Causal Medicine and homoeopathy. (2 of 2)

Part 1 https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/causal-medicine-and-homoeopathy/

We left off in the preceding post after bringing up the subject of Miasms. The intention is that students of Homoeopathy obtain accurate understanding of Hahnemanns words and meaning, so as to be confident practitioners in the therapy.

Let us begin by giving you facts to consider.

Hahnemann published a pamphlet in 1831 regarding what he then thought to be the mode of propagation of the Asiatic Cholera (see Lesser Writings, page 753 Pages may vary in different printings.) In this work he used such expressions as “excessively minute invisible living creatures so inimical to human life of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consist. The physicians and nurses take away with them in their clothes in their hair, probably also in their breath, the invisible [probably animated) contagious matter surrounding the cholera patient”.

you cannot take Hahnemann’s conjecture resting on probabilities in 1831 to be his real conviction or his assumed foreknowledge of modern Bacilli to be the cause or spreading agent of cholera. Evidence shows that Hahnemann never repeated or confirmed by his subsequent writing up to 1843,  (the time of his death) what he had tentatively  written in 1831.

Hahnemann eschewed the materialism of his time and promulgated that it is the vital force, (Life Principle, Immune system) the immaterial, invisible force which keeps man alive, happy and prosperous in health to realise the higher purposes of his existence. but when deranged by the dynamic influence of morbific agents inimical to life, it produces disagreeable sensations in the organism and bends it to irregular processes which the physician can ascertain symptoms to render aid.

These disagreeable sensations etc. occur during an overpowering attack of immaterial miasm (infection) on the immaterial vital force on the invisible immaterial plane.

For infection takes place by affection of the Vital Force (Life Principle, Immune System) with immaterial, invisible, miasmatic (infectious) influences which lead ultimately to material changes, where you find Bacteria, Bacilli etc in the human economy.

The meaning of the dynamic influence has been clearly explained byHahnemann in the foot-note of aphorism 11 (6th edition Organon). There he writes, “The dynamic effect of the sick making influences upon healthy man as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the vital principle in the restoration of health, is nothing else than infection and so not in anyway material, nor in any way mechanical, just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material or mechanical. It is purely specific, conceptual influence that communicates to a near child, small-pox or measles in the same way as a magnet communicates to the near needle, the magnetic Property . Again, if one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this antiperistaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination ?”

Thus we see, Hahnemann speaks of vital force, disease producing force and medicinal force—all these are invisible, immaterial, conceptual and spirit-like forces.

To drag him down to the material plane of Bacteriology, is an error which every thinking rational Homceopath should avoid religiously. To inaugurate the bacteria theory and infuse it into the minds of innocent students instead of susceptibility or vital weakness as cause of disease (as said by Hahnemann) is simply to axe out Hahnemannian Homceopathy.

Hahnemann’s statement from his Lesser Writings published in 1831 regarding the spread of Cholera occurring on board the ships in the river Ganges in India.

He is reported to have said: “In the confined spaces, filled with mouldy, watery vapours the cholera miasm finds a favourite element for its multiplication and grows [Please note here, the real meaning of The invisible cholera miasm” gradually developing into material form from internal, invisible, immaterial state
(as is natural in every infection) into an enormously increased brood of these excessively minute, invisible living creatures so inimical to life of which the contagious matter of cholera most probably consists. The cause of this is undoubtedly the invisible cloud that hovers closely around the sailors who have remained free from the disease composed of probably millions of the miasmatic (Means—developed from miasm, or resultant disease from an infection) animated beings which at first developed on the broad marshy banks of the tepid Ganges always searching out in preference the human being to his destruction. This pestiferous, infectious matter as he calls it, “which is carried about in the clothes, hair, beards, soiled hands, instruments of physicians, nurses and others seems to spread the infection and cause epidemics. “

Hahnemann never saw or admitted any material cause, Bacteria or Bacilli, as is clearly apparent from quotations from his subsequent writings in the Organon without any doubt 0r probability as shown above.  Here, I should again draw the attention to the fact that this statement in the Lesser Writings naturally of lesser importance and authenticity was never referred to by Hahnemann in his future writings.

It was made, without actually seeing a case of cholera, without visiting India, without having a glimpse of the Ganges, without feeling the temperatures of the waters of the Ganges so pleasant and something more than pleasingly cool (Hahnemann described it as tepid) without having the good fortune of knowing the wonderful antiseptic properties of the cold stream which comes down from the Himalayas. But Hahnemann describes it as tepid for want of actual experience. Another wonderful feature of the statement is that it is qualified by the words “Seems”, “Probably”, “Most probably” as stated above. To make a passing remark without actually seeing a disease or anything connected with it, is one affair and solid opinion formed after close observation and handling it, is certainly essentially different. The theoretical assumptions are liable to be falsified by cool thinking, practical and repeated observations or experience extending over a length of time. Maybe the reality is that Hahnemann was passing through a doubtful state of mind but he never settled into a solid opinion as it appears from later writings.

But correctly speaking his assumption is due to misinterpretation.

In the preface of the the sixth edition of the Organon published in 1843 Hahnemann says: “It can easily convince every reflecting person that the diseases of man are not caused by any substance, any acridity, that is to say disease matter but they are solely spirit-like (dynamic) derangements of the spirit-like power [vital principle) that animates the human body (Aph 11.).

Here, please notice, there is no word “probably” etc. in the assertion of Hahnemann. This was written in 1833 and published in 1843, that is, at least two years if not ten years after Hahnemann’s observation regarding the probable affection and spread of Cholera published in 1831.

In the 11th para of Organon Hahnemann says—“When a person falls ill it is only the spiritual self-acting (automatic) vital force everywhere present in the organism that is primarily deranged by the dynamic influence of morbific agent inimical to life, it is the vital principle deranged to such an abnormal state that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations and incline it to irregular processes which we call disease.”

Again in the 12th para he repeats the same thing “it is morbidly affected vital forces alone that produces the disease.”

In a foot-note to the 12th para Hahnemann says “How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is how it produces disease, it would be of no utility to physician to know.”

This remark was made by Hahnemann here only because he had bitter experience in trying to explain how cholera spreads or affects persons with a probable, i.e., doubtful theory.

