Monthly Archives: April 2012

Swedish court rules: ‘Doctors can recommend homeopathy’.

The Supreme Administrative Court has recently ruled that Swedish doctors can openly recommend homeopathy to their patients. Until recently homeopathy had not been accepted by the Swedish health authorities as an official therapeutic approach, and doctors in Sweden were not allowed to prescribe homeopathic medicines.

The court case began several years ago when a medical doctor, who was trained in homeopathy in the UK and used this therapy in his practice, was put on probation by the Medical Responsibility Board (Hälso- och Sjukvårdens AnsvarsNämnd – HSAN). The doctor appealed the decision on the grounds that he just used homeopathy when the patient requested it and only when conventional treatment had turned out to be ineffective. After being sentenced in two lower courts, he was forbidden to use homeopathy. The verdict claimed that homeopathy is unscientific, thus ignoring the growing evidence base of the effectiveness of homeopathy.

Just recently, after years of discrimination against him and his patients, his case came at last to the highest court. This court decided that patients were not exposed to any danger and the doctor had used scientific knowledge when it was necessary.

The implications of this decision are that from now on qualified medical personnel are allowed to use homeopathy. The verdict has already led to much publicity in Sweden and a rapidly increasing interest in homeopathy and other complementary therapies.


Just a man.

As the falls increased, and the hallucinations began, I suggested to my sister that the best thing would be to have 24 hour care for him. She talked to her mother in law, with whom she was staying to help with his care, and it was agreed that as both of in laws were in their early 80’s, the ability to look after each other was severely diminished.

He was carefully transported to a nursing facility, and made comfortable in the room. A catheter was inserted and a prescription made to counteract the unremitting pain in his upper body. We visited yesterday. The son, the grand daughter and me.

He did not look the same man. in 4 weeks he had lost 48% of his body weight, was gaunt and facially different. His mind drifted in and out of clarity. The son was visibly shocked at the change in him. He struggled with his emotions for a few seconds, and then we sat with him and talked the best we could to a man struggling to remain alive so he could make his good byes. We were in and out the room constantly as he was dealing with a dehabilitating constipation of which the urging to pass a motion was ever present, and nothing to pass except liquid.

I went to the front door of the facility to wait for the grand daughter. As she came through the door, she looked at me with lost and frightened eyes. I put my arm around her and whispered in her ear ” Your Grandad is still your grandad, waiting to see you, he isnt able to speak clearly, and the illness has changed his appearance a bit, but he is still your grandad and he wants to tell you things he cant find the words to say. Just be yourself and it will be ok sweetie.”  She clung to me for a few seconds, and then braced herself. We walked to the room, the door was open, she saw him and stood still. His back was half turned so he didnt see her. Her eyes filled with tears and she didnt know what to do. Her mother waved her hand and the girl came out of the room and sobbed for a bit. I waited there until she gained control. She then entered the room and went in. His face softened and a smile came across his lips. She bent and kissed his cheek.

He didnt have much strength for talking. Sometime lucid, sometimes vague. He was a man of a gentle humour, always something direct yet witty to say. he loved good funny comments given or take.

As the pattern of in and out the room continued due to the need to sit on the commode, family chat was made, and the realisation came over that the time was short. I was in the room alone for a brief moment, and he said, “my bollocks hurt” and pulled at them to get comfortable.. the nurse was informed and they changed the position of the catheter  to try and ease the pressure.

The son had a private time with his dad. His dad knew his time was short. His opening line was a shrug of the shoulders and  the comment “..its just life boy”, told his son to look after his mother and a few father son things which belong between a close father/son relationship. grand daughter spent a couple of minutes with him, just holding hands and words of love with tears.

When I went in, he was distracted and in pain. I went to hold his arm, and his hands went down to try and relieve the pain in his testicles. I stood there for a moment, and as his spasm passed, I said “I think I might pass on shaking your hand….”. A smile crept over his face and that was all that we needed to speak.

His wife of 60 some years leaned over him and kissed him and they hugged. He looked her straight in the eyes with unspoken words. A life time of companionship and closeness.

We traveled home that night the 130 miles. at 7:30 this morning, the phone call came that he had fallen asleep in death peacefully during the night.

This was a man who suffered no illness all his life. In 2006  he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and given what I can only assume with a lack of specific knowledge, a mixture of hormone treatment and radiotherapy. In 2012, he complained of pain in his shoulder and back. Advanced stage cancer was in his back abdomen and liver. It was relatively quick.

