Category Archives: Admin Comment

New I.H.M. Professional.

The Institute is pleased to announce the membership of the first graduate from the Mexican college under the tutorage of Dr Guillermo Zamora. Details below in Spanish and English.

A little bit about the I.H.M. From its conception in 1986, the aim has always been to research and disseminate Hahnemanns writings and methodology to enhance the practitioners ability to practice our therapy in an accurate way. More and more today, this methodology is being corrupted by modern teachings, and from this the efficacy of homoeopathy is being destroyed little by little.

Each student of the IHM is taught solely from the writings and clinical cases from Hahnemann and Boenninghausen and others associated with them. We have had the privilege of teaching hundreds of students and conducting many seminars.

You can contact us at : education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com

for information regarding our courses and locations and prices.

******

Name: Martin Ahumada

Clinic address: Balcarce 271.

San Miguel de Tucumán.

State: Tucumán- 4000

Phone: +54 381- 4221315 . +54 381- 155747722

Country: Argentina.

 

Médico, Graduado de la Universidad Nacional de Tucumán en el año 2005 e inmediatamente comencé el post grado en Homeopatía en la Academia de Homeopatía del Tucumán dirigida por el Dr José Stagnetto y el Dr. Mario Schliserman que son y fueron mis primeros maestros. Ellos lograron transmitir: por un lado las enseñanzas de Hahnemann a través  del Organon 6ta ed.y EC como los pilares fundamentales en la formación de un buen homeópata, y respecto a la toma de caso, si bien con cierta impronta Kentiana, ya no apuntando a la preeminencia de síntomas mentales sino a la totalidad del caso. Algo que para esta época sería una enseñanza diferente y de avanzada a todas las escuelas de homeopatia actuales de la Argentina

Mi encuentro con el Dr Guillermo Zamora (traductor al español/castellano del TPB) y el uso del P&W TherapeuticPocket Bookme permitió terminar de romper con la orientación Kentiana y me dio la tranquilidad de saber que las rubricas elegidas y sus síntomas, se encontraban respaldadas en la MMP, en la EC y en la propia experiencia de Boenninghausen y  no en la interpretación.

Sin duda en todo este tiempo, el camino fue el de desaprender y el de re incorporar nuevas técnicas que quizás por el avance de nuevas corrientes o por la impronta tan fuerte de Kent no permiten al alumno volver a la toma del caso como lo hacia el Dr. Hahnemann. Algo que sin duda el IHM rescato y trabaja arduamente en reposicionar.

Me queda solo agradecer en primer lugar a mis maestros originales y sobre todo al Dr. Guillermo Zamora, gran persona, profesional y docente que me animó en cada clase con su experiencia y paciencia en el camino de redescubrir al Dr.Hahnemann por medio del Dr.Boenninghousen.

Muchas gracias.

Saludos

Martin Ahumada

 

Physician , graduated from the National University of Tucumán in 2005 and immediately began the postgraduate degree in Homeopathy at the Academy of Homeopathy of Tucumán led by Dr. José Stagnetto and Dr. Mario Schliserman who are and were my first teachers. They managed to convey: on the one hand the teachings of Hahnemann through Organon 6th ed. And EC as the fundamental pillars in the formation of a good homeopath, and regarding the taking of case, although with a certain Kentian imprint, no longer pointing to the preeminence of mental symptoms but to the whole of the case. Something that by this time would be a different and advanced teaching to all the current homeopathy schools of Argentina

My meeting with Dr. Guillermo Zamora (translator in Spanish / Spanish of TPB) and the use of the P & W Therapeutic Pocket Book allowed me to finish breaking the Kentian orientation and it gave me the assurance of mind that the chosen rubrics and their symptoms were Backed up in the MMP, in the EC and in Boenninghausen’s own experience and not in interpretation.

Undoubtedly in all this time, the path was to unlearn and to incorporate new techniques that perhaps by the advance of new currents or by the strong imprint of Kent do not allow the student to return to the taking of the case as he did the Dr. Hahnemann. Something that undoubtedly the IHM  rescues and works hard to reposition.

I just have to thank first of all my original teachers and especially Dr. Guillermo Zamora, a great person, professional and teacher who encouraged me in each class with his experience and patience in the way of rediscovering Dr. Hahnemann through Dr Boenninghausen.

Homoeopathy and personal observations

Medicine is a difficult thing to define. So many branches within the conceptual understanding of the name.