Now what was the bitter experience he had? It was the challenge by Dr. Hufeland, of his theory of the “Probable” cause of the spread of cholera. quoting from the Lesser Writings of Hahnemann,. At para 758 Hahnemann says:—

The Only fact brought forward by Hufeland against my proofs that on board an English Ship in the open sea about the latitude of Riga that had no communication (?)with the town two sailors were suddenly seized with the cholera, proves nothing, for it is not known how near the ship came to the infected town of Riga so that the sphere of miasm exhalation from the town although diluted might yet have reached and infected the sailors who were still unused to the miasm (infecting agent) especially if they as is often the case were rendered more susceptible to it from intemperance.”

Here Hahnemann being cornered by Hufeland has been compelled to admit that sailors on board the ship near Riga were attacked with cholera not from infectious matter washed out from the town, a far-fetched idea, but was attacked with the miasm (infecting agent) of cholera being susceptible to it from the lowered vitality or vital weakness due to their intemperance, etc. Now everybody with common sense is bound to admit that sailors on board the ship in the Ganges were also affected with cholera, from the same cause of lowered vitality caused by intemperance, etc. The dismal unhealthy condition which helped the growth of cholera miasm (infecting agent) certainly lowered the vitality of sailors also on the Ganges. Of course, the bad odour, mouldy atmosphere, etc., added fuel to the fire in spreading the disease. So the meteoric or telluric influences causing sporadic or epidemic attacks of Acute diseases cannot be thrown overboard with bad logic or fallacious arguments. What Hahnemann had published in 1843 in Organon must have greater authenticity than what he gave out in his Lesser Writings.

The most striking example of infection and rapid spread of cholera as is well-known and as the journals inform us in this way:

“On board ships in the confined spaces filled with watery vapours the cholera miasm (infecting agent)  finds a favourable element for its Multiplication, etc.”

If the sailors on the sea near Riga are liable to attack of cholera without any actual contact due to intemperance lowering the power of vital force to resist the disease miasm (infecting agent) the sailors on board the ship near the shore of the Ganges living under same unhealthy condition and character had their vitality lowered by intemperance. The same causes have been expressed in paragraph 73 of the Organon of epidemic diseases which prevail among thickly congregated masses of human beings. That calamities of war, inundations and famine also produce Acute diseases by lowering the strength of the vital force and thereby developing susceptibility to diseases when innumerable persons gather together and live under unhealthy conditions and privations, is readily understandable.

Hahnemann says:—
Morbific noxious agents do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently susceptible to the attack of the morbific cause—(Organon aph 31).

The truth is unless the vital force is weak and susceptible, no acute or chronic miasm can ever affect the vital force.

To clarify further.

The second edition of Hahnemann’s “Chronic Diseases” was published by parts between 1835 and 1838. In that edition Hahnemann retained those passages in the body of his book, which refer to “the parasitic existence” of Chronic miasms (vide p. 9, para 2, Chronic Disease, Second Edition 1835) and not merely the very suggestive foot-notes In the sixth edition of Organon (the manuscript of which he was supposed to have completed in 1843 or in February1842, according to Haehl) in a foot-note to sec. 80 he refers the readers to the above-mentioned 2nd edition of “Chronic Disease”.

This shows that what he conceived of the nature of miasms was maintained by him till his death. During the Cholera Epidemic years of 1831 and 1832 Hahnemann was a resolute, clear thinking man of seventy-six. So his writings during this period came out of a mature brain and were not of “lesser” importance just because his scattered articles were collected and published in a book form by Dr. Dudgeon under the name “Lesser Writings”.

Dr. Dudgeon, for instance, charged Hahnemann with “frequent changes and repetition of the same thing, etc.” He certainly failed to reckon the necessities for introduction of a perplexing new thing in questions of life and death. Others with more profound knowledge found in Hahnemann’s huge writings which they mostly misunderstood unwarranted presumption, dogmatic assertion, obscure conception, undue generalisation, incomplete formulations and arguments in a vicious circle.

We point out that Hahnemann was a cautious scientist. How could he write otherwise in absence of positive visual observation? But his intuition and clear logic led him to hint about the invisible living beings which had something to do with incidence and spread of the Cholera disease in an epidemic form. Here a bit of medical history will clarify the situation. Long before Hahnemann’s birth the microscope was invented. The researches of Kircher, Malphigii, Leewenhoek, Hooker etc. (during 1626-1651) established the existence of microbes. But till Hahnemann’s time it was not definitely known whether pathogenic micro-organisms did exist or in the event of their existence whether they had any causal relation with the human organism in the production of diseases. The idea of infection by micro-organisms was also hinted at by G. Fracastoro when he published his book “De Contagione” in 1546 after the great plague epidemic in Europe. Hahnemann was a scholar and a voracious reader. He must have known about Fracastoro’s writings. During the Cholera epidemic the people and medical men were confronted with the same problems of checking the spread of the disease as during the previousplague period. Though Hahnemann, in the beginning was against all classification and nomenclature of diseases, the epidemic diseases where many persons were simultaneously attacked with a very similar type of disease set him thinking deeply and led him to conclude about the existence of “fixed miasms”—proofs of which are before our eyes in his writings of Sec. 73 (Organon, 6th Ed.).  Hahnemann came to fix the nature of these “fixed miasms” as living micro-organisms. He wrote four letters concerning Cholera during June to October in 1831—where he not only gave clear hints about the nature of the causative agents, their mode of transmission, their curative treatment but also about the preventive steps to be taken to check the spread of that terrible disease. He wrote about sterilising the infected clothes with a heat of about 80°C; and certainly Hahnemann did not think of sterilising “immaterial, conceptual, spirit-like dynamic forces” with heat (Haehl’s Biography of Hahnemann).

The then medical profession including the great Dr. Hufeland stood for the atmospheric-telluric theory for the cholera epidemic and decried the preventive measures suggested byHahnemann. It was Hahnemann alone who stood for the microbic nature of infection which has been proved up to the hilt by systematic researches of Pasteur and Koch. That Hahnemannwas cornered by Hufeland in certain points proves nothing but the fact that the full and precise knowledge about transmission of infecting organisms was not known to the former. Hahnemann  through sheer intuition and clear logic and correct observations anticipated their works.That Hahnemann meant by “miasm” what we mean by microbes is established beyond any doubt.

