Monthly Archives: April 2011

I ask you…

by Priscilla Rowbottom. Practitioner.

I ask you…

I ask you:  What will lead you to the best remedy – knowledge that your patient loves listening to Mozart?  Or knowledge that he always sleeps on his left side when he’s feeling ill?

I ask you:  What will help you decide what remedy to give – the story of your patient’s first love affair with her English teacher in fourth grade, in technicolour detail, or the information that when she’s ill her stool is green?

I ask you:  What will move your case ahead – your patient’s dreams about purple porpoises or the information that her symptoms are always worse after eating?

I ask you – what are they teaching in homoeopathy schools these days?

I ask you…

What is a Homoeopath:: Personal View

Vera Resnick

Hahnemann really defines homoeopathy in the Organon through all of its aphorisms, but I feel that Aphorism 3 sets things in place very clearly.  My intention is not to define all of homoeopathy within several paragraphs, rather to show how Hahnemann gave a framework for understanding what a homoeopath has to be able to do in order to practice real homoeopathy correctly and effectively.

1.     “…the physician…perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease…”

–         observing the patient

–         focusing on the disease state

–         getting a clear picture of the disease state, a picture of what has changed in contrast with the previous healthier state

–         using perception rather than imagination, speculation, or over-rated creativity

–         knowing how to take the case

–         using knowledge of disease through understanding of anatomy, physiology and pathology so that he knows what he is seeing, and understands what he is hearing

–         never falling into the trap of labeling a disease state to be able to include it in a category common to others, rather than individualizing the disease state as clearly as possible to understand the patient’s personal expression of it through symptoms, modalities etc.

 

2.  “…he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine…”

–         knowledge of medicines through in-depth study of proving symptoms, as a medicine’s impact on a healthy person is the only true way to see what is curative in that medicine

–         awareness that clinical information about medicines cannot be the first source of information about what a medicine can do[1]

 

3.  “…he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient…”

–         understanding of the Law of Similars and how it plays out in “like cures like”, in the way that a substance that can cause a symptom picture in a healthy person will cure a similar symptom picture in a sick person

–         ability to focus on the disease symptom picture and to match it to the remedy that can cause the most similar disease picture in a healthy person

–         to distinguish, where there is a complex disease picture, what symptoms to work with in order to achieve most effective prescribing

 

4.  In addition, Hahnemann states the need for the “exact quantity of it [the remedy] required (proper dose)” and the knowledge of “the obstacles to recovery in each case” and the awareness of how to remove them.

 

So in summary, a homoeopath is someone who knows:

–         how to identify a disease picture

–         what is curative in remedies through knowledge of proving symptoms

–         how to harness the Law of Similars in matching the remedy in its proving symptoms to the disease picture

–         how to dose with the remedy

–         how to identify and remove obstacles to cure

 

In Hahnemann’s words “then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art.”


[1] In the preface to the proving of Alumina in Chronic Diseases Hahnemann writes:  “I am sorry to say the significance of the use of medicines as given in the preface to most of the remedies, and which have often been unreliably reported, has been now and then misunderstood, having been regarded as determining the choice of remedies in the treatment of diseases (as indications) ; this they cannot and should not be ; they are not names of diseases healed, but only of separate symptoms which, in treating a disease with the specified medicine, were either diminished or removed ab usu. To use them otherwise is a deceptive procedure which we leave now as before to our allopathic step-brothers. They are, on the contrary, only to serve to furnish occasionally a little confirmation of the correct choice of the homoeopathic remedy, already found out from their pure peculiar medicinal effects, as indicated according to the similarity of the symptoms of disease of the special case under consideration.”

What a Homoeopath is. English/Spanish

Extracted in part from “El Verdadero Homeópata” and translated from the Spanish.

Dr. Guillermo Zamora, Médico Cirujano, Homeópata


Everybody, at some point has heard the word “homeopathy”, but for the potential patient, when he hears this word, there is no difference in his or her mind what the term means with regard to different practices or practitioners using this title.

However, to its misfortune, it appears that there are many false homeopaths who practice a lot of therapies, which are endorsed under the name of “Homeopathy” even if they do not have anything to do with it.

Therefore, it would be good, before a person consults a homeopath, that they are aware what does and does NOT make a real homeopath in order that the choice they make will have the best outcome in terms of health restoration using the law of similars.

Similarity´s Law: : Paragraph 26 of Organon 6 th Edition: “ A weaker dynamic affection (disease) is permanently extinguished in the living organism by a stronger one (Remedy), if the latter (whilst differing in kind) is very similar to the former in its manifestations.”

Homeopathy, from Greek homoios (similar) and pathos (disease) is a therapeutic system that is based on the following principles:

1) Law of Similarity

2) Experimentation in healthy people

3) Single Remedy

4) Dose infinitesimal

A true homeopath has the following characteristics:

1.-Bases and applies his knowledge in practice from the original materials from the discoverer and designer of the method: Dr. Samuel Hahnemann.

These are the fundamentals:

a) “Organon of Medicine” (6 th edition), a book in which are written the principles and basic tenets of homeopathy.

b) “Chronic Diseases.” In this book Dr. Hahnemann wrote his miasmatic theory as the origin of diseases. The homeopath must have a clear conception of what a miasma is and the type of symptoms that emerge from each miasma.

c) Materia Medica Pura: Book containing realiable pathogenesias (symptoms from the experiments) of the remedies under the protocol of Hahnemann.

d) Therapeutic Pocket Book 1846 version by Boenninghausen. A Materia Medica  guide praised by Hahnemann himself in the footnote 109 (Paragraph 153) of the Organon. Boenninghausen was one of his pupils, and was the best who could understand the Hahnemannian thinking. Boenninghausen´s technique for the collection of the symptoms and their respective remedies in this book is unique and it never was used in other repertories (Guides). It is a basic tool, which guides the homeopath to accurate and reliable remedy for the patient through its symptoms (Repertorization).

