The ABC Homeopathy Forum
Homeopathic doctor only please!
I have been taking nat mur in 30ch potency for 2 days now. I believe it is my constitutional remedy because it has helped me with so may ailments. Right now i am using it for constipation and water distribution I had a dry throat,dry lips, constantly spitting up bubbly stuff which made the tight breathing better, dry skin watery eyes. Drinking more water helped me to get a deep breath in better but not so much the other symptoms, not until started taking Nat Mur. Finally feel the urge to have a bowel movement. (round balls and some normal. Also my iron levels were down. I started feeling better a few hours after taking the nat mur with tight breathing as well. I was able to tolerate the heat better as well. Previously to taking the nat mur. I was taking Sepia which helped somewhat, but I knew the nat mur would help me more because it always does. So after the second day of taking Nat mur my ankles are swollen; probably form the extreme heat we are experiencing right now. I'm wondering if I should just continue to take the Nat Mur or change over to Apis 30 ch or can i take them both. I also have puffiness under my eyes with some stinging and under my mouth (no stinging)Usually Nat mur helps with the puffiness under the mouth and eyes.
[message edited by jasminded on Sat, 23 Jul 2011 02:04:32 BST]
[message edited by jasminded on Sat, 23 Jul 2011 02:05:43 BST]
jasminded on 2011-07-23
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
This is not an easy question to answer - should you keep taking Nat-mur? As a homoeopath I would only feel comfortable telling someone to do that if I knew for sure it was the right remedy. I cannot tell from what you have said if that is the case.
When a remedy is given for chronic complaints, the first response should be aggravation not improvement. Improvement (cure) should always be preceded by some kind of worsening (Law of similars - subtance can only cure things it can cause).
When improvement comes first, you would have to consider that the remedy is only palliating the condition, or possibly suppressing it. Palliation is usually followed by worsening, while suppression is usually followed by new symptoms appearing. We have a principle called Direction of Cure that helps us decide if a medicine is acting curatively or not. Disappearances of symptoms does not always mean cure is happening, since for us the measure of cure is over the whole person not just part of them.
Palliation is also evident by the fact that the remedy needs to be repeated very often, or the complaints come back. When a remedy is curing, the improvement is long term, stable, and should be permanent if the potency and dosage is correct.
Suppression will also need frequent repetition of the remedy, but at some point the focal point of the disease will shift to a new set of symptoms, and the old symptoms will not come back. This is a serious situation, as those new symptoms will usually be more painful or even dangerous.
There is also the issue of using Partial Similars versus the Simillimum. A Partial Similar is only a partial match to your whole disease, so it will only help a certain number of symptoms or problems, leaving others untouched. A partial similar is not really the wrong remedy but it is also not really the right remedy, although several of them together (used in succession not all at once) can actually bring a person's health to a fairly good point. This is affectionately called 'Zig-zagging' by homoeopaths, and may be done when the Simillimum cannot be found. There is a feeling with the Partial Similars of it not quite hitting the mark - there is always something left to complain about, something deeper in that doesn't feel 'finished.
The Simillimum on the other hand is a very different kettle of fish. It matches every important problem, every peculiar aspect of the disease. It creates vast change across every level of the patient. It does not require other prescriptions to help it along, does not leave anything important untouched. The patient themselves will feel profoundly different - right to the core. Their whole mindset will change, the way they behave and react to things becomes different. This is always the goal of the homoeopath, to find the simillimum in any case. For some practitioners it remains a holy grail :)
Constitutional (or Chronic) prescribing is quite complicated, and there are many pitfalls in prescribing for yourself. Even if you do manage to choose the right one for you out of the 5000+ possible choices, on-going management is quite difficult. Staying with the right remedy during the ups and downs, reacting to acutes with the right acute remedy, knowing when to change the remedy to a complimentary one or to a deeper miasmatic remedy - these things challenge even a trained homoeopath. And as a trained homoeopath, I can tell you that I cannot even do most of that for myself, despite being able to do it for others.
There are a number of possible issues with your case, looking at what you have described.
One is that the potency may not be enough to change everything. 30c is a medium level potency, and it may not create enough changes in the higher levels (mental). Potency is selected on a variety of factors in the case (levels of the person's health affected, intensity of the disease, degree of tissue change or pathology in the case, how many pecuilar symptoms are present).
Another issue is the one of taking more than one remedy, which is considered a problem in traditional homoeopathic prescribing. Taking more than one remedy can create tricky situations :-
1.the remedies can work together to produce unexpected side effects.
2. if there are negative effects, it is impossible to tell which remedy is causing them.
3. if you wish to follow on with complimentary remedies, there is no way to know which remedy worked initially (so no way to choose the next remedy).
