Minutus

I notice that nat-ar appears in at least five rubrics re aversion to or
aggravation from tobacco. Should I be hesitant to give it constitutionally
to someone who is *way* addicted to cigarettes (three unsucecssful efforts
to quit, can't bring himself to try again), started smoking at age 6,
inhaling about age 12 (he's now 48)? Is this a "polarity", or flying in the
face of a strong characteristic of the remedy, or neither?

Thanks,
Shannon

If it is indicated by other symptoms- it is indicated. The absence
of aversion to tobacco will not rule out the selection. We have to
remember that this is not that well proven a remedy. Probably there
could have been another prover with strong desire to smoke who had
other symptoms of Nat.ars. I am not sure about the polarity...( Did
it remove aversion to tobacco that someone started smoking after
Nat.ars or became addicted to it?)
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Bob&Shannon
wrote:
to or
constitutionally
efforts
6,
flying in the

Dose the rest of the case fit Nat ars?

Nat ars has so called 'miner's asthma' hence the connection to smoking. Do
you know what the sources are for inclusion in these rubrics?

best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 18/9/04 12:50 am, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

I notice that nat-ar appears in at least five rubrics re aversion to or
aggravation from tobacco. Should I be hesitant to give it constitutionally
to someone who is *way* addicted to cigarettes (three unsucecssful efforts
to quit, can't bring himself to try again), started smoking at age 6,
inhaling about age 12 (he's now 48)? Is this a "polarity", or flying in the
face of a strong characteristic of the remedy, or neither?

Thanks,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]