2.-During case taking, a true homeopath always will listen carefully, without prejudice, allowing to the patient to elaborate about their symptoms. Tries not to interrupt, while observing and collecting the symptoms. Later, he makes detailed inquiry into to the problem. Explores, and makes an analysis of the problem and then submit symptoms into repertorization (See above 1.d)

3.-When he selects the remedy, prescribes only one remedy at a time, this is, a remedy that covers the symptomatic totality. He monitors the dose checking the variability of each symptom that he considered as useful for the selection of a remedy. He never repeats the dose in a mechanical way, but according to the response of the organism to the remedy.

4.-He knows in a skilled way how to use both types of potencies, as centesimal scale as LMs potencies published by Hahnemann in the 6th edition of the Organon (the last edition).

5.-During follow-up of a case, while monitoring the dose, he knows how to apply the Hahnemannian criterion as for changing a remedy, increase or decrease the potency, dilute the remedy, suspend, retake the case, or establish cure has occurred.

6.-The true homeopath must have the skill and practice to treat their patients with an in depth training.. A true homeopath can´t be formed through a simple course of 3 or 6 months. It is dangerous for patient. because a well-intentioned person but homeopathically ignorant could kill to a patient by omission or simply by suppressing symptoms in the same way that another method would do it. If I may, let me give you an example: Attend a patient for consultation with intense pain in epigastrium (pit of the stomach), 3 hours after onset. If the homeopath, has not basic medical knowledge will not know that appendicitis begins in that region and that about 16 or 24 hours that appendix will burst. Then, what would be only a matter of sending patient to a few basic laboratories and a simple surgery, now it has become in a very large incision (exploratory laparotomy) that most likely will kill the patient.

7.-The true homeopath, conscious of its limitations, but using the most effective method is able to accept with humility and to identify when a case is not curable or is not the scope of homeopathy, or when it requires surgery, or even more, when other resources are required from the medicine. When his experience is not enough in some cases, he consults to others more experienced colleagues.

What a Real Homeopath does not do.

1.-He never uses literature by people who claim to have discovered new methods or theories, not without before know and have understood everything from the original materials.

2.-He does not take a case to be identified through a named syndrome or diagnosis and then prescribe on the basis of such.. Much less, diagnoses by iris, pendulum, or signs of the zodiac. That’s plain simply charlatanism.

3.-He does not give more than one remedy at a time, nor alternating them, nor puts 2 or more remedies in one bottle- Neither does he use nother methods such as Bach Flowers, Shuesslers tissue salts, Organotherapy, Homotoxicology, Lanthanides (periodic table), Transmission hair long distance, Sensation theory and families, with homeopathy, he knows that these therapies are not Homeopathic in nature or intent., He does not combine homeopathy with acupuncture, herbal medicine, massage or dietary supplements as a curative therapy. The true homeopath will use homeopathy as the single therapy of choice in a given circumstance where it is required.

4.-The true homeopath never assigns a remedy for a specific disease.  He never tells to the patient: this is a remedy for cough, or diarrhea, or diabetes or hypertension. That’s not homeopathy, it is allopathy.

Allopathy: From the Greek Allos, elsewhere, another place, Pathos = disease, suffering. Hahnemann gave that name to the medicine practiced for those who were not homeopaths. Generally is  known as allopathy to the galenic medicine that uses either as the similar, contrary, isopathic or unlike, but does not give importance to these features.

5.-The true homeopath does not subject their patients to unnecessary risks, due arrogance, or lack of preparation.

6.-The true homeopath does not consider their patients based on their status, religion, ideology, preferences or economic status, but by the state and severity of their disease

Dr Guillermo’s blog is http://homeopathyonline.org/Blogespanol

 

El Verdadero Homeópata

Todos en algún momento hemos escuchado la palabra “Homeopatía”, sin embargo para el consumidor, el paciente potencial, le es lo mismo cuando escucha acerca de esta palabra y muchas veces cree que esta implica algo muy general y que no hay diferencia entre los homeópatas que la practican.

Sin embargo, para su mala fortuna, resulta que existen muchos falsos homeópatas los cuales ejercen sin fin de terapias, las cuales son enfrascadas con el nombre de “Homeopatía” aún y cuando no tienen que ver nada con ella.

Por esto, sería bueno, que antes de consultar un homeópata primero le quede bien claro que es lo que hace y NO hace un verdadero homeópata en orden de que la aplicación de la ley de semejantes opere en sus pacientes y los lleve a un buen resultado.

Ley de semejantes: Párrafo 26 de Organon 6ª Edición: “Una afección dinámica (enfermedad) en el organismo vivo será extinguida por otra más fuerte (el remedio que aplica el homeópata) que la anterior y si (aunque de diferente naturaleza) la segunda es, en sus manifestaciones, muy similar a la primera”

Homeopatía, del griego homoios (semejante) y Pathos (enfermedad) es un sistema terapéutico que se fundamenta en los siguientes principios:

1) Ley de Semejantes

2) Experimentación en personas sanas

3) Remedio único

4) Dosis infinitesimal

Un homeópata verdadero tiene las siguientes características:

1.-Basa y aplica sus conocimientos en su práctica médica desde los materiales originales del descubridor y diseñador del método: Dr. Samuel Hahnemann. Estos son los fundamentales:

a) “Organon de la medicina” (6ª Edición), libro en el cual dejó escritos los principios y preceptos fundamentales de la homeopatía.