Dynamic action.

Negatively it is an action other than mechanical, physical or chemical. Positively it is a qualitative action. If the drugs can possess dynamic action, if the human organism can exert dynamic action, why not the living micro-organisms no matter whether they are visible or invisible ? Allopathy tries toexplain the modus operandi of the process of infection by the interaction of the chemistry of the body with the toxins secreted by the microbes. Hahnemann, on the other hand, claims that the chemico-physical processes just fall short of the total and complex living phenomena. As the drugs act on the living body through their essential qualities besides their physico chemical properties, so the living microbes can also act through their essential qualities (possessed by their life-force) to change the qualitative state of the organism. That’s all, where is the
difficulty to understand this simple thing? During Hahnemann’s time the word “miasm” was used loosely to express many things viz., morbific emanations from putrescent organic matter, animal or vegetable, and sometimes the effluvia arising from the bodies of those affected by certain diseases some of which were regarded as infectious and others not. Hahnemann fixed the connotation and denotation of this vaguely used word—miasm. From the Organon it can be clearly proved that Hahnemann included physical, psychic and these biological causes under the general name of morbific noxious agents. But all these agents act on the living organism through dynamic (i.e., qualitative) actions and interactions to alter the state of health of the organism. The inclusion of biological agents i.e., miasms (in old terminology) or microbes (in modern terminology) in the list of the morbific noxious agents i.e., “contagium Vivum” is the greatest contribution of Hahnemann in the field of medical thought. Dyna- mis means force and force is always invisible and imperceptible to our senses but their existence is inferred through their workings. The immaterial force must have a material vehicle. As substantial entity of a drug is the vehicle and carrier of its dynamic property, so the microbic body is the vehicle and carrier of their dynamic property. Where is the difficulty to understand this?

Hahnemann talked about “Dynamic influences of morbific agents”—and we tried to establish the identity of one group of the morbific agents. Bacteria etc., are living beings and not material substances. Bacteria belong to the group of fission-fungi of the plant kingdom. Hahnemann could not possibly know that but surmised that they must be living beings. He used the word “animated”.

Our human organism is an integrated indivisible whole of mentalised
living matter. It presents different aspects—material, vital and mental—which we take as distinctive entities for the facilitation of our comprehension (aph 15 of Organon 6th Ed.), but which are not so in factual reality. Here, again, we give credit to Hahnemann for anticipating the psycho-somatic conception of modern times. The truth is that the human organism is neither a machine nor a chemical factory nor a vital or psychic being, each to the exclusion of all others but it is a whole including all aspects and at the same time transcending them all. But towards the end of his life Hahnemann leaned more and more to the pure vitalistic school whereas the rapid advances in the knowledge of physical sciences tipped the balance on the side of the materialistic school. History reveals that he was more influenced by the theories of Stahl, Barthez and Hoffmann , who all belonged to the animistic and vitalistic school though
he tried to keep away from the irrational parts of their theories.

Comparative study of the successive editions of Organon shows that this allusion to “vital force” occurs first in the 5th Edition (1833) as “vital force” has often been substituted for the words “Organism”, body, state of health of the previous
edition. In the 6th edition he came to believe in the substantial entity of the vital principle. But this trenchant division into rival schools of thought has lost its significance as the latest development in the knowledge of physical sciences has served to dematerialise matter and found mass and energy to be convertible terms and as theoretical physics pushed to its extremes is on the point of losing itself in the realms of metaphysics. We feel a contradiction and conflict in Hahnemann’s ideas if we read sees. 11, 12, 13 with 15 of Organon, (6th edition). In sec. 15 we read the body-life as a complex indivisible whole, although “in thought our mind separates this unity into two distinct conceptions for the sake of easy comprehension. Here the factual reality is that the body and life are not two entirely separate substantial entities; whereas in aphs. 11, 12, 13 we are given to understand that it is only the vital principle which is primarily affected in disease and which leads to subsequent disorders in the material body. There is a mechanical view of cause and effect implicit behind this statement which Hahnemann shared with the sixteenth and the seventeenth century physicians that the living body did not work itself but it was tenanted by a principle that made it “live”, something immaterial that used the body as a craftsman uses a tool.  But if life and body are inseparable and one cannot exist without the other what happens when a man dies ? Surely something which kept the organism alive is missing and the vitalistic school pounced upon this phenomena and asserted the independent existence of the life-principle.

Neither the science nor the philosophy of the West could explain this apparently anomalous phenomenon. For an explanation we have to delve deep into the
realm of metaphysics which is just the thing Hahnemann wanted us to avoid. That is why in a footnote to aph. 31 he wrote that he did not wish to give a hyper-physical (i.e., metaphysical) explanation of the internal nature of the disease or the essential nature of life-force in healthy or unhealthy condition. To him disease is just a state of alteration in health i.e., a qualitative change comprising sensational and functional changes which are perceptible to our senses. The human organism has a material part (body) which is also liable to change but it is the qualitative change which the patient feels and suffers therefrom. But here Hahnemann apparently forgets his body-life integration and like a pure vitalist asserts that this qualitative change is absolutely independent of physico-chemical alterations of the physical body.

This statement has served to make the confusion worse.. The real truth is that though life can never be adequately explained through physico chemical processes it is as futile and untrue to say that life does not consist of chemico-physical processes as to say that poetry does not consist of words.  In our Surface-existence mind, life and body are integrated into an indivisible whole. To our senses are perceptible the phenomena of physical mind and physical life which do not exist apart from the material body. But the true mind and true life can exist apart from the body which go away in the event of death. ‘All diseases with which we medical men are concerned belong to our physical nature, whether in the gross physical or vital physical or the mental-physical level. We do not treat mind and life as such but as a mentalised living body. For in this world of matter everything is manifested through it. We do not see Life or mind existing by itself but always as a ‘bodied’ life and embodied mind. How the mind or life has come to be embodied is a metaphysical problem beyond our ordinary mental conception. Hahnemann referred to this fact in his foot-note No. 8 to sec. 12 of Organon, 6th Edition.

