Tell me about cell salts. - Page 50

[Panserbjorne]

Originally Posted by aweynsayl 

treating the acute as it comes up... that's comparable to what we say with FEs, right? the peeling the onion? vs. finding the constitutional and treating with that...... coffee's not working too well this morning for some reason, lol.... but i think that was the thing i wanted to say but couldnt. unearthing deeper layers by treating what comes up as it does.... is a *great* way to figure stuff out.... you're not, though, getting at a "new," "more true," miasm.... but rather getting closer to your ONE??? is that fair to say? (stopped in the middle and made more coffee.... lol.)

might be an issue of semantics....but you never get closer to the miasm (if you're asking me.)  It's always there and it is what it is.  If you're talking about your constitutional, that would be different.  I also think I may have confused the issue here.  Sorry about that.  I don't know how many FE practitioners really do look for the "constitutional."  Because of my love of homeopathy, and because the type remedies are a concept set forth by Bach, it's how I see things.  Not every one would.  I would think it's fair to say that most treat what's in front of them.  The more intuitive they are the deeper they can get in terms of zeroing in the actual issue (vs. how it's presenting) but most aren't looking for "the one."  Most classical homeopaths are.

back to the mundane......any suggestions for cell salts (or something else) to help with a ridiculous tendency to get really nasty ingrown hairs? (in addition to exfoliating. he knows he should and sometimes does but then lapses. i told him i'd ask.....)

agree with both the silica and the vitamin C.
 

[aweynsayl]

ah, no... i was thinking "getting closer to figuring out what your miasm is"-- with the aim being to find your constitutional, once you knew your miasm.

but i get what you're saying.... i think. that you shouldnt have to "peel away" anything in order to find your miasm. 

you might, though, to find your constitutional. is that accurate?

i think what i am pulling apart here is this difference between treating by finding the constitutional (or trying to find the constitutional-- which could involve peeling of layers) vs treating by addressing what's currently presenting (which is also a peeling of layers, in that as one symptom is treated, another presents), but only what is currently presenting. (which, though... ack, wouldnt that ultimately lead to your constitutional anyway??)

what you're saying, though, is that the notion of treating with the constitutional is a classical homeopathy concept, and not necessarily one shared by, say, FE practitioners (or the people who write about them). even though bach explicitly categorized his FEs in a way that leads to constitutionals/types. 

i have a hard time imagining not wanting to find one's constitutional... i can see the value in treating something that's really needing attention, but at the same time, the notion of getting to the core of it is something that i am very drawn to. otherwise, it feels to me, you are just going to have to treat that issue again... and again.... and again.... that's just my take on it, though. 

ok, fine. dh can have *some* of my silica. but just some. ;-)

[Panserbjorne]

Originally Posted by aweynsayl 

ah, no... i was thinking "getting closer to figuring out what your miasm is"-- with the aim being to find your constitutional, once you knew your miasm.

we may be caught in an endless loop here.  lol.  once you analyze the face you know....so there's not getting closer in this system.  there is no try, only do.  tee hee.  it takes around 10 minutes and you know the miasm.   once you know the miasm you have narrowed down the possibilities for the constitutional.

but i get what you're saying.... i think. that you shouldnt have to "peel away" anything in order to find your miasm. 

right.    the only "peeling" you might have to do is if there's a layer which *might* be addressed by the constitutional, but could possibly be better addressed by another remedy entirely.  Either way the idea of the constitutional is a bit controversial in HFA.  Grant wouldn't call your remedy your constitutional.  That said there have been plenty of times where the remedy was doing a great job, but some drainage let it work better.  Or some isopathy.  I personally used lac-e in very low potency to release lithium from my body.  in the long run, my remedy may have done it at some point, but I was fuzzy and didn't want to wait for some day so I used it as an intercurrent.

you might, though, to find your constitutional. is that accurate?