b) “Enfermedades Crónicas”. En este libro el Dr. Hahnemann escribe su Teoría miasmática como origen de las enfermedades. El homeópata debe tener una concepción clara de lo que un miasma es y del tipo de síntomas que se desprenden de cada miasma.

c) Materia Médica Pura: Libro que contiene patogenesias (síntomas provenientes de las experimentaciones) confiables de los remedios  bajo el protocolo de Hahnemann.

d) Therapeutic Pocket Book de Boenninghausen, versión 1846. Guía de la materia médica elogiada por el mismo Hahnemann en su pié de Nota 109 del párrafo 153 del Organón 6ª edición. Boenninghausen fue uno de sus pupilos, y fue el que mejor pudo comprender el pensamiento Hahnemanniano. La técnica de Boenninghausen para la recabación de los síntomas y sus respectivos remedios en este libro, es única y nunca se retomó en otro tipo de repertorios.  Es una herramienta básica, la cual orienta al homeópata hacia un remedio exacto y confiable a través de sus síntomas (repertorización)  para el paciente.

2.-Durante la toma de un caso, siempre escucha cuidadosamente, sin prejuicios,  permitiéndole al paciente explayarse con respecto a sus síntomas. Procura no interrumpirle, mientras lo observa y recaba sus síntomas. Posteriormente, el hace las preguntas pertinentes a su problema. Lo explora, y hace un análisis de su problema para después someterlo a repertorización (Ver arriba 1.d)

3.-Cuando selecciona el remedio, solamente le prescribe uno a la vez, esto es, un remedio que cubra la totalidad sintomática. Monitoriza la dosis vigilando la variabilidad de cada uno de los síntomas que consideró útiles para la selección de un remedio. Nunca repite la dosis de manera mecánica, sino más bien de acuerdo a la respuesta del organismo (energía vital) al remedio.

4.-Sabe usar de manera hábil tanto las potencias de la escala centesimal como las potencias LM publicadas por Hahnemann en la 6ª edición del Organon (la última).

5.-Durante el seguimiento de un caso, al monitorizar la dosis, sabe cómo aplicar el criterio Hahnemanniano ya sea para cambiar de remedio, aumentar o disminuir la potencia, diluir más el remedio, suspenderlo, retomar el caso, ó darlo de alta.

6.-El verdadero homeópata debe tener la pericia y la práctica desde la escuela para tratar a sus pacientes. No debe estar hecho al vapor a través un simple curso de 3 ó 6 meses. Es peligroso para el consumidor, ya que una persona bien intencionada pero homeopáticamente ignorante podría matarlo por omisión o simplemente por suprimir síntomas del mismo modo que en cualquier otro método se haría. Me permito un ejemplo: Acude un paciente a consulta con dolor intenso en epigastrio (boca del estómago), 3 horas de evolución. Si el homeópata, no tiene conocimientos básicos de medicina, no sabrá que la apendicitis comienza en  esa región, y que aproximadamente a las 16 ó 24 horas esa apéndice se reventará. Lo que sólo era cuestión de mandar hacer unos estudios básicos y una simple cirugía, se convierte en una incisión sumamente grande (Laparotomía exploradora) que muy probablemente cobrará la vida del paciente.

7.-El verdadero homeópata, consciente de sus limitaciones, pero de que usa el método más eficaz, es capaz de aceptar con humildad y de identificar cuando un caso no es curable ó cuando no está al alcance de la homeopatía, ó cuando requiere de cirugía, ó más aún, cuando requiere de otros recursos de la medicina. Cuando su experiencia no es suficiente en ciertos casos, consulta a colegas más experimentados.

Lo que NO hace un verdadero homeópata:

1.-Nunca usa literatura de personas que pretenden haber descubierto nuevos métodos ó teorías, sin antes, conocer al derecho y al revés los materiales originales arriba mencionados.

2.-No toma un caso, para identificarlo a través de un diagnóstico y luego prescribir en base al mismo. Mucho menos, diagnostica a través del iris, péndulo, o signos del zodiaco. Eso es simple y llanamente, charlatanería.

3.-No da más de un remedio a la vez, ni tampoco los alterna, ni tampoco pone 2 ó más remedios en un mismo frasco. Tampoco confunde terapias alternativas ni métodos como: Flores de Bach, Organoterapia, Homotoxicología, Lantánidos (tabla periódica), transmisión a larga distancia a través del cabello, teoría sensación y familias de remedios,  con Homeopatía, sabe que esas terapias son otra cosa menos homeopatía;  ni mucho menos la combina  con acupuntura, herbolaria, masajes, suplementos alimenticios. El verdadero Homeópata sabe que aunque estas terapias funcionan, una vez que ha utilizado la correcta metodología, no las necesita.

4.-El verdadero homeópata no alopatiza con homeopatía, quiero decir, nunca le dice al paciente, que un remedio es para la tos, o para la diarrea, o para la diabetes o para la hipertensión. Eso no es homeopatía, eso es alopatía.

Alopatía: Del griego Allos-a otra parte, a otro lugar, Pathos=enfermedad, sufrimiento. Nombre que dio Hahnemann a la medicina que practicaban aquellos que no eran homeópatas. Generalmente se conoce como alopatía a la medicina galénica, que utiliza indistintamente el semejante, el contrario, el isopático o el desemejante, aunque no le da importancia a estas características.

5.-El verdadero homeópata no somete a sus pacientes a riesgos innecesarios, ni por soberbia, ni por falta de preparación.

6.-El verdadero homeópata no considera a sus pacientes en base a su status, religión, ideología, preferencias o posición económica, sino por el estado y gravedad de su enfermedad.

