After 32 years of being involved in practice, and 7 years spent in intensive study of the masters, I have concluded that homoeopathy is less art than science. Most of what is taken for granted in terms, expressions, understanding and concepts in the therapy, come from Kent and Hering and NOT from Hahnemann.
Hahnemann was a scientist. A man given to accepting material evidence from experimentation and subsequent results. After reading the millions of words he has written over the years, and several times I might add, my observed conclusion is that his medical career was based on facts and not speculation and is to be trusted.
There is a simple premise to using the remedies for curative purposes. They are dilute substances that create observable symptoms in an organism. These symptoms are a direct result from whatever substance caused the reaction and have NOTHING to do with infectious disease states found in sick individuals other than the SIMILARITY of produced symptoms.
When matched symptom by symptom to the sick organism, the addition of the substance increases the reaction in the organism to amplify the specific symptoms upon which the natural immune response in the organism will focus on these heightened symptoms and attempt to remove them. In removing them, the natural disease, being slightly weaker will also be removed.
And for this reason and rationale, it is imperative that we find the right symptom or symptoms within the whole picture of the disease. Aph 6 points out how to find the picture of the disease but aph 153 tells us what we have to extract from this picture to prescribe on.
I have found that when faced with a patient suffering a known disorder, knowledge exists of the disease progress, organs involved, the patterns of the progress of the disease and the prognosis. Given these parameters, a patient suffering from the infection both acute and chronic, will only exhibit CERTAIN characteristics of the disease as the body tries to modify the illness for self protection. It is the total expression of these characteristics that will identify the individuality of the diseased individual and lead to selection of the right remedy or remedies. It is NOT the totality of ALL the symptoms that we look for.
For example, if a patient has a disorder that starts on the left and move across to the right, has perspiration only at night on the back of the head and has a fever after midnight that starts with a chill and then turns into heat, then we have individual characteristics of a personal disease state from the infection . If this repeats daily then this is the core of the state from which all other lesser important symptoms spring, like sleeplessness and mild headaches. It is always best to focus on the primary expression of the disease, the modifiers of the state and symptoms that are present that have no obvious affinity or reason to be present.
We at the IHM have found that in using the therapeutic pocket book, and focusing ONLY on the few important symptoms, that we use less than 5 rubric indicators and come to 3 or less remedies for consideration. A quick read of the remedies will determine which remedy to give or start with.
Do NOT use a mental symptom unless it is morbid and a CLEAR and obvious CHANGE in the state of the patient. Focus only on CHANGED conditions and symptoms that are part of the CHANGED pathology. You will do good work by following Hahnemann.