Main concerns :
1.- “ Many pathologies are not mentioned in the repertoire”
2.- “ Some parts of the body, such as the prostate, are not in the repertoire”
3.- “ Only 125 remedies come in the repertoire”
From the first two concerns, one can find that they are due to a lack of attention in the reading referring to the case taking and analysis within the Organon. While it is true that we can make a clinical diagnosis within our office, for example, hypertension or diabetes, it is also true that the selection of the remedy should not be based on the name of a disease. Homoeopathic diagnosis has nothing to do with the name of the patient’s nosological diagnosis, but rather with its signs and symptoms.
Detailed reading will lead us to understand that the most important thing is to observe how the disease affects the patient. If we talk about a specific pain, then, the most important thing will be to know where (in what region), what kind of pain, since when, what (causality factors) aggravates it, which improves it, that accompanies it, etc. Individualizing the case according to how the symptoms are observed in the patient is the basis.
The same is true for the prostate when, for example, hypertrophy (enlarges), then causes problems. Here the point will be to know how this affects the patient; What symptoms it produces. It is important to find which symptom the differential can make; and understand that this can come from any collective symptom of the patient, which is even alien to the location of the current condition, but that is similar to the symptomatic totality.
However, something we must remember is that the intention of using the repertoire during our consultation is to GUIDE us towards a remedy very close to the image of the patient’s disease, whose homoeopathic diagnosis will be determined by our final consultation towards pure materia medica. In other words, it is necessary to have in-depth knowledge of MMP in order to properly exercise our profession.
If one achieves reasoning like this and realizes that the repertoire achieves the assembly of a complete picture of a disease from the combination of scattered symptoms, but fully organized in it, then one has already begun to understand the true meaning of the TPB.
With respect to the number of remedies contained in the TPB; 125 remedies appear in the original and for example, some others appear in another Boenninghausen work. I must say that I personally work with about twenty (or more) additional remedies to those listed in the repertoire. I mostly use the remedies available for Bönninghausen in 1864 and a few more proven from 1860 to 1900, with which fast and lasting cures are achieved.
The fact that remedies such as Gelsemium, Phytolacca, Argentum nitricum, and Kali bichromicum do not appear on the TPB is not a failure as such. I am sure that when I have found a peritonsillar abscess with acute pain in the throat radiated to the ears when swallowing saliva pointing towards the symptomatic totality, I have prescribed Phytolacca decandra. Thus, one must understand the “image” of any of these remedies well enough to recognize it when one sees it, as well as other remedies that are not in the book. Knowing our tools is indispensable.
Or as Julian Winston would ask otherwise in his review of The Therapeutic Pocket Book :
“Do we stop using Kent’s repertoire because it doesn’t contain Chocolate, Hydrogen, Germanium, Neon, Bamboo, or Ozone?”
The same question would apply to the Boenninghausen repertoire.
In any case, I would like to comment that in my daily homeopathic medical practice, I find that only about 20-30 standard-use remedies are prescribed frequently, while the remaining others are given sporadically.
There is no reason to become anxious because the repertoire does not contain 1,500 or 2,000 remedies. Once we have investigated the high rates of effectiveness in the cases of Hahnemann and Boenninghausen; We realize that most diseases can be treated with fewer medications, but have been properly tested.
In conclusion; If you have a remedy that has been PROPERLY EXPERIENCED and has been used and verified, and therefore always useful; then it is valid that it is in its additional ones; although in personal opinion, new remedies should not be added arbitrarily to a repertoire, until there is a worldwide consensus of expert scientific homeopaths to establish guidelines for the collection and organization of the characteristic symptoms of provings, verification and the graduation of remedies in an orderly and systematic manner according to the Hahnemann / Boenninghausen criteria.
In 1810, Hahnemann presented his groundbreaking new medicine and therapy via the book the Organon of the Medical Art. He presented his method in carefully structured detail. He compiled a database of medical substance proving’s which were listed in the Fragmenta, the Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. Hahnemann taught his methods to many students and colleagues, but only put his trust in a small number of practitioners, of whom Clemens Maria Franz (Friedrich) Freiherr (Baron) von Bönninghausen was perhaps the most prominent.
Bönninghausen’s projects of reportorial works culminating in the Therapeutic Pocket Book, was approved by Hahnemann as being an accurate representation of the proving’s database and clinical experience. (The T.P.B. actually is an amazing synthetic approach of how Hahnemann’s mind worked in case analysis.)
Although Hahnemann revised the Organon six times before his death and constantly examined possible changes to the methodology, he never made changes to the central prescribing principle of like cures like, without which homoeopathy (the therapy) cannot exist as a separate modality. If the principle of “like cures like”, with its required database of provings, is abandoned, as has been the case with modern approaches and methods, the certainty offered by prescribing to principle is lost, the path obliterated.
At the IHM we look no further than Hahnemann’s circle of trust. We work with Hahnemann’s structure of method and database, Organon and proving’s. We explore the writings of those whom Hahnemann commended, and study and apply the work of Boenninghausen in great depth.