De este modo, espero esto sea útil al paciente potencial. Investigue, indague, es su derecho.

 

positiveness!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say yes to professional homoeopaths!

ADDRESS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL HAHNEMANNIAN ASSOCIATION AT ITS SEVENTH ANNUAL MEETING.

By Professor J. T. Kent, M. D., President.

Fellow-members of the International Hahneman-nian Association : It is with pleasure that I welcome you to your seventh annual meeting; to one which promises to exceed in interest and profit even our last session.

In the past, this Association has accomplished some very use­ful work for the cause it espouses. Let us hope it will do even more in the future ! And what is the cause we espouse ; or, in other terms, why this Association ?

It was certainly for no idle purpose, nor for any senseless caprice, that our oldest and most respected members left the American Institute and formed this separate Association ; it is equally true that we of the junior profession did not join this Association for any selfish or useless purpose. Was not this Association formed solely for the purpose, as expressed, of per­petuating and developing true Homoeopathy? Was it not felt at the time of its organization that the hour had come for true men to arouse themselves and work for the science they loved ? Had they not heard all the principles which Hahnemann had taught, and which the experience of many had proven to be true, villified and abused: had not, in short, all true Homoeop­athy been driven from the Institute ? The homoeopathic school, then as now, was divided into two parties—the one represent­ing eclectic methods and practice, the other the principles and practice of Hahnemann, of Gross, of Boenninghausen, of Hering. The time had come when all practitioners had to decide which of the parties they should assist. And let it be to the eternal N glory of these men that they chose rather to be right than to be with the majority!

In the history of the American Institute, we may read a warning for us. In its first years the Institute was composed of able and true men, and its purpose was for truth and usefulness. But little by little eclectics were allowed to creep into its membership, and soon, behold! the whole body is eclectic. Let us then beware whom we elect members, let our censors be even over-scrupulous lest a wolf creep in in sheep’s clothing. Let no member sign any application for membership unless he knows the physician personally and is very sure he is qualified to serve with as. Too great caution cannot be observed in this matter. It is not great numbers that we want, but men of truth and purpose.

While much caution may be judiciously exercised in this mat­ter of electing new members, let us not repel those who, though not yet with us, are in sympathy with our purpose, and whose presence would be welcome. Let us not therefore erect any Chinese wall of exclusion, but merely exercise all proper pre­caution to prevent evil. Let no good man be excluded by personal malice; nor any useless man elected to serve personal ambition. As well stated in the preface to our last volume of transactions:

‘* Personal interests or ambitions have no place here) bat only what is truth.”

Without doubt all will assent to this assertion, but many will inquire, and most rightly, too, What is truth f This question has been asked many, many times, and of all subjects. In this case, limiting our statement to what is true in therapeutics, we unhesitatingly assert the law of similars to be true; to be a proven fad. Has it not been found operative in all diseases and in all countries ? can fuller demonstration be needed ?

” It is true; let it stand” we all exclaim.

It may be well to remark that while our law is a fixed fact, we must never forget that our school is not to be stationary. The law is complete and perfect; our knowledge of the extent of its usefulness is very incomplete and imperfect. The law is fixed, the school is progressive. Eclectics, building upon the uncertain sands of theory, need to be continually rebuilding, as each new theory causes a shifting of their foundation. Homceopathists, building upon the unchange­able rock of law, need never rebuild. Our foundation then being firm, we need only develop and improve the superstructure. Our knowledge of the extent and usefulness of the law of similars has increased since Hahne­mann’s day; let us see to it that we continue to improve, and always in the right way.

The law, being of divine origin, is complete, perfect, and fixed; the school, being composed of erring humanity, is incom­plete, imperfect, and changeable. While many willingly concede this much to the homoeopathic law, they yet desire something more; they would like to have liberty, license, ” to use their best judgmentto be free to treat anomalous cases by non-homoeopathic measures if, in their judgment, such may at any time be needed.

There is growing up such a tendency to the so-called scientific that our young men stand in danger of being drawn into this vortex of confusion. This scientific vortex looks wonderful; it is so strong! What can there be in the science of medicine but a knowledge of how to cure the sick ? The scientific physician, when asked what he knows, must say : I  know  how  to  cure  the  sick. If he really knows this he has knowledge and is scientific. If he has not this knowledge, which he pretends to possess, he is a pretender and a fraud.

What is there of value in this word ” scientific,” when all the pretenders in medicine make use of it? These, most of all, cry “We are the scientific.” “We teach science.” The amount-of science depends entirely on how much the instructor possesses, for ” a stream cannot rise higher than its source.”

The ” eclectics ” claim to teach the most scientific (?) of all, be­cause they select the good from all schools of medicine. Who has guided them to this great wisdom? Do they pretend to have a law or a philosophy to enable them to select the wheat and leave the chaff? No. Such a thing does not belong to their pre­tensions. They even claim the greatest empiricism to be the highest order of science. The greater the chaos and confusion the greater the science.

The cry of the unbelieving does not strengthen their scien­tific position when their only appeal is to the microscope and to common sense. Common  sense  is  opposed  at  all  times  to  cultivated  intelligence. The man of lowest intelligence can prove that he must have a dose that can be seen and handled to cure him of his aches, by appealing to common sense. The mongrel makes use of the same reason and argument to condemn us that the allopathist resorts to to convict the mongrel—appeal to common sense and belief.

