I was a student of yours in 1989 attending the clinical training sessions that you ran in Henley on Thames. (U.K) You were using Kunzlis version of the Kent’s repertory at the time and expressed dissatisfaction with Kent’s work. You taught us to use the larger rubrics rather than the more individual rubrics as you stated that they were inaccurate. In 2010 I came across the IHM again and was amazed and delighted to see the work put into correcting the Bönninghausen’s repertory. I have purchased the English book version of it and the benefits have been enormous in practice. Well done.
What do you think of homoeopathy as practiced today and what of its future?
D.L. Oxfordforshire. UK.
P.S. I am in contact with S.H. who worked with you this year for three days. She has gone from strength to strength in her clinical work and reports a vast increase in patient success and management. I will be contacting you for the training myself next year in Seville.”
…………………… So to answer one of your questions…
Homoeopathy : What it is in real terms.
In a wider sense Homoeopathy, in the first place, means a method of scientific study and therapeutic practice; in the second place, means the facts discovered by this method; and thirdly, signifies the theories that have been propounded to explain and correlate these facts.
In other words Homoeopathy implies a particular way of applying drugs of diseases according to a specific principle, known as “Similia Similibus Curentur” (let likes be treated by likes); and implies as well the theories of vital force, of chronic miasms and of dynamisation of drugs.
In a narrower or stricter sense Homoeopathy is “a rule of practice for the administration of drugs” and for that matter of other (physical) agents; or it may be called the “Medicine of likes” (as etymologically ‘homois’ means like or similar-‘pathos’ meaning suffering). In other words Homoeopathy is a method of curing the sufferings of a person by the administration of drugs which have been experimentally proved to possess power of producing similar sufferings in a healthy human being. It is a specialised system of drug therapy and nothing more or nothing less.
There is a difference in the law of similars and Homoeopathy “the practice or therapy”. The law of similia is a universal natural law and the therapy called homoeopathy, is one way to apply it.
I as a homoeopathic physician have come to appreciate the value inherent in the Hahnemannian approach and practice of medicine, as being logical and sound in every respect.
Hahnemann placed the emphasis on observed phenomena as being the expression of the dis-ease of the organism in an individual way. Hahnemann brought to the medical world the concept of fixing the biological whole as the most adequate for studying and interpreting living phenomena, and left behind the notion of mechanical causality as being representative of the organism.
Hahnemanns thoughts match with modern concepts of life which can ONLY be expressed in terms of life. All other advances in physiology are nothing but understanding the chemical/physical processes underlying the living phenomena.
We can only study man from an organismal viewpoint and not from that of a mechanism. An organism grows from within and belongs exclusively to ‘life’. Hahnemann left behind speculation and attempts to explain how a drug works on a human body, to him the association or symptoms was enough. Hahnemann approached medicine from pure observation and existing phenomena. He never made presumptions over the facts nor speculated on the unknown.
Hahnemanns model of use of the therapy, is based exclusively on a substance being able to replicate a state or group of symptoms that the patient is experiencing and exhibiting. The substance is SIMILAR in its effect, not the same. A medicine cannot create a known disease but can cause a symptom complex that is prominent in the patients exhibited disease. A patient exhibits a response to an infection, and the body reflects it individually. Hahnemann saw this as the immune response from the organism, and if strong, the body was unable to rectify the situation due to managing all the other symptoms appearing internally as well. He discovered that giving a similar substance that caused a slightly stronger artificial disease in the organism, would focus the immune response to that group of symptoms and remove the artificially imposed disease state, and take the natural disease state with it.
All this you know. I state merely for background. The Materia Medica comprises of millions of words and thousands of hours in meticulous testing of substances and the collating of the accurate information.
To this end, the matching of the disease state cannot be achieved by interpretation of the proved symptoms. A symptom cannot modified at the practitioners whim to be more than it is. For example, Kent placed “Desire for Light” in the Mind section of his repertory instead of placing it under eye or vision. It has been used interpretively as a person seeking clarification or truth or understanding rather than the proving symptom that the person cant see very well In the darkness!
We see today in the West that there is a huge shift from the Materia Medica provings to reliance on mental/emotional states and delusions. Hahnemanns works and directions are no longer taught except superficially. An incorrect grouping of medicines has been promulgated contrary to the instructions of Hahnemann.
I would go as far as to say that those that follow Kent rather than Hahnemann, have not understood the reality of the practice. Certainly in the west now, homoeopathy is but the name associated with the giving of remedies and not the actual practice of the therapy as defined.
Hahnemann’s discovery is essentially a practical method, an organon, an instrument for achieving in the best possible manner, a desired specific purpose viz., that of curing the sick. Homoeopathy is not a doctrine or a system of medicine, as the later followers of Hahnemann tried to establish. He pointed out the defects of any kind of system building in the province of Medicine; and it will be a matter of great pity if we fall into the same error against which he warned us with all the emphasis that his language could command.
Homoeopathy attempts to explain nothing, wants to reject nothing (whatsoever is a perceptible fact) and scrupulously avoid any assumption which cannot be legitimately deduced from observed facts. It speculates neither with theories of life, nor health nor of disease. It affords no conclusive explanation of how drugs produce or cure disease. It is a method of pure factual observation. It takes into account two sets of phenomena viz., disease phenomena produced by natural causes and the artificial disease phenomena produce by drugs on the healthy individuals.
Like man diseases present various aspects for study, each with a particular purpose in view. For example, a sick man can be studied from aetiological, diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic points of view. Before Hahnemann (the physicians confused one aspect of the disease with the other and could not discern what is the object of treatment and cure. They did not realise that the therapeutic aspect of a disease is a distinct aspect relatively independent of other aspects. Hence the therapeutic art could not be raised to an independent level—having laws and phenomena of its own; whereas, the other aspects of disease were attempted to be studied scientifically and therapeutics in their hands turned out to be more an applied science rather than an art.