Translated from Spanish: https://institutodemedicinahomoeopaticaamericalatina.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/principales-inquietudes-en-relacion-al-therapeutic-pocket-book-de-boenninghausen/
Main concerns :
1.- “ Many pathologies are not mentioned in the repertoire”
2.- “ Some parts of the body, such as the prostate, are not in the repertoire”
3.- “ Only 125 remedies come in the repertoire”
From the first two concerns, one can find that they are due to a lack of attention in the reading referring to the case taking and analysis within the Organon. While it is true that we can make a clinical diagnosis within our office, for example, hypertension or diabetes, it is also true that the selection of the remedy should not be based on the name of a disease. Homoeopathic diagnosis has nothing to do with the name of the patient’s nosological diagnosis, but rather with its signs and symptoms.
Detailed reading will lead us to understand that the most important thing is to observe how the disease affects the patient. If we talk about a specific pain, then, the most important thing will be to know where (in what region), what kind of pain, since when, what (causality factors) aggravates it, which improves it, that accompanies it, etc. Individualizing the case according to how the symptoms are observed in the patient is the basis.
The same is true for the prostate when, for example, hypertrophy (enlarges), then causes problems. Here the point will be to know how this affects the patient; What symptoms it produces. It is important to find which symptom the differential can make; and understand that this can come from any collective symptom of the patient, which is even alien to the location of the current condition, but that is similar to the symptomatic totality.
However, something we must remember is that the intention of using the repertoire during our consultation is to GUIDE us towards a remedy very close to the image of the patient’s disease, whose homoeopathic diagnosis will be determined by our final consultation towards pure materia medica. In other words, it is necessary to have in-depth knowledge of MMP in order to properly exercise our profession.
If one achieves reasoning like this and realizes that the repertoire achieves the assembly of a complete picture of a disease from the combination of scattered symptoms, but fully organized in it, then one has already begun to understand the true meaning of the TPB.
With respect to the number of remedies contained in the TPB; 125 remedies appear in the original and for example, some others appear in another Boenninghausen work. I must say that I personally work with about twenty (or more) additional remedies to those listed in the repertoire. I mostly use the remedies available for Bönninghausen in 1864 and a few more proven from 1860 to 1900, with which fast and lasting cures are achieved.
The fact that remedies such as Gelsemium, Phytolacca, Argentum nitricum, and Kali bichromicum do not appear on the TPB is not a failure as such. I am sure that when I have found a peritonsillar abscess with acute pain in the throat radiated to the ears when swallowing saliva pointing towards the symptomatic totality, I have prescribed Phytolacca decandra. Thus, one must understand the “image” of any of these remedies well enough to recognize it when one sees it, as well as other remedies that are not in the book. Knowing our tools is indispensable.
Or as Julian Winston would ask otherwise in his review of The Therapeutic Pocket Book :
“Do we stop using Kent’s repertoire because it doesn’t contain Chocolate, Hydrogen, Germanium, Neon, Bamboo, or Ozone?”
The same question would apply to the Boenninghausen repertoire.
In any case, I would like to comment that in my daily homeopathic medical practice, I find that only about 20-30 standard-use remedies are prescribed frequently, while the remaining others are given sporadically.
There is no reason to become anxious because the repertoire does not contain 1,500 or 2,000 remedies. Once we have investigated the high rates of effectiveness in the cases of Hahnemann and Boenninghausen; We realize that most diseases can be treated with fewer medications, but have been properly tested.
In conclusion; If you have a remedy that has been PROPERLY EXPERIENCED and has been used and verified, and therefore always useful; then it is valid that it is in its additional ones; although in personal opinion, new remedies should not be added arbitrarily to a repertoire, until there is a worldwide consensus of expert scientific homeopaths to establish guidelines for the collection and organization of the characteristic symptoms of provings, verification and the graduation of remedies in an orderly and systematic manner according to the Hahnemann / Boenninghausen criteria.