so you might not get it the first time (as in you do the best you can, but it may take a few tries) and that's not really peeling.  That trying and each try gets you closer but it's not necessarily peeling anything back to reveal something that wasn't there before.  Does that make sense?  But often, you may need to do some work before the remedy can work to the best of it's ability and that you *could* call a layer-if there's toxicity, trauma, organ dysfunction etc.  Plenty of remedies, for instance have insufficient thyroid function, but instead of waiting for a "constitutional" to work you might want to go ahead and give thyroidinum in low potency to stimulate the thyroid.  However the remedy you use will still likely have a thyroid component (unless the thyroid was recently and acutely skewed by a medication or something so it's not really part of your picture.)  Even then you could make the case for the similimum wanting a thyroid rubric.

i think what i am pulling apart here is this difference between treating by finding the constitutional (or trying to find the constitutional-- which could involve peeling of layers) vs treating by addressing what's currently presenting (which is also a peeling of layers, in that as one symptom is treated, another presents), but only what is currently presenting. (which, though... ack, wouldnt that ultimately lead to your constitutional anyway??)

it depends on if you're talking cell salts/flowers/remedies.  it also depends on what you think it's supposed to be doing.  In homeopathy, not necessarily.  that would be the hope, and with great skill it's possible, but you can easily treat what's in front of you and never really get to the constitutional.  taking a good case with salts you can be pretty clear.  possibly with flowers too-and generally the "dealing with what's in front of you" is going to get you there with flowers.

what you're saying, though, is that the notion of treating with the constitutional is a classical homeopathy concept, and not necessarily one shared by, say, FE practitioners (or the people who write about them). even though bach explicitly categorized his FEs in a way that leads to constitutionals/types. 

Okay, for all intents and purposes, yes.  that covers it without going into excruciating detail and making everyone's eyes roll back in their heads.

i have a hard time imagining not wanting to find one's constitutional... i can see the value in treating something that's really needing attention, but at the same time, the notion of getting to the core of it is something that i am very drawn to. otherwise, it feels to me, you are just going to have to treat that issue again... and again.... and again.... that's just my take on it, though. 

well, there are those that are more practical prescribers that feel that a constitutional is the holy grail and not worth wasting time on.  Some think it's airy fairy hooey.  There is no "core" so they would not be looking to find the constitutional!  There's also a bunch of  people in between and mostly when you read "constitutional" what they're talking about is the similimum which is a different thing all together (that's what's presenting now) so that can get confusing too.  Again, the biggest downfall in homeopathy is the fact that almost no one agrees on anything!  But I'll be back to be more clear and hopefully in the mean time you'll hear from someone else for another perspective.

To be clear I'm with you.  That said, there is GREAT value in treating what's presenting and many times when it would be irresponsible to try and get to the core.  If you walk into my clinic with a breast infection it would be absurd for me to take do a big intake and look for your "core" issues even though your remedy may well address glandular issues.  Same with a toothache-yes, there may well be a degenerative component there which means that it will happen again if you don't address the core issues...but again.  That's a story for another time.  You address the situation at hand and after that's resolved you take the case.  The issue at hand becomes a part of the history which may or may not show up as a pattern in their lives.

ok, fine. dh can have *some* of my silica. but just some. ;-)

How nice of you to share!

Edited by Panserbjorne - 3/4/11 at 1:58pm

[MyFour]

What a great thread! I've taken lots of notes and my cell salts arrived yesterday. I'm wondering how much of the cal flor and cal phos I should give to my 9 month old who has no teeth yet. I gave her two of each this morning, is that enough?  

Anyone read the Healing Echo by McCabe? I think that is my favorite cell salts book so far with Cell Salt Remedies a close second.

[bluets]

Originally Posted by Panserbjorne 

to rebuild, in this context, would be to reduce the stress (via the correct remedy) so that you weren't working against a stress response.  once that resistance is eliminated, healing can happen.

The only book out there is called Soul and Survival by Grant Bentley.  It was written for people who wanted to understand the basic concepts.  It's fascinating.  There's some stuff online, but it's not great.  I didn't realize the depth of the system until I started working with him.  The book is quite riveting though. 

This is an article on Homeopathic Facial Analysis:

http://www.homeorizon.com/homeopathic-articles/materia-medica/face-reading

and some free seminars:

http://soulandsurvival.org/content/grant-bentley-seminars

I have found it to be extremely useful and Grant was probably one of my best, if not the best teacher I had for homeopathy.  I worked several cases alongside him and was always delighted to see the concepts play out, as they continue to in my practice.

what a fun way to procrastinate!  "You are brown"

I guess I have to watch some movies or buy the book now, eh?