4. if you wish to follow with a miasmatic (deep acting genetic remedy) there is no way to know which direction to take since again there is no way to tell which remedy was the one that helped.
5. remedies can cancel each other out if similar enough to each other, so you might take the right remedy and then neutralize it straight away.
In my experience taking more than one remedy actually slows things down considerably, and creates far more problems than it appears to solve.
David Kempson
Professional Homoeopath
[message edited by brisbanehomoeopath on Sat, 23 Jul 2011 03:11:54 BST]
When a remedy is given for chronic complaints, the first response should be aggravation not improvement. Improvement (cure) should always be preceded by some kind of worsening (Law of similars - subtance can only cure things it can cause).
When improvement comes first, you would have to consider that the remedy is only palliating the condition, or possibly suppressing it. Palliation is usually followed by worsening, while suppression is usually followed by new symptoms appearing. We have a principle called Direction of Cure that helps us decide if a medicine is acting curatively or not. Disappearances of symptoms does not always mean cure is happening, since for us the measure of cure is over the whole person not just part of them.
Palliation is also evident by the fact that the remedy needs to be repeated very often, or the complaints come back. When a remedy is curing, the improvement is long term, stable, and should be permanent if the potency and dosage is correct.
Suppression will also need frequent repetition of the remedy, but at some point the focal point of the disease will shift to a new set of symptoms, and the old symptoms will not come back. This is a serious situation, as those new symptoms will usually be more painful or even dangerous.
There is also the issue of using Partial Similars versus the Simillimum. A Partial Similar is only a partial match to your whole disease, so it will only help a certain number of symptoms or problems, leaving others untouched. A partial similar is not really the wrong remedy but it is also not really the right remedy, although several of them together (used in succession not all at once) can actually bring a person's health to a fairly good point. This is affectionately called 'Zig-zagging' by homoeopaths, and may be done when the Simillimum cannot be found. There is a feeling with the Partial Similars of it not quite hitting the mark - there is always something left to complain about, something deeper in that doesn't feel 'finished.
The Simillimum on the other hand is a very different kettle of fish. It matches every important problem, every peculiar aspect of the disease. It creates vast change across every level of the patient. It does not require other prescriptions to help it along, does not leave anything important untouched. The patient themselves will feel profoundly different - right to the core. Their whole mindset will change, the way they behave and react to things becomes different. This is always the goal of the homoeopath, to find the simillimum in any case. For some practitioners it remains a holy grail :)
Constitutional (or Chronic) prescribing is quite complicated, and there are many pitfalls in prescribing for yourself. Even if you do manage to choose the right one for you out of the 5000+ possible choices, on-going management is quite difficult. Staying with the right remedy during the ups and downs, reacting to acutes with the right acute remedy, knowing when to change the remedy to a complimentary one or to a deeper miasmatic remedy - these things challenge even a trained homoeopath. And as a trained homoeopath, I can tell you that I cannot even do most of that for myself, despite being able to do it for others.
There are a number of possible issues with your case, looking at what you have described.
One is that the potency may not be enough to change everything. 30c is a medium level potency, and it may not create enough changes in the higher levels (mental). Potency is selected on a variety of factors in the case (levels of the person's health affected, intensity of the disease, degree of tissue change or pathology in the case, how many pecuilar symptoms are present).
Another issue is the one of taking more than one remedy, which is considered a problem in traditional homoeopathic prescribing. Taking more than one remedy can create tricky situations :-
1.the remedies can work together to produce unexpected side effects.
2. if there are negative effects, it is impossible to tell which remedy is causing them.
3. if you wish to follow on with complimentary remedies, there is no way to know which remedy worked initially (so no way to choose the next remedy).
4. if you wish to follow with a miasmatic (deep acting genetic remedy) there is no way to know which direction to take since again there is no way to tell which remedy was the one that helped.
5. remedies can cancel each other out if similar enough to each other, so you might take the right remedy and then neutralize it straight away.
In my experience taking more than one remedy actually slows things down considerably, and creates far more problems than it appears to solve.
David Kempson
Professional Homoeopath
[message edited by brisbanehomoeopath on Sat, 23 Jul 2011 03:11:54 BST]
♡ brisbanehomoeopath last decade
To post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register
Important
Information given in this forum is given by way of exchange of views only, and those views are not necessarily those of ABC Homeopathy. It is not to be treated as a medical diagnosis or prescription, and should not be used as a substitute for a consultation with a qualified homeopath or physician. It is possible that advice given here may be dangerous, and you should make your own checks that it is safe. If symptoms persist, seek professional medical attention. Bear in mind that even minor symptoms can be a sign of a more serious underlying condition, and a timely diagnosis by your doctor could save your life.