Hahnemann did not, could not, and wanted not to delve into these metaphysical questions. He stuck to the plane of phenomena on which he could tread with surer steps and he was satisfied to deduce only those conceptions which were warranted from his observations. Still he was a child of his times and leaned to vitalistic school in his later years. That is why Hughes regarded Hahnemann’s vital theory as a physiological hypothesis.

In aph 31 of Organon 6th Edition, Hahnemann writes that the action of drugs on the living organism is almost unconditional whereas the miasmatic infection is very much conditional, the susceptibility of the organism being a prior condition. As it takes two hands to produce a clap so we require the living body’s susceptibility on the one hand and the miasm, on the other for eventual pro- duction of disease. Leaving the miasm or microbe out of consideration and talking about the production of diseases only with the living body’s susceptibility is one-sided and incomplete. This distorted view axes out the Hahnemannian Homoeopathy. Hahnemann perfectly anticipated that the miasms (microbes) were not the absolute cause but only a conditioned cause in the production of diseases.

Bacteriology has solved the problem to a great extent of prevention of acute diseases, whether sporadic or epidemic; and Bacteriology has rounded off the theory of chronic diseases as propounded by Hahnemann. Whatever may be Hahnemann’s conception of the nature of the morbific agents his approach to the therapeutic problem is different from that of the Allopathic School.

Truth never cramps anyone’s mind; reception of truth leads to further mental expansion. The Organon is a critique of medical philosophy for all times.

A proper and accurate study of Hahnemann’s writing will never lead to difficulty but on the other hand will serve to clear away many misconceptions that have accumulated round the Homoeopathic philosophy.

references:

  • B.K.Sarkar.
  • Samuel Hahnemann
  • Richard Haehl
  • Clements Boenninghausen
Advertisements

Causal Medicine and homoeopathy. (1 of 2)

The Thrust of modern medicine is to find causes of disease conditions and to  remove them with the idea that by removing the cause the effect will cease and result in cure of a disease.

According to the thinking of mainstream medicine,  three things have been pointed  out as causal factors  of  diseases, e.g.,  pathological structure,  pathological  function  and  indirectly pathogenic bacteria capable of producing disease conditions.

Science postulates the  cause is  the invariable,  unconditional  and immediate antecedent of the effect or the sum-total of conditions, positive and negative, taken together which  are sufficient to produce the  effect without the presence of any  other antecedent  or in other  words,  in scientific investigations,  the  cause must be regarded as the entire aggregate of conditions or circumstances requisite to the effect.

However it can easily be demonstrated that neither structure, nor function or  micro-organisms possess the  properties of cause (strictly according to the  canons of logic), which are as  follows:

  • when the cause appears the effect must always follow it;
  • when the cause  disappears the  effect must always disappear;
  • when the cause varies the  effect must always  vary accordingly;
  • the  cause precedes the effect.

Since the principle of causation is a  hypothesis which up till  now has not been proven  in  practice and is theoretically unjustified, all  the researches devised for the purpose of finding causes  (prima causa morbi)  must be inconclusive. Little wonder,  then,  that despite the enormous amount of work done we have been unable to find the original causes of diseases and that  medical   theories  succeed one another with such extraordinary  rapidity.

The  claim of the orthodox system of medicine of being  a rational scientific one because of its being based on the principle of causality, fails.

Here  Homoeopathy  steps  in.  Hahnemann  gave  up  the attempt to  base his system of medicine on a causal basis. To him association or sequence of phenomena was enough. He presented Homoeopathy, based on the Law of Similars as  a descriptive  science,  based on  phenomenalism and not concerned  principally with causal explanations.  It is also  to be noted that  we find  Hahnemann’s ideas in accord with the most advanced conceptions of physical science.

Here, we must pause and reflect, ask questions and rationalize.  Is Hahnemann saying that Bacteria and Virii are not the cause of a disease? No. Hahnemann was among the first to describe bacteria as “living” creatures that carry disease inducing infection. After studying his words for 35 years, I have come to see that he divides causality and individual disease as two separate entities.

You can remove the cause, the bacteria, the virus, the fungus, and yet Dis-ease itself will continue to be present in the organism. Many times I have seen Gonnorhea infection ( Neisseria gonorrhoeaeremoved from a person, and yet health declines. Sometimes even the partners health can decline and no trace of gonorrhoea can be detected.

So a situation arises within homoeopathy and understanding of what Hahnemanns theory of Miasms is refering to. In my experience, 95% of all explanations are simply wrong. I bring Miasms into this discussion simply because it answers how we as homoeopaths can relate to the subject of causality and disease.

It took me a number of years of reading and re-reading the Chronic Diseases and the Organon to gain insight into the explanation of Hahnemanns words. For those of us with a training in homoeopathy that included Kents interpretive and religious overlay, it required a leap of faith to put aside the philosophy of Swedenborgianism and just look at Hahnemann without that veil. Once done, the meaning of Hahnemanns words became clear.

Miasm is an infecting agent.

Miasmatic Disease is the resultant illness after being infected. It is NOT the infecting agent.

So. following the logic, once infected a disease process starts up. This is no longer dependent on the infecting agent, and is a direct reaction to BEING infected. Removing the primary infection prevents a CONSTANT infection state, but does not stop the reactive disease production that has started.

We will discuss further in another article.

 

Diagnosis, homoeopathy and you.

Many homoeopaths hold the viewpoint that diagnosis of a ‘disease’ is not important. By disease, I mean the descriptive name for a collection of symptoms that individualise a known condition, ie pneumonia, measles, eczema etc.

The reality is, and always has been, as taught by Hahnemann, to treat the DISEASE that the has destabilised the health of an individual. We do not take the collective totality of the personality, the likes and dislikes of the person, we take only the altered state CAUSED by the disease and expressed by the individual affected person.

The two single most useful Aphorisms in case taking are ~5 and ~6. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss in detail, if truth be told it requires time in a seminar to expand the writings and demonstrate fully so as to inculcate the understanding to reach the heart of a practitioner. If assimilated incorrectly, you will find that a lot of misprescriptions will be made based on faulty comprehension of Hahnemanns words.

This leads me to my next point. I ask a question: Are you a real homoeopath?

Firstly, after many years of thinking on this question, I realise that the question is incorrect. It should be: Are you a real believer in the law of similars?