Many practitioners of homoeopathy erroneously think that homeopathy IS “medicine”, and the reality is that homoeopathy is a branch of medicine. The therapy has a well defined role to play in its application of therapeutics, but can only be effective within the boundaries of what it can cure.

Let me be very clear about my positional stance. I firmly accept that the law of CURE is answered in the Like cures like definition. The therapeutic approach of similars as defined by Hahnemann is the medical application of that law utilising substances that can produce symptoms that can be matched to symptoms that appear within disease states. Substances do NOT produce the disease itself. Substances produce SYMPTOMS. Substances have no personality or TYPE or affinity to human traits, they merely produce SYMPTOMS. There is no SULPHUR personality… only symptoms in disease that produce symptoms that require sulphur for a curative effect.

Homoepathy cannot be used in place of surgery. Sometimes the necessity for surgery can be removed by treatment with homoeopathy, but in general, where mechanical intervention  is required, then a procedure will take place. Homoeopathy is useful in helping the post operative recuperation by aiding the immune system to work with focus.

Homoeopathy cannot replace the need for substances like insulin, but can reduce the volume required. I have seen this many times.

In an emergency situation of trauma, where time is of the essence and the immune system is not working, then primary care application of medicine and procedures must take precedence. Hahnemann recognised this:

A small dose of every one of them certainly produces a primary action that is perceptible to a sufficiently attentive; but the living organism employs against it only so much reaction (secondary action) as is necessary for the restoration of the normal condition.§ 67 Fifth EditionThese incontrovertible truths, which spontaneously offer themselves to our notice and experience, explain to us the beneficial action that takes place under homoeopathic treatment; while, on the other hand, they demonstrate the perversity of the antipathic and palliative treatment of diseases with antagonistically acting medicines. Only in the most urgent cases, where danger to life and imminent death allow no time for the action of a homoeopathic remedy – not hours, sometimes not even quarter-hours, and scarcely minutes – in sudden accidents occurring to previously healthy individuals – for example, in asphyxia and suspended animation from lightning, from suffocation, freezing, drowning, etc. – is it admissible and judicious, at all events as a preliminary measure to stimulate the irritability and sensibility (the physical life) with a palliative, as for instance, with gentle electrical shocks, with clysters of strong coffee, with a stimulating odor, gradual application of heat, etc.

With the advent of modern drugs that will stimulate and revive functionality, I have no problem in adding these to the list of times when emergency treatments are required.

As physicians/consultants/health advisors, we the practitioners have but one responsibility to the patient, that is their welfare. My experience and observation is that applying the law of similars is the best we can offer, yet times will arise when the organism will not respond to the application of the proven remedies to immune deficiencies or damage by drugs or other influences.

We must not be so single minded to ignore facts in our search for cure.

Homoeopaths require expressed and observed symptoms to prescribe. Without a single or multiple symptom or disease expression, we have nothing to base a prescription on.  We need individual reaction to an infection. I am singularly frustrated at times when a patient comes to me in apparent good health without a solitary expression of disorder, and yet examination shows a tumour or life threatening change internally that is not reflected externally as a change in health. These type of disorders require a deep examination of the Materia Medica which may or may not yield a remedy to prescribe.

I have been called to situations where a prescriber has failed to aid elderly patients with confusion and weakness with well indicated remedies, and yet failed to to see that all that was required was a multi vitamin shot or to rehydrate the patient…. common problems associated with the aged.

I have seen prescribers show a complete confidence in prescribing low potencies for pathology and high potencies for other reasons, and yet on observation of the patient, I have observed major aggravations and effects of the remedies in the patient, some for long periods of time.

I have seen prescribers work to the “Herings law” in observation, only to wonder why a practitioner would ignore KNOWN pathological progression of an individual disease state ebb and flow and consider it a good sign?.  (Hint: Hering NEVER made a law… yet another fallacy of the homoeopathic community.)

Practititioners ignore sound observed changes in favour of personality traits and emotions that (are NOT part of an altered pathology) and wonder why a patient does not improve…

I see daily repetition of medicines made (Even with LMs) with the practitioner ignoring aggravations and ameliorations in contradiction to Hahnemanns directions. This is especially concerning because too much medicine can cause a sensitivity in a patient and complicate matters.

