August: We can accommodate days in August as is the major holiday month in Seville. Let us know what days suit you and we will check our calendar.
August: We can accommodate days in August as is the major holiday month in Seville. Let us know what days suit you and we will check our calendar.
The IHM will continue its popular 4 day training Seminars during June, July, August and October in Seville Spain. Dates are filling.
Languages: English and Spanish. (Check for Spanish availability dates.)
We tailor the course to the abilities of the student. Let us know your level of training and understanding. We will assess ourselves on the first day and adjust accordingly.
Our teaching is based solely on the writing and directives of Hahnemann culled from research of the IHM since 1986.
Main course tutor is Gary Weaver. D.O, Dhom med. Also Manuel Guitierrez M.D., Antonio Gil Ortega. M.D. and Vera Resnick Dhom Med.
We can give advice regarding accommodation locally that places the student on a direct bus route to the clinic, and is also well placed for exploring the beautiful city of Seville.
Contact Gary directly at firstname.lastname@example.org to book or ask questions.
By Vera Resnick
I have recently been asked about changing potencies in LMs, with people mentioning using odd numbers, even numbers, going up in steps of 2 potencies (LM1 – LM3 – LM5) etc.
I came across this issue before I started studying with David Little, from a post he wrote on the Minutus list, sometime around 2005. He mentioned that while most people do just fine on a series of ascending potencies (LM1 – LM2 – LM3 etc.) he had noticed that some seem to do better on odd or even numbers of dilutions or succussions. He also noted that Hahnemann didn’t always start with LM 1.
There are two issues in play here, in my view.
The first is the risk of putting theory before experience. The beauty of homoeopathy is that Hahnemann first observed, then developed a way of harnessing the power of the similar stronger artificial disease without harming the patient, and what he thought was the most probable explanation for what he was observing. In Aphorism 28 (and elsewhere), Hahnemann sets out the basis for his thinking on experience versus explanations of how something happens:
“As this natural law of cure manifests itself in every pure experiment and every true observation in the world, the fact is consequently established; it matters little what may be the scientific explanation of how it takes place; and I do not attach much importance to the attempts made to explain it. But the following view seems to commend itself as the most probable one, as it is founded on premises derived from experience.”
The second issue is the sensitivity of the patient, something that is difficult to assess ahead of time. In Aphorism 278 Hahnemann explains that individual sensitivity can’t be deduced through “fine-spun reasoning” or “specious sophistry.” In order to learn the appropriate dose, “pure experiment, careful observation of the sensitiveness of each patient and accurate experience can alone determine this in each individual case…”
To my mind it comes down to “specious sophistry” if we adopt a theory of odds and evens, where there is no solid backing for the theory, or to apply it and then say it worked – especially when there is a body of material showing that many patients do well just going up through the potency scale. On the other hand, some patients do especially well on a particular potency, but we cannot know if it was the potency itself or if the improvement was built up by the work of the previous potencies and only manifested itself with the current one.
And furthermore – although it is natural to look for protocols, for theories which provide rules for action which can be employed in every case, we will then have moved away from the individualization of the patient, and of the patient’s sensitivity.
In my own experience, many patients do very well going up the scale, some seem to advance more with specific potencies in the scale, and if the remedy is going to help it is usually already visible in the patient’s response to LM1.
However, looking for a pattern in the sensitivity of individual patients and developing theories to govern posology rather than drawing on pure experiment, careful observation and accurate experience on an individual case-by-case basis seems to be a case of putting the dazzling cart of theory in front of the plodding hardworking horse of experience. Specious to say the least.
A lot of reflective thinking today. If disease development follows infection along a pathway, for example Tuberculosis, there is a known pathology in the aetiology. We expect a singular disease expression. However, Hahnemann opened the concept that all non venereal disease could be linked in some way. He attributed it to skin ailments which could cause internal problems, and of course has had thousands of years to modify.