Ten men may stand and affirm each, ” I did not see,” and one man states ” I did see,” and who of the eleven would the meanest court in the land accept as competent to give evidence? The one knows what the ten do not know. The ten declare they have tried the high potencies and have failed to secure curative results. What have they demonstrated ? Nothing  but  their  own  ignorance  of the manner of using these poten­cies. But they say they cure with the low. I do not believe they cure with the low, because of the best reasoning. It is logical to suppose or presume that a physician who can cure with the high, can cure with the low, but the demonstration is entirely wanting to show that the physician can cure with  the  low  and cannot cure with the high.   Men who know how to select a remedy have confidence in that remedy and go on gaining yearly in this knowledge; men who are ignorant of the powers of the selected remedy of course have not gained the confidence necessary to care with it, and they mix other means and other medicines.

It has been recently stated in a medical journal that there are logical reasons for deserting Homoeopathy for allopathy; that is, for abandoning law for empiricism. The idea is fallacious, and no sensible reason has ever been adduced in its support. There can be only one excuse for this change—and that is failure! And this failure has never yet been shown to be due to any in­sufficiency of the homoeopathic law, but is always easily traced to the incapacity of him who uses it. All are liable to err. Let him who thinks he cannot sin cast the first stone at our law.

Concerning the oft-made plea for liberty of medical opinion and action, we would remark that no one is free from the obli­gations of law ; the greater your work, the higher you advance, just by so much do you rivet the chains of responsibility. Only the beggar in the gutter is free to do as he will. No one can grant a physician success in practice whose practice does not of itself secure success.

If one practice Homoeopathy he will secure homoeopathic suc­cess ; if he practice allopathy, he will gain only the meagre re­sults of allopathy. No resolutions of learned bodies can change this rule. We are freemen; free to do and to practice as we please; but our success will be measured by our practice, and our title as homoeopaths or eclectics be given accordingly as we practice the one or the other, and we all know the greatest measure of success is attained by a strict adherence to the law of similars, the minimum dose, and the single remedy. The Homoeopathy of Hahnemann gives the greatest success, the greatest freedom, and the greatest honor. No man can practice empiricism and honestly claim to be a homoeopath; such are ” living a lie,” as an allopath has asserted. The eclectic is a slave, bound by error; the omoeopath is free, emancipated by truth. A great poet de­clares, ” He is a freeman whom truth makes free, and all are slaves beside.”

Let not this Association harbor or indorse in any way, even by absence of rebuke, any form of false teaching. Let it be dis­tinctly understood that we do fully and honestly believe, col­lectively and individually, the resolutions of this Association, as adopted. We have declared that these resolutions ” completely and fully represent the therapeutic opinion and practice ” of this Association. Let it be shown to the outside world that we mean

what we have said. We do most assuredly believe Hahne­mann’s Organon  of  the  Healing  Art  to be the only true guide in therapeutics. Let us not, then, tolerate any teaching which seeks to pervert or abridge this master work in any way. We have as­serted, as our belief, that the only true guide for a prescription is the totality of the symptoms of a proven drug. Let us not, then, prescribe upon any other basis ; it cannot be homoeopathic nor wise to do so. We cannot allow to be true any teaching which seeks to controvert this fundamental principle of homoe­opathic practice. He who recommends the building of thera­peutics upon any new theory or upon any other basis than that prescribed by this law, is no homoeopath and has no fellowship in this Association. Successful practice cannot be based upon pathological theories. Whether these theories teach one to pre­scribe for a pathological condition or for a presumed dyscrasia, it matters not; both are un-homoeopathic and both are un­successful.

The adoption of drug proving by Hahnemann, first intro­duced two great features into medicine, and these are certainty and prevision. We are sure a drug will cure in the sick such symptoms as it has produced upon the healthy; we are enabled by this certainty to predict, before the trial of a drug, what it will cure. For these grand features of its art, medicine is in­debted to Samuel Hahnemann—see to it that no fault of ours destroys his noble work. In short, it is to be remembered that the basis of a homoeopathic prescription is the symptom of the drug, the question of the dose is secondary. The size of the dose can never make the remedy- homoeopathic to the case.

In this matter of dose, some err upon one side and some upon the other. So we see that while some believe an imper­fectly selected drug may be made to do the work of the perfect simillimum if it be ” pushed ” or exhibited in crude doses-; on the other hand, we find some who are disposed to assent to al­most any prescription so it be given high enough. Both these parties are in error. While we cannot dogmatize upon this question of dose, all here will agree that the better the selection, i. e., the nearer we come to the perfect simillimum, the less medicine we need give. This proposition may be stated again in other words. It is the experience of our best prescribers that the simillimum will cure most cases best if given high and in one dose, or at least a few doses. Indeed, experience tells us that the high potenties are always the best; this is experience, how­ever, and not law. But the converse of this proposition is not true, that a badly selected drug may be made to do good work by giving much of it. This idea is the cause of most of the mongrelism of the day.

In published reports of clinical cases, we find evidence of the necessity for careful examination of the patient. Hahnemann laid the greatest stress upon this examination, telling us how to do it, and saying, in effect, that a patient well examined was half cured. Unless this careful examination be made, one can­not get all those peculiar, characteristic symptoms which Hahne­mann has declared must be the deciding symptoms. All cases have many symptoms, which are to be found under many drugs, and are hence of little value in deciding our choice of a remedy. Each case should have, and probably does have, some peculiar symptoms; these we are to get. These we must get; and our examination of a patient is incomplete so long as we possess only a list of common and general symptoms. It should be our task to question and examine the patient until such peculiar symptoms are found. We hear much complaint of the insuf­ficiency of our Materia Medica, of the uselessness of our reper­tories, but most generally the failure to prescribe correctly and even easily is not due to the want of good books, bat to this lack of careful and thoughtful examination of the patient. Forget not this, that the greatest cures the world has ever wit­nessed have been made by the earlier homoeopaths with a much less complete library than we now possess. After selecting the proper remedy, we must not forget that it is of prime importance to give it in proper dose, and not to change too soon nor to repeat too frequently. Neverchange a remedy unlessthe changed symp­toms call for another; never repeat the dose (or change remedy) when the patient is improving. For a fuller and a better under­standing of the true healing art, you are to study and to restudy the Organon. Our purpose in these few remarks has not been to teach this art, but merely to call attention to a few salient points; to give admonition upon a few prominent features which cannot be too steadily kept in view.

