Minutus

Dear Kamrul
The Vital force is like the government of a nation.

Please consider that every country has a different consitution - but these same consitutions may change either through the democratic process or a coup or external influence.
The same applies to people and their constitution would depend on their inheretence (miasms from the parents), any maintaining causes and any exciting cause.

The exciting cause - like a country going through a coup - can change things drastically. It may be an infection or a shock of some kind.
Constitution prescribing means different things to different people - but as far as I am concerned, it is prescribing based on the relevant totality of presenting symptoms. And as you may know both disease conditions and the actions of remedies have degrees. So for example a cummunist country may have different governments which may be different to each other, but nonetheless, they all remain communist! In the same way unless something has changed drastically, a Arsenicum person may remain 'arsenicum' but in a different shade or degree of it. It is therefore appropriate to continue with the same remedy if the relevant presenting totality of symptoms justifies the choice.
However, it would be completely wrong to say - Oh you were an Arsenicum 20 years ago and so I am going to give you the same remedy now.

Because quite simply an Arsenicum may have become a Sulphur in the same way that a cummunist country can become democratic.
I hope this make sense to you.
I have not seen the quote from Dr Kent before - but I would be very surprised if a remedy could "destroy" the patient.
Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 14 September 2015 07:45
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] About constitutional remedy
I am a patient male 40 years old. A homeopathic doctor said after analysis that, my constitutional medicine is Arsenic Alb. And give me to take arsenic alb-30, one dose and wait to see the results. I have also analyzed that arsenic alb was my constitutional medicine about 25 years ago .
Dr. kent said that don’t give any constitutional medicine to any patient which was his constitutional medicine twenty years ago, because it will destroy the patient.
Then should i take the arsenic alb now or what should i do now? Please tell me in detail . Can i take lower potency such as 6 or 30?
I have also taken arsenic alb -30, and 200 five years(5 years) ago, with good results, then 1M did not make any results.

Regards
Kamrul

Hello Kamrul,
As far as I remember Kent was talking about this in his phosphorus lecture and more specifically in a case of TB, where the vital force has walled off the infection. If then, years later, you give phos it may break down and reopen these areas. So I see it in that context.
The warning for arsenicum was to do with using high potency in a patient of depleted vitality.
So I don't see a problem using a remedy that was your constitutional before. Except when a person has taken frequently the same remedy, believing it to be constitutional, if the signs of health clearly show little improvement. But that is another matter.
You should always check with your homeopath, who has your case notes. The list is not meant as a means to manage your case.
Regards,
Paul
Sent from Samsung Mobile

I would like to discuss two points from a post of Soroush, to discuss the "constitutional remedy" principles involved:
and
It is true that different homeopaths define "constitutional" differently, but this is the first time I have seen someone describe it essentially as a Simillimum, since it is a Simillimum that is the Hahnemannian definition of "prescribing based on the totality of presenting symptoms" - NOT a constitutional remedy as you are calling it.

All the uses of "constitutioal" I have seen before, have an association with the way the body as a whole, is constituted, (the way it is constructed as a whole with all its constituent parts), that being the defition of "constitution"...and it does NOT refer to the way the disease looks, or the symptom totality looks.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
a : the physical makeup of the individual especially with respect to the health, strength, and appearance of the body
b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something

I have seen homeopaths use "constitutional remedy" to mean the symptoms of the disease PLUS the known non-disease symptoms such as personality traits for example, or whatever non-disease rubrics are in the repertory. (it is about 1% of the rubrics in Radar by my estimation).
The problem with this approach is that the constitution of a person/animal is a fixed thing as defined above. It is not something that changes with the weaher ot with a current illness, or with a stage of growth or with a particular age.
That is not the true meaning of constitution.
"Constitution" is the make-up of an individual, a fixed thing, not a moving target, like a Simillimum. Physical makeup such as tall, short, wiry, stocky, big feet, long fingers, red hair, etc is ALWAYS part of "constitution" by definition but never a part of disease symptoms. SO if you call something "constitutional" you need to include the physical features among others.