We do not do this slavishly. In order to validate the method, the works and writings of others claiming to be homoeopaths are examined for similarities and differences in approach to the therapy. Sadly, the decline in homoeopathic integrity began with one of its most able practitioners who was politically naïve.
On the political level, Carroll Dunham was a peacemaker. It was said of him that he had no enemies. His liberal and generous mind made it easier for him to accept compromise. Unfortunately, compromise on the search for the truth leads to error. In 1870 he made a notable presentation before the American Institute of Homœopathy (AIH) called ‘Freedom of Medical Opinion and Action: a Vital Necessity and a Great Responsibility’. He believed, contrary to his predecessors, that liberty of opinion and practice should prevail within the AIH. He said that he was sure that “perfect liberty will sooner bring knowledge of the truth and that purity of practice which we all desire.” His speech provided license to the pseudo-homoeopaths to practice as they wanted and be still identified as homoeopaths. Subsequent to his address knowledge of homoeopathy was removed in 1874 as a requirement for membership in the AIH. Dunham died in 1877 and did not witness the disastrous effect his noble but naïve vision eventually had on the course of homoeopathy in the U.S.A. as most of our institutions disappeared after its members had adopted practices at variance with the teachings of Hahnemann.
(Our Noble and Beloved Carroll Dunham by Dr André Saine, D.C., N.D., F.C.A.H.)
We work with great care and certainty because we value our integrity as homoeopathic practitioners, and we owe it to our patients to treat based on a tried and true principle, to avoid speculation, theorizing, and invented systems whether based on sensation, the periodic table, kabala, shamanism, kingdoms, families and the like.
Hahnemann’s homoeopathy is the modality which achieved tremendous successes in the cholera epidemic of the early 1830s, leading to its acceptance in medical faculties in Europe at the time as a discipline for study. The original works are filled with discussions and cases demonstrating the efficiency of the method across the spectrum of diseases afflicting mankind.
Today homoeopathy is either being outlawed or relegated to treatment of the most minor problems. Its vast ability as a medical modality is being lost. Poor training, poor understanding of the medical science behind its development and a search for novelty in case analysis all have contributed to its demise as a valid therapy and is thought of as an intuitive healing method rather than the effective treatment it really is.
The IHM puts all its efforts into teaching from original materials, working with practitioners to achieve greater certainty and effectiveness in prescribing through a full understanding of the central principle of homoeopathy and the best ways to apply it in homoeopathic practice.
We do not wish to add more novel ideas to the world of homoeopathy. We do see it as part of our professional duty, to keep the standards high and teach the real methodology to all who desire to practice proper medicine in the prescribed manner. We lay no claim to being ‘better’ prescribers. We do however concede that our results based on the instructions of Hahnemann give better resolution to medical problems than other interpretive methods of prescribing. There is great latitude in applying the therapy, however, deviating from its central core or adding a false overlay of psychological analysis and emphasizing or interpreting physical symptoms as delusional states are not the answer.
We still have open dates from the 21st till 31st August 2019 for the 4 day intensive and Register enrolment course.
Participants from all over the world come to train and learn the Hahnemannian methodology for case taking that gives great clinical success…
Just drop us a line on firstname.lastname@example.org
Train in lovely Seville Spain.
Some of our international members.
Register member Thailand.
Register member Estonia
Hempel and Wilkinson were early bridge-builders between homeopathy and Swedenborgianism, but the principal catalyst for this conjoining of ideas was James Tyler Kent, professor of materia medica at Hering Medical College and Hospital in Chicago. He constructed a uniquely Swedenborgian approach to Hahnemannian medicine in his Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy (1900) by providing a full description of Swedenborgian philosophy and spelling out such relevant Swedenborgian ideas as a human being’s interior and external worlds, the influx from the internal to the external, and the dependency of the whole on the Divine.
Each of Kent’s medicines had a “personality” that corresponded to the constitution of the patient. Rather than treat the specific organ or lesion, Kent aimed his medicines at the pattern exuded by the patient’s soul. Kent’s grouping of patients by type was an echo of Swedenborg’s description of the spiritual realms, where he described communities of angels gathering according to their personality and function to form the organs of a vast Universal Human that made up the whole of the heavens. In his writings, Swedenborg characterized spirits as, for example, “angels of the kidneys” or “angels of the lungs,” ascribing these souls of the deceased with characters and functions that corresponded with those organs.
Doctrine of degrees: The greater the number of dilutions (in this case, on a scale from 1 to 200), the greater the potency of the homeopathic medicine; likewise, the higher the level of spiritual rarefaction (from the physical world to heaven), the closer one moves to the Lord.
Kentian homeopathy spread abroad, attracting Margaret Tyler and John Weir in Great Britain, Pierre Schmidt in Germany, and Denis Demarque in France. Nevertheless, the Kentian penchant for the constitutional (whole-person) prescribing of word-pictures to characterize medicines became almost a high art form and quickly fell into the hands of lay practitioners who popularized them even more. Today, due in no small measure to Swedenborg’s influence, homeopathy has become a bifurcated healing system with one faction looking wistfully at a more disciplined and reductionist process, seeking to fulfill a complementary role alongside mainstream medicine, and the other, enthralled by a vision that calls attention to the body’s essential harmony with the unseen forces of the universe.