This Association, it has been said, was organized for an espe­cial purpose, and that purpose was to promulgate and develop Homoeopathy. In pursuance of this wort, the purifying and com­pleting of the Materia Medica must be our chief concern. It is the foundation of our art. Our Materia Medica once corrupted and perverted, clinical success becomes impossible. We may again take warning by the fate of the American Institute, for it, too, started forty odd years ago, to do this same work; and for some years the Institute did good service in this study. But as it grew eclectic, the Institute became enamored of the false siren named progressive science, and all troth was abandoned.

Let us beware lest a like fate overtake this Association.

The Materia Medioa is to be developed by careful and thorough provings of new drugs; we repeat, careful and thorough prov-ings, for most of the modern provings are worthless, having been carelessly and improperly made. One is afraid to prescribe upon them; afraid to trust valuable lives to such careless work. How differently do we feel when we prescribe one of the old, re­liable remedies. Then security begets quiet reliance and success crowns our efforts.

At our last meeting, a good beginning was made in this study of the Materia Medica, and your Bureau gives promise of great usefulness and interest for this meeting. In all of our work we must strive to emulate the energy and zeal of Hahnemann and of his early disciples ; they were indeed masters. Nowhere does one’s knowledge of therapeutics and medical ability show forth to better advantage than in this of proving drugs and re­vising the Materia Medica. To do it well the best talent and the greatest zeal are required ; but this need not deter us from the work, for ability and zeal are easily to be found in our ranks.

The Materia Medica is to be enriched by clinical observations, and here also we may again take pattern by Hahnemann’s- careful work. The admission of clinical symptoms into our Materia Medica must be done with the greatest caution. They can only be incorporated after the most searching inquiry, and then should always be so marked that we can tell the clinical from the pa­thogenetic. The hasty and inconsiderate adoption of clinical symptoms is certainly an evil; and if pursued to any great ex­tent will render the Materia Medica unreliable. Every prac­titioner is not a reliable judge of the value of a clinical confirma­tion. Even reliable clinical confirmations need only be noted when peculiar or characteristic; of common, general symptoms we have an abundance.

The clinical symptom is only admissible to fill up the gaps left by imperfect provings, or in cases where provings cannot be obtained. Though some of the best symptoms now in use are of clinical origin, as a general rule they cannot be considered as certain and reliable as the pathogenetic. Besides the proving of drugs and the careful, conscientious noting of clinical symptoms, we can also do a useful work in marking clinical verifications of pathogenetic symptoms. A symptom produced upon a healthy person and cured in a sick person becomes doubly reliable. There can be no doubt about the value of such symptoms.

The most dangerous manner of perpetuating homoeo­pathic truth is to mix it with uncertainty or mystery. There are some things about the art of healing that pertain to the sci­entific, of which not one is more important than the proven drug.  A member may state that he has cured somebody with an un­proved drug, and he may fail to demonstrate the homoeopathicity of the so-called cure, because of the lack of evidence that can only be obtained from the provings. There are many good things so involved in mystery that the time is not ripe to dis­cuss them. The relations of Homoeopathy to them must be first demonstrated or this organization cannot recognize them. The allopathist reports cures on unsupported opinion, and we reject these because he has no demonstration. If this same allopathist reports a cure of vomiting by Ipecac, the homoeop-athist can accept it as a real cure, because it is what can be ex­pected. Experiment as you may on the healthy with new med­icines, the sick man demands a remedy for his sickness the likeness of which has been found in a pathogenesis.

In no way can we perpetuate pure philosophy but by adhering to the proven drugin all our discussions. Better rule out all the frag­mentary guesswork and make every report show its relation be­tween drug and disease in the manner designated in our philos­ophy. The Publication Committee should reject, without fear or favor, all papers with reports of cures where we have not had access to the record of provings. Of what value is the cure without the proving ? Save the cures until you have given us the proving. By thorough and careful work we will some day complete a Materia Medica whose everv symptom will have been repeatedly verified. Then, indeed, will our art become the exact science predicted for it. Such is the end for which we labor. A great stride toward such an end will be made when we have in com­pleted form the Guiding Symptoms, by the late Dr. Hering. These are now promised, and if given us as that master mind left them (not as some lesser minds may think they should be given), our school will secure a treasure. A very opposite of this great work of Hering’s is the so-called Encyolopcedia of Drug Pathogenecy  which seems to be a confused mass of man­gled provings. We have more than once attempted to gather assistance from its garbled and condensed pages, but have always been baffled. That it has any value we are unable to see. It is to be hoped it has a purpose, as much labor seems to have been spent upon it, and much expected of it.