The scope and sphere of Homoeopathy must be clearly expressed. In a  wider sense,  Homoeopathy, in the first place, means a  method of scientific study  and therapeutic practice; in the second place, it means the facts discovered by this method; and thirdly it signifies the theories that have been propounded  to explain and correlate  these facts.  In other words,  Homoeopathy  implies a particular way of applying drugs to diseases according to a  specific principle viz., “Similia Similibus Curentur”, and of potentitiation (dynamisation) of drugs. In a narrower and stricter sense, Homoeopathy means a specialised system of drug therapy, nothing  more  or nothing less.

As Homoeopathy looks upon diseases as  an altered condition of the life principal  of a living being, Homoeopathy, as a therapeutic  method, is concerned primarily with  the morbid vital processes in the  living organism which are perceptibly represented by the symptoms  irrespective  of what caused them. Homoeopathy then is concerned only with dis-eases, per se in its primary functional or dynamical aspect.

With  the  morbific  agents  themselves  Homoeopathy  has no more to do than it has with  the tangible products or ultimates  of disease.  It is taken for granted that the physician acting  in another capacity than that of a prescriber of Homoeopathic  medicines will remove the causes of the disease and the obstacle to cure as far as possible before  he addresses himself to the  task of selecting and administering the remedy which is homoeopathic to the symptoms  of the case by which the cure is to be effected. Thus  Homoeopathy deals directly with disease itself, morbid  vital processes manifested  by perceptible symptoms in the functional side  of disease. In fact, Homoeopathy might well be defined as the science of vital dynamics.

It is confined  to and operative only in  the sphere of vital dynamics.

As Homoeopathy is primarily and pre eminently  a specialised system of drug therapy,  it is not a complete system of medicine (in the wide sense of the term); but it might  legitimately  claim itself to be a complete system of therapeutic medication.

It  is supreme within its legitimate sphere because it is a method  of therapeutic medication which is based on a fixed and definite law of nature. The time has come for defining the scope and limits of Homoeopathy. Wide as its scope is, it has its limitations as well and we have to  be cognisant of this fact.

Homoeopathy may have many  gaps which need  be  filled; may have many points of obscurity  which need illumination  and clarification and  may imply many directions  in which  researches can be carried out—but it  is and  will continue to be a distinct system of healing art; it is uncompromising with regard to following  items which can be claimed as specialities for itself. The most important speciality of Homoeopathy lies in the distinctive mode of approach to  the study of diseases and drug actions. It is a  clinical method of approach and the art of  individualising patients  and drug-actions.

The clinical phenomena are those which render themselves perceptible to our senses as a resultant  of the actions and reactions  of forces, physico-chemical, vital  and psychological operating in and through the diseased human  organism.

Homoeopathy disregards all  the  hypothetical and ever-changing explanations of physiology and  pathology  and uses this plane of clinical phenomena as  a guide to reach the unseen activities operating below the surface.

The  second  speciality is with  regard  to  classification  of diseases. The dominant  school of medicine follows the system of classificatory sciences  of botany and zoology. It classifies diseases into genus  and species. But Homoeopathy goes further and concentrates its attention on individuals—so it is closer to factual concrete reality. The “Totality of symptoms” is taken to be a guide for individualisation.

The  third speciality is  with regard to this: The essential question in Homoeopathy is not what the patient is suffering  from, but in what kind of way he reacts.

Diagnosis in Homoeopathy does not mean the labelling of the patient with the name of a  disease and then treating that nominal entity, but diagnosing  the patient in terms of drug reaction, which would restore his vital equilibrium. The patient is to be diagnosed in terms of treatment.  This is Homoeopathy in a nut shell.

But “it is a shell which some find hard to crack, but when cracked it is found  to be packed full  of sweet and wholesome meat with no  worms in it”—as Stuart Close points out in his book ‘Lecture on  Homoeopathic Philosophy”.

The selection  and administration of remedies constitute the science of therapeutics, as the investigation of the properties of drugs  constitutes  the science  of Materia  Medica.  It  is impossible to conceive  of a science i.e., systematized knowledge, which is  not based  on some  fundamental principle correlating the series of phenomena concerning any particular branch of study. The therapeutic branch of  medical knowledge consists of a study of disease phenomena on the one hand and that of positive effects  of drugs  on the healthy human beings  on the other. Hence any therapeutic study is incomplete and unscientific if a general law be not discovered between a  natural disease-condition and the action of a drug that  will be  curative. Homoeopathy supplies such a law—though the  orthodox  school of  medicine  apparently denies  the necessity for such a general therapeutic law and  relies only on unmethodized experience and fallacious reasoning and presumes to claim utter scientificity for itself by borrowing from chemico-physical sciences.

The therapeutic law  of  Similia Similibus Curentur is a scientific law as justified by the following considerations:

  •  It is based on observation, correct logical  principles of induction, deduction  and experimental verification.
  • It is based on no hypothesis or speculation but it is just a  statement of inter-relation  between two series  of phenomena  viz-,  the natural  disease  and drug-action.
  • Like  any other scientific law  it  is made use of in the matter of predicting future results.
  • Like any other scientific law it does not attempt to explain  the “how or why”  of drugs curing  diseases  but rests  contented with giving a  clear indication of what drug would be curative in which disease condition.

This therapeutic law of cure, as discovered in Homoeopathy, as regards  the treatment of diseases by drugs  which, when proved  on  healthy human  beings, possess the power to produce symptoms similar to those found in persons suffering from natural diseases—pursues at its every step the scientific methods of observation, classification, comparison of phenomena perceptible to our senses and  does not attempt  to enter into the misty realm of metaphysical speculation to divine the essential secrets of nature viz-, life, mind and body and their nature of inter-relationship and the “modus operandi” of drugs in producing symptoms in  healthy  human beings  or  curing disease conditions brought on by natural causes.

This law takes into account only the clinical phenomena (i.e.,perceptible   alterations  of sensations,  functions  and of tissues) in patients and drug provers—which hold good so long as observations are correct and complete and which are not liable to be changed with every altered biological conception, newer  medical terminologies or newer discoveries  in physiological and pathological sciences.  The clinical symptoms are facts—they do not change but may be added  to.