In your second quoted sentence above, you suggest a (presumably constititonal) Arsenicum could become a (presumably constituional) Sulphur a some later time.
This is like saying that a tall, long legged wiry-muscled person with a penchant for practical jokes (Ars), suddenly became a stocky person with a short neck, flat chest, a total lack of grooming, and heavily built limbs, and a mind for investigaton (Sul).
These ARE constitutional differences - but they DO NOT HAPPEN - no constitution can change into a different one.
The person born Ars will always be Ars....it is their constitution - the constituents that make up that body/mind/kinetic structure are fixed.
Likewise
The person born Sul will always be Sul...it is their constitution - their constituent parts - those are fixed.

SO I would argue that it is incorrect to call a remedy "matched to totality of symptoms", in any way "constitutional".
It is a Simillimum, not a constitutional remedy.

To be a constitutional remedy, the selection MUST consider the contituent structure of the individual, by definitiion:-)

Over a lifetime, a constitutional remedy will never change, it is fixed, as is the constitution of the individual.

A simillimum is in no way fixed. It is matched to totality of presenting symptoms AT THE TIME - which can change from one illness to another. It does NOT take into account, any constitutional features, such as tallness, build, movement styles, personality, elegance, red hair, etc, which are permanent for the individual but not part of a disease.

I think as homeopaths we need to clarify and differentiate between, what is Simillimum and what is Constitutional remedy.
For my own work on remedies determined by genetic traits and other inherited traits (the kind that are different between genetically identical twins for example) I have coined a new term, "INNATE CONSTITUTIONAL TYPE" abbrev ICT, and its associated INNATE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY. This points out that it is the Innate characteristics - all manner of inherited characteristics present at birth and determined by the ICT type affecting all stages of life (such as growth rates for the type at different ages, birthing styles, movement styles, birth size, teenage growth phase characteristics) - body type, build, kinetics etc ...all that matters in determining ICT.
THis IS indeed a constitutional remedy as it is keyed to ALL inherited traits - including epigenes (miasms).

A Simillimum MIGHT be the same as the ICT remedy but often is not.
The ICT remedy can be trusted to repair cell integrity, strength and resistance - and also immune function, esp thymus health.
The Simillimum addresses the CURRENT disease and its presenting symptoms.

For a chronic disease you may need both...ICT to repair resistance and immune system, and Simillimum (OR LOCAL REMEDY depending which is most appropriate if any) to address disease issues that can cause harm before the ICT has time to repair the Immune system/Thymus.
The timing matters. If the disease is slow moving, there is time to repair the thymus and let it counter the disease.
If the disease is fast moving (eg FIP, Ebola), you still need that cell and immune system repair, and removal of miasms/epigene-switch-issues, but more urgently you need a Simillimum against the violent disease force.
The increased resistance can follow.

Those who do not have an open mind will gag at mention of more than one remedy in use at a time, without bothering to use any thought process. They should think again. This approach has true purpose and effectiveness (as my published cases show.)
Only with a Simillimum against the fast disease AND an ICT to repair the cells and thymus, can a severe and fast CHRONIC disease be overcome (eg FIP, many cancers, immune compromise diseases in general).

For the above reasons - to understand these appoaches, whoever uses them, It is important not to confuse a constitution's features with a disease's features.
Thus a "constitutional" remedy (ICT or other method) needs to be selected based on constitutional features, not disease.
And a "Simillimum" needs to be selected based on presenting disease symptoms, and not constitutional features.

