Author Archives: admin



When people who dont understand Homoeopathy speak for it. Thailand.


THE DEPARTMENT of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine has backtracked from its claim that its homeopathic formula is highly effective for dengue-fever protection. 

“It’s just a supplementary measure that needs further research,” Dr Sun-pong Ritthiruksa said yesterday in his capacity as the chair of the department’s centre for herbal medicine, Thai traditional medicine, folk medicine and alternative medicine.

He spoke up after several prominent figures, including Chulalongkorn University’s lecturer Jessada Denduangboripant, raised questions about the claim.

Sunpong himself said last Friday that a homeopathic formula made from eupatorium perfoliatum 200C had been proved effective in preventing dengue fever. His agency is now handing out it for free.

“It’s 89.9 per cent effective,” Sunpong said last Friday, just a day ahead of Asean Dengue Day, as he cited findings from a journal.

Jessada then quickly argued that homeopathy was pseudoscience, something that the Public Health Ministry should not promote.

“The promotion can be dangerous,” he warned.

Dengue fever has hit more than 28,000 people in Thailand so far this year – up by 1.7 times from the same period a year earlier. Of them, 43 died.

Sunpong said he sought to support the use of homeopathy as a supplementary measure for protection against dengue fever.

He reiterated that to prevent dengue-fever infections, people still needed to focus on measures such as changing the water in flower vases weekly, keeping their home tidy, eliminating mosquito-breeding grounds and covering water containers.

Mosquitoes are the main carriers of dengue fever.

“I am worried that people may misunderstand what I said earlier,” Sunpong said.

He then clarified that eupatorium perfoliatum 200C was not for treating dengue fever.

“If patients develop symptoms that can be associated with dengue fever, [they should] go see a doctor to get treatment based on modern medicine,” he said.

Jessada said he had looked into several studies previously associated with the department and saw multiple flaws.

According to him, the efficacy rate cited for vaccines against dengue fever is not as high as the rate found by the department’s research, hinting at the possibility that the cited efficacy rate for eupatorium perfoliatum 200C might have been exaggerated.

Jessada explained that while eupatorium perfoliatum could reduce fever and boost the immune system, there was no clear proof that it could treat or prevent dengue fever.

According to the Disease Control Department, the main factors associated with fatal cases of dengue fever are living in communities hosting a large number of mosquito larvae, buying medicine for self-treatment, delays in seeking treatments from doctors, and having underlying illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and asthma.

Statistics compiled by the Disease Control Department show the number of dengue-fever patients this year is far higher than the number five years ago.

As of June 11 this year, dengue fever hit 28,785 people in Thailand. During the same period in 2014, the number stood at 10,670. The figures from the same period from 2015 to 2018 were at 24,248, 19,029, 13,961m and 17,302 respectively.


David Bellamy

An Indians view of the sensation method.

Re: Sankaran Sensation method


I have read the method in all the books published by Sankaran so far as also attended his seminars. It is the very enchanting video presentations at the seminars and the captivating material presented in his books that prompted me to use it side by side with the age-old traditional Hahnemannian method for some time. I concluded after a thorough study that the theoretical basis on which this entire method is based is flawed.

But such is the orchestrated hype about this method in the US and Europe that it is hard to get anything published against this method and prove to be a useless exercise that ends up in frustration.

Unfortunately, we have not evolved benchmarks to judge any method being propagated as homoeopathy and as a first step, we should do it.
The very basis on which Hahnemann founded homoeopathy was his discovery :

1. that any medicinal substance is capable of inducing a field force to distort the vital force of healthy human beings; the nature of distortion presents a recognizable field pattern and it is as true as the law of gravity or any other natural laws.

2. that the same medicine is capable of nullifying any disease force that establishes a similar distortion of vital force in a human being.

The SIMILARITY of the distorted picture or pattern of the vital force induced by the medicinal substance in a healthy human being and that created by the natural disease is essential for curative action to occur.