There is another point to which your attention may be profit­ably directed, and that is to secure greater care in selecting our medicines and more care in manufacturing our potencies. It seems as though carelessness were also creeping into our phar­maceutics. The greatest discretion must be exercised in select­ing proper material for our pharmacopoeia and in their prepara­tion. The same preparation, especially in the use of our vegetable remedies, should be used in the prescribing as was used in the prov­ing. We do not mean the same potency, but the same pharma­ceutical preparation. Impure or uncertain drugs will, of course, not correspond in their effects upon the sick to the action of a purer drug used in the proving. The physician and the prover should use the same preparation. Without doubt, many of our failures may be justly laid to some imperfection in our drug preparations;

During the past year little worthy of note has occurred in the medical world. In the old school new theories have arisen and old ones have died. This is the old, old story with these scientists! Among ourselves the work seems to be steadily progressing for the better. The successful meeting held a year ago at Saratoga has been productive of much good, has shown the outside world that this is a working association of genuine homoeopaths. Such successful meetings cannot fail to have a beneficial effect upon the homoeopathic school. And now we meet for the seventh time to greet each other, and to work for the perpetuation of the art of healing known as Homoeopathy. We have come together from the remote quar­ters of the land to sharpen a common faith by another year of busy experience. This organization has been separated from the masses of all grades in medicine, a mere handful, that has been called a respectable minority, and it can even now see the gulf that yawns behind it. With independence we are to go on climbing the mountain of homoeopathic truth. Some say we are at the top. Be not so sure; we have but climbed a foothill; soon will we see a mountain bevond, with but the faintest trace of human footprints. We follow on, though the mountain side be steep and thorny, led by the light of truth. Soon the toilers grow weary and their number becomes smaller. In the distant past there is a multitude, while the valleys below still throng with conflicting millions. The few toil on up the steep and rocky mountain side, steeper, more rocky as they press onward. The distance brings to view the heavens, dotted with nebulous sky and space beyond. There is to be seen another mountain far away, and much higher, which is yet to be climbed, upon which, through the clear sky, above the clouds, behold the im­mortal Hahnemann.

About us

About us

April 25, 2011

By admin

What this site is about.

This site is the last stop between being a beacon of hope and an obituary notice for real homoeopathy.  The word “real” was placed within the context of the definition of homoeopathy, yet is redundant simply because the definition of the therapy is self supporting  and exclusive.

Homoeopathy as defined, is a systematic and reproducible medical speciality based on observable laws of phenomena related to medicinal action of drugs on the healthy. The methodology and application of the therapeutics in practice revolves around the natural law of similars, and is mandated in no small way so as to fully utilize the principle of the law in practice by Hahnemann.

Whilst fully aware of the necessity to apply further research and knowledge to the therapy, which Hahnemann actively encouraged, he also gave the model for what and how things could be expanded without compromising the essential elements of the practice of medicine.

Today, it can be observed that Hahnemanns therapeutic model has been removed from the teaching institutions which purport to be the purveyors of Homeopathic knowledge around the world. This site and its supporters are gravely concerned regarding the fraudulent presentation of treatment to the general public under the banner of Hahnemanns therapy. We use the word “fraudulent” in its absolute sense, simply because the majority of the modern teachers and so called experts, knowingly have removed themselves from the basic tenets of Hahnemanns protocol, and have in all cases, gone directly against his researched findings and entered a world of metaphysical speculation and postulation without evidence or integrity or reproducibility of success.

Part of the problem must lie with the modern alternative/natural/spiritual medicine camp that saw a resurgence in the 1960’s and 70s. Homoeopathy was incorporated into that viewpoint. It seemed so easy to practice that many people with good intentions but lacking in medical training took it up without studying the essentials, and thusly its presence and teachings became a mixture of hearsay and repetition of false information. A brief look at the history of modern homoeopathic development will show the inceptors had spiritistic leanings, especially in the United Kingdom.

As this site develops further, the enquiring homoeopath will be able to compare the original research and practice methodologies of Hahnemann and colleagues, and compare them to what has been taught to them during their training. It should become obvious what is and what is not real homoeopathic practice very quickly.

The writers of this site do not solicit agreement from any casual reader from the words written in an article. It is simply requested that where references are quoted, that the enquiring practitioner checks them out for him or herself, and looks to accuracy, truthfulness and reliability for the guide in learning the discipline. NOTHING else will do.

Security, Certainty and Treatment Protocols in Homoeopathy

Vera Resnick.

One way to identify homoeopathy that has moved away from real homoeopathy is through the increasing use of treatment protocols.  Patients often say they were told to take a remedy three times a day for four weeks, or that they were given a series of remedies to take over a period of time according to treatment protocols of taking several times a day.  Typical in this form of prescribing is the absence of follow-up with the homoeopath during the protocol period, which means that changes in the patient’s state will go unnoted by the homoeopath until the next follow-up.  A further aspect of this form of prescribing is that it is often therapeutic in nature – a series of remedies given for the treatment of cancer, for example, which do not necessarily correspond to the patient’s state, or more specifically, to the changes in the patient’s state during treatment.

Where the disease is acute and the pathology has been thoroughly investigated and is known to be common to all sufferers, a case may be made for this kind of prescribing.  Boenninghausen utilized it in his treatment of croup (as described in “My Treatment of Membranous Croup” in his “Lesser Writings”).  He could do so, due to his exact knowledge of the stages croup went through in its progress towards cure or worsening, and his virtually unparalleled knowledge of the curative powers of remedies.  However, today it is utilized in a “one-size-fits-all” mode, without that in-depth knowledge of pathology, passed on from one “teacher” to another without sufficient questioning, and most importantly – without judging the practice against the central law on which homoeopathy stands and fails: Does this form of prescribing follow the Law of Similars?

