That's as I would have expected--other than not realizing he'd done so
much with animals!! So basically (it seems to me) he was taking note
of the temperamental constitution simply for the purpose of
establishing what had changed--standard acute-type prescribing. I
assume that when/if he had cases that had been ill since birth, the
approach would have to edge up to "constitutional", since "what has
changed since the problem began" would have to be replaced with "what
is changed from what we'd consider normal"--which of course might or
might not lead to addressing their innate constitution; could instead
be a layer of trauma or miasm. (I did change the thread name.
)Thanks again,
Shannon