With the help of this Law of cure the study of therapeutic branch of medicine has been raised to an independent status having a  life of its own. While deriving its  sustenance from truths and conceptions of other sciences auxiliary to medicine it possesses freedom from whatever new knowledge might be acquired in those sciences in course of time.

On comparison with  other  therapeutic systems (with or without any basic law underlying) the Law of Simile stands out boldest  and most free from uncertainties,  imperfections and irrationality inherent in others.

Pimples Pustules and Boenninghausen’s Questions

From: https://pandwisrael.wordpress.com/2017/10/27/pimples-pustules-and-boenninghausens-questions/

Vera Resnick

I was recently asked about Phosphorous in eruptions. Specifically I was asked why Phosphorous doesn’t appear in the TPB symptom Eruption, pustules (symptom no. 1426 in P&W Synopsis), when the word “pustule” appears twice in Hahnemann’s proving.

In the proving “Pustules” appears in the following contexts:

431 – Eruption of pimples in the face
432 – Eruption of pimples on both of the cheeks.
433 – Frequent pustules and scurf from suppuration in the face, after the least lesion of its skin.
434 – Rough, red, mottled eruption of the face, slightly elevated. [Ng.].

459 – Burning pain on the red of the lower lip, with white blisters on the inner side of it, with burning pain (aft. 11 d.).
460 – The lower lip is cracked wide open, in the middle.
461 – An itching spot on the left lower jaw, he had to scratch it raw.
462 – Itching of the upper lip, with pain after rubbing.
463 – Swollen upper lip, every morning.
464 – Eruption on the red of both the lips, at times with stitches.
465 – Pustules on the commissures of the lips.

Trawling through Merriam Webster revealed that although pustules usually refer only to blister-like eruptions, and not always to pus filled ones, it is often used interchangeably with pimples, used to imply a more impressive presence of the eruption.

So bearing in mind that when looking through provings we are dealing with several levels of translation – from sensation to words in German, from words of the prover to Hahnemann’s collated and edited proving in German, and from Hahnemann’s German to modern (fairly) English – we probably have to include pimples in this.  This is P&W’s footnote on the TPB rubric:

[1] Pustules, any type of skin eruptions, which elevate over the skin and can be filled either with pus or pus-like fluid and form crusts that may or may not erode the skin.

Why have I put you through so many pimples and pustules? Because this kind of question is why so many people miss the point when starting to work with the TPB.

The TPB is essentially a practical manual, a guide to materia medica. It reflects how Boenninghausen used the provings in his clinic, how he searched for information and how he deduced the symptoms to use and the remedies to investigate.

So you may be dealing with pimples. Or pustules. Or pimples which are turning into pustules. In the case I was asked about, the practitioner seemed fairly sure of the Phosphorous for the other symptoms, but found the absence of the remedy in pimples gave him reason to hesitate.

In such cases the issue is not whether the eruption is a pimple or a pustule. The issue is far more about the nature of the pimple/pustule.
– Is it crusted?
– Is there fluid in the pimple/pustule?
– Is there a colour, a texture, a smell?
– Is there pain on touching?
– Is there constant pain, and what is its nature? Burning, aching, stitching?
– Is the patient crippled with embarrassment about the pimple/pustule, much more than usually?
– Is it before/during/after menses?
– Is it after binge eating?

Do you see where I’m going with this? The remedy will become clear not from the question “what is it, pimple or pustule?” but from all the other questions. To remind you of Boenninghausen’s questions:

Quis – Who is the patient, what does he do, what’s his usual state of health
Quid – What is the complaint – sensation
Ubi – Where is the problem – location
Quibus Auxilibus – with what/concomitants
Cur – Why, trigger, maintaining causes
Quomodo – Modalities, aggravations and ameliorations
Quando – Time modalities, occurrence, aggravation and amelioration.

My main point here is that learning to work with Boenninghausen means learning to think very differently about symptoms and case-taking. If you’re starting out with Boenninghausen from a Kentian background – as I did – looking for rubrics can feel like hunting for a tooth which has been pulled out. You will not find the rubric you’re looking for if you’re searching for Face, eruptions, cheeks, pustule, yellow, excoriating. If you’re lucky – as you will be here, you will find Face eruptions cheeks. And you’ll have to look for the rest step by step – Eruptions yellow, eruptions excoriating, pustules (and pimples). My preference is to look more for the smell, the color, the modalities – and then once I’ve narrowed things down to several remedies, to search for the other qualities through the reversed materia medica and through the proving itself.

Teaching courses.

One of the reasons you have not heard from us for a while is that we have been busy with sorting out our teaching courses.

Seville Spain Seminars with the IHM.

 

Conducted in English, with Spanish translation if required, we have set aside Thursday to Sunday inclusive every week for a 4 day training Seminar. We offer to medical and non medical practitioners, a stimulating intensive background to Hahnemanns requirements for homoeopathy using the Therapeutic Pocket book to analyse cases quickly adhering to all the protocols to ensure an accurate prescription. The course is arranged so that the learning is incremental from the historical nature of the therapy viewed through many cases, to understanding the correct viewpoint regarding Miasms, potencies, Using the Therapeutic Pocket book and working with LM or Q medicines.

We offer a huge discount on the SYNOPSIS software to students.

The IHM will offer membership of the Register to suitable course attendees subject to approval by the officers of the IHM.

Included:

  • 4 days intensive training at our Seville North Clinic.
  • All refreshments and meals during the day attendance.
  • Free Book version of the Repertory.
  • Input from officers of the IHM and Materia Medica discussions with Vera Resnick.

We prefer a minimum of 2 students per seminar.

The cost per student:

  • Solo student. €1000.
  • 2 Students, €900 each.
  • 3 Students €850 each
  • 4 to 6 €800 each.
  • 7 or more €700 each.

A €120 non returnable deposit will be asked via PAYPAL, and the balance paid in cash at the Seminar.

Our teaching room will hold 10 comfortably, with A/C and heating. Coffee, Tea, soft drinks and snacks available at all times, with our restaurant next door for meals and Spanish Tapas.

Flights from Europe direct to Seville are cheap. International flights go to Madrid, where a direct Madrid-Seville train operates.

We can advise regarding hotels and transport. One hotel is door to door bus service, and the other is a 10 minute walk from the clinic. 