If you want a mess, you will try to do both at the same time with ONE remedy when you need two separate remedies for two different purposes ....and using one half-baked selection will lose the fast chronic cases, and often have the wrong remedy for the rest.
Constitution and Disease are NOT the same sets of characteristics...and they need DIFFERENT remedies.
Do not try to confuse the two....a remedy chosen half for presenting symptoms and half for constitution can help neither, it will be a mismatch for both.
That will achieve neither constitutional resistance/robustness/immune-strength NOR direct disease annihilation.
These two distinct ways to heal, need DIFFERENT remedy selection approaches, not one muddled one.
It requires VERY clear understandig of what is constitutional-related and what is disease-related, to get this right.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

This reminds me of a colleague saying - Oh she was a blonde so I gave her Puls!
Please colleagues can we discuss this topic in depth.
Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 15 September 2015 13:48
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] About constitutional remedy
I would like to discuss two points from a post of Soroush, to discuss the "constitutional remedy" principles involved:
Constitution prescribing means different things to different people - but as far as I am concerned, it is prescribing based on the relevant totality of presenting symptoms.

and
It is true that different homeopaths define "constitutional" differently, but this is the first time I have seen someone describe it essentially as a Simillimum, since it is a Simillimum that is the Hahnemannian definition of "prescribing based on the totality of presenting symptoms" - NOT a constitutional remedy as you are calling it.
All the uses of "constitutioal" I have seen before, have an association with the way the body as a whole, is constituted, (the way it is constructed as a whole with all its constituent parts), that being the defition of "constitution"...and it does NOT refer to the way the disease looks, or the symptom totality looks.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

a : the physical makeup of the individual especially with respect to the health, strength, and appearance of the body

b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something
I have seen homeopaths use "constitutional remedy" to mean the symptoms of the disease PLUS the known non-disease symptoms such as personality traits for example, or whatever non-disease rubrics are in the repertory. (it is about 1% of the rubrics in Radar by my estimation).

The problem with this approach is that the constitution of a person/animal is a fixed thing as defined above. It is not something that changes with the weaher ot with a current illness, or with a stage of growth or with a particular age.

That is not the true meaning of constitution.

"Constitution" is the make-up of an individual, a fixed thing, not a moving target, like a Simillimum. Physical makeup such as tall, short, wiry, stocky, big feet, long fingers, red hair, etc is ALWAYS part of "constitution" by definition but never a part of disease symptoms. SO if you call something "constitutional" you need to include the physical features among others.
In your second quoted sentence above, you suggest a (presumably constititonal) Arsenicum could become a (presumably constituional) Sulphur a some later time.

This is like saying that a tall, long legged wiry-muscled person with a penchant for practical jokes (Ars), suddenly became a stocky person with a short neck, flat chest, a total lack of grooming, and heavily built limbs, and a mind for investigaton (Sul).

These ARE constitutional differences - but they DO NOT HAPPEN - no constitution can change into a different one.

The person born Ars will always be Ars....it is their constitution - the constituents that make up that body/mind/kinetic structure are fixed.

Likewise

The person born Sul will always be Sul...it is their constitution - their constituent parts - those are fixed.
SO I would argue that it is incorrect to call a remedy "matched to totality of symptoms", in any way "constitutional".

It is a Simillimum, not a constitutional remedy.
To be a constitutional remedy, the selection MUST consider the contituent structure of the individual, by definitiion:-)
Over a lifetime, a constitutional remedy will never change, it is fixed, as is the constitution of the individual.
A simillimum is in no way fixed. It is matched to totality of presenting symptoms AT THE TIME - which can change from one illness to another. It does NOT take into account, any constitutional features, such as tallness, build, movement styles, personality, elegance, red hair, etc, which are permanent for the individual but not part of a disease.
I think as homeopaths we need to clarify and differentiate between, what is Simillimum and what is Constitutional remedy.
For my own work on remedies determined by genetic traits and other inherited traits (the kind that are different between genetically identical twins for example) I have coined a new term, "INNATE CONSTITUTIONAL TYPE" abbrev ICT, and its associated INNATE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY. This points out that it is the Innate characteristics - all manner of inherited characteristics present at birth and determined by the ICT type affecting all stages of life (such as growth rates for the type at different ages, birthing styles, movement styles, birth size, teenage growth phase characteristics) - body type, build, kinetics etc ...all that matters in determining ICT.

