The Original post can be read here in Espanol. https://pandwespanol.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/por-que-boenninghausen/
By Dr. Guillermo Zamora, Surgeon UAG, Dhom. Lic. By the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.
The story begins about 12 years ago when being somewhat dissatisfied with the results of the method that I was taught school as a medical graduate (the Kent method) I started to inquire about other possibilities to obtain a more exact remedy in my prescriptions.
By then, one of our teachers, who taught the method mentioned, alluded to a little Repertory he held in his hand, and said that his father (the founder of the school) was very successful in their prescriptions through such work. At that time I put a lot of attention to that book and wrote down all the details of the reference in a small piece of slate. Later, I began to read it and realized that it was a medical matter containing symptoms “Keynotes” (Symptoms key) … were called something completely out of the logic of Kent.
Once I graduated, I gave myself the task of creating a flowchart, which organized from the information contained in this work and some containing more symptoms Keynotes. I arranged corresponding divisions in different locations for example, circumstances Mind Sensations Modalities, and many others. It took more than a year in order to finish all the symptoms in this work.
While I was doing the work , the keynote symptoms of this little book which I read and reread at least 6 or 7 times, while my success rate improved day after day. It came to my attention that at some point the author quoted a certain Boenninghausen, at that time a stranger to me, but in looking at my flowchart I began to realize that the Keynotes were nothing but combinations of one + one location mode, or a sense to one embodiment, or even sometimes, a localization feeling. For this reason, shortly after I gave myself the task of getting a copy of the Therapeutic Pocket Book (TPB) version Boenninghausen 1846.
During the time I tried to use this copy, an English version, the truth is that I was confused by it; I had no clear idea of how to use it, nor was familiar to me. Most of the time, I used my flowchart, and to a lesser extent Kent’s repertory to see a symptom. However, although the success rate had increased significantly (say from 20 to 50-60%), I still felt dissatisfied with the result.
One day, comes one of those moments that you think that you will never happen, and one of my children began to get sick of the skin (dermatitis), arriving to present once Ritter (a disease caused by Staph aureus) syndrome . Despite all my efforts, both in my flowchart and the repertory of Kent I just got Rhus – tox , which was consistent with the recommendation of several internationally renowned homeopaths to which I had asked for consultation. If anything the recommendation to use Sulphur alternatively it made. Either way, frustratingly these remedies did not give the desired result.
It is then, that after reading some of his lectures, and amazed by the contents thereof, appears on the scene Dr. Gary Weaver, who selflessly used his knowledge and expertise in the TPB, helped with my son.
He told me that my conclusion Rhus-T through my tools was logical and even close to the diagnosis, but in reality the remedy was Sepia . Little convinced of his diagnosis, I followed his instructions and gave the prescription. The result was unbelievable and resolution came surprising shortly; a couple of changes of potency and a different remedy to clear up the case at the end when the symptoms changed cured my son.
Thus, through this excellent homeopath I acquired knowledge really Hahnemannian method that I realized the great benefits a good tool offers ( it is for this reason that I translated the TPB from English to Spanish for the P&W SYNOPSIS program.). Today day, Dr. Gary Weaver is still the person to whom I consulted when I have problems in the family. Recently one of my loved ones almost died (literally) from a kidney problem, and I learned a valuable lesson that when emotions are mixed, it is best to consult a colleague. Once again I witnessed an amazing and fast cure by the use of the TPB.
One thing I failed to mention in this article, is that Dr Gary demonstrated to me that accurate case taking of the symptoms is 90% of the job. I watched him find the remedy with the Therapeutic Pocket book in less than 5 minutes. I also did not mention that in both cases, I WROTE to him the symptoms, and he wrote back to clarify one or two points and then wrote back immediately after with the prescription.
During this learning process, I realized that in those combinations that I observed during the construction of my flowchart, the symptom Keynote was always formed a part that was very consistent in proving, and another that was shared by few remedies ( as we now know that Guernsey claimed), and that most came from Boenninghausen Therapeutic Pocket Book. But I also realized that the TPB is constructed by abstraction of symptoms from the provings and has the quality to be used in order to recombine by analogy symptoms for endless combinations that have never even been seen before in a proving. That’s why we can deduce that many combinations of these Keynotes left out. Therefore, it is important to mention that the process of abstraction and recombination during analysis of a case is a specific methodology, which makes this a unique and indispensable repertory work.
Today the repertory of Boenninghausen use most of the time in my daily practice (95%), sometimes check my flowchart (4%) and very, very rarely Kent’s repertory (1%). My success rate has been rising, 85-95%.
You may wonder: Is it possible to succeed using Kent’s repertory? The answer is yes, but with some margin of error, and if we have an acceptable knowledge of Materia Medica Pura (and EC), know that rubrics used and what is the true method to make a case according to the guidelines of Hahnemann who has so far only been misunderstood and under-researched by most schools, even those advertised as very “Hahnemannian”. On the contrary, it is the rare school that comes to supporting a seminar like ours, unique in its kind. What has happened is similar to the game of “telephone” where a message is given in the origin comes completely distorted the last receiver. Then, when we come to a seemingly “new” message, but simply not taken into account (or do not know of the matter), interests (school programs, homeopathic software, books, seminars, “remedies affecting doubtfully experienced that are for sale “, ie laboratories, etc.) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the” affected “or the more moderate of the comments says” Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outmoded ” as if science were a matter of fashion, and even worse, as if they had really studied and researched. In short, the same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) on the homeopathic community both their clothes torn, is the same problem that you have at home.
In the case of teachers of IHM none will teach a personal opinion, nor will teach philosophy, much less they will dare tell who discovered the black thread or that they are the black wire as many modern gurus out there wanting proclaim and really affect what is most important to a conscious homeopath; to their patients. The IHM teachers will teach only genuine homeopathy, as Hahnemann taught it and with which he cured tuberculosis, syphilis, pneumonia, psychosis, diarrhea, etc. etc. etc.
Now; Returning to better homeopath in history (after Hahnemann), Dr. Boenninghausen; I know what I can say, as someone little known, may not have much value, but the same Hahnemann who testifies to the wisdom of Boenninghausen. Hahnemann work Boenninghausen considered as one of the best works as we can see in footnote 109, paragraph 153 in the 6th Organon. Issue:
“Dr. Von Boenninghausen, by the publication of the characteristic symptoms of homeopathic medicines and their repertoire, has rendered great service to homeopathy …”
This repertory fell into disuse given the popularity of Kent’s repertory. However, research by the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine focus on original works and materials, it has been elucidated that the repertory of Boenninghausen, specifically version Therapeutic Pocket Book 1846, leading to the methodology established by Hahnemann himself; This repertoire is in itself a SYNOPSIS everything is case taking and monitoring. This is reflected in the following testimony of Hahnemann:
“… .Baron Von Bönninghausen of Münster has studied and grasped my homeopathic treatment system so completely that as a homeopath deserves to be given full confidence, and if I fell ill and could not help myself, I do not entrust to any other doctor . “
… Haehl, R .: Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, 1922, 2 volumes, Indian edition, BJain, New Delhi, 1985, vol.2, p.483.
Only some schools have decided to make a shift in teaching, and only a handful of homeopaths have made the decision personally and independently align with the instructions proposed by Hahnemann under the principle of such compliance.
Is it too late to restore what has been destroyed?