He was 81. His aged system was not able to deal with health issues as it once was. He succumbed to illness. Was the treatment for cancer he received in 2006 suppressive? Im not sure that giving hormones and radiotherapy is anything else but suppressive, and yet there is nothing else offered to sick people. Would he have lived longer with another therapy? I dont know. I have seen other patients have better results with homoeopathy, but it wasnt him and he never took that path. I do know that the world accepts without question that cancer is best treated with drugs and radiation and fancy machines in a sterile environment. You will NEVER get true figures for survival of cancer patients, or the realities of treatment protocols. You will always get scorn heaped on alternative treatments, and by alternative I mean treatments not pharmaceutically endorsed.

Somehow, it does not seem fair.

Its done, and another life has run its course. We have his memory and his legacy in his children and grandchildren.

Cya Reg.


Acute inflamation of Larynx


A 37 year old woman complaining of the following symptoms:

  • a sudden, acute, right-sided pain in the right side of larynx aggravated by swallowing
  • sensation of swelling of larynx and tonsils, objectively the larynx was inflamed and swollen on the right side only
  • the whole complex of symptoms appeared suddenly after experiencing an emotional distress

Case analysis

The striking points of the case are of course the particulars of the symptoms as described by the patient. The most unusual and characteristic key point of the case was the sudden appearance of the symptom after experiencing emotional distress.

Locality: Larynx, right side
Sensation: the pain could not be described by the patient
Condition: inflammatory swelling
Modality: aggravation on swallowing
Causation: emotional disturbance


The repertory used for the repertorization was the P&W 2011 Edition of the Therapeutic Pocketbook. The symptoms were broken down into its components (as described earlier) and repertorized.

The remedies Pulsatilla, Phosphorus and Aconite were rejected immediately, as they did not correspond with the case picture with the striking one-sidedness of the complaint. The grade of all three remedies in the right-sidedness of the complaint is only 1. The remedies with the highest consistency of grades (and therefore belonging most likely to an already observed symptom complex) were Belladonna and Rhus Toxicodendron.


After studying Belladonna, I have found the following references:

Inflammation of the throat and fauces. Sore throat, with stitches, and pain as of an internal swelling during deglutition. Henry Buck, The Outlines of Materia Medica

Inflammation of the throat, with sensation of a lump, which induces hawking, with dark redness and swelling of the velum palati and tonsils. John Henry Clarke, A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica

Inflammation of throat and fauces.;Sore throat, stitches in the pharynx and pain as from internal swelling…;The throat is swollen internally. Samuel Hahnemann, Materia Medica Pura

Although Rhus Toxicodendron has similar symptoms (including the aggravation on swallowing), the causation of emotional distress is not a prominent symptom of this remedy.


Belladonna 200C in 2dl of water was given and the patient felt the disappearance of the pain immediately.

The next day the lain in the larynx has reappeared again (with lower intensity than before), so another does of Belladonna 200C in 2dl water was given and the symptom has disappeared completely.



Vladimir Polony 2011

Therapeutic Pocket Book, Best Repertory?

The answer is not as straightforward as you might think. The best Repertory is not really a repertory at all. Hahnemann worked on a repertory in the latter years of his life, and despite his genius, his mind was not suited to collating the symptoms in a manner that made it easy to retrieve information for prescribing. He encouraged Boenninghausen to make a repertory, and so the SRA and SRN came into being, Filling page after page of key symptoms from remedies, the size of the books became obviously unwieldy for easy use, and so that work was placed on one side while Boenninghausen worked on a new concept. It was a memory aid for physicians at the bedside.

Using 125 medicines of which he had a deep knowledge of, Boenninghausen broke apart the symptoms culled from the SRA and SRN and componentized them. Example: sharp pain in left temple on awakening. This would be split to: Temples left. Pain sharp. waking agg.

Using this method, Boenninghausen reasoned that a remedy would be able to found using the characteristics of the provings even if a particular symptom had not been found in the remedy. After extensive trialing, it was found to be extremely accurate and Hahnemann approved of its use as it followed precisely the methodology Hahnemann used in his own rationale.

The Therapeutic Pocket Book became one of the most respected and valuable books used to elicit a remedy for patients.Sadly with the advent of Kents repertory, it fell by the wayside. Boger tried to enlarge it but did not follow the model or criteria and it became inaccurate. Kents repertory, if you follow the historical detailing has proved to be not as accurate or useful as would be hoped for, and yet the homoeopaths of today have added to it greatly, thus compounding the unfixed errors.