THis IS indeed a constitutional remedy as it is keyed to ALL inherited traits - including epigenes (miasms).
A Simillimum MIGHT be the same as the ICT remedy but often is not.
The ICT remedy can be trusted to repair cell integrity, strength and resistance - and also immune function, esp thymus health.

The Simillimum addresses the CURRENT disease and its presenting symptoms.
For a chronic disease you may need both...ICT to repair resistance and immune system, and Simillimum (OR LOCAL REMEDY depending which is most appropriate if any) to address disease issues that can cause harm before the ICT has time to repair the Immune system/Thymus.

The timing matters. If the disease is slow moving, there is time to repair the thymus and let it counter the disease.

If the disease is fast moving (eg FIP, Ebola), you still need that cell and immune system repair, and removal of miasms/epigene-switch-issues, but more urgently you need a Simillimum against the violent disease force.

The increased resistance can follow.
Those who do not have an open mind will gag at mention of more than one remedy in use at a time, without bothering to use any thought process. They should think again. This approach has true purpose and effectiveness (as my published cases show.)

Only with a Simillimum against the fast disease AND an ICT to repair the cells and thymus, can a severe and fast CHRONIC disease be overcome (eg FIP, many cancers, immune compromise diseases in general).
For the above reasons - to understand these appoaches, whoever uses them, It is important not to confuse a constitution's features with a disease's features.

Thus a "constitutional" remedy (ICT or other method) needs to be selected based on constitutional features, not disease.

And a "Simillimum" needs to be selected based on presenting disease symptoms, and not constitutional features.
If you want a mess, you will try to do both at the same time with ONE remedy when you need two separate remedies for two different purposes ....and using one half-baked selection will lose the fast chronic cases, and often have the wrong remedy for the rest.

Constitution and Disease are NOT the same sets of characteristics...and they need DIFFERENT remedies.

Do not try to confuse the two....a remedy chosen half for presenting symptoms and half for constitution can help neither, it will be a mismatch for both.

That will achieve neither constitutional resistance/robustness/immune-strength NOR direct disease annihilation.

These two distinct ways to heal, need DIFFERENT remedy selection approaches, not one muddled one.

It requires VERY clear understandig of what is constitutional-related and what is disease-related, to get this right.
Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info

(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

The "logic" here is "If these shoelaces are green, that means everything green is a shoelace

Puls is not always blonde anyway, they are often redheads for example.
But they are ALWAYS big boned, very big overall, have a rather prominent sternum bone, are extremely fastidious about grooming, have a need to be "grounded" in the physical sense, (feet firmly planted not waving in the air), and many other features NOT found in any repertory (yet).
The problem with determining constitutional type using a repertory is just that issue - that the normal traits of that particular inherited type (or any other) are NOT found in a repertory (with a very few exceptions)...thye need to be added to the repertory for use in constitutional type determination.

The repertory is set up for disease symptoms - ie finding a simillimum - not set up for innate characteristics as neded for a constitutional determination.
I agree - it is a very relevant thing to understand well.

Namaste,
Irene

My mother's homeopathic doctor told me before he retired..."your mother is
constitutionally calc carb, she will always be that"....I used several
different remedies for her over the years and maybe only a 30 c of calc carb
once which didn't do anything for her current symptoms at that time. Toward
the end she began sweating at night on her chest and I think now that that is
when I should have given her calc carb again but didn't know any
better...until I just read Irene's post.