If Sankaran can prove that the vital sensation can be induced by a medicinal substance in healthy human beings and then prove the correspondences of this artificially induced vital sensation to the one present in the cured patient – then and then only it qualifies to be a homoeopathic method.

I hate to waste any more time discussing this method of madness, an aberration of an otherwise super genius whose convoluted thinking process reflects of a major portion of his brain cells gone awry….alas…


Thailand Seminar: June 27th and 28th.

A 2-day event covering 27th to 28th June 2019.

The price will be 13000 Baht (U.S.$400.)

We do not differentiate between medically qualified homoeopaths and lay homoeopaths. All are welcome. 

Contact Dr Krit for your place on 029829922,  0814982618. LINE:acantus,

It will be a concentrated study of examining case taking and evaluation of symptoms collected in aphorism § 6 Sixth Edition:

The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease. 

Many practitioners prescribe on the totality of these symptoms and fail to apply aphorism § 153 Sixth Edition:

In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is  more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.

We can see from 153 that reflection and finding the nucleus of the complete disease picture is required. The question is where and how?

So for this seminar, complete in itself, we will examine EXACTLY where to look for prescribing symptoms among the collected symptoms during case taking.

There are a number of different evaluation steps to obtain a correct homoeopathic prescribing symptom, and once found, gives surety of being a characteristic symptom of both the disease and the remedy. We will demonstrate this via a lot of cases and explanations. 

We will also show how to take cases via live presentations.

We will offer the SYNOPSIS software (Windows or MAC utilising Parallels discounted heavily from $799 to $499 for attendees)

The IHM is well known as a research and education body and has conducted seminars for over 27 years.

This seminar will give the chance for Thai Homoeopaths to be evaluated for inclusion in the I.H.M. Register of approved practitioners.  Each practitioner on the list has been taught by an I.H.M. official via training in our head office in Spain or by evaluation of their abilities

We have the First Thai practitioner to go on the Register. She has attended several seminars and has shown us her adherence to Hahnemannian principles. Her name will be added to the list in due course.

ccess to the resources of the I.H.M. for information and patient advice at all times.

The I.H.M. are the developers of the SYNOPSIS homoeopathic repertory program with the inclusion of the Therapeutic Pocket Book updated and revised 1846 edition of Boenninghausens work.  In practice, This has proved to be the most reliable indicator for the most suitable medicine. It took Vladimir Polony and Gary Weaver several years to compile and update.


garythai bio

Herd immunity?

There is a better than even chance that if you ask someone at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the World Health Organization (WHO) or your family physician who first discovered the poliovirus and when they did it, they would have a hard time coming up with the right answer. The answer, by the way, is Karl Landsteiner, MD and Erwin Popper, MD of Austria in 1908.

At the same time, it is unlikely many at the CDC, WHO or most medical doctors would be able to tell you the name of the person who came up with the theory of “herd immunity,” which serves as the foundational basis for justifying mandatory vaccination campaigns. The name of that person is Dr. Arthur W. Hedrich, a health officer in Chicago, Illinois. He observed that, “during 1900-1930, outbreaks of measles in Boston, MA appeared to be suppressed when 68 percent of the children contracted the virus.

Later in the 1930s, Hedrich observed that after 55 percent of the child population in Baltimore, MD contracted measles the rest of the city’s population appeared to be immune to the disease. It was these observations that led to the formulation of the herd immunity theory. But note that the theory was based on unvaccinated populations that were exposed to the disease and developed natural immunity to it. The protection came from the fact that each population was exposed to the disease and a certain percentage of the people got it.

The original theory of herd immunity had nothing to do with vaccination. The first mass vaccination campaigns for polio and measles in the United States, for example, did not occur until 1954-1955 and 1963 respectively. That’s three decades after Hedrich constructed his theory. The underlying assumption of the theory was that a community as a whole would develop a certain degree of natural protection from an infectious disease after a portion of its members actually came down with the disease, recovered from it, and became immune to it.