Seville is a beautiful city with much to see. Some students arrange a family holiday and come for the seminar and then spend time exploring and visiting other cities in the region.

 

 

 

Contact us at: education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com

 

 

Why I dont recommend a homoeopath….

………….I live in XXXXX, can you recommend a homoeopath?

We all get asked. I have a policy of not suggesting a name if I dont know anyone personally. I found it to be a fatal error to do so.

……..You look so elegant, a long neck, for these reasons I am going to prescribe SWAN 1m for you….

………..You said you felt like you were drowning in problems, that your business was under water, for these reasons I am only going to look at sea mammal remedies for the similimum….”

At some point I gave up on mainstream homoeopathy. The therapy has lost its way. The people who use the medicines, I am loath to call them homoeopaths, have succumbed to the quasi healer thinking in the schools and never did learn to be physicians, instead relying on disparate teachings of the sensation method and mentalisations rather than solid prescribing symptoms. Most have not read the Organon or understand disease process and prefer to put their trust in the Universe rather than Hahnemanns directions.

A few year ago, a well known female homoeopath, prominent in her public persona and a staunch supporter of Sankaran, got very sick with food poisoning… for some reason she called me. I noted the symptoms, prescribed and waited on the phone with her as the medicine did its work and cleared the system.  She never acknowledged it. Later I saw her lauding the power of the remedy but neglecting to mention me or the help she received. She did not have much to do with me after the episode… too embarrassed I guess that a person who practises in the Hahnemannian way saved her life.

Some of the modern provings are based on dreams, and used even though the person who had the dream NEVER took the remedy! Yet vast swathes of modern prescribers use the remedies and swear by their effectiveness, only to later drop the remedy from their medicine kit and privately admit they were not effective.  This because the proving overseer is a ‘master practitioner’.  This is a another fallacy simply because a well trained homoeopath would never let such a poorly tested and proven remedy see the light of day.

A colleague of mine in another country, is constantly amazed when talking to recently graduated practitioners that they know little or NOTHING of the Organon. “How can they treat people without knowing Hahnemanns instructions? she asked……… I just shrug.

We need to clean up our profession.

 

 

 

August in Seville. Teaching, Planting and a new health issue for Homoeopaths.

Seville empties in August. This typical Spanish city becomes superheated (up to 50C) and everyone heads for the seaside. The IHM staff headed out to visit family and friends and I stayed here to hold down the fort and do some mentoring/teaching.

I get to have all the clinics to myself and utilise the Air conditioning well.

This August was particularly rewarding for me. Two self taught students came for their second 5 day intensive, and due to their self motivated work ethic, had pushed their levels of knowledge and comprehension to a professional level. I have been impressed and found no reason to deny them access to the Register of IHM professional homoeopaths.  They lack a little experience, which will come to them in large measure over the coming year in practice, but can avail themselves of the other IHM practitioners on the FACEBOOK group page.

We would have conducted 2 other intensives in August, however flights and holidays prevented this from happening.

I have been remiss in posting this last week or so. I took a few days rest. I bought a vertical planting unit from England and have been setting it up and getting the Herbs and vegetable seeds watered and settle in their new home.

I have noticed over the last three years, an increase in a singular disease problem. So much so that I can almost guarantee a patient suffering with it at least every 2 months.

The problem is adult onset anxiety of extremely high levels.

The typical patient is male, 60+, successful, no financial problems, some have long term health issues, some not, some have a history of occasional anxiety earlier in life, but not to the level exhibited when they present themselves for treatment. The anxiety is overwhelming to them, generalised, non remitting and all consuming. Some find partial relief in physical exertion, some find relief in sitting and sleeping, but all present the same irritation by the anxiety and are unable to function with it.

I have had success with some of the cases, all different in presentation of modalities, and the length of time to resolution is, minimum 7 weeks and some as much as a year. Research has been conducted by the IHM and no common basis exists for the problem. Some patients express a dismay at age, facing up to death, losing control by virtue of diminished capacity, but not in every case. Some I see an adrenalin involvement, (these are the easiest to resolve) and others, not so much.  I have repertorised through the TPB and directly through provings in the Materia Medica, and give the appropriate remedy in LM potency frequently until or if resolution sets in. I have give in Centesimal and it seems to aggravate at times. This is my experience.

So if anyone has seen the same increase in disease with these symptoms, I would be interested in discussing the issue.

Incidently, Ed Nunnery and myself have given patients suffering this issue, B6, B12 and Magnesium supplements as these are severely lacking in the diet of modern man. This does seem to help calm the patient fairly well. I would hazard a guess that the lack of these nutrients can aggravate the situation.

 

Training open

The IHM has a 5 day training opportunity open between 20th till the 31st of August for those contemplating a spur of the moment Seville Spain Homoeopathic venue. Single or multiple persons.

What we teach:

  • The rationale of homoeopathic medicine and the use of the Therapeutic Pocket Book in every day case work.
  • The examination of the patient according to defined parameters of eliciting prescribing symptoms without the filter of all the variants of non Hahnemann practices as taught by teachers today.
  • An in depth look at the Miasm theory in the light of infection and infectious disease models that are the accepted protocols in modern medicine.
  • Patient management utilising Hahnemannian directives for medicine administration and potency choice, frequency of dose, withdrawal of repetition of medicine on well indicated grounds, observation of medicinal action and when to change the medicine.
  • Use of LM or Q potencies.
  • Chronic and acute prescribing and when to finish prescribing.
  • In depth explanation and use of the Therapeutic Pocket Book. The T.P.B. was devised by Boenninghausen as a synthetic approach approximating Hahnemanns thoughts on case analysis so as to find a close similimum by extracting the correct proving symptoms that match the disease state.
  • How to understand the meaning of rubrics via the patients symptoms.
  • Lots of case examples and analysis by Gary Weaver.
  • Help in re examining some of the students intractable cases.

The teaching is in English only.

Contact education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com for information.

Be careful about conclusions.

A very interesting two part interview with David Little has arrived on the net.  part one can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9NN0fqdvrQ

Fascinating to hear of the journey one man took to discover Hahnemanns methodology in practice. David uncovered a lot of the falseness of the homoeopathy that is taught today and observed how Kent did not practise in the manner Hahnemann insisted on. David laid out a lot of the differences and showed how in some cases the differences were actually dangerous to the patient, especially in volume of dose given.