Aah,
But did she have blue eyes?
Sent from Samsung Mobile

You joke, but there is a lot to the physical traits of a constitutional type - ICT being my term.
Calc catb, like any ICT, occurs in ALL species, so for example, a cow can be calc but will certainly never have blue eyes:-)
All the features are relative - so pale eyes MAY be the feature, not blue eyes. In cows there are lighter brown eyes.
Rememebr that eye color is polygenetic - the AMOUNT of color pigent determines the color, in most cases.
Take cats for example:
The average cat has an average amount of polygenes for color (it works like adding color drops to a can of paint).
So many cats have greeenish yellow color. That is the middle color.
Selective breeding can change the average for a specific group. The extreme with NO pigment is albino eye, a very ale blue indeed.
The blue gets darker with a few flecks of pigment to scatter the light. Add more and they go blue-green. Still more pigment makes green, more makes yellow, more makes orange still more makes brown, and more makes brown so dark they look black. SO it is ONE genetic feature for "intensity" of color. he intensity is the feature seen with ICT types.
So if you look at a group selected for a specific color (eg Chinchilla cats are selected for green eyes) then an ICT can tend to a lighter version than average - which will be light brown in cows and blue-green in chinchilla cats. Oran ICT may tend to a darker version than avergas - in which case a persian bred for orange eyes will have brownish eyes, and a street cat normally a green-yellow, will tend more to be yellow or almost orange for its "darker eyes" implementation and a human with major genes for green but polyigenes of their ICT for darler will have hazel eyes.
THis is how a mother with green eyes has a daughter with hazel eyes for example. (You will find the darker polygenes further back, maybe brown eyed gradparent).

One must understand the inheritance mechanism to make the assessment correctly. It does not work to think blue eyes, the mechanism is not valid, it must be light eyes as that suits the mechanism and fitrs all species, suspecies, ethnic groups, dog breeds, llamas, hamsters and crocodiles etc.....
Humans are altogether too inclined to think they are the only pecies that exists:-) ..and to make incorrect assuptions as a result.
In reality rather - the Calc cow will have any physical traits in common with all calcs, of any species or breed.
It is a relative thing, usually to do with intensity genes (plygenes as opposed to autosomal dominants).
Boning, size and proportions are always relevant within species or breed.

Take Ars as an example.
All Ars types have tall stature with wiry strong muscles, whether they are human, cihuahua or alligators. The tallness is relative to the rest of the breed, species or category. All Ars types lack any bum flesh, whether human (need braces to hold up pants), horse, elephant or cat. These kinds of things are fixed for ICT cateogory.
Ars starts short, but they shoot up at a specific stage of growth (about 13 in humans) going from short (long body but short limbs) to extremely tall in a short time (one year for humans, with feet also growing large then).
Phos will also be long legged but will get there gradually and have relatively small feet for their size, and a LOT more agility. Ars has stamina, they are suited to being a long disitance athlete or mountai climber etc - usig their stronge muscles and endurance. Ars is not bulky muscles but they are very strong muscled. For bulkier muscle look at Sulph.

The connections between genetics and homeopathy are there as clear as day to me.
But I studied genetics uch loger than I studied h omeopahty, I saw the GROUPS of inheroitance factors bein gpassed down as groups - long before I learned homeopahty - and only later realized eacg inheritance trait group IS associated with only ONE homeopathic remedy.
It marries homeopathy and genetics.

This should NOT be a surprise - both are natural phenomena....why should they not be directly linked.
By the way, ICT type is NOT inherited in a simple way (such as the way specific major genes are inherited.)
There has to be more to WHY a specific ICT type becomes actie at conception ad becomes the offspring's ICT, and the offsppring develps all the features of that ICT while in utero.

I suspect that somehow there is a specific frequency of EMF at time of conception which infouences what ICT will be formed.
But I have no proof of this, it is my theory of why for example, a litter of ten kittens almost never has two ICTs the same.
There is intelligence behind the ratios of ICT types that exist.
Nature somehow ensures there are not too many queens, dictators, drama queens, and such, and that there are enough but not too many inventors, as we also need manufacturers, teachers etc. In the right ratio for society's needs.