George Dimitriadis released in 2000 a revised and altered clinical version of the Therapeutic Pocket book. His book was based on extensive research from original sources. In 2010 Polony and Weaver released a computer version of their own research of the TPB and maintained the original layout of Boenninghausen. It is released in English German and Spanish.

The book version of George Dimitriadis TBR is $320. The TBR computer version is $A880 from

Polony and Weaver, The P & W 2012 version of the Therapeutic pocket Book is available for $US799 from, (German English and Spanish full translations including the individual language interface.).

Is the work accurate in the modern world? Vladimir Polony, Gary Weaver and George Dimitriadis use their own versions of the book almost exclusively in their practice. The confidence in prescribing and the results speak for itself. Because both versions have the same sources (1846 handwritten and print edition), although laid out a little differently and the rubrics worded slightly differently, the actual remedy suggestions are the same if the symptoms are chosen accurately. The principle of the methodology can be reproduced time after time for the benefit of the patient. Research into the writings of Hahnemann, the Materia Medica’s and dictionaries of the day and the personal correspondence between Hahnemann and colleagues, shows a deep, precise and accurate comprehension of what the individual medicines can produce in terms of symptoms, and as such are represented completely by the method of Boenninghausens Therapeutic Pocket book.

No other repertory has Hahnemanns seal of approval.


Video Espanol

האתר החדש של “אופנרפ סינופסיס” – בעברית

גירסת “פ & וו” 2012 החדשה של תוכנת ספר הכיס התרפאוטי מאת בונינגהאוזן הכוללת ממשק מלא בעברית ניתנת לרכישה מ-16 לאפריל מאת

Hebrew Blog

The new 2012 Edition of the P & W Therapeutic Pocket Book in the OpenRep SYNOPSIS, also with the operating interface in Hebrew. Available from April 16th from

(Click on picture to enlarge)




New Release of P & W SYNOPSIS 2012 Edition.

Week of April 16th.

Free upgrade for current version users.




Really, sometimes I wish homoeopathy didn’t work.  The world is not a hospitable place for homoeopathy.  Even homoeopaths are not a hospitable community for the practice of the kind of homoeopathy I do, in the down to earth approach that I have learned which has nothing to do with humours, delusions, elements, people looking like this or that animal or plant, psychotherapy et al.

Many people are not comfortable with the idea that a tiny amount of a correctly prescribed remedy will help.  They are not comfortable with the possibility that if they take too many of the tiny amounts it could make them feel worse.  They are not comfortable with the idea that they should not self-medicate as the homoeopath does know more than them in this area.  They even prefer to get homoeopathic prescriptions from medical doctors who have little or no homoeopathy training, than from qualified homoeopaths who have spent years studying and working exclusively in the field.

There are pseudo-scientists out there who delight in “proving” that homoeopathy is placebo, doesn’t work, people are not true scientists enough to examine how and why it does work.  I meet them at every dinner table, find myself embroiled in lengthy explanations by people who do not really want to know the how and why, only to critique and pour scorn.  It puts me off my food and gives me indigestion… and yes, I have given placebo and remedies and yes, I do see a difference…if you meet me at a dinner table, please talk about movies, books, uplifting experiences, but keep homoeopathy out of it.

There are so-called homoeopaths out there who reach for conventional medicine before even checking whether the remedy they prescribed is working – because they know their prescription was poor and have no true, deep confidence in it.  Conventional medicine has its place within homoeopathic treatment – but few are aware of it and how to truly understand and integrate appropriately.

But I’ve seen homoeopathy work.  Again and again and again.  Not for all patients, not for all conditions, but repeatedly.  I’ve seen homoeopathy set children on the path of health and better development.  I’ve seen homoeopathy help adults where the medical system has basically given up on them.   I know homoeopathy works.  And knowing that it works, knowing how to work it, gives me a responsibility to offer treatment, a responsibility to teach, a responsibility to explain to those who genuinely want to know, a responsibility that sometimes feels like a heavy yoke, a mission impossible.

So often I wish homoeopathy did not work.  But it does.  And I am a homoeopath.

So what makes a homoeopath?

I could not find a better explanation.

§ 3
If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), and if 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, so that the recovery must ensue – to adapt it, as well in respect to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose; – if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art .

Who will accept the blame?