Here is where I am with it all. Its my thoughts and I take full responsibility if Im wrong…
There is nothing to prevent mankind from being susceptible to all things that affect mankind. Some diseases will overcome the immune system without mercy. SOME individuals will escape the effects but generally, mankind per se will be affected.
In real terms, we as Earths inhabitants, get sick, locally and globally. Some diseases affect nations of certain ethnic characteristics more than another and some nations have no immunity to other nations diseases at all. Yet in this day and age, the world is pretty much an open field as far as disease is concerned.
I postulate the theory that humans to a lesser or greater degree, carry genetically and biologically, the capacity to develop ANY disease as we are predisposed to them, and as such ALL disease share a link. There is no such thing as a PSORA infection. There however is the ability to contage an infection from someone who carries bacteria, or a virus, or a fungus which is PART of the connected worldwide disease source which is classified as Psora. Genetically, I am sure we pass on susceptibility which is triggered when we get infected.
Hahnemann stated that he himself never had Psora. Which logically means that he never contaged a connected disease, but was susceptible to annual acute diseases of no deeper connection.
This allows for people to stop looking for the missing infection of Psora… It is not there. IT never has been. Once infected with certain disease causations, we are open to everything, dependent on our immunity and level of health.
I welcome thoughts on this topic.
……….It is due, let us say, to psora, but we have no clear conception of What psora is.
Psora needs to be split up into its component parts, no easy task; it roots in the vague, its trunk and boughs run away into anywhere.
The Psora of the homoeopaths seems somehow true, but it has no proper beginning, no definite course, and ends in pathological chaos. Perhaps we study it in Hahnemann, and in the best writers on the subject, and after doing our best to master it, we rise from our studies with no clear idea, and we finally decide to abandon psora as an intangible myth, and then we proceed with our clinical work; but, before long, we stumble against a very tangible something, and on looking at the stumbling block, we find writ large upon it the word Psora! Have I then hit upon a solution of the psora-problem? No; but if we cannot break the
whole faggot, we may perchance break one stick of it.
I was talking with the student who told me of this case, and I decided to write it up for her as a reminder of her first CASE taking and prescription. This student has studied the repertory very hard, to understand the meaning of the rubrics. English is her second language as with members of the Hong Kong Academy so I am doubly impressed with the efforts.
A family member caught a cold. She had a bland watery discharge from the nose. Body felt OK but eyes were tired, wanting to close which felt better. Appetite normal, Not much thirst but found herself wanting to drink water. Also had a chilliness internally, and feeling cold. There was a small cough present but not definable. As there were 121 remedies in cough rubric, it was left out because the other SX would cover.
Based on this, a careful evaluation of the sx led to this prescription.
So what happened? Within a day all sx cleared up. However, The patient had a Chicken Pie the next day and a cough developed.
Her SX were:
1. feeling itchy in throat
2. cough but no expectoration
3. feeling better after water
4. feel like something in throat
5. saliva more than normal
6. feeling cold.
She phoned me at this point, a little disheartened thinking that perhaps she had failed, so I spent time showing her how disease progresses and changes with SX and how we have to follow them as they develop. She was more than happy and competent to go back and re evaluate. I asked her to look at original rubric list and remove SX that were no longer there and add new Sx.
The patient has not been given any medicine due to not being around, but on reading the MM the student feels Phos fits the picture better than Nux now.
When a student has learned to trust the Materia Medica as the final arbiter in a case, I know that they have understood. Makes me very happy.
There is a trend with Kentian trained homoeopaths, to learn remedies based on personality prescriptions. The training undergone by the practitioners is slanted that way to make it ‘easier’ to prescribe.
The problem with this type of prescribing and remedy comprehension, is simply that it is wrong and dangerous.
Remedies dont have personalities. They are a collection of symptoms produced by a substance. The substances ‘poison’ the living host to produce reaction and the reactive host develops symptoms based entirely on the content of the substance and in the same manner every time. By attributing personalities to the remedy, it destroys the rationale of finding a disease state in a person or animal based on individual symptoms rather than being influenced by the ‘personality’ of the remedy, ie, sulphur is a dirty unkempt dreamer of many things.