This August, as for the last 6 years, we offer the intensive 4-day enrolment to the IHM Register for successful practitioners. Membership is not automatic. However, the training is of superior quality and will benefit all participants.
The course is held at one of our clinics in Seville Spain and will be conducted by one of the creators of the OPENREP SYNOPSIS computer repertory program Gary Weaver (Dhom med) utilising the updated and corrected manuscript of the original (not Allens version) Therapeutic Pocketbook 1846 version.
You will learn Solely from Hahnemanns thoughts and writings. You will see how to view a case from his perspective and how to analyse the case using Boenninghausens repertory for a successful prescription.
You will learn:
Help Desk <email@example.com>
In Seville Spain, August is traditionally the month for vacations due to the heat. We usually close the clinic due to little or no patient activity.
So Ive been thinking about the price for the teaching, and as our aim is to teach, and I love the interaction, the following decision has been reached.
We will include the SYNOPSIS computer repertory program, (retail $799) in the 4 day teaching module. (Windows only) If you have the program, we will drop the 4 day teaching price to €800. The program has 17 repertories, with the Therapeutic pocket book in Polish, Spanish, Hebrew, Italian and English.
Now that is a good deal.
Hahnemann’s concept of Illness. We need to look at this and see if or where our thinking deviates from it.
Hahnemann believed that the signs and symptoms of a case of illness represented an attempt by the body to heal itself. According to this view, the signs and symptoms do not represent the illness, but rather the reaction of the person to his illness. The illness and the reaction to illness are separate.
At first glance, this would appear to be at odds with the latter part of Aphorism 6. “…………All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.”
a little thought will clarify the apparent differences. Hahnemann is emphasising that the signs and symptoms exhibited by the patient are the true reactive process of the body which represent the individual disease per se, and not the named disease.
Therefore Hahnemann reasoned that physician should administer that medicine to the patient (which produced in the healthy signs and symptoms similar to those of the patient). In this manner, the natural attempt of the body to heal itself would be re-inforced, rather than neutralised or interfered with. Hahnemann called this treatment of illness with medicines produced in the healthy, symptoms similar to those of the ill.
Homoeopathy (Homois: Similar; Pathos: suffering).
If an ill person receives no treatment, he either dies, remains chronically ill or recovers. If he recovers, his pattern of recovery is like that of all sick persons and separate from his particular disease. As people become ill, old symptoms of previous illness often reappear. The symptoms move from non-vital organs, like the nose and throat, to more vital organs, like the kidneys and lungs. Then there is a period of crisis. Following this crisis, one by one and in reverse order of their appearance, the symptoms move from vital to less vital organs until the patient is well again. This natural response is called autotherapy.
Under homoeopathic treatment, an identical response usually follows, rather than the abrupt disappearance of symptoms or the introduction of new symptoms which often follows other types of therapy. Homoeopathy, from its inception, has been based on an inclusive, descriptive attitude towards the patient AND the medicine. The response of the patient is equally inclusive in relation to the natural course his illness would have taken without treatment.
Well, As much varietal teas, coffee and snacks that you want. Spanish sandwiches, Olives, seafood, meats, Salpicon, potatoes, eggs, soft drinks and water. A post teaching beer or Wine.
……. I have been a homoeopath for 17 years. In my library are many repertories and Materia Medicas. I found in the four days of study with the IHM, I was no longer struggling with the uncertainty of repertorising with the variants of Kent. For the first time, there was a sense of understanding the case in terms of symptoms and a concise homoeopathic viewpoint………. With over 60 case examples from acutes to chronic, I found an excitement coming back to my clinic. It has been 4 months since my training session and I can honestly say that everything has improved. … thank you so much, Gary. D.W. USA 2015
……….Who would have thought that the little repertory by Boenninghausen could have solved some long-standing patient cases so easily! The hard part for me is forgetting everything I’ve been taught and learning Hahnemann properly. A great teacher! E.W. Romania 2016.
Having been a victim of all the major aberrant versions of homoeopathy, Kent, Vithoulkas, Sherr, Scholten Sankaran, etc. I have never encountered a more clear, confident, practical approach than Gary Weaver’s. This is real homoeopathy. With his vast clinical experience and the clearest understanding of Hahnemann and Boeninghausen I’ve ever encountered, you have a teacher and practitioner of rare worth and ability. Homoeopaths of all ranges of experience should be taking advantage of this man’s expertise. E.N. California 2019
Our aim at the IHM is and always has been to instil knowledge and ability in the practitioner. We have our teaching faculty in Seville Spain (English) and a teaching faculty in Mexico. (Spanish). We accept non medical trained practitioners as well.
August 2019 in Sevilla is available for the 4-day seminar. Let us know your proposed dates and we will facilitate you.