In other words:

The more members of the herd (community) who were exposed to an infectious disease and developed natural immunity to it, the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).7 

Somewhere along the line between the 1930s and 1950s the theory of herd immunity was corrupted and resurrected as:

The more members of a herd (community) who were vaccinated against an infectious disease and developed immunity to it, the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).

Notice the clever sleight of hand there. Suddenly, the importance of exposure to an infectious disease was eliminated and replaced with vaccination, and the importance of natural immunity was diminished. That’s a problem because both of those elements are key to Hedrich’s theory. Hedrich was not thinking about a vaccinated community or vaccine-induced—“temporary”—artificial immunity when he thought up his theory. He was thinking about the process of how a disease works its way through a community and how that community, eventually, naturally builds up a resistance to it as a result.

Dr Hedrich would not recognize his theory today. He would likely be the first to speak up and say, “Uh, no, that’s not at all what I had in mind. You missed the central point.”

Just about anyone with the equivalent of a high school education can answer the question, “Who developed the theory of relativity.” Einstein, of course. The theory is central to the science of physics. Although some have tried to question it, no scientist or professor of physics of any note would dare try to misrepresent or redefine it.

Yet, ask any public health official or health care professional involved in giving vaccinations to correctly explain the theory of herd immunity and who developed it, many would probably fail on both counts. Why? Because they have not made an honest effort to study the history of the theory. They have erroneously accepted as truth the relatively new myth promoted by public health officials around the world that herd immunity can only be attained through a highly vaccinated population and that every unvaccinated individual threatens the health of and weakens the herd.

Hedrich’s theory of herd immunity has been twisted by the myth that vaccine-acquired artificial immunity is identical to naturally acquired immunity, which is false. That myth serves to perpetuate the idea that only strict enforcement of mandatory vaccination laws will protect society from disease, which is also false.

Vaccine induced illnesses.

I have long rationalised that vaccines can cause diseases, by virtue of live or dead cultures in the bloodstream. It is rational to expect that if a disease-producing substance is present… then it can and will produce the relevant disease.vaccine induced illness

International I.H.M. Seminar in Bangkok Thailand.


An I.H.M. case taking seminar is focused on two things.

#1 Examining the directives of Hahnemann.

#Putting them into practice with the patient.

In the 21st century, Homoeopathy as a therapy has moved away from its scientifically rooted origins, and turned into a quasi-psychological/spiritual practice. The benefits of homoeopathy have been reduced by an incorrect application of the methodology in the clinic and thus a high success rate is negated.

It is our experience that the key to a successful practice is the act of following Hahnemann’s directions precisely in ascertaining the symptoms of the disease, to match with the requisite substance that can produce a curative reaction. It is that simple and that difficult.

In the first tentative moments of using homoeopathy, for example, Arnica for bruising, we were amazed at the results, most of us thought the application of applying a remedy for a condition was so simple and truly effective, and as we applied other remedies for other acute conditions, our faith grew in the system.

Then when we entered medical school or an establishment for teaching, we found that the approach we started with suddenly became a little more difficult for chronic cases, and a Kentian overlay on Hahnemann’s directions, introduced a religious/philosophical element regarding life and viewpoints of disease.

Hmm.. gotta work at this

The I.H.M. directors, beginning in 1986, with a background in Kentian homoeopathy, decided to devote time to research, and as such delved deep into the archives of history and collated the original teaching of Hahnemann, and weighed everything that is ‘accepted’ in our therapy against Hahnemanns own words and examples to see if we strayed off the path, or indeed if we missed some key points in practice.

The teachers at the I.H.M., Antonio, Manuel, Guillermo, Vera, Arden, all are independent practitioners with their own practice and teaching faculties. Yet we all share the same core research and information distribution in individual ways. (About us)

On June 20th to the 23rd, there will be a four day special seminar aimed specifically at advanced students and practitioners. This seminar will examine the basis of case taking according to Hahnemann, and how to follow his methodology exactly, and in the process removing all the incorrect additions that have been added over the years from practitioners of his time until today.