The last few years has seen a concerted effort by the Medical Associations and Pharmaceutical companies attacking therapies that do not fall under the scope of their control. One by one, each discipline has crumpled and allowed regulation and governmental oversight which has been to the detriment of the practice. Homoeopathy is the latest medical practice to be under the spotlight and, due to its current state, is ripe for absorption.

Homoeopathy has always been at the mercy of its practitioners. Samuel Hahnemann, according to the pages of history, has a long record of battling with medical Doctors who never learned the principles and techniques properly. Time and time again he remonstrated with them to abandon the half hearted application of the therapy and was deeply disappointed by colleagues and public figures who espoused the practice, and failed miserably in the practice.

Since the resurgence of interest in the Western world from the 1960/70’s, Homoeopathy has been in the hands of a core group of people and those that carved out a niche for themselves as teachers and leaders. Sadly, the majority of these people have spent time building on their charisma and personal wealth as opposed to teaching the well researched and documented practice of the specialist therapy. It becomes apparent in conversations with some of them, that despite protestations to the contrary, they do not know the writings of Hahnemann.

What we have today, is a fractured, disjointed, and at best, a facsimile of a medical speciality that has a proven and documented track record of efficacy.

Homoeopathy as taught in the specialist schools around the world, is dangerously close to being a waste of your time and money. The teaching content, will be based on the knowledge, or lack of, from the person who operates it. Read the presented material from a variety of establishments, and you will be led to believe that the teachings are based on authentic Hahnemannian principles, and yet the reality is that the content of the lesson titles or subjects to be discussed. give little indication of what you will be exposed to. A new school in Arizona, that now has governmental approval for licencing homeopathic physicians (Like Naturopaths) in the State, is headed by a well known practitioner who doe not teach homoeopathy according to the principles and the Organon. It therefore follows that any “licenced” homeopath graduating will not know real homoeopathy. The sad thing is, that a graduate from that school, will be promoted and accepted as a fully qualified practitioner of Homoeopathic Medicine, by virtue of the legal right to practice.

Did the Governments of the world do this? No. They pursue the path of containment and control. To legislate and “protect”, ie, keep the profitability within the pharmaceutical Industry. Its the nature of the beast. The problem lies within the homeopathy community itself.

False teachings. Incorrect application of therapeutics. Lack of professional training. Lack of knowledge  on many levels, historical, developmental, provings, symptom matching, case taking, analysis, symptom reaction, patient management, limitations of homoeopathic intervention, medical diagnosis skills, the list goes on.

From the day a student enters a teaching establishment, the primary teaching of “Treat the patient not the Disease” is thrust upon them. From day one, the false premise of the practice is established. Somehow the opening paragraphs of the medical treatise The Organon is overlooked and twisted.


§ 1
The physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed.

 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant – whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.

§ 2
The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way,  on easily comprehensible principles.
§ 3
If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), and if 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, so that the recovery must ensue – to adapt it, as well in respect to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose; – if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art .

The teaching and practice of Homoeopathic Medicine in the year 2012, is at an all time low. What is available, are a variety of therapeutics that are labeled as homoeopathy, and promoted as such. Charismatic teachers of each branch or deviation of the medical practice continue to get rich from their brand of therapeutics. Loyal followers, for whatever reason, have forsook their own studies in the abundance of material available, and just repeat what they have been taught. The teachers are there by popular demand, so at some point the responsibility for their presence has to fall on the followers not doing the research required to confirm or deny the teachings.

Homoeopathy should be a developing therapy. It should have enough practical therapists following the same methodology and application, so that observations regarding treatments and results can be explored and tested. Instead, we have radical departure from the basic tenets, and the sad thing is that the mode of operation that people follow have ALREADY been tried and discounted in years gone by by Hahnemann for logical, scientific and medical reasons.

The compilers of these notes, have deliberately not named teachers or methodologies or schools. We believe that the standards and practice applications as defined by Hahnemann should be enough for each person to use as a yardstick for themselves when making a choice. We also observe that the “regulating” bodies setup around the world for the promotion and “licencing” of homoeopaths have not adhered to the principles and practices, and thus are currently promoting their own agenda and favoured method of therapeutics that do not comply with the minimum standards of applied homoeopathic methodology.

Thats about all that can be said. Health and the maintenance of it has to be applied on accurate and on easily comprehensible principles. We are not seeing that in the main anymore. Will you take the time to study and put it right? Will you?