Dear Friends, thank you for the time and effort you put in to educating the public and healing our ills. Perhaps one of you could address the following:

Several questions:

1. If one takes a constitutional remedy, for example, sulfur, is it because their system is lacking sulfur, or because their system has too much sulfur? When one is described as sulfur constitutionally, because of certain symptoms, mentals, etc. such as sloppiness, is it because they have too much sulfur and that makes them sloppy, or is it because they lack sulfur and that makes them sloppy.

2. When one takes a constitutional remedy is it correct that one need not or should not take other homeopathic remedies. For example, if one takes a constitutional remedy, and then a couple of weeks later develops a cold, can they take a homeopathic remedy for their cold? Or is the purpose of the constitutional to make the immune system so strong that one would not develop a cold. And should one develop a cold, or any other illness, would that indicate that the constitutional was wrong?

3. I'm not sure how to put this question: If one is allergic to a substance such as a sulfite, can one still take a homeopathic remedy such as sulphur? (I can not drink wine with sulfites.)

Thank you in advance for your help. I'm trying to learn what I can before my daughter comes home from school.

1. Never thought of that one before!

2.If you've taken a comnstitutional it is perfectly OK to take another remedy for an acute situation which turns up if you are sure this problem - the cold - is not a result of taking the constitutional. e.g. a cold can be cleansing - a way the remedy works to drive out the toxins in your body. It therefore shouldn't be treated but allowed to run its course.

3. It is possible that f you are allergic t sulphur taking it in a low potency MAY be a way of desensitising you to it.

Finally you must go with your homeopaths advice. S/he is the professional and knows the details of your case.

1. As far as I understand, there is no definite link between the deficiency (or excess) and the need for certain remedy. It's unlikely that we are deficient of arsenic (the remedy of Ars alb), belladonna, poison ivy (Rhus Tox), mercury (Mercuris), etc., aren't we?
The FIRST & MOST IMPORTANT law in homeopahty is the matching of the totality of drug picture and the patients' totality of symptoms.
While there are people who use such deficiency idea in prescription, eg. homeopathic calcium formula for calcium deficiency / malabsorption, or mercuris for mercury poisoning, they are NOT using homeopathic remedies according to homeopathic principles. While this may be helpful, but may not benefit as much as a prescription based on the totality of symptoms.

2. During the course of constitutional treatment, when acute symptoms set in, it's best to consult the homoeopath to determine whether just to take original 'constitutional remedy' or change to another remedy that matches the 'totality of the acute symptoms'. Improper handling of the acute symptoms may disrupt the healing activated by the 'constitutional remedy'.



[This message has been edited by Arden Wong (edited 03 December 1999).]

Brilliant questions
To add to the above:
To say it in simple words, the mind & body produces symptoms due to a certain disharmony. And the disharmony is not due to excess or less of the 'remedy'. If these symptoms match the symptoms of a particular remedy, then the simillinum has been found, and hence that remedy will work the best for that individual.
It is not a necessarily true that the body contains insufficient or excess of that remedy. For example remedies such as Tarentula Hispanca ( Spider ), sepia ( ink of Cuttle fish) are derived from the animal kingdom, and so you can infer the rest.

Prescribing for an acute situation requires you to be careful in understanding the current symptoms, and like wise understand the relationship of remedies in order to prescribe. Also, very important is understanding the constitution of the person, as the above folks have rightly pointed out.
Please see other posts too.

Regards


[This message has been edited by Mom-of-2 (edited 03 December 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Mom-of-2 (edited 03 December 1999).]

Dear friends, Thank you for your replies. Permit me to carry my thoughts a bit further, bearing in mind that I am neither a scientist, nor homeopath.