Man's meddling may well muck this up to some extent, (if man can mess it up he will), but nature has the ratios of each ICT just right for society of any species to work well. HOW this is achieved fascinates me. I do see that the ratios of each constitutional type are part of that plan. For example we know well the most common ICT types like Lycopodium, Phos, Puls, Ars etc, but we know the rarer ones a lot less, like Lach, Plat, Colch, etc
But too many of the rarer kind, like Lach's, would make real trouble in any group or society. "My way or the highway" dictatorial types are helpful in some ways to society (Lach is highly intelligent) but one is enough in any group!
On the other hand we need a lot of Lycs with their "get along well with others" personality. And indeed the Lachs and Lycs (magically?) occur in the appropriate ratios. As do all the other ICTs. They are in the right ratios for the species or group. Plant ICTs are harder to figure but also exist, and also are consistent in ICT type.
For example a Puls is always heavily built compared to others of the group - and a puls plant will be a stronger example of its species. Are as usual will be wiry-built (my own very techincal term!) and tall but unusually strong. THis tree will not be dropping braches in a storm like the one next to it that is delicately built but the same species.

Nature is smarter than we realize and we have a lot still to understand.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,
Yes, but the problem is you set up a practice in India, China or Nigeria and you keep waiting for a chance to use pulsatilla, but no blue eyed blonde haired women come in.
On the flip side, if you see symptoms of puls in a female and then she happens to be blue/blonde, you can feel more certain of the remedy. At least that's how I first learnt puls. But now I feel, if you are relying on blue/blonde to confirm your remedy, you haven't really grasped the essence of the case. You should be sure it's puls even if you were blind.
The problem is some homeopaths have been taught, and also practice this way, that as a blue/blonde women walks in, you can reach for the puls.
Regards,
Paul
Sent from Samsung MobileHi Irene,
Yes, but the problem is you set up a practice in India, China or Nigeria and you keep waiting for a chance to use pulsatilla, but no blue eyed blonde haired women come in.
On the flip side, if you see symptoms of puls in a female and then she happens to be blue/blonde, you can feel more certain of the remey. At least that's how I first learnt puls. But now I feel, if you are relying on blue/blonde to confirm your remedy, you haven't really grasped the essence of the case. You should be sure it's puls even if you were blind.
The problem is some homeopaths have been taught, and also practice this way, that as a blue/blonde women walks in, you can reach for the puls.
Regards,
Paul
Sent from Samsung Mobile

Are you making fun of my work?
There is NOTHING in my post or work or principles or writings anywhere that remotely suggests any such thing.

ICT is a few decades - three - of research into features that are innate for each ICT. By that I do not mean features that MAY be present (like eye color) but features that are sure - like leg to torso ratios.
But no homeopath worth their salt ever "waits for a case of XYZ"
You start with presenting features, and THAT leads to a remedy.
I have little time for a homeopath who "looks for a case of Puls" or any other remedy. It is backwards (as by now I am well known for stressing).
You look for patient symptoms and features .... you do not look for a remedy...the patient features wil lead you to itl
I have yet to use eye color in ICT work, but it is one of the ten thousand or more potential rubrics any ICT has.
Again it is backwards...I look at what features are there as if I have no knowledge of remedies at all.
The study of remedies for anything chronic is actually a huge detriment, as it leads to "trying to see Puls" or some remedy - in the patient...common but HUGE mistake.

It is essential to look at the features without bias of what YOU think Puls or some or other remedy looks like.
You then choose what features are most reliable or dominant and from those you are LED to a remedy that suits the features - the same as any other repertorizing. Never ever look to see if soemone "is a Puls" or "is a Lach" etc.

This is for the same reasons in ICT repping, as applies when repping for a simillimum.
The problem with workig as you describe - backwards - is:
You can get a list of rubrics for ANY remedy - all ten tousand or so - and you WILL find matching ones to the individual no matter WHAT remedy you choose - but to call that a fit is total ficvtion and you will lose the case.
ALL remedies have SO many rubriucs that it is easy to "make a case" for the remedy in ANY individual with ANY illness - if yo are the kind of homeopath who works backwards like this!
(This is less of a danger with ICT where less features overlap between remedies - but is a huge danger with Simillimum - howeer the principle of using features of individual and NOT starting with a remedy - is relevant in both.)

Otherwise it is like saying the green shoelaces mean everything green is a shoelace.