Here at the IHM, we encourage and enjoy talking with homoeopaths that know their subject. FACTS supersede opinion and FACTS are the bedrock of practice.

Over the years we have come to realise that FACTS are subject to defined conclusions and herein is where issues start to arise in practice.

David carefully presented the differences between the Organon instructions regarding practice and showed how practitioners who give medicines according to the 4th edition, the 5th edition and the 6th edition all have success in curing the patient. For us at the IHM, we noted this many years ago and after examination of the FACTS, concluded that it is the similarity of the MEDICINE to the disease that is the curative element, and that potency is a fine tuning to the organism.

We also noted that Hahnemann was continually searching for a method to eliminate some of the strong medicinal aggravations that occurred with the application of a medicine in potency and the manner and vehicle of how the dose was given.

So several FACTS emerged.

  • Size of Dose is important.
  • Potency is important.
  • HOW the medicine is given is important.
  • Medicinal reaction depends on the above criteria.

David discovered that Hahnemann in his last years, used both the Q potencies and the Centesimal potencies in treating patients. The FACTS show that Hahnemann gave the different scales utilising the same methodology, in water and not repeating whilst a medicinal action was observed. David concluded that Hahnemann thus intended to use the centesimal scale for acutes and the Q potency for chronics. He rationalised that the scales harmonised with the nature of the two types of diseases.

We at the IHM have a slightly different take on the conclusion drawn by David.

Firstly, Hahnemann was still experimenting with the Q potencies. He was observing the action of the two scales on patients and had already applied a protocol of giving both scales in water. Remember this whole scenario was to find a medicinal application to obviate some of the excesses of aggravation, and also to shorten the time between giving doses to speed up the process of healing.

By coincidence, I too received my first LM (Q) kit from the same pharmacy as David did, in 1986. Because Hahnemann repeated his warning regarding the repetition of any medicine during AMELIORATION, I also noted that he called the new potency scale “new altered but perfected method”.

On this basis after reading § 246 and § 271, I completely moved over to the Q or LM scale. My pharmacy consisted from that day- LM potencies.

§ 246 Sixth Edition
(Hahnemann admonition for not repeating) Every perceptibly progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration during treatment is a condition which, as long as it lasts, completely precludes every repetition of the administration of any medicine whatsoever, because all the good the medicine taken continues to effect is now hastening towards its completion.

(Indicating use in ACUTE diseases} This is not infrequently the cause in acute diseases, but in more chronic diseases, on the other hand, a single dose of an appropriately selected homoeopathic remedy will at times complete even with but slowly progressive improvement and give the help which such a remedy in such a case can accomplish naturally within 40, 50, 60, 100 days. This is, however, but rarely the case; and besides, it must be a matter of great importance to the physician as well as to the patient that were it possible, this period should be diminished to one-half, one-quarter, and even still less, so that a much more rapid cure might be obtained. And this may be very happily affected, as recent and oft-repeated observations have taught me under the following conditions: firstly, if the medicine selected with the utmost care was perfectly homoeopathic; secondly, if it is highly potentized, dissolved in water and given in proper small dose that experience has taught as the most suitable in definite intervals for the quickest accomplishment of the cure but with the precaution, that the degree of every dose deviate somewhat from the preceding and following in order that the vital principle which is to be altered to a similar medicinal disease be not aroused to untoward reactions and revolt as is always the case1 with unmodified and especially rapidly repeated doses.

1 What I said in the fifth edition of the Organon, in a long note to this paragraph in order to prevent these undesirable reactions of the vital energy, was all the experience I then had justified. But during the last four or five years, however, all these difficulties are wholly solved by my new altered but perfected method. The same carefully selected medicine may now be given daily and for months, if necessary in this way, namely, after the lower degree of potency has been used for one or two weeks in the treatment of chronic disease, advance is made in the same way to higher degrees, (beginning according to the new dynamization method, taught herewith with the use of the lowest degrees).

The IHM do not legislate what potency scale a practitioner should use. We do however point out that Hahnemann himself recommended the use of LM or Q potencies to obviate the reactions to the artificial disease state caused by strong medicines in the living organism.

Gary Weaver has exclusively used the LM scale in his clinic for 25 years in both acute and chronic cases. He sees rapid resolution of acute diseases if the prescription is correct. He sees amazing curative responses in Chronic disease.

Something to consider.

 

Curative reaction in 2 weeks using LM potency. Patient had been treated in hospital for a long time using Steroids and other strong medicines.

New Register members and a first.

It is 2:06 am here in Seville Spain. A long day, some patients (even on a Sunday) and sorting thing matters IHM.

The IHM officers here in Seville are currently taking the traditional August holidays out of the city due to the heat, and some even out of the country. I am left to hold down the clinic.

abduldiplomaThis past week, 2 non medical students attended the 2nd 5 day intensive training course here in Sevilla, They have been building on their first intensive with online and home study for a year. Finally they felt confident enough to come for the completion of their training.

The I.H.M. is please to announce that Abdul and Imran are the first non medically qualified students to have completed the full training. Both have been around homoeopathy for a number of years, and this course solidified their knowledge and expanded it to where it needed to be. As senior lecturer, I have been especially hard on both of them to ensure they kept on track and stayed the proper route. Where I saw weakness in attitude or a trait that would diminish their ability to do justice to the patient, I jumped on it. These two men need every Hahnemannian quality of observation and application to do good service, and I believe they are achieving it. I have nothing but respect for them.

Both students have worked through over 49 cases in the classroom with me in both teaching workshops, and in the teaching this week, they worked on 6 acute cases, with me,  3 as they came into me via email. The 3 cases, for which they worked on all reported a imran diplomasuccessful outcome. This case work on top of all their other studies.

They committed themselves to a hard life for two years, balancing family, secular work and study. They have a goal of working with communities in the London England area, and now are well on their way to achieving their project.

In the coming week, I will take pleasure in adding them to the list of IHM Practitioners.

Vera Resnick, who participated in teaching them in the first course, will take pleasure in co-signing their Diploma.

All the Officers of the IHM sincerely wish the best for their future and appreciate the hard work and effort that has been put into study.