The other evening I hear a wonderful discussion on a radio show hosted by the noted scientist and author, Dr. Michio Koku. He and his guest were discussing the formation of the universe, with specific reference to the current findings that everything is composed of star dust. If this be the case, then I would take it to mean that the products of this star dust vary in their composition, accounting for differentation. What has this to do with homeopathy? I speculate that the basic state of life is health. Life, even as it wanes, continues to seek homeostatis. Some enjoy a relatively stable life process. These persons, I speculate have an accurate supply of "star dust" or "elements". Those with a more challenged life process, I speculate, have certain deficites of the "star dust" or "elements." To go back to the question, "what has this to do with homeopathy", I would suggest that homeopathy adjusts the inaccuracies with remedies which express vibrational similarities to star dust. Perhaps that is why a homeopathic remedy is more potent than say, a vitamen pill, or an herbal tea. The homeopathic remedy, is an expression, not of like to stimulate the cure of like, but rather, the remedy, is an agent which the body needs to bring it to homeostatis. A side effect of the remedy will be the relief of a particular ill, but more importantly, the consumption of the homeopathic remedy by the system supplies the system with what it needs to function optimumily. Perhaps these thoughts suggest why I would ask if a person is perscribed a remedy because the sypmtoms signified a deficite or a surplus of that particular remedy, and not on the similariety of symptoms,(even though that particular similariety may have been useful in pinpointing the offending deficite).

These are just some wandering thoughts of a novice who would appreciate dialogue. Thanks, Mselle

My working theory of homeopathy is that the remedy is nothing but a very strong message to the nervous system that an imbalance exists in some physiological process. Dilution makes the message clear and simple, and succussion makes it "loud". The body reacts by attending to the process. If no imbalance (or disharmony) really exists, nothing happens. If it is constantly given the same wrong message or a very loud wrong message, it proves the remedy by trying to fix the process, possibly unbalancing it, and manifests new symptoms.
If given the right remedy repeatedly at the same potency (or "volume"), it becomes inured
to it, like ignoring a broken record.
I think you can sometimes correlate particular chemical imbalances with particular remedies made from the chemical but I don't think it comes down to either too-much or too-little. It's a matter of telling the nervous system (or the subconscious mind, if you prefer), "There's something wrong here. Check it out."

Dear JFW, Thank you for your reply. My interpretation of what you have said is that the body does not consume (my word) the remedy, but rather it "reads" the remedy vibrationally and then self-initiates a process utilizing the remedy vibrationally. This process functions in more than one way. Not only does the remedy serve to stimulate healing, but it also generates feedback,(a proving) enabling the system to accept or reject what's happening. In other words, the remedy does not deal with a deficit or surplus of anything. It simply works with what's there. Thanks, Mselle

Mselle, you got my theory right but I would suggest that once the internal process starts, the remedy is no longer part of the story. Based on the general principles that (1) the body is capable of curing all disease all by itself, that (2) Nature is frugal and that (3) communication is most efficient when transferring the minimum amount of information necessary, I tend to think that once the remedy has identified the subsystem that is unbalanced, the body just looks into it and fixes what was wrong, if anything.
I like the use of your term "feedback" to explain provings. That fits very nicely into my information-science perspective.

Dear JFW, Let us now speculate as to how the remedy is affected by this process. The remedy, a vibration of a specific frequency,sets a series of events in motion...and then what? The body reacts, but what happens to the remedy? Does it somehow recycle for future use? Does it change form? Self destruct?
Just some idle speculations on a rainy evening. Best wishes, Mselle

The remedy, like any other form of energy, dissipates into a tiny amount of heat and for all intents and purposes is no longer a remedy. Think of how much energy was invested in preparing it: a material substance is first purified, then diluted and succussed many times. It is labelled and isolated and protected from adulteration. It is selected by the painstaking processes of casetaking and repertizing. It is administered and then it's gone. All that activity is a battle against entropy, which is held at bay but ultimately prevails. The remedy is most vulnerable, I think, at the casetaking and repertizing stage. Imagine the amount of energy the homeopath must invest in opposition to chaos and think of how allopathic medicine has tried to reduce that sort of investment for its practitioners by usurping the authority of the body. Where homeopathy sends a memo to the body, traditional medicine sends the Army Corps of Engineers.
This theorizing is enjoyable but there is an important issue at the heart: the practice of homeopathy requires an entirely different way of thinking than the traditional medicine that I am used to. That is why homeopaths seem to get most annoyed when people use remedies like traditional medicine. I thought I had embraced homeopathy until I started working with a water remedy. The little milk sugar pills actually seem quite substantial and at some level I guess I continued to view them as drugs. But the water remedy challenged this belief system and when I saw the results I had to re-think how I viewed the remedy.