#51 on my list of things to try to remember to discuss with mentor.  it keeps getting longer because i keep forgetting to ask :/

[FireWithin]

I'm loving the theoretical discussion.

How common is it to have family members be the same color?  The boys and I are all red, which really resonates with me, although I do believe that DS2 was on the cusp of another color?  I am currently giving baby girl silica.  I am not convinced that it is her constitutional and am not fretting about it because I do believe that it is helping her, especially move past food reactions.  If it is her constitutional, that would mean she is brown, but she looks so much like DS1 who looks a lot like me. 

I am surprised that people refer to both similimum and constitutionals as constitutionals.  It can be confusing to us lay people but also deceptive.  Maybe it is because people have different opinions of what a constitutional is?

[Panserbjorne]

Originally Posted by FireWithin 

I'm loving the theoretical discussion.

How common is it to have family members be the same color?  The boys and I are all red, which really resonates with me, although I do believe that DS2 was on the cusp of another color?  I am currently giving baby girl silica.  I am not convinced that it is her constitutional and am not fretting about it because I do believe that it is helping her, especially move past food reactions.  If it is her constitutional, that would mean she is brown, but she looks so much like DS1 who looks a lot like me. 

it's common to have overlaps.  I'm green, I have two purple kids (lord help me) and one that is green.  Dh is green.  My mother is brown and my father is orange.  I have three siblings, 2 blue and 1 green.  LOL.  How's that?

I am surprised that people refer to both similimum and constitutionals as constitutionals.  It can be confusing to us lay people but also deceptive.  Maybe it is because people have different opinions of what a constitutional is?

I think it's just to make it easier to communicate?  Most people have a hard enough time with the concept of constitutionals let alone similimums.  Also, I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of homeopaths are prescribing similimums rather than constitutionals-again...depending on how you define them.  By my training (through Bentley, Murphy, Abel and others) the constitution doesn't change.  So that would mean the remedy wouldn't either.  Once you find it.  However I know mine and I still will use acutes, intercurrents if something has come up etc.

Again...this is my perspective and not necessarily held by others!  And FW-in this instance your little may need a different remedy to address her picture but remain a silica in terms of salts.  My salt affinity is not quite the same as my remedy-but they're close.  So here we have the lingo issue again and I'm just as guilty!  My remedy that I take homeopathically isn't truly a constitutional-I really do believe that the salts are the constitutionals.  However it is my remedy and I'll go out on a limb and say it's likely to always be.
 

[Panserbjorne]

Originally Posted by MyFour 

What a great thread! I've taken lots of notes and my cell salts arrived yesterday. I'm wondering how much of the cal flor and cal phos I should give to my 9 month old who has no teeth yet. I gave her two of each this morning, is that enough?  

Anyone read the Healing Echo by McCabe? I think that is my favorite cell salts book so far with Cell Salt Remedies a close second.

I have McCabe's book.  I like him.  I've listened to him speak and think he's got an approachable style.  It's a good book, but not terribly straightforward IMO!  However I do still like it.  It's another one that I haven't gotten great feedback about so I don't really recommend it.

For a babe that age if she's having no symptoms then that's probably enough.  If she's uncomfortable that's another story.

[aweynsayl]

(glad i'm not, after all, driving everyone away with this.... lol!)

<<eta AGAIN-- ok, reply to new bits below this post :-) ............>>>

Originally Posted by Panserbjorne 

ah, no... i was thinking "getting closer to figuring out what your miasm is"-- with the aim being to find your constitutional, once you knew your miasm.

we may be caught in an endless loop here.  lol.  once you analyze the face you know....so there's not getting closer in this system.  there is no try, only do.  tee hee.  it takes around 10 minutes and you know the miasm.   once you know the miasm you have narrowed down the possibilities for the constitutional.

ha! yes, right-- exactly! if you do facial... i was thinking if one was doing it otherwise... ie. with remedies. to treat with a remedy in order to find the "next" miasm. again, that's one thing i was reading. i'm getting there are loads of ways of doing it, so it helps to talk about them to figure it out.... 