Since, apart from lip service at initial stages of study, the Law of Similars is not taught as the linchpin it is in practice, many newly hatched “homoeopaths” begin practice with very limited certainty.  Analysis of cases is based around seeing what words reoccur most frequently in the case-taking (which itself is poorly taught), references to miasms that are complex and often extremely creative, with the choice of remedy often stemming from dreams the patient had, how the patient’s face looks bird-like etc.  In this stew where no ingredient is clear, treatment protocols beckon seductively, offering false promises of security and certainty.  The patients like them too, as the protocols are reminiscent of the way medicines are prescribed in allopathic treatment.  Occasionally there are results (which are accidental at best), often there is the gratification and false security in the knowledge that this protocol was taught by a world famous teacher.  Sadly one of the skills students learn these days is how to convince themselves and their patients that a case is moving forward even if there is no real objective improvement.  This skill is very useful in protocol-prescribing.

Security and certainty in prescribing is not unobtainable.  As long as analysis and prescription are constantly judged according to the Law of Similars, as long as the remedy prescribed is known through provings to be able to produce symptoms similar to the disease, it will act towards curing the patient’s condition.  It may not complete the case, but “will advance it considerably on the way to be cured.  And thus we go on…examining again and again the morbid state that still remains, and selecting a homoeopathic medicine as suitable as possible for it…” (Aphorism 168).

In order to honestly assess the case, to reach the sense of certainty in prescribing that comes with virtuoso dedication and skill, it is necessary to question teachers regarding protocols, and to throw away the crutch of protocol prescribing.  And any teacher who replies to the questioning student “I use it and it works, and I have X years of experience..” is most definitely, in my opinion, not worth his/her hire.

The only true basis for prescribing, for a real homoeopath, will always be the basic unchanging Law of Similars.  And when prescribing based on an unchanging law of nature, with solid understanding of pathology and of the curative powers of remedies as shown through provings (as long as there are no maintaining causes or obstacles to cure), results are as inevitable as the descent of Newton’s apple.

 

 

1731 Thomas Apperley, Observations in Physick:

“Many Hypotheses are plausible, whilst they are only in our conception, but they become useless when we begin to reduce them to Practice.”

What is “The Sankaran Sensation Method?” as defined by its advocates.

Deborah Olenev C.C.H., RSHom (NA)

 

The Sankaran Sensation Method

04 Feb 2010 |

There has been a wonderful revolution in homeopathic thought in the last two decades with many homeopaths the world over doing research to further our understanding of remedies, the natural world, and the application of these remedies to sick people in search of healing. Rajan Sankaran has been one of the foremost teachers in the evolution of homeopathic thought. My feeling is that the Sensation Method, which he developed over the last decade, and wrote about in his book called Sensations in Homeopathy, which was published in 2005, has done more to put homeopathic prescribing on a scientific and practical basis than any other homeopathic researcher.

The concepts behind the Sensation method are truly beautiful. Sankaran teaches that the task of the homeopathic prescriber is to do the following four things:

1) Determine whether the patient needs a remedy from the animal, plant, mineral, bacterial, fungal or viral kingdom.

2) Determine the miasm that the patient falls into. The word miasm is a broad word that describes the following things: the miasm is the pace of the illness; the intensity with which the patient feels his symptoms; the patient’s attitude toward his chief complaint; various genetic factors, and possibly even the illness itself, such as malaria and the malaria miasm.

3) Determine the potency that the patient needs by determining the depth of the illness and evaluating the patient’s vital force.

4) Determine the remedy for the patient, which should sit at the cross point between the kingdom and miasm. For example if it is determined that the patient needs a mineral remedy of the sycotic miasm, the homeopath will examine the mineral remedies, figure out which row and column from the periodic table of the elements most closely fits the patient’s symptoms, and also fits into the sycotic miasm. Then he or she will study the material medica of the remedies in the final elimination and choose one for the patient. In this example Silica would be a remedy that could be considered for this patient as it is a sycotic remedy and a third row mineral.

I am greatly indebted to Rajan Sankaran for developing this system as it has helped to improve my prescribing tremendously, and given me the confidence to tackle more challenging cases. Please let me know if you would like to make an appointment and experience the case taking process Sensation Method Style, and reap the rewards of a well-chosen remedy.

via The Sankaran Sensation Method | Homeopathy for Health.

The Sensation method. Sankaran

I have read the method in all the books published by Sankaran so far as also
attended his seminars. It is the very enchanting video presentations at the seminars
and the captivating material presented in his books that prompted me to use it
side by side with the age old traditional hahnemannian method for some time. I concluded
after thorough study that the theoretical basis on which this entire method is based
is flawed. But such is the orchestrated hype about this method in US and Europe that
it is hard to get anything published against this method and prove to be a useless exercise
that ends up in frustration.

Unfortunately we have not evolved benchmarks to judge any method being propagated
as homeopathy and as a first step we should do it.
The very basis on which Hahnemann founded homeopathy was his discovery :

1. that any medicinal substance is capable of inducing a field force to distort the vital
force of healthy human beings; the nature of distortion presents a recognizable field pattern
and it is as true as the law of gravity or any other natural laws.

2. that the same medicine is capable of nullifying any disease force that establishes
a similar distortion of vital force in a human being.

The SIMILARITY of the distorted picture or pattern of the vital force induced by the
medicinal substance in a healthy human being and that created by the natural disease
is essential for curative action to occur.

If Sankaran can prove that the vital sensation can be induced by a medicinal substance
in healthy human beings and then prove the correspondences of this artificially
induced vital sensation to the one present in the cured patient – then and then only it
qualifies to be a homeopathic method.

I hate to waste any more time discussing this method of madness, an aberration of an
otherwise super genius whose convoluted thinking process reflects of a major portion
of his brain cells gone awry….alas…

V.T.Yekkirala.

http://www.otherhealth.com/homeopathy-list-discussion/11471-sankaran-sensation-method.html