We will cover the following.

  • Rationale and reasoning on Aphorisms §5 and §6. Eliminating the common mistakes that lose the case understanding.
  • Utilising the instruction of §153 with the completed case taken with §6 directions.
  • What is a prescribing symptom?
  • What to ignore in a case taking and why.
  • Do we treat the man or the disease?
  • Examining the theory of Miasms in the light of modern disease knowledge, and how useful are miasms in prescribing?
  • How to obtain the necessary information accurately to formulate a prescription in the shortest time possible.
  • The importance of using only well proved remedies.
  • How to read a remedy.
  • Are there keynotes in a remedy?
  • Which repertory to use?
  • How to use a repertory properly.
  • Case management.
  • Potency and how to give a remedy.
  • Repetition of remedies.
  • And much more. Much more includes questions like, how important is Herings law of cure? I’ve never seen it… How long can I keep a person on a remedy? Dry dosing vs water dosing. Why do my patients aggravate all the time? Should I use LM’s? Are they good?
  • We will be examining remedy action through cases, live and paper.

The next international Seminar will be held at:

The Acantus Wellness Centre, หมู่ที่ 3 59/323/1 ซอยแจ้งวัฒนะ-ปากเกร็ด 29 Chaeng Watthana Rd, Pak Kret District, Nonthaburi 11120, Bangkok Thailand.

 Email:   Tel: 02-9829922, 081-4982618   Line ID: Acantus

On the 20th-23rd June 2019.

Flights from Europe start at £380. Hotel accommodation is cheap, Food is very cheap.

We look forward to seeing you there.

Seminar Acantus Bangkok June 2019 (2)

Homeopathy Saved my Son’s Life


says Roger Daltrey, lead singer of The Who

In May, 2008, 64 year old Roger Daltrey – lead singer from rock band The Who– told The Times newspaper in England how homeopathy had saved his infant son from life threatening gastro-intestinal problems.

“I had a very, very dramatic experience with my son when he was nine months old. He had gastro difficulties, started throwing up, could not keep any food down and turned into skin and bone. At the hospital, they did every test to him, and in the end they just handed him back to me. My wife and I were in bits. My poor baby. The kid was dying. It was terrifying.”

Having heard of homeopathy, Roger searched the Yellow Pages and consulted a local homeopath who prescribed a remedy for his son.  Roger then described how within two days his son began to show improvement, and, “Within two weeks he was putting weight on, keeping the food down. The trouble recurred periodically for a couple of years, but he’s now 27, a fit and healthy young man.”

“The bizarre thing is that I’ve got a chiropractor friend in LA whose baby landed up in exactly the same state. He thought he was about to lose him. But I recommended homoeopathic remedies, and he recovered too. That’s God’s honest truth. Now I bet doctors would say, ‘Oh, they’d have got better anyway’. But I can’t believe that.”

Whilst a guest speaker in May, 2009, at The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, First Annual Conference, held in London, Daltrey once again spoke about how distressing his son’s illness had been and the relief that came with homeopathic treatment.

Daltrey praised Prince Charles’ work as a supporter of complementary health therapies, and encouraged him to continue despite those who attempted to demean and detract from his efforts. He jokingly advised: “Don’t let the b*****ds grind you down!”

Roger Daltrey is among a long and distinguished list of musicians and singers who have spoken positively about homeopathy, from Beethoven, Chopin, and Schumann to the more recent Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ravi Shankar, Jon Faddis, Dizzy Gillespie, Shirley Verrett, Pete Townshend, Bob Weir, Paul Rodgers, Annie Lennox, Cher, Tina Turner and Axl Rose.