SO for ICt repping you MUST select the appropriate set of features that makes an individial unique, and let THOSE lead to a remedy - it would be wise to give all remedies random names first so nobody can guess if a remedy fits.... and everyoe should be forced to use the symptoms to LEAD to the randomly named remedy
THat is so for simillimum selection and for ICT selection.
Bias due to known common features of any remedy - is a DETRIMENT to good homeopathy.
Knowing a remedy is good in emergencies only..so you can grab arnica 1m for a heart attack before it kills or Lach 200C for snakebite before that kills or Calendula ticture for bleeding before that kills or Ledum for catbite before you get blood poisoning etc.
For chronic issues, and ICT, knowing anything about any remedy - is a bad thing
You need to know about the patient. Not the remedy.
If you want to study something, study individuals, not remedies.
Sorry yo got that - lousy way to learn anything.
Where did you study to "see symptoms of Puls" in anyone?
No school should be teaching backwards homeopathy where yo see remedies in individuals.
For chronic cases you need to forget what you learned about all the remedies and select properly.
I have no clue why you suggest the developer of the ICT system would put in a few decades of serius research including successful case records and then somehow be doing something so ridiculous and ineffective.

My ICT work has shown great efficacy compared with simillimum work in practice - for several years now - but they each have a place (ICT and SIillimunm). I am sharing my successful development of ICT as a system of health here and why and how it works. It would never have wotked if I was doing some sloppy blue eyes are Puls type assumptions.
(My initial post on it made that clear too, you seem to have missed it.)

The "essence" of an ICT case includes ALL relevant innate characteristics. The questionnaire I use asks for body measurements and features in detail. When I have eliminated enough remedies to be down to a dozen or so, I will ask more questions (I work by email with animal owners) or ask for photos or a video of how they walk or whatever I need to differentiate the short list.
I have had greater success in ICT remedy use than in Simillimum use, for immnue compromise cases, and not becasue I developed a poor system:-)
I am blind and deaf in that I work by email but more importantly becasue I am not a memory fanatic about remedies - I intentionally forget I know anything about any remedy when I start a case and select its relevant features.

They - and their tutors - deserve to be shot.
Give the remedies random names - THEN repertorize and see which is correct as a match.
I am very much agaist the rote learning of supposed remedies. It makes for lousy homeopaths.
Nobody learns ALL the ten thousand EQUALLY IMPORTANT rubrtics that apply, for ALL the 5000 or so remedies and so whatever they learn is biased and misused - both to look for remedies in idividuals AND by knowing only a small fraction of the RELEVANT rubrics of any remedy ANd by being led (by the nose) to see noses as ermedies instead of seeing a set of characteristics to be sought iside the pictures of remedies - usign ALL of the picture for ever remedy.

There is NO way to use that memorization of remedies mess to find a correct homeopathic match - ICT or Siillimum.
Yet that is what CHC or whatever it is called, wants and uses to "test" proficiency. It is a memory test about remedies and can only turn out terrible homeopaths.

An average remedy has ten thousand rubrics and NOBODY knows that many.
They know some commonly known ones which means if the ones needed are NOT commonnly known they will be ignored when in fact they are equally relevant or may be MORE relevant in a case.

Hence for Chronic cases adn ICT, I am in favor of anonymous remedies - to guarantee all relevant features are sought that are in the individual - a balanced total set - and that THOSE alone - together - lead to the remedy of uniknown name. One should only allow a homeopath to look up the remedy name repertorized, AFTER they finish repertorizing.
You have not been reading my posts or you would never suggest I would work backwards.
I am always passionately against such sloppy work, and do NOT teach such junk in my own school.
If it was up to me, every repertory would have arbitrary random remedy names assigned at the start of each repping, that only went away and replaced with the real names AFTER you finished repertorizing.



I do not believe in the "all green things are shoelaces" approach.
How did you manage to suggest I would be in that category?
I can think of no phrase I ever wrote to suggest it?

I was looking forward to an intelligent discussion of the constitutional remedy selection I have researched for some 30 yeas now, not a scorning assumption that "all blue eyes are Puls" or "all green things are shoelaces"

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."