but i get what you're saying.... i think. that you shouldnt have to "peel away" anything in order to find your miasm. 

right.    the only "peeling" you might have to do is if there's an actual trauma layer which *might* be addressed by the constitutional, but could possibly be better addressed by another remedy entirely.

ok, that makes loads of sense. ahhh. 

you might, though, to find your constitutional. is that accurate?

so you might not get it the first time (as in you do the best you can, but it may take a few tries) and that's not really peeling.  That trying and each try gets you closer but it's not necessarily peeling anything back to reveal something that wasn't there before.  Does that make sense?  But often, you may need to do some work before the constitutional can work to the best of it's ability and that you could call a layer.

 ok, that is infinitely simpler than what i was trying to wrap my head around. this notion of peeling to reveal something totally new was really bugging me. working to clear something to enable better healing i get. (although now i'm re-questioning myself on that.... "blockage" vs. totally new layer? is that a substantive difference? is my blockage/layer-that-needs-clearing likely to be something that makes sense-- given, shall we say, my miasm (not, note, "constitutional"-- see, i'm getting it....). THAT would make even more sense, *i think.* i need an example here...... augh. someone who is a brown miasm is not likely to have a red or blue, say, "issue"... that is blocking their way to finding their constitutional remedy, right? it's going to be something that makes sense. (using FEs for a sec.... and i apologize that this is happening in the cell salts thread! gak!) as a centaury, it would make total and utter sense if i'd had a desperate need for olive before centaury would start to work its best on me. or even, as a silica c.s., it would make sense that i would need extra bioplasma as i'm building myself up..... either of those work? or am i confusing the issue again?)

i think what i am pulling apart here is this difference between treating by finding the constitutional (or trying to find the constitutional-- which could involve peeling of layers) vs treating by addressing what's currently presenting (which is also a peeling of layers, in that as one symptom is treated, another presents), but only what is currently presenting. (which, though... ack, wouldnt that ultimately lead to your constitutional anyway??)

it depends on if you're talking cell salts/flowers/remedies.  it also depends on what you think it's supposed to be doing.

lol. ok. fair enough. mainly i'm talking purely theoretically, trying to work out what the general paradigms are. in either case, though, i would sort of assume the general gist would be to find ones path to health and wellbeing. in one case, by finding the "one" treatment that should build the overall strength of the person, in the other, by simply clearing away the acutes as they present.................????

what you're saying, though, is that the notion of treating with the constitutional is a classical homeopathy concept, and not necessarily one shared by, say, FE practitioners (or the people who write about them). even though bach explicitly categorized his FEs in a way that leads to constitutionals/types. 

sort of....I'll come back to this.  I have to get my kids!

i love sort of.... cant wait! :-)

i have a hard time imagining not wanting to find one's constitutional... i can see the value in treating something that's really needing attention, but at the same time, the notion of getting to the core of it is something that i am very drawn to. otherwise, it feels to me, you are just going to have to treat that issue again... and again.... and again.... that's just my take on it, though. 

well, there are those that are more practical prescribers that feel that a constitutional is the holy grail and not worth wasting time on.  Some think it's airy fairy hooey.  There is no "core" so they would not be looking to find the constitutional!  There's also a bunch of  people in between and mostly when you read "constitutional" what they're talking about is the similimum which is a different thing all together (that's what's presenting now) so that can get confusing too.  Again, the biggest downfall in homeopathy is the fact that almost no one agrees on anything!  But I'll be back to be more clear and hopefully in the mean time you'll hear from someone else for another perspective.

ahh. yes. i should have known this. ok. (and, <whimper> no one should use those terms interchangeably. grumble.) THAT makes a lot of what had me scratching my head click. (also clicking on a nerdier level, comparative to my egghead studies of the past-- "there is no core"="there is no context"..... oh, boy. start throwing things now.)

How nice of you to share!

