≡ ▼
ABC Homeopathy Forum




Calcarea Carbonica: $6.59Sulphur: $3.99Professional Constitutional Kit #2: $160.00First Aid Kit: $160.00


The ABC Homeopathy Forum

sulphur after calcarea iod

as we all know there is harm in giving sulphur after calcarea carb. likewise, is there anything wrong in giving sulphur directly after calcarea iod?
  pcthahir on 2010-11-09
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
I have given sulphur after calc-carb without any problem at all when it was indicated. The indicated remedy doesn't harm the patient if given with care.

I was taught those inimical relationships at college. For a few years I obeyed them, until I remember an instance where a Phosphorous patient needed Causticum for a cough. I slowly learned from experience that these 'rules' were not based on homoeopathic philosophy, and so I abandoned them. Now I prescribe ANY remedy that the symptoms demand, even if 'inimical'. I have yet to see any adverse reaction.

I had to teach inimical relationships to students when I was employed as a lecturer. I made a point to the faculty head that there was a conflict with the most basic part of our philosophy (law of similars). I asked all faculty members, local homoeopaths, and even some international ones, to provide any case examples of inimical remedies antidoting, cancelling or ruining a cured case. No-one was able to do so.

So, based on my experience and the opinions of other homoeopaths that I have met or heard speak at seminars, the only rule is 'like cures like', and if the symptoms call for it, then you MUST prescribe it. Don't let superstition guide you.
brisbanehomoeopath last decade
Hmm.. interesting, if it was always as simple as 'like cures like', homeopathy would be much more rudimentary. The cause of the problem has to be be kept in mind, and then a remedy can be picked among the ones which address that cause, and is most similar. It is like you cannot ignore the miasm of the person while picking a remedy for a true 'chronic' disease. In a similar way, when the cause of the problem is a homeopathic remedy (either given in an incorrect manner, at an incorrect time, or in an incorrect sequence), they will be addressed only by the correct (most similar) anti-dote. e.g. I have seen cases where a patient suffered for 2 years because his homeopath prescribed Lycopodium after Sulphur, and that resulted in such an opening of a Pandora's box in his case that it took very careful prescribing for about an year to bring his case back on track. I have also seen a case where Sulphur was prescribed after Calcarea, and this resulted in such a horrible aggravation, that the patient was barely able to eat anything for weeks. This patient had even received great benefit from Sulphur in the past(in a different potency than what aggravated). In both the above cases, a remedy (in a single olfaction dose of 6x potency) which could anti-dote both the remedies under question cleared up the imbroglio. I have also seen cases where a person suffered for 20 years due to abuse of Sulphur in a high potency by a homeopath on him. He would swear that problems started after that prescription. Careful antidoting has brought him back to full health.

Hence, I have to disagree with the assumption of 'like will cure like' while forgetting everything else. And, I have confirmed through personal experience again and again that if one were to notice carefully enough, there is a very good reason as to why our great masters had utmost respect for remedy relationships.
sameervermani last decade
It is just my experience (and opinion) so I accept others may have had different experiences. This is really just my reasoning and my practice.

The concept of remedy relationships is not a uniform static one in the history of homoeopathy. It is ALL based on clinical experience and it changes according to whose clinic it came out of.

I have given Lycopodium after Sulphur with no problems. I don't believe the order is what is relevent, but individual cases can have all sorts of problems, tricks, obstacles that can create issues with aggravations, provings and such. I have given all sorts of inimical remedies to patients with no special problem. So over the years I no longer worry about it.

Just to be clear - when I say similarity I mean cause, miasm, symptom, state - this is all part of the totality. I am not advocating just treating the current acute presentation. I actually think that the law of similars is not simple at all. Homoeopathic prescribing for chronic disease is complex and full of pitfalls.

I can't say why the case you mention turned out the way it did. I can only say that I have used Lyc after Sulphur, Sulph after Calc (and in fact I have alternated these two remedies quite often over the years), Caust after Phos, Sepia after Ignatia and so on with nothing terrible happening. This suggests to me that the order itself is not the problem but that it was something else which has created issues for homoeopaths in the past.

I have seen patients prescribed all sorts of remedies with terrible results - sometimes it was the first one, so there was no 'inimical' relationship. The strength of aggravation relies on the size of the dose primarily, and after that frequency of the dose, sensitivity of the patient, and finally degree and type of tissue change. I have never seen personally any issue with the order. I have broken those 'rules' many times with no negative impact on the patient.