I have been in the company of a ‘homoeopath’ for a week who uses intuition and kinesiology to prescribe. A sick patient was in his clinic and he asked me what I would give… after 5 minutes and checking a symptom in the repertory, I made a prescription. He took the bottle of the medicine I prescribed, placed it on her neck and raised her arm. He said, “I dont feel this remedy is correct” and gave her something else. I said to him gently that the patient was very sick and that the remedy I prescribed, in my experience and knowledge of both the disease and the remedy, would be effective in stopping a progression the acute disease.
He said that his intuition confirmed by the muscle testing said otherwise. Later that day, the patient worsened and was taken to hospital…. The homoeopath explained to me that obviously the patient was too sick for the remedy to work! The father of the patient, who had been in the room during our conversation, phoned me later that night, and told me the sx were the same and wanted to know the remedy name I prescribed to give the child. He came to my clinic, picked up the remedy and administered it. The child broke the fever, perspired and was feeling better in 7 hours.
I consider myself intuitive. I see intuition as a subconscious assimilation of experiences, observations and learned knowledge that is tucked away in the recesses of the mind. Many times in observing a patient, I have a feel for a medicine, BUT is based on symptoms expressed that I subconsciously have picked up through my senses and have observed before or have read about… I still balance this intuitive feel with the concrete reality of the Materia Medica.
Having the experience of thousands and thousands of patients over the years, there is knowledge assimilated of symptoms that respond to a certain remedy or treatment protocol. I see a triad of symptoms and recognise the ‘picture’ of a remedy which has these clinical characteristics, and despite the disease name, are present.
I am also keenly aware of subconscious behavioral changes in my relationships. I know when something is not quite right or is different or off. I may not know why, however I know something is going on. I think humans develop similar body behaviour patterns that a discerning observer can pick up subconsciously and relate to previous experiences and thus see what is going to happen shortly, and it does.
Intuition based on solid experience and training is helpful. Based on a false spiritual foundation will fail all too often.
When I work with my colleague Manuel in the clinic, we will come to a remedy based on solid logical reasons. However a few times, Manuel will say to me “you are not happy with this prescription are you?” This is a cue to re-evaluate the case and look for things we had missed. I am unhappy with the prescription simply because it did not match the pace, pitch and power of my experience with the remedy. It does not “feel right” even though the symptoms match.
We had a child with a bad cold and pains in his body…difficult to get sx as was just less than 2 years old. He had been sick for a week. We arrived at a remedy…. this was a “you are not happy with this prescription are you?” time.
So we just observed a little more. He was sat in the clinic, the temp was hot, just a diaper on… when the fan blew on him, it did not bother him at all. Our clinic table is glass. I picked the child up and placed him on the table. He immediately began to cry. A minute later I placed his hand on the table and he began to cry again.
I used the rubrics AGGRAVATION cold becoming, part of the body, and touching an object cold. These and other symptoms led us to RHUS TOX as the remedy. he was better the next day.
The correct use of intuition, willing to trust the inner knowledge gained with experience, is a good thing. However, is best to hone the intuition with checking the facts.
The IHM was invited to Hong Kong to have a four day Seminar with the Hong Kong Academy of Homoeopathy.
We had 4 days of intensive study together. A lot of case work, analysis, a couple of live cases and discussions on the use of LM medicines, both preparation and how to use following the protocols of the Paris notebooks of Hahnemann. We discussed Miasms and their influence today in illness, and a whole host of other subjects.
Considering that the students were relative newcomers to homoeopathy, it was interesting to see how from day one to day four, their abilities to focus on a case and look for correct symptoms increased dramatically as they applied the Hahnemannian protocols. We had three senior doctors from Bangkok join us for the seminar. A pleasure to see them.