Edited by aweynsayl - 3/4/11 at 2:41pm

[aweynsayl]

ok, read thru your new bits, and other replies..... now..... what i think you're saying now is almost that cell salts are more truly constitutionals than homeopathics(remedies). is that fair? 

the part about taking things to help things happen faster makes oodles of sense, as does the part about addressing the infection/immediate problem first, then delving deeper. i think my issue would be with someone who would never want to go there, but just happily keep treating things as they present acutely. although my dark and cynical side is saying-- but how else do you keep people coming back for more? i dont want to draw comps to big pharm, but if you give someone a treatment, you get to keep treating them. if you cure them, you dont.............. kwim? not that i'm saying that's the same thing as not trying to find the "constitutional".... but it has a slight tinge of the same flavor to it to me. 

[Panserbjorne]

before I jump back in...I edited my original post so you can see if that helps.  if not we can keep chatting.  One of the reasons this is a challenging conversation is that I'm trying to answer as generally as possible to include as many perspectives as I can.  The reality is there is no "standard of practice" with homeopathy or naturopathy so there are many different ways of approaching things.  What's true for me right now, may not be embraced by someone else.  And, since you're reading a lot on your own there are conflicting ideas here...what you're reading doesn't necessarily fit my paradigm and vice versa.  I've done the training so I can answer from another perspective, but it's not necessarily what I believe which is why it feels like we're down a rabbit hole.

I'll pull a few things right now:

ok, that is infinitely simpler than what i was trying to wrap my head around. this notion of peeling to reveal something totally new was really bugging me. working to clear something to enable better healing i get. (although now i'm re-questioning myself on that.... "blockage" vs. totally new layer?

I'm just going to answer as me.  there is no layer in this instance.  let's say there are maintaining causes-things that need to be dealt with for a remedy to work-and they can sometimes (not always) be addressed with energy medicine.

is that a substantive difference? is my blockage/layer-that-needs-clearing likely to be something that makes sense-- given, shall we say, my miasm (not, note, "constitutional"-- see, i'm getting it....). THAT would make even more sense, *i think.* i need an example here...... augh. someone who is a brown miasm is not likely to have a red or blue, say, "issue"... that is blocking their way to finding their constitutional remedy, right?

while there are themes there are no "brown" issues so to speak.  you can have a history of assault in any color but the response would likely be different.  same with symptoms.  you can't ascribe a pathology to a miasm across the board.  we can get into this later if you like.

it's going to be something that makes sense. (using FEs for a sec.... and i apologize that this is happening in the cell salts thread! gak!) as a centaury, it would make total and utter sense if i'd had a desperate need for olive before centaury would start to work its best on me. or even, as a silica c.s., it would make sense that i would need extra bioplasma as i'm building myself up..... either of those work? or am i confusing the issue again?)

that works, yes.  the tough part is that homeopathy is a totally different animal all together.

i think what i am pulling apart here is this difference between treating by finding the constitutional (or trying to find the constitutional-- which could involve peeling of layers) vs treating by addressing what's currently presenting (which is also a peeling of layers, in that as one symptom is treated, another presents), but only what is currently presenting. (which, though... ack, wouldnt that ultimately lead to your constitutional anyway??)

I may have answered this in my edit above for you.  let me know.

lol. ok. fair enough. mainly i'm talking purely theoretically, trying to work out what the general paradigms are. in either case, though, i would sort of assume the general gist would be to find ones path to health and wellbeing. in one case, by finding the "one" treatment that should build the overall strength of the person, in the other, by simply clearing away the acutes as they present.................????

okay-not to be argumentative and I do know what you're saying here, but I don't believe there is ONE treatment that builds the overall strength of the person.  I think as multidimensional beings we need a multifaceted approach.  Just so anyone reading doesn't think I think homeopathy can be a stand alone modality.  I don't think that.  and in treating what's in front of you a pattern emerges.  that's what you look for as you're working that way with an eye on strengthening the person.  the issue here for me in this thread is that homeopathy can't really be simplified in that way because it is, by nature, so complex. 

[MyFour]

Thanks for answering, for clarification, I'm trying to get her teeth to grow in, we have a history of delayed dentition here LOL. 
 

Originally Posted by Panserbjorne 

I have McCabe's book.  I like him.  I've listened to him speak and think he's got an approachable style.  It's a good book, but not terribly straightforward IMO!  However I do still like it.  It's another one that I haven't gotten great feedback about so I don't really recommend it.

