Materia Medica of the most well-known polycrests

The first and second volumes are forthcoming, currently only in English.
Due to space and printing constraints, we have chosen to devote a large and detailed section to differential diagnoses, discussing remedies which, in my clinical experience, can be confused with the polychrest in question. It is undeniable that the 50 remedies in our repertory for the highest number of symptoms, the so-called polychrests, have made the history of Homeopathic Medicine. Many patients around the world have been treated and cured with these remedies and continue to demonstrate their effectiveness after more than 200 years. Every homeopath should remember them every morning and sacrifice their cockerels to Aesculapius.
Nevertheless, I consider it highly questionable to assert that Homeopathic Medicine is based on respect for the individuality of the patient, their specific way of suffering and falling ill, limiting the range of possible manifestations to less than fifty remedies. Beyond the obvious contradiction in terms, since the beginning of my profession, the facts have shown me the opposite. Many highly respected teachers of the past have dedicated their lives to compiling clinical medical books, the fruit of their real and very personal experience, reporting well over fifty so-called polycrests.
The concept of similarity is certainly relative: it can be applied with broad and superficial perspectives or, when the homeopath’s time and knowledge allow, it can be very accurate and specific.
My reference model of homeopathic medicine, like that of many classical homeopaths who preceded me and others of my generation, seeks a so-called “constitutional remedy”: the one that most closely approximates the way the patient functions as a whole, over a broad time frame. This concept of “simillimum” is very different from the so-called onion model or those concerned with the patient’s current state at that moment.
In most cases, what is described, imagined, recounted or taught about polycrests does not go beyond a kind of large container, or umbrella, which paints a very general picture of how we function, not only typical of homo sapiens. It is a sort of caricature, a homeopathic stereotype, which certainly stimulates the resilience of a system. When that system needs more precise information, problems begin, hence the need for a good differential diagnosis.
In these five volumes, we have chosen not to publish a clinical case for each remedy in order to focus more on those that, in my experience, can easily be confused with that polycrest.