The IHM begins its 2018 seminar season in Hong Kong. A four day intense at the Hong Kong academy of Homoeopathy starting March 10th.
The Principal of the Academy, Arden Wong, attended an intensive in Seville Spain to learn more regarding the use and application of the Therapeutic Pocket Book a year ago and invited me to the college to teach his students. The IHM was impressed with the knowledge and application of Homoeopathy in practice of Arden, so much so that he was awarded a licentiateship of the Institute after completion of the course.
We are looking forward to association with the students and also Drs and practitioners from other countries who are attending.
Translated from the Spanish. Original Post here: https://institutodemedicinahomoeopaticaamericalatina.wordpress.com/por-que-boenninghausen/
By Dr. Guillermo Zamora, Surgeon UAG, Dhom. Lic. For the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.
The story begins about 14 years ago, when I was a little dissatisfied with the results of the method I was taught in the postgraduate school (the Kentian), I began to investigate other possibilities of obtaining a more exact remedy in my prescriptions.
At that time, one of our teachers, who taught the aforementioned method, alluded to a small book of medical matter that she held in her hand, and affirmed that her father (the founder of the school) was very successful in his prescriptions thanks to that work. At that time I paid close attention to that book and wrote down all the details of the reference on a small piece of blank sheet. Time later, I began to read it and I realized that it was a medical matter that contained symptoms that were called “Keynotes” (Key symptoms) … something completely removed from the logic of Kent.
Once I graduated, I decided to create a flowchart, which I organized based on the information contained in this work and some others that contained Keynotes symptoms. I arranged in different divisions corresponding for example to the locations, circumstances, Mentals, Sensations, Modalities, and many others. It took more than a year to finish ordering ALL the symptoms in this work.
While I was doing the work I was impregnated with the keynote symptoms of this little book which I read and reread no less than 6 or 7 times, while my effectiveness rate improved day after day. It drew my attention that at some point the author quoted a certain Boenninghausen, at that time someone unknown to me, but as I divided my flow chart I began to realize that Keynotes were nothing other than COMBINATIONS of one location + one modality, or of a sensation with a modality, or even in some occasions, of a location with a sensation. For this reason, a little later I decided to get a copy of the Therapeutic Pocket Book (TPB), version 1846 of Boenninghausen.
During the time I tried to use this copy, an English version, the truth is that I was very confused to use it; I did not have a clear idea of how to use it, and I was not familiar with it either. Most of the time, I used my flow chart, and to a lesser extent Kent’s repertoire to consult some rubric. However, although the effectiveness rate had increased markedly (say 20 to 50-60%), I still felt dissatisfied with the result.
One day, there comes one of those moments that you think you are not going to touch, and one of my children begins to get sick of the skin (Dermatitis), coming to present on one occasion Ritter syndrome (a disease caused by golden Staphylococcus) . Despite all my efforts, both in my diagram and through the use of Kent ‘s repertoire, only Rhus – T was thrown at me , which was in accordance with the recommendation of several international homeopaths whom I had asked for an interconsultation. If anything, the recommendation was made to use Sulfur as an alternative. Anyway, frustratingly these remedies did not give the desired result.
It is then, that after having read some of his dissertations, and astonished by the content of them, appears on the scene Dr. Gary Weaver, President of the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine, who selflessly and making use of his knowledge and expertise in The TPB, helped me with my son’s case. He told me that my conclusion of Rhus-T through my tools was logical and even close to the diagnosis, but that in reality the remedy was Sepia . Little convinced of his diagnosis, I followed every step in his prescription. The result that would come shortly after would be surprising; and a couple of remedy changes along the way would be enough to solve the case completely.
Thus through this excellent homeopath I acquired knowledge really Hahnemannian method and I realized the great favors a good tool offers ( e s for this reason that translated the TPB of Polony & Weaver Spanish ). Today, Dr. Gary Weaver is still the person to whom I consult when I have problems in the family. Recently, another of my loved ones almost died (literally) from a kidney problem, and once I learned that when emotions are mixed, it is better to consult a colleague, he gave me an example of the success obtained when using a good tool in the correct way.