C. v. BÖNNINGHAUSEN.Münster, 9th September, 1831

v.      Considering the innumerable surprising cures wrought through Homœopathy, in both acute and chronic diseases, this method of healing would doubtless find many more disciples in the medical world if its practices were not subject to some difficulties far from trifling. It is not only a time-absorbing, but also a troublesome business, to investigate carefully into all the characteristic features and peculiarities, and to gain perfect information concerning the present state of mind of the patient in every individual case of sickness, whether belonging to an epidemic or to the diseases sufficiently designated by name; and then the choice of a suitable remedy, on the principle of similars, according to its pure action, offers again new difficulties, and we are often entangled in such a mass of difficulties that it is not surprising if the less experienced homœopath, not to speak of the beginner in this method of healing, is not able to extricate himself. Without doubt, on this account, and also on account of the unsuitable selection of the remedy which frequently follows therefrom, is to be seen the reason why the latter does not accomplish the desired result. Every beginner will probably at times have seen, what in the case of experienced and observant homœopaths is recurring more and more rarely, that, even with very careful selection and apparent adaptability of the remedies, success does not always come up to the expectations, and at times no action at all or even an aggravation of the patient’s troubles ensues. In such cases we may safely depend upon it, either that the remedy given has been formerly misused in allopathic doses and on that account its symptoms have become habitual and very manifest, or that, on account of the oversight of one or more symptoms of the disease which would contra-indicate the remedy, its choice was a mistake and therefore without effect. In the former case there will be, as a rule, an increase in the patient’s sufferings, in the latter no noticeable

vi.     change will be observed; in the former case there must then be made an attempt to destroy the old drug disease by homœopathically selected antidotes, and in the latter case by a careful examination of the disease image, and by a circumspect selection of the remedy, the previous mistake should be rectified. It would betray a great want of logical sequence and would denote a contradiction in itself if one, from such experiences, were to form conclusions concerning the unreliability of the homœopathic foundation principle (similia similibus). For apart from the fact that almost everyone has ultimately had the opportunity to convince himself of one or the other of the above-named causes, there would still remain to be explained away the much more frequent cases in which such rapid and lasting cures are accomplished that they frequently surpass the expectations even of the physician himself. One would be obliged to set up the contention that there existed in nature no sound therapeutic principle, a contention which probably nobody would like to defend.

         Accordingly we would expect that to all physicians, honestly seeking after the truth, every labour, be it ever so trifling, must be welcome, if it serves to advance this (as the honorable Hufeland[1]terms it) “solely direct curative method,” namely, the homœopathic, and assists in the selection of the proper remedy. The compiler of the following tables has not hesitated therefore to consent to the many requests of homœopathic physicians, and even the urgent demand of the worthy founder of this science of cure, to make them known through the press, after having been kindly revised by Hofrath Hahnemann, and after making some changes and improvements on the form in which they had already been communicated in manuscript to the nearest homœopathic friends. Without laying a great value upon the work, which contains no more than a tabulation of that which is already known, it is intended to afford an easier comprehensive survey of some peculiarities of the remedies which have hitherto been proved on healthy persons, and to facilitate the work of those homœopaths who recognize the great importance of such a compilation. We need scarcely be reminded that in several reme-

vii.    dies, and especially those only partially and imperfectly proved, many uncertainties exist, and doubtless mistakes have occurred which only by further proving can be discovered and corrected. In the meantime only that could be used which we possessed, for Homœopathy never allows of hypotheses and suppositions, and never borrows from the realm of opinions,[2] but understands the art of securing out of the realm of reality the pure truth.

         The similarity which must exist between the natural disease and the pure effects of the homœopathic remedy, in order that the latter may be able to eradicate the former, must be complete in every respect. It is, therefore, not sufficient to have found a remedy which is able to excite similar sufferings to those about which the patient complains, and much less if this similarity be confined merely to general names (such as headache, toothache, bowel complaint, cramps and so forth), as some very ignorant persons indeed are not ashamed to falsely attribute to Homœopathy. If the selected remedy is to prove reliable and successful, its pure effects must be adapted to the entire group of symptoms present, the conception of the totality of the disease symptoms, and, therefore, not only the sensations and pains, but also the aggravation and amelioration of the symptoms according to time and circumstances and the mental condition of the patient must correspond to all these in the remedy with the greatest possible similarity. Only when the totality of the symptoms has been obtained with completeness and exactness and when among the proved remedies one is found which corresponds to the whole in similarity, or at least is in no way contra-indicated, may we be sure of the desired success, provided that the remedy has not been already misused in massive doses, and that now only so much is given, as, according to experience, is sufficient to accomplish the object.