For a babe that age if she's having no symptoms then that's probably enough.  If she's uncomfortable that's another story.

[Panserbjorne]

Originally Posted by aweynsayl 

ok, read thru your new bits, and other replies..... now..... what i think you're saying now is almost that cell salts are more truly constitutionals than homeopathics(remedies). is that fair? 

yes, but call up 100 homeopaths and you may not find one that agrees.  for full disclosure.

the part about taking things to help things happen faster makes oodles of sense, as does the part about addressing the infection/immediate problem first, then delving deeper. i think my issue would be with someone who would never want to go there, but just happily keep treating things as they present acutely. although my dark and cynical side is saying-- but how else do you keep people coming back for more? i dont want to draw comps to big pharm, but if you give someone a treatment, you get to keep treating them. if you cure them, you dont.............. kwim? not that i'm saying that's the same thing as not trying to find the "constitutional".... but it has a slight tinge of the same flavor to it to me. 

I do know what you are saying...but you have to realize that homeopathy was started by an MD who, for much of his career and many of his writings was treating epidemics, diseases, acute illnesses etc.  He knew the soul was a part of the picture, but it wasn't taking center stage.  it was later in life that miasms were even mentioned and then he was essentially tossed out on his tail.  he really sacrificed his reputation with this theory.  AND it wasn't even HIM that came up with the idea of a constitutional remedy!  That was our friend Kent.  So now you see that there is a divide between classical Kentian homeopathy and Hahnemannian homeopathy.  That's two of many.  People with a practical or medical perspective are only there to treat what's in front of them (as Hahnemann himself did) and alleviate suffering using the minimal dose of a substance in a safe and effective way.  He was practicing medicine, just without poison, painful procedures and the like.  Still, he helped those that were sick as many homeopaths still do today.  Not all have the spiritual leanings.  Not all believe that there IS a core to look for.  BUT they still help people and allow them to heal with no side effects, stronger for what they've been through.  So even treating acutes you kind of are building people up.  I know what you're saying, but I don't agree and I'm trying to get you to agree with me either.  Just offering my perspective.

I have plenty of people I see that want practical homeopathy.  They don't want to "go deep."  They themselves may not believe it, may not be ready to do it, or whatever.  I don't turn them away even though I've seen them for years every time they get sick.  They come when they have the flu, have an ear infection, have food poisoning.  They have a half hour appointment and go on their merry way with the remedy.  It works, so they come back and they refer their sister with gall stones, or crohn's disease or whatever who comes for the same reasons.  They're made aware of my services, but they may not want to employ me in that way.  When I don't demand that they do, does that mean I want them to come back sick every few months?  Not at all!  Do I gently suggest that it might be in their best interest every so often to do an intake?  Yes.  But they are not compelled to do so.  Plenty of practitioners would say that I shouldn't work with them if they're not willing to start that way.  I figure if I can help with dandruff, bronchitis, acne etc. then they're going to be far more likely to consider deeper work because even though there's a ton of people that say homeopathy doesn't work, they've experienced that it did.

So, that's another perspective!  Sometimes it's not that the homeopath isn't offering, it's that the patient doesn't choose that particular journey.  They have other reasons for wanting to use homeopathy.

[Panserbjorne]

the part about taking things to help things happen faster makes oodles of sense, as does the part about addressing the infection/immediate problem first, then delving deeper. i think my issue would be with someone who would never want to go there, but just happily keep treating things as they present acutely. although my dark and cynical side is saying-- but how else do you keep people coming back for more? i dont want to draw comps to big pharm, but if you give someone a treatment, you get to keep treating them. if you cure them, you dont.............. kwim? not that i'm saying that's the same thing as not trying to find the "constitutional".... but it has a slight tinge of the same flavor to it to me.

