The notion of constitutional and so-called "acute" remedies is not really part of classical homeopathy.

Jost Kunzli, a master homeopath par excellence who rarely made any mistakes in word or deed, said he did not find a need for changes of medicine once he found the person's actual simillimum.

I could find that actual quote if necessary, but the gist of it reads like that and referred to decades of treatment till a person expired.

This squares with what I understand about the simillimum ("thing most similar") and merely simile medicines, for the latter are close enough to precipitate a curative reaction but require additional prescriptions to complete a cure, which of course does not always happen because of the intrinsically extraordinary difficulties of proper homeotherapeutics.

I've said this sort of thing here many times by invoking Adolph Lippe's phrase about "zig zagging a case" with simile drugs until a medicine is introduced into our materia medica ("materials of medicine") and pharmacopia that covers a case as the simillimum.

But, given all of that as qualifing remarks, I know the questioner's kindly heart and psychologist's mindset, so it seems to me that the proper answer to his question is no, assuming he means to improperly use the term "constitutional remedy" as synonymous with simillimum.

This is simply a problem that's part of our times, folks, but these issues will collapse as time goes on and actual Hahnemannian/classical homeopathy takes its proper place at the height of therapeutics and the two false forms of homeopathy fade into the background and then away into oblivian (as allopathic and novice-level understandings of medical issues) along with allopathic therapeutics in diseases.

----------

PS. Nice quote, Bach; i.e., it helps since it's so easy to dismiss Freud as a stupid fool with purely allopathic ideas and practices.

[ 23. December 2003, 23:41: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B