Turn back to Hahnemann and learn the brilliance of his observations and advice on case taking, observations, applications of medicine and how to manage the case. It is the real homoeopathy. The only homoeopathy that works consistently.

Difficult case clinic.

Spanish and English Speakers. Appointments in person and also by telephone and SKYPE.

El I.H.M. ha establecido una consulta medica en Sevilla.Cada uno de los médicos que trabajan en ella han sido formados en el método Hanemaniano homeopático y en el uso del Repertorio de Boenninghausen para el análisis de los casos clínicos.


The I.H.M. Has established a consulting clinic in Sevilla. Each of the attending physicians is trained in the Hahnemannian method of Homoeopathy and uses the Boenninghausen Repertory for analysis.

Actualmente Gary Weaver reside en Sevilla y es el encargado de la toma del caso junto con Antonio Gil Ortega y Manuel Gutierrez Ontiveros. institutodemedicinahomeopatica.wordpress.com/institute-staff/

Currently, Gary Weaver is resident in Seville for the case taking along with Antonio Gil Ortega and Manuel Gutiérrez Ontiveros.

Igualmente ofrecemos formación clínica para terapeutas que quieran resolver sus casos difíciles, veríamos el paciente en la consulta con la presencia de su terapeuta y le demostraríamos la metodología Hanemaniana en la toma del caso y su posterior análisis.

We also offer clinical training for practitioners for their own difficult cases. We will see the patient in the clinic with the practitioner present and demonstrate the Hahnemannian methodology in the casetaking and afterwards in the analysis.

Nuestra consulta se encuentra en la Barriada los Príncipes Parcela 7 Bloque 8 Sevilla.

Por favor llamen por teléfono 606 207 345 a Manuel Gutierrez para concertar cita.

We have the clinic at Barriada los Principes Parcela 7 Bloque 8 Sevilla. Please phone Manuel on 606 20 73 45 to book your appointment or alternatively you can e-mail us below:

Email: education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com

The most common reason a prescription fails.

After studying the writings of Hahnemann for over 30 years, I am more than convinced that he was very clear as to the procedure for taking a case, and what symptoms are required to be used for prescribing symptoms.

It is no coincidence that practitioners who attend the IHM course, and are shown from the Organon and Chronic Diseases the instructions, and are presented with MANY case examples and discussions regarding each case, manage to go back to their homes and revisit difficult cases and have success. Not because the IHM have a modern conception and methodology but  simply because we work in the Hahnemannian manner.

The IHM decided many years ago to bypass all the practitioners of the era who offered explanations as to what Hahnemann was saying, and just take Hahnemanns own writings as good enough. By doing this, or members and students and practitioners have avoided the most common mistake made.

Nowhere does Hahnemann state that one symptom has priority or seniority over another.

In aph 6, he instructs to take ONLY symptoms that have changed since or just prior to the disease/infection, of the body and the mind. Here there is NO differentiation of mental or physical changes in terms of rank.

In aph 153, he states: 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.

Again NO differentiation between mental and physical symptoms.

If we be logical about this, Hahnemann is stressing to find altered expressions of disease in the now sick person, WHEREVER they are and WHATEVER they are.

In aph 133 he states: On experiencing any particular sensation from the medicine, it is useful, indeed necessary, in order to determine the exact character of the symptom, to assume various positions while it lasts, and to observe whether, by moving the part affected, by walking in the room or the open air, by standing, sitting or lying the symptom is increased, diminished or removed, and whether it returns on again assuming the position in which it was first observed, – whether it is altered by eating or drinking, or by any other condition, or by speaking, coughing, sneezing or any other action of the body, and at the same time to note at what time of the day or night it usually occurs in the most marked manner, whereby what is peculiar to and characteristic of each symptom will become apparent.

This applies to ANY symptom mental or physical.

Logic also dictates that if a sick person does not have an altered mental change… WE CANNOT USE IT! We do not use personality in our prescription ever,  UNLESS ALTERED.

Many practitioners during the time of Kent and since have been taught that the mental disposition is the key to solving each case.

They Quote aph 211 to support this postulation. This holds good to such an extent, that the state of the disposition of the patient often chiefly determines the selection of the homoeopathic remedy, as being a decidedly characteristic symptom which can least of all remain concealed from the accurately observing physician.

However: a read of the aphorism in conjunction with the topic under discussion from 210 to 230, will show that 211 is the cornerstone of dealing with one sided mental diseases only!

