The I.H.M. constantly review the original writings of Hahnemann with writings of his contemporaries and successors. In doing this work, we are able to trace how the therapy has developed, who has comprehended the reality of the practice and who is likely to have overall success with the application of the therapy.
The number one outstanding practitioner of all time was Clement Marian Franz von Boenninghausen. He is acknowledged as the the most successful clinician of all time. His practice consisted of veterinary and humans. Sadly a fire at the family estate destroyed the majority of Boenninghausens personal and clinical notes. We have copies of what remains, both from our own research and kindly shared by the Hahnemann Institute of Sydney Australia. Most of the remaining original works are maintained by the Bosche Institute in Germany. Boenninghausens “Therapeutic Pocket Book, a guide to the Materia Medica” was used by the profession from the mid 1800s until around 1900 with tremendous success for practitioners.
The number one practitioner of all time who changed the understanding of homoeopathy, and not in a positive way, was James Tyler Kent. Kent is revered and promoted as being THE most Hahnemann centric homoeopath of all time, however, the facts do not justify this claim. Kent introduced religious beliefs into the methodology of viewing and treating disease in direct contradiction to Hahnemanns years of research and practice experience. Kent changed the medical practice into a quasi spiritual/emotional/personality based dilution of a sound medical therapy. To compound this, he compiled a repertory culled from the works of at least 5 other practitioner databases, and devised a methodology for using it, again diametrically opposed to Hahnemanns teachings. The I.H.M. have researched his practice, his writings, his philosophy, his practice methods, and his students writings, and have concluded that Kents written body of work is entirely based on the writings and philosophy of Swedenborg and as such leans toward the metaphysical.
Modern day Homoeopathy is far removed from the principles of Samuel Hahnemann. A simple read of the Organon will reveal a medical direction for the treatment of diseased individuals.
It is not for the treatment of personalities or spiritual maladies. It is the application of a medicinal substance that can produce similar symptoms found in the “diseased state” in a person suffering. It does not treat “named diseases” or the “nature” of a person, rather its application is to introduce a substance that will aid the body to “concentrate or focus” on an area via the immune system (whatever that is) by exacerbation of the primary symptoms of the homoeopathically individualized collection of symptoms which characterise the nature of the diseased individual. By attributing personalities to medicines, Kent did a grave mis service to the application of the provings, and negated the methodology of finding the TRUE picture of disease wherever it lay.
We have a slew of gurus in the field of homoeopathy who have taken this medical practice to ridiculous levels. So much so that most schools in the West do not teach the medical practice of homoeopathy by Hahnemann anymore. It is sad. Sad because it is easily remedied by reading Hahnemann and comparing with what has been taught to them.