         Those who are already acquainted with Homœopathy and have seen its wonderful effects in diseases of the most diverse kind need, in order to appreciate the preceding, only think of the

viii    peculiarites of the Küchenschelle (Anemone pulsatilla) and the Brechnuss (Strychnos nux vomica), the knowledge of which we must attribute to the immortal founder of the art. Out of the numerous symptoms of these two excellently proved polycrests a great number of disease images may be formed, corresponding as strongly to the one as to the other. Even that which we know as especially characteristic of both is nowhere so sharply demarcated as to prevent many symptoms from manifesting quite a similarity or even contradicting each other. If then without reference to the predominating peculiarities of each remedy a selection is made, it may not infrequently happen that the improper remedy is chosen, because according to a few fragmentary symptoms it seems to correspond more nearly to the present case of sickness. The mistake lies, not in the principle of the homœopathic method nor even in the manner of selection itself, but in beginning with an insufficient conception of the totality of the symptoms of the disease and the totality of the symptoms of the remedy. The Küchenschelle (Pulsatilla) has not a few symptoms in the morning, in the open air, and while moving, just as the Krähenaugen (Nux vom.) has several in the evening, in the room and during the rest of the body

[physical rest]

. If we then confine ourselves, unintentionally, only to these symptoms, we will find that we have selected an unsuitable remedy and cannot, therefore, see the hoped-for success. It is consequently of the utmost importance to become thoroughly acquainted with the characteristics and peculiarities of every remedy, and especially of the antipsorics. All of these possess the power to eradicate the sad conseqences of one and the same miasmatic evil foundation, and have, therefore, for the most part the same sphere of action, and there is between them a very great similarity in their effects. Notwithstanding each of them has its own peculiarities, just as the other medicines have, and never can one be used instead of another with the same favorable results. In the most surprising manner was this shown during the present year in the frequent intermittent fevers, which were for the greatest part apparently of a psoric nature, and could, therefore, in most cases be permanently and safely cured only by antipsoric remedies [3] Nearly

ix      all the antipsorics known up to the present time were then used, according to the similarity of their symptoms, without the possibility of giving a preference to one over the other, and, when a proper selection was made, especially based upon the symptoms occurring during the apyrexia, their great curative power demonstrated itself not only by the rapid disappearance of the fever and other symptoms of the disease, but also by the fact that every patient was cured, and of all those homœopathically cured not a single one suffered a relapse, a condition which most generally prevailed after the allopathic use of Peruvian bark.

         Of course to obtain a complete characteristic picture of the remedies, with the elimination of every uncertainty and half truth among the pure effects of the same, when it is often so very difficult to distinguish the primary effects from the after effects, can only be the result of united efforts and mutual communications, and, without a separate homœopathic hospital under the protection of the state, in which nothing but true facts may be gleaned and confirmed, the science can only progress slowly.[4] But until the time that the young science, which is even now rendering such great results, will see its most fervent wishes fulfilled, its disciples must not sit idle, but everyone is under obligation to contribute according to his abilities to its upbuilding, so that suffering humanity may become a partaker so much the sooner of the blessings of those discoveries which have already proven curative in manifold ways, and which promise immensely more.

         The following three tables contain a comparative survey of the action of all remedies, up to this time, proved with a certain degree

x       of perfection on healthy persons, according to the time of day, the position and circumstances and according to the conditions of mind excited by them. In all three the order of their rank is denoted by the first five letters of the alphabet, so that the letter a designates the most decided, predominating and manifest action, having nothing contradicting it; the letter cindicates that the remedy has an equal action with reversed time or circumstances, and the letter ethe last or most subordinate place. The letters b and ddenote the intermediate state, so that b approaches to the highest rank and dto the lowest. When no letter is given, it signifies that nothing has been found in the pure effects pertaining to that modality. This arrangement of the different degrees of value appeared to the author the most serviceable and comprehensive, and the number of the same entirely sufficient to denote the degrees properly.

