This is the conclusion reached by Philip Bailey in his book ' Homeopathic Psychology'. He thinks that many natrums are missed; their type is so common that some of their pathoogical symptoms may simply be labelled 'normal', In addition Bailey thinks many homeoapaths are natrum.

What do you think?

Its a bizarre statement to generalize like that.
Out of 6 billion people on earth,a third are
nat mur???????............................I dont agree.
Think about how ridiculous that statement is................
How does he justify this grand statement?
If one third are Nat Mur why have so many different types of homeopathic remedies in the Materia Medica (over 3,000)?

Not everyone walks around with deep suppressed grief
(nat mur)

What is your oppinion Mogwai?

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

It seems an over-generalisation to me awell. The author did qualify the statement by limiting his comments to the industrialised countries he had worked in, but even so...

there are natrum's other than muriaticums though. I dont' agree, but was he saying nat mur, or naturum in general?

They say that Nat Mur is a common remedy on UK because it is an island surrounded by the sea but I certainly haven't found that to be the case!!

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

I assumed he was just referring to nat mur...

read hahemans writings and then read this other crapola stuff---and choose which to follow---and FOLlOW THAT