During this learning process, I understood that in those combinations that I observed during the construction of my flow chart, the Keynote symptom was always made up of a part that was very consistent in the proving, and of another that was shared by few remedies ( as I now know that Guernsey claimed), and that most came from the Therapeutic Pocket Book of Boenninghausen. But I also realized that the TPB is built by the abstraction of symptoms from the provings and that it has the quality of being able to be used in order to recombine by analogysymptoms to obtain an infinity of combinations that have never even been seen before in a proving. That’s why we can deduce, that many combinations were out of those Keynotes. Therefore, it is also important to mention that this process of abstraction and recombination during the taking of a case has a specific methodology, which makes this repertoire a unique and indispensable work.
Nowadays I use the Boenninghausen repertoire most of the time in my daily practice (95%), sometimes I consult my flow chart (4%) and very rarely (Kent’s repertoire) (1%). My effectiveness rate has been increasing, from 85-95%.
You may ask: Is it possible to succeed using Kent’s repertoire? The answer is YES, but with a certain margin of error, and as long as we have an acceptable knowledge of Pure Materia Medica (and EC), we know what rubrics to use and what is the true method to take a case according to the Hahnemann guidelines. , who until now has only been misinterpreted and little investigated by most of the schools, even those that advertise themselves as very “Hahnemannian”. On the contrary, it is rare school that comes to support a seminar like ours, unique in its kind. What has happened is similar to the game of the “decomposed telephone” where a message that is given at the origin arrives completely distorted to the last receiver. By then, when we arrive with an apparently “new” message, but that simply was NOT taken into account (or was not known about it), interests are affected (school programs, homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc. ) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science was a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc.) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc.) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and really researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. or in the most measured of commentaries it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and really investigated. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home.
In the case of the teachers of the IMH none will teach a personal opinion, nor will teach philosophy, much less dare to tell you that they discovered the black thread or that they are the black thread as many modern gurus who are out there wanting self-proclaimed and that really AFFECT what is most important for a conscious homeopath; to his patients. The IMH teachers will only teach you genuine Homeopathy, as Hahnemann taught it and with which he cured tuberculosis, syphilis, pneumonia, psychosis, diarrhea, etc. etc. etc.
Now; returning to the best homeopath in history (after Hahnemann), Dr. Boenninghausen; I know that what I can say, being a little known person, may not have much value, but it is the same Hahnemann who bears witness to the sagacity of Boenninghausen. Hahnemann considered the work of Boenninghausen as one of the best works as we can see in the footnote number 109 of paragraph 153 in the Organon 6th. Edition:
“Dr. Von Boenninghausen, for the publication of the characteristic symptoms of homeopathic medicines and for his Repertory, has rendered a great service to Homeopathy …”
This repertoire fell into disuse given the popularity of Kent’s repertoire. However, thanks to the research of the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine team on the original works and materials, it has been possible to elucidate that the Boenninghausen repertoire, specifically the Therapeutic Pocket Book version 1846, leads to the methodology established by Hahnemann himself; this repertoire is in itself, a SYNOPSIS of everything that constitutes case-taking and follow-up. This is reflected in the following testimony of Hahnemann:
“… .Bon von Bönninghausen of Münster has studied and captured my homeopathic treatment system so completely that as a homeopath it deserves to be given full confidence, and if I fell ill and could not help myself, I would not be entrusted to any other doctor . “
… Haehl, R .: Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, 1922, 2 volumes, Indian edition, BJain, New Delhi, 1985, vol.2, p.483.
Only a few schools have made the decision to make a change in teaching, and only a handful of homeopaths have taken the decision in a personal and independent way to align themselves with the instructions proposed by Hahnemann by virtue of compliance with the principle of similar.
Is it too late to restore what has been destroyed?