If a practitioner spend his or her time searching for mental or emotional states for the patient, they will miss out on the correct prescribing symptoms.

That is why we defer to original writings only and leave out interpretations so as to not make a mistake.

 

 

Harvard Study Has Good News for Homeopathic Medicine

The American Journal of Public Health has recently published a survey article out of Harvard that shows that homeopathic medicine, while still only used by a small fraction of the U.S. population, has jumped 15% in use. In addition, most users put homeopathy among the top 3 complementary and integrative strategies they use in their health care.
The interest of this journal in this publication is linked to possible public health benefits american-journal-of-public-health-225x300from the use of homeopathic medicine. The principal investigator was Michelle Dossett, MD, PhD and the team also included placebo expert Ted Kaptchuk, OMD. They hail from Harvard’s School of Public Health and from a Harvard Medical School affiliated hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess. The teams notes that prior studies of homeopathy “suggest potential public health benefits such as reductions in unnecessary antibiotic usage, reductions in costs to treat certain respiratory diseases, improvements in peri-menopausal depression, improved health outcomes in chronically ill individuals, and control of a Leptospirosis epidemic in Cuba.”

The data was gleaned from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. The researchers explored the prevalence and use patterns of homeopathic medicines among U.S. adults in relation to other complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) use. Versions of this survey in 2002 and 2007 found use of homeopathic medicines at 1.7% and 1.8% of the adult population, respectively. The 15% growth in the recent half-decade corresponds to an overall use rate of 2.1% in 2012. The most common conditions for which people sought homeopathic treatment were respiratory and ear-nose-and-throat complaints as well as musculoskeletal pain syndromes. Users tended to be more educated than non-users.

Use of homeopathy in the US is lower than in many European countries. The authors note, for instance, that surveys have found rates at 8.2% in Italy and nearly 15% in Germany. A recent Italian wire-service story reported findings of a 2012 survey by a homeopathic manufacturer that found much higher use, at close to one-in-six adult Italians.

The Harvard team reported that positive views of homeopathy were much higher among those who saw a professional homeopath compared to those who simply purchased the pills from the store and self-prescribed. Those who consulted professionals were more likely to feel that homeopathy was “very important in maintaining health and well-being.” The sense of the importance of the remedies was also stronger. More of those who’d consulted a homeopathic practitioner thought that homeopathy helped their health condition “a great deal” than did the self-prescribers.

Naysayers, who believe these medicine are nothing more than placebos, will likely question the additional perceived value post practitioner visit. Is it anything more than the greater level of investment in a placebo one has if the placebo is practitioner-recommended rather than self-prescribed?

dana-ullman-mph-cchThe article came to The Integrator from homeopath and author Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH (pictured). He sent notice of the Harvard publication and of the recent report on Italian use with this note: “Here’s some GOOD news about homeopathy!”

Ullman adds: “This survey confirms that a certain well-educated and well-satisfied group of Americans benefit from self-prescribing homeopathic medicines as well as from going to professional homeopaths. Although these numbers are much higher in select countries in Europe, it is more than reasonable to support individual choice in health care. Just as our country is a melting pot of different cultures and races, our health and medical care likewise needs this healthy diversity.”

Homeopathy has taken it on the chin the last two years. The Harvard study was published amidst a renewed flare up of bad publicity following a controversial 2015 report from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The chair of the report, general practitioner Paul Glasziou, MD blogged on the controversial findings at the British Medical Journal. A wave of postings from anti-homeopathy writers, such as this, immediately followed.

Weighing the public health potential of homeopathic medicine requires a wading into a river of twin ambiguities. These can each be true simultaneously: 1) homeopathic treatment only has value as a placebo, and 2) expanded use of these medicines can be useful tools in the public health campaign against antibiotic overuse. This 2008 study, for instance, found that 13% of doctors use antibiotics as placebos. Mightn’t we have been better off, from a population health perspective, had they prescribed homeopathic remedies and not delivered this extra load of antibiotics onto the terrain?