I always try to understand the philosophy, try to prescribe intelligently. If I am given a 'rule' then I need to know why it exists, and need to see that it does indeed provide benefit of some sort to either the patient or to my process of helping them. There are many observations that homoeopaths of the past have made, but I accept none of them without testing them out myself.

My understanding of 'inimical' is that the two medicines are too similar to be prescribed close together. If you have given one then the other will create some kind of interaction, obviously based on this similarity. The only way one medicine can affect another is through similarity (it can be homoeopathic or antipathic). Non-similar remedies will have no effect on each other (unless a proving is created but this is not dependent on any kind of relationship between them).

The only way one similar remedy could affect another is if the first is still working, since you cannot undo cure (cure is permanent). I can understand this kind of warning, but typically I would never be prescribing a new remedy at this point anyway, so the warning appears unecessary. Once a remedy has created improvement, that improvement cannot be reversed by another remedy (although it can be reversed by suppression of any sort).

I respect the power of medicines to harm as well as to heal. But the Law of Similars is never absent in a case so I never ignore it, regardless of what someone else might warn. There is no homoeopathy without similarity - anything else is Allopathy. There is a lot of allopathy mixed up in our homoeopathic literature.
brisbanehomoeopath last decade
Lots of old authors also warned against coffee and mint and tea and other things as antidotes. I have never seen a single 'antidoting' from these things either. I remember reading an article by Miranda Castro on Coffee as an antidote - she did an experiment for a year where she stopped asking people to avoid coffee, and she stated that the numbers of relapses, uncured patients, remained exactly the same.

I think that it is important to free homoeopathy from rote prescribing, rigid rules without thought or purpose, superstitious fears and mystical obscurement.

At the same time, in every single case one must be alert to the patient's individual experience and to their needs. If coffee causes relapse, if they overeact to Sulphur, if following Ignatia with Sepia instead of Nat-mur, if any of these things create obstacles to cure then by all means adapt treatment to it.

But if anything, homoeopathy teaches us that individuality is King, and applying general rules to all patients based on the reactions of a few is not the direction we should take.
brisbanehomoeopath last decade
i can understand the value of differing views. but i would like to be on the safer side. so dear sameer, please tell me, can i give sulphur after calc iod?
pcthahir last decade
dear brisbaneshomeopath, you said that size of the dose is the main reason for homeopathic aggravation. so far as i understand, most of the doctors in india right now practice homeopathy based on fourth edition of organonand their master in administration of remedy is mor often than not JT Kent. these doctors are not at all concerned about the size of the dose. they give two to six forty size pills. recently i met a qualified homeopath who give four pills to everyone irrespective of age or body weight including infants. for such homeopaths aggravation is the result of higher potency or unnecessary repetition. i would like to know your experience in the matter of aggravation and size of the dose.
pcthahir last decade
Size of the dose was not an issue in any of the cases I mentioned :). Nor was the patient super-sensitive.

Individuality is king, indeed it is, but with the CAUSE kept in mind :)

As I said, you have to test this out closely enough. I suggest a simple experiment. In a case where Sulphur is the similimum (and by similimum I mean the perfect remedy, where the exact Hering's law is being followed in the response), when one dose of Sulph ceases to act, and improvements come to a halt, try giving a dose of Puls 6c, and you can watch your improvements go away and get back to square one :)

There is no superstition about these relationships and in particular the Calc-Lyc-Sulph cycle where I have personally tested and observed the validity of the remedies being inimical in any other sequence many times.

Also, I would give much more weight to Hering, Allen, Clarke, Lippe and Hahnemann warning against the same thing than some 'modern' homeopath claiming in a seminar that it does not matter.

pcthahir, Calc-iod does not have inimical relation before Sulph.
sameervermani last decade
dear sameer, suppose a person develops an acute disease like a common cold and the indicated remedy happens to be pulsatilla, what can we do then if the patient is one who has taken sulphur amonth or so earlier and is either improving or his improvement has ceased after a period of amelioration?
pcthahir last decade
sameer, some time back i read an article by david little in which he vociferously talked about the role of size of dose in causing aggravation. i would like to know your personal view on this matter.
pcthahir last decade
Size of the dose is very important in providing gentle cure to the patient. I am just saying it was not an issue in the cases I mentioned, as I know the dosage given was extremely small.

An anti-dote should never be given when the patient is improving on the simillimum, and acute symptoms develop which call for an anti-dote.
sameervermani last decade
Is the sulphur can taken before or after conium and arnica?
sadeqahmed last decade

Post ReplyTo post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register


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.