I do know what you are saying...but you have to realize that homeopathy was started by an MD who, for much of his career and many of his writings was treating epidemics, diseases, acute illnesses etc.  He knew the soul was a part of the picture, but it wasn't taking center stage.  it was later in life that miasms were even mentioned and then he was essentially tossed out on his tail.  he really sacrificed his reputation with this theory.  AND it wasn't even HIM that came up with the idea of a constitutional remedy!  That was our friend Kent.  So now you see that there is a divide between classical Kentian homeopathy and Hahnemannian homeopathy.  That's two of many.  People with a practical or medical perspective are only there to treat what's in front of them (as Hahnemann himself did) and alleviate suffering using the minimal dose of a substance in a safe and effective way.  He was practicing medicine, just without poison, painful procedures and the like.  Still, he helped those that were sick as many homeopaths still do today.  Not all have the spiritual leanings.  Not all believe that there IS a core to look for.  BUT they still help people and allow them to heal with no side effects, stronger for what they've been through.  So even treating acutes you kind of are building people up.  I know what you're saying, but I don't agree and I'm trying to get you to agree with me either.  Just offering my perspective.

I have plenty of people I see that want practical homeopathy.  They don't want to "go deep."  They themselves may not believe it, may not be ready to do it, or whatever.  I don't turn them away even though I've seen them for years every time they get sick.  They come when they have the flu, have an ear infection, have food poisoning.  They have a half hour appointment and go on their merry way with the remedy.  It works, so they come back and they refer their sister with gall stones, or crohn's disease or whatever who comes for the same reasons.  They're made aware of my services, but they may not want to employ me in that way.  When I don't demand that they do, does that mean I want them to come back sick every few months?  Not at all!  Do I gently suggest that it might be in their best interest every so often to do an intake?  Yes.  But they are not compelled to do so.  Plenty of practitioners would say that I shouldn't work with them if they're not willing to start that way.  I figure if I can help with dandruff, bronchitis, acne etc. then they're going to be far more likely to consider deeper work because even though there's a ton of people that say homeopathy doesn't work, they've experienced that it did.

So, that's another perspective!  Sometimes it's not that the homeopath isn't offering, it's that the patient doesn't choose that particular journey.  They have other reasons for wanting to use homeopathy.  And the reality is that there is a great deal of education that can happen in a session, and if you've seen me for a sinus infection and the remedy did a great job, the next time you get that same infection you can always try the remedy that worked before and often that does the trick!  Because homeopathy is so safe anyone is more than welcome to manage things at home and call if they get stuck.  You're not going to hurt yourself (other than delaying treatment) by trying ferrum phos 30c if you have a fever.  There are plenty of books out there to help and for acutes most people can do a great job on their own.

[tanyalynn]

This is fascinating.  The miasm discussions, long ago, were the ones that sparked my interest in homeopathy--knowing that there's an underlying order helps.

So because I need things very straightforward, this is from the article...

outward: psoric .... yellow
inward: syphilic ... blue
circular: sycotic ... red
equal outward-inward mix: tubercular ... green
equal circular-outward mix: syco-psora ... orange
equal circular-inward mix: syco-syphilic ... purple
equal outward-inward-circular mix: cancer ... brown

If anyone knows all the archetypes that go with each, that'd be super cool to helping see all this.

And I've got a question from above... wouldn't a psoric person be more likely to have, say, skin issues than someone else?  Not as an absolute thing, but as a trend?  Or if not, why?  Wouldn't an outward way of dealing with stressors lend itself to more skin issues?  Not as the only thing, but generally? 

I may want to spend a bit of time with pics of the kids and DH and see if I can make anything make sense with the facial recognizer program. 

And clearly I don't understand the inheritance stuff enough, because 2 green parents having purple kids seems confusing.

[Panserbjorne]

Originally Posted by tanyalynn 

This is fascinating.  The miasm discussions, long ago, were the ones that sparked my interest in homeopathy--knowing that there's an underlying order helps.

So because I need things very straightforward, this is from the article...

outward: psoric .... yellow trader
inward: syphilic ... blue shepherd
circular: sycotic ... red farmer
equal outward-inward mix: tubercular ... green hunter
equal circular-outward mix: syco-psora ... orange warrior
equal circular-inward mix: syco-syphilic ... purple priest/priestess
equal outward-inward-circular mix: cancer ... brown craftsman

If anyone knows all the archetypes that go with each, that'd be super cool to helping see all this.