French researchers spoke to this potential last year when they concluded that “management of patients by homeopathic GPs may be less expensive from a global perspective and may represent an important interest to public health.” The Harvard researchers included a similar note: “Because of potential public health benefits associated with the use of homeopathy, further research on this modality and targeted studies of users are warranted.”

https://www.integrativepractitioner.com/whats-new/news-and-commentary/harvard-study-has-good-news-for-homeopathic-medicine/

Reflections on the seminars of Dr. Gary Weaver in Seville

Reflections on the seminars of Dr. Gary Weaver in Seville on the methodology of Hahnemann and Boenninghausen

January 26th 2016

At the beginning of December of last year we had the opportunity here in Seville to receive a course of clinic with Dr. Gary Weaver, whom we already knew for having given months before a course in Seville on the methodology of work of Boenninghausen based on the Work of Hahnemann.

If the first course was very interesting to me, the latter has been for my clarifier how to apply the method in practice with real cases taken from the daily clinic itself.

I, like almost all my fellow homeopaths around here, have been trained in kentiana homeopathy, with all that this entails in terms of taking clinical history, symptom assessment, hierarchizing, and repertorization of the case, and In the ultimate application of “what must be cured” in each particular patient.

The reason for approaching the method of Boenninghausen has been due to a couple of motivations, the first of them, the dissatisfaction in the clinical result of the application of the kentiana vision, without doubt that personally I think I have helped many patients to However, I was not completely satisfied with the results I was getting and I do not think it was because of lack of study and dedication, I felt that there was something that did not fit completely with what Until now he had been practicing; The second motivation, and not least, is the complication of the Kentian method of working at the time of the patient’s clinical approach and the insecure terrain in which we see ourselves when we give the highest hierarchical value to mental symptoms,

The method of Boenninghausen, as Dr. Gary has explained to me, has represented a return to “sanity” within classical homeopathy, a return to the purest Hahnemanian sources, especially nowadays where the New currents called homeopathic remedies are moving away from the true spirit of classical homeopathy by entering into the realms of metaphysics and elucidation rather than the rational medicine itself brought to us by Hahnemann.

The method of Boenninghausen catches my attention for its simplicity, its effectiveness and its coherence with Hahnemannian homeopathy, and the two seminars, one practical and another theoretical one of Dr. Gary, have served me to learn the “a, b, c” Of this new, but old way of doing homeopathy, I recognize that we have a long and arduous way ahead to familiarize ourselves with it, with its way of taking the clinical history, its symptomatological hierarchy, its repertoire, etc., but what is important, And I think it is a feeling, that we share several doctors here, is that we are on the right path, in the way that Hahnemann and his best disciple Boenninghausen developed.

If these personal reflections serve for other homeopathic doctors to enter into this method, I would therefore be satisfied and I encourage from now on that other colleagues “recover” the true rigor in the application of homeopathy following the methodology of work proposed by Boenninghausen. And I also agree that it is fair to recognize Dr. Gary’s work to recover this Hahnemannian homeopathy in a homeopathic world that goes in a diametrically opposed sense, his work I hope will bear fruit in the future of our homeopathy.

Author: Dr. Manuel Gutiérrez Ontiveros. Homeopath Physician.

Course costs. Sliding fee.

One thing that the I.H.M. does for attendees of the courses, is to have a sliding fee depending on numbers. We have fixed costs that have to be met, yet are able to spread the costs over the numbers present for each course. For each course, we have usually 4 members of staff. Gary, Antonio, Manuel and Vera by SKYPE.

For example:

  • 1 participant is €1000 Euros
  • 2 participants is €850 per person.
  • 3 participants is €750 per person.
  • 4 participants is €700 per person.
  • 5 participants is €650 per person
  • 6 participants is €600 per person.

We just count the number of attendees and the cost is divided as per above.

For any GROUP attendances, contact us at education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com

We try and help the best we can.

https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/post-graduate-course-in-english-in-seville/

End of prohibition: in Sweden homeopathy is legal

End of prohibition: in Sweden homeopathy is already legal

From now on homeopathy is legal in Sweden. A Supreme Court ruling overturned a sentence condemning a doctor for having used a homeopathic treatment with a patient. To date, the use of homeopathic medicines had been officially banned in Sweden.

In this case, a Swedish doctor has received probation for treating a patient with homeopathic medicines.

Details about the disease and specific treatment were not revealed by the court. The Supreme Court (Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen) of Sweden annulled the decision of the judgment (No. 6634-10).

The judges are convinced that the doctor acted in the interest of the patient and applied the medicine that according to the knowledge of the doctor was more suitable  for the patient.

For the court there was at no time of homeopathic treatment any risk for the patient. Thanks to the new ruling, Swedish doctors and pharmacists can officially take part in homeopathy courses and offer training courses .