         The compilation of the first table, which contains the aggravation or amelioration of the suflerings according to the time of day, gave us the most trouble, because the divisions of the day are not capable of being sharply defined and because there is a want of expressions in the general usage of language to define the various terms and limits. Especially is this the case in regard to the morning and the evening, whose limits are not uncommonly extended unreasonably, and then frequently a part of the night as well as fore- and afternoon is included in them. Without doubt, therefore, this table will consequently have to undergo the greatest number of improvements and corrections.

         The second table, which contains the action of the medicines in exciting (and aggravating) or ameliorating (and removing) their symptoms according to circumstances, could in the most of instances easily he arranged according to sure and clearly defined data. It was found soon after its compilation, that here, as well as in the first table, not every symptom without distinction could he taken into consideration, but that a selection had to be made among them, with the omission of that part of them which would have given incorrect results. The main rule for this selection was deduced from what the honorable founder of Homceopathy teaches in that connection in the prefaces to Kriihenaugen (Nux vomica), Ki2chensclzelle (Pulsatitla), Zaunrebe (Byronia), and Wurzelsumach (Rh us), compared with the symptoms of the remedies which con-

xi      firm. For this reason only the symptoms of the head, eyes, teeth, respiration and chest, limbs, and the general sufferings, night sufferings and fevers, were taken into account in the first two tables, and the other regions were only considered when, either on account of the small number or on account of a want of clearness, doubts remained. It is still necessary to note that under the word “Touch,” the heading of the second column of Table II., are also included scratching, rubbing, pressing, etc , and that the modality “Agg.” expressesboth the excitement [initiation] of a symptom and an aggravation, and by “Amel.” a ceasing as well as amelioration of the sufferings is meant. The rest of these two tables needs no further explanation.

         In the third table, which contains a comprehensive view of the various states of mind produced by the remedies, the first five letters of the alphabet have the same meaning as in the two preceding tables. In the rubrics the author has endeavored to observe the most suitable psychological order so as to facilitate comparison thereby as much as possible.

         In giving the names of the medicines in alphabetical order the systematic tabulation of Dr. Rückert, which probably no homœopath is without, is followed, excepting that the acids are always classified immediately according to their bases, both to denote their close relationship in therapeutic respects and because the finding of the former seemed thereby to be facilitated.

         In view of the use of these tables, it is scarcely necessary to remark that they are in nowise intended to introduce a generalizing method into homœopathic treatment. According to the almost unanimous contention of the most distinguished medical authors and practitioners much mischief has been wrought in allopathy just in this way, and consequently Homœopathy would have cause enough to avoid it even if its entire system did not already consist in the strongest individualization. Therefore, if we wish to proceed conscientiously these tables should only be consulted after the case of sickness has been carefully examined, and has been compared with the competing remedies, and then as it were to solve some still remaining difficulties, or as a test for the correctness of the choice made. The tables can in nowise

xii     give the most suitable remedy, but they will assist in the choice of the same and prevent the likelihood of an unsuitable remedy being selected.

         A diligent study of the pure effects of the remedies must ever remain the principal thing, but, as the beginner especially needs a “guiding string,” we hope he will not seek it altogether in vain in these tables. One may especially find in them, the author hopes, an aid in becoming more familiar with those medicines which vie with each other for preference in given cases, and especially the antipsorics, and to group them according to the similarity of their effects. …

         Finally, with the same intense desire after perfection that is everywhere so plainly seen in all disciples of the homœopathic healing art, it is as much to be expected as to be hoped for that the present effort may be closely examined in its details, be purified of unavoidable mistakes and errors, and thereby acquire the reliability which the subject itself deserves.