And I've got a question from above... wouldn't a psoric person be more likely to have, say, skin issues than someone else?  Not as an absolute thing, but as a trend?  Or if not, why?  Wouldn't an outward way of dealing with stressors lend itself to more skin issues?  Not as the only thing, but generally? 

yes and no.  it's yellow that pushes things out, but orange, green and brown all have yellow.  and it depends on the "skin" thing.  red which encapsulates or traps will be the root color when one presents with warts...but again....red, orange, purple, brown. 

I may want to spend a bit of time with pics of the kids and DH and see if I can make anything make sense with the facial recognizer program. 

And clearly I don't understand the inheritance stuff enough, because 2 green parents having purple kids seems confusing.

miasms are things that can be inherited OR acquired.  The mother's state in pregnancy (at the time of conception) is largely responsible for the dominant directions of energy.  Plus, we all have every color.  I am dominant in green and yellow...but have 5 red features.  Dominance does not prevent the existance or ability to pass something down.
 

[bluets]

Originally Posted by Panserbjorne 

So, that's another perspective!  Sometimes it's not that the homeopath isn't offering, it's that the patient doesn't choose that particular journey.  They have other reasons for wanting to use homeopathy.

that's the situation where my mentor keeps stressing that we must recognize the patient's starting point and respect it. i'm blanking on his exact phraseology but, unlike my choice of words, his is rather eloquent.

[Panserbjorne]

yup.  we all have our own paths to walk.  even if I think I can see it, it's not my job to rush them along, or demand that they walk it.  and sometimes they want an alternate path altogether.  then it's just my job to carry a gps and figure out a new route.

[sunnysandiegan]

Wow, I was gone all day and look what I missed! :) Fascinating discussion, ladies! I have another week and a half-to-two weeks to go in this intense volunteer job. Then, I will have a little breathing room to read and explore more of the cell salts and flower essences links and concepts being discussed lately.

In general, I "get" the conversation above about treating what's in front of you having value in and of itself. For me, I usually am very willing to go deeper.

I know a LOT of people who are not, though. It boggles my mind and I often wonder how I would handle that as a practitioner of any sort. I am so through and through a vervain person! I can be so intense in an excited and enthusiastic way. Most people find it endearing and refreshing. Some, however, definitely balk at any of that. I have a very hard time leaving them alone with things they talk to me about and express an interest in learning more about. I just naturally want to help them and do research on my own and present it nicely or only when it comes up, etc. I'm not "pushy" under most circumstances. I do feel great frustration with people who complain a lot about the same thing and never do anything to help the situation...not one single thing. Oh, I want to shake them and say, "Stop whining and DO something! ANY-thing!!!" How do you practitioners handle those types????

Back to cell salts...LOL... So, I have two minor "acute" issues presenting at the moment and I don't have a clue what to do about them.

1) I can feel congestion and "stuff" swirling around inside my body... It feels like it is moving, but slowly... I don't feel sick or anything strong. It is subtle, but most definitely THERE. My eyes feel goopy inside (nothing external). I have more saliva than is needed and a bit of post-nasal drip. My upper jaw aches. The area behind my eyebrows is tight. The space between my shoulder blades feels the same slight tension. A slight cough once in awhile.

2) My right leg aches. Only that leg and pretty much all over, but particularly the ankle, shin, knee, and hip. I did yoga this morning and I walk daily. I alternate movement with rest.  Neither ice nor heat make it feel better. Nothing is helping to relieve the ache.

I call these "acute" because they are right now and the most pressing health issues I have right at this moment. However, these two issues present themselves OFTEN in varying degrees of discomfort. They are deeper than surface level issues for me and it just so happens nothing more immediate or intense is sidetracking me from them in this moment. I am curious what anyone would recommend I take (cell salts or otherwise), but mostly I am interested to hear HOW various people would go about figuring it out.

[MyFour]

Bumping this, would 2 cal flur and 2 phos per day be sufficient for delayed dentition in 9 month old?
 

Originally Posted by MyFour 

Thanks for answering, for clarification, I'm trying to get her teeth to grow in, we have a history of delayed dentition here LOL.