The president of the German Association of Homeopathic Physicians ( DZVhÄ ), Cornelia Bajic sees in the decision of the Swedish court a confirmation of the growing acceptance of homeopathy worldwide. “The court’s decision is a milestone,” says Bajic. “Thanks to this ruling, the criminalization of homeopathic doctors in Sweden is over.”

Homeopathy in the world: increasingly recognized

The evolution in Sweden is another indicator that homeopathy is increasingly recognized in the world. Many governments officially recognize homeopathy as medical treatment.

These countries include, for example, Latin America , Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador and Mexico. In Asia the governments of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are included and in Europe , homeopathy is recognized in countries like Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland and Great Britain.

In some of these countries, homeopathy is an integral part of the national health system , as in Brazil, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Great Britain and, after a referendum, also in Switzerland, reports the World Association of Homeopathic Physicians (Medicorum League Homoeopathica Internationalis ” LMHI “), which has members from more than 70 countries . More than half come from countries where homeopathy is recognized.

Last year, the door opened in China for homeopathy. The Kent Repertory, one of the fundamental works of homeopathy, was translated into Mandarin, the most widely spoken language in the world. At the same time, the “National Association of Chinese Homeopathy” was founded.

However, the LMHI and its main member, the DZVhÄ, continue with “global solidarity for persecuted and oppressed homeopathic physicians,” says Bajic.

The LMHI annually organizes the International Homeopathy Day in states where homeopathic physicians can not practice freely. This year the venue was Croatia.

Removing the effects of allopathic medicines.

We teach the fullness of Hahnemanns instructions in our specialist case taking seminars.

§ 76 Sixth Edition

Only for natural diseases has the beneficent Deity granted us, in homoeopathy, the means of affording relief; but those devastations and maimings of the human organism exteriorly and interiorly, effected by years, frequently, of the unsparing exercise of a false art, with its hurtful drugs and treatment, must be remedied by the vital force itself (appropriate aid being given for the eradication of any chronic miasm that may happen to be lurking in the background), if it has not already been too much weakened by such mischievous acts, and can devote several years to this huge operation undisturbed. A human healing art, for the restoration to the normal state of those innumerable abnormal conditions so often produced by the allopathic non-healing art, there is not and cannot be.

Too often the physician finds a patient before him that has been plyed with numerous drugs in the treatment of  their affection. How much can homoeopathy do in a situation like this?

stressed_tired_drHahnemann points out that in his experience, if the energy of the patient has not been completely depleted by drugs, it will be by the sole action of the immune system/Vital force that can restore health. Accessory help can be given by looking at the primary miasm/infection and helping to remove that, but primarily it is only the organism that can cure and this can take several years. Sometimes structural changes in the organism occur from the drug action, and the resultant action from the immune system to save life produce incurable or unchangeable situations.

For this reason Hahnemann asserts that Homoeopathy is only really useful in the treatment of NATURAL DISEASES and that these acute and chronic non miasmatic iatrogenic drug diseases are almost impossible to treat successfully.

I have sadly turned away several patients with drug induced disease states that did not respond to treatment on this basis.

The training courses in case taking.

So why do we offer specialist courses on case taking?  Anybody in homeopathic practice that has been taking patients cases for the longest time, or even for new practitioners, there is a problem with understanding what is essential to prescribe for in the symptoms.

For those that have been through the Kentian school of homeopathic learning, that is emphasis placed on the mental and emotional symptoms above the pure clinical symptoms the are present and belong to the disease state. Until a practitioner fully understands the difference between aphorism  5 and 6 and 153 the results in the clinic will be less than ideal.

The IHM has spent over 30 years in research and training in homeopathy using the principles Hahnemann clearly enunciated for us to use. The three-day training course is to focus the practitioner on essentials in the case taking and in the evaluation of the collection of symptoms to find the correct prescribing criteria that is both in the disease and in a remedy that produces that state.

Everybody that has trained with us and applies the principles have seen much success in the clinic. Some of the cases that has being presented to us by practitioners as incurable or unable to help, have resolved quickly by application of the Hahnemannian principles…

The staff of the IHM claim no special abilities personally. We place emphasis on careful case taking, and in the evaluation, a criteria based selection of symptoms that represent the individual expression of disease and can be matched to the curative remedy.

Everything has been stated by Hahnemann in his writings. We just help you to understand it .