be given before or after nitric ac."
Why not? Who has proved this? How can hollow 3D Lachesis molecules in potency react with potentised Nit ac?
Our books are full of cautions and 'follows well' advises which we swallow wholesale without thinking. Like if
anything is written it is Gospel truth.
Jeff

Please visit: http://www.smashwords.com/books/search? ... eff+Tikari
For a most pleasant experience.

W Boericke MM says under Nit. Ac. that Lach is inimical.

Keep opposing.

If the remedy was well indicated, it should be given.
Most likely the warnings were repeated from one author to another after reading someone’s account of a specific case, in which there was a bad aggravation.

Best

Lynn
________________________________
--
Imagine Peace
http://www.homeopathicsolutions.blogspot.com/

Hi,

I would think that your judgement would vary depending on the individual case. Here is an example where one might worry about the inimical warning: If one of your key symptoms were a slow heart beat and your remedy covered that symptom. But the inimical second remedy was for well known for its heart palpitations. That is the second inimical remedy slows down the heart beat, then you might worry about following with that remedy.

In Abdur Rehman's book, Encyclopedia of Remedy Relationships, antidotes are described more frequently than inimcals.　Antidote is the remedy that one might use to stop the action of a remedy in case of an aggravation. The idea is not to routinely use drinking coffee of camphor.

Inimical means the drug does not follow or precede the previous drug well. There seems to be a disharmony between such drugs. (Rehman's book above p. 19 in an introduction by P. S. Krishnamurty).

Inimicals and Antidotes are are frequently described in the context of specific conditions.

Whether you believe these homeopaths or not, it is probably wise to think through your particular case symptoms.
Best,
Ellen

That would be correct if you were giving the "inimical" or "antidotal" remedy without retaking the case and checking it is indeed indicated.

In the situation you describe, if the slow heart rate is still a major concern AND the first remedy has not helped (otherwise why would you give a second one for the same indication, meaning the first one was not the proper simillimum), the next remedy should still have as a major component "slow heart rate", isn't it.

When you look at the tables at the back of some repertories and MMs, you often find the same remedy listed as inimical, antidote and follows well.....I think, but am not sure, it is Kent himself who said that his tables were not to be followed.....

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

Rhetorical questions do not require answer.
Such questions arise from a defect in the horoscope,
for impressing the forum of one's own greatness,
and usually humiliating one or more.
____________________________________________________

That would be correct if you were giving the "inimical" or "antidotal" remedy without retaking the case and checking it is indeed indicated.
In the situation you describe, if the slow heart rate is still a major concern AND the first remedy has not helped (otherwise why would you give a second one for the same indication, meaning the first one was not the proper simillimum), the next remedy should still have as a major component "slow heart rate", isn't it.

When you look at the tables at the back of some repertories and MMs, you often find the same remedy listed as inimical, antidote and follows well.....I think, but am not sure, it is Kent himself who said that his tables were not to be followed.....

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

That would be correct if you were giving the "inimical" or "antidotal" remedy without retaking the case and checking it is indeed indicated.
In the situation you describe, if the slow heart rate is still a major concern AND the first remedy has not helped (otherwise why would you give a second one for the same indication, meaning the first one was not the proper simillimum), the next remedy should still have as a major component "slow heart rate", isn't it.

When you look at the tables at the back of some repertories and MMs, you often find the same remedy listed as inimical, antidote and follows well.....I think, but am not sure, it is Kent himself who said that his tables were not to be followed.....

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

Here are a few commentaries on follow well, inimicals etc:
"Do not let these facts make you give a routine remedy unless the symptoms agree, but it does help to remember that remedies are somewhat similar."
Kent
Lectures on Homeopathic Materia Medica, under the discussion of Fluoric Acid, he discusses remedies that follow well, and series of remedies.

on the other hand

Kent’s New Remedies Clinical Cases Lesser Writings
"Second Prescription"
On the other hand Causticum and Phosphorus do not like to work after each other, nor will Apis do well after Rhus.
How physicians can make the second prescription without regard to the experience of nearly a century, is more than man can know.
These things are not written to instruct men of experience in the right way, but for the young men who have asked so often for the above notes of our present practice.
I am told almost daily that this kind of practice is splitting hairs, but I am convinced of the necessity of obeying every injunction.
----------------
"I noted that Dr. Green gave Causticum to a Phosphorus constitution, and I think we should be grateful for this little point, because we might as well forget about the story of antagonistic remedies. I am wondering more and more how this tale ever entered into out Materia Medica. Maybe you can answer that."
Dr. Edward C. Whitmont
---------------------
"Incompatibles and compatibles are, I think, stressed a little bit too much.
It may not meet with Dr. Bryant’s ideas. Dr. Bryant is the one who made that statement, Dr. Rood, not I, but we all are confronted with conditions like that. I have given incompatibles many times when the symptoms called for them and gotten good results.

I have helped with Apis patients that had had Rhus tox. and didn’t get the relief that they should in rheumatic conditions. Apis is incompatible with Rhus.

We have an authority in one of our great masters of the past. Dr. Nash, who took this same stand, that remedies could be given, even Causticum and Phosphorus, "if they were indicated"."
Dr. A.H. Grimmer
--------------------

Once, in conversation with the late Dr. Gibson Miller of Glasgow, reference
was made to his booklet Relationships of Remedies and he asked me if I had
found the last column, "Duration of Action," useful.
I answered; "Well. you give the duration of action of Rhus tox. as from one
to seven days. I have used it in a single dose as a constitutional and
found its effect maintained for three or four months."
"Oh, yes." he said, "I know; I think that column is not right."
JW
-----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
--
Imagine Peace
http://www.homeopathicsolutions.blogspot.com/