Category Archives: case-taking

Hahnemann, Kent and the IHM.

One of the questions we get asked a lot by practitioners, is why concentrate solely on the teachings of Hahnemann, the provers Union and Boenninghausen. We have found over the years that it is always better to go to original sources for accuracy.

Homoeopathic historians have started to address the issues caused by influential homoeopaths from the 19th century on and recognise the confusion that is caused in practice. We sidestep all these issues simply by using the Organon, Chronic Diseases, the other writings of Hahnemann, Boenninghausen and approved sources. If your practice is not as successful and you would like, we would encourage you to revisit some of the methodology you employ in casetaking and repertorisation and pharmaceutical practice, or alternatively take a small seminar with us to educate yourself on the original practice methods.


Kent is not a Hahnemannian: Differences Between Kent and Hahnemann

By  S. Hehr, M.B.B.S., D.P.M.

(Originally Published in British Hom. Journal as “Was Kent a Hahnemannian?”, Vol. 73, No. 2, Re- edited by Dr R.S.Mann after consultations with Dr. G. S. Hehr)

Kent has been hailed as a true disciple of Hahnemann.1 There should be a reassessment in light of the following contrast between the view of Kent and Hahnemann:

On “authority” and “experience”


“We must begin by having respect for law … Let us acknowledge the authority.”2

“… and medicine today, outside of homoeopathy, is a medicine of experience…It is necessary that the exact and proper position of experience should be realized  … Experience has … only a confirmatory place. It can only confirmed that which has been discovered by principle…Experience leads to no discoveries … One who has no doctrines…imagines he discoveries by his experience”.3


“Medicine is the science of experience…”
“The true healing art is in its nature a pure science of experience …”5

“…the complete true healing art, can never be the work of self satisfied ratiocination…, but that the requisite for this … are only to be discovered  but due attention to nature by means of our senses, by careful honest observations and by experiments conducted with all possible purity and in no other way…

“I demand no faith at all, and do not demand that anybody should comprehend it. Neither do I comprehend it; it is enough that it is fact and nothing else. Experience alone declares it, and I believe more in experience than in my own intelligence.”

“But what and how much …can be determined by no speculative reason or unreason, but experience alone must determine…and in the domain of facts there is no appeal from experience…”8

On relation of skin symptoms to internal malady

KENT: “But this very scientific ignorant doctor has made a failure: he has driven what was upon the surface and harmless into the innermost precincts of the economy and the patient is going to die as a result of scientific ignorance.”9


“The diseases … springing from such a one-sided destruction of the chief skin symptom (eruption and itching) which acts vicariously and assuages the internal psora (which destruction is erroneously called ‘Driving the itch into the body’)…”10 

“All miasmatic maladies … are always present as internal maladies … before they show their local (skin) symptoms.”11 

“… when the development of the (internal) venereal disease has been completed, only then diseased nature endeavors to mitigate the internal evil and to soothe it,  by producing a local symptom…”12

“…some wretched casuists have considered as resulting from driving back of the poison out of the chancre into the interior body…”13

On psora

KENT: “Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness. Had psora never been established as a miasm on the human race, the other two chronic diseases would have been impossible. All the diseases of man are built upon … it (psora) goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race … that is the spiritual sickness from which … the race progressed into … the true susceptibility to psora…”14


“…the ailments and infirmities of body and soul … (if they do not belong to the two venereal diseases, syphilis and sycosis) are … manifestations of (psora).”15 

“In Europe and also in other continents … only three chronic miasms are known…”16 “….and indeed so many that at least seven eights of all chronic maladies spring from it (psora) … while the remaining eighth spring from syphilis and sycosis, or from a complication of two of these three … chronic diseases, or (which is very rare) from a complication of all the three of them….”17

On vitalism

KENT: “Hahnemann could perceive this immaterial vital principle. It was something he arrived at himself, from his own process of thinking (but all historians mention that it was Joseph Barthez, b.1734, d.1806, who introduced the term “vital principle”18).

There was paucity of individual ideas at that time… but Hahnemann thought much, and by thinking he arrived at the ideas contained in this (i.e. the 9th paragraph of the 5thedition of the Organon), which only appeared in the last (i.e. 5th.edition of 1833).”19

(Allusion to “vital force” appeared in the Chronic Diseases20 published in 1828, and in the fourth edition of the Organon that we shall refer shortly, Kent substitutes “simple substance for “immaterial vital principle” in the paragraphs subsequent to the one sited above – vide reference 19. This new expression appears to be Kent’s own coinage. Imputation of “much thought” to Hahnemann appears to be Kent’s projection of his own thinking, the result of which was the new expression. Hahnemann’s views on reasoning and speculation are clear in reference 8).

KENT: “…simple substance is endowed with formative intelligence…”21


“… the instinctive, irrational, unreasoning vital force (instinktarige, verstandlose. keiner Uberlegung Fahige .. Lebnskraft — this could also be translated: instinctive, unable to reason/understand, without capacity for reflection) 22 (the contrast between Kent and Hahnemann over the attributes of vital force is obvious from these words)…

“…unreasoning, merely animal vital force (die verstandlose, bloss aminal ische Lebenskraft).”23

On bacteriology

KENT: “Hahnemann did not adopt any such theory as bacteriology”.


“… the cholera miasm … grows into an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible creatures …”24 (How else could one have described bacteria at that time!)

Why was Kent so often wobbling off the pivot? Perhaps it was not for nothing that Jouanny wrote:

“The second trap is to do what certain absent-minded homoeopathic doctors do, namely to consider only the symptoms of the patient in his reaction to his disease, and in particular his psychic signs. This was the attitude of Kent and his spiritualistic school which went so far as to say that the pathognomonic signs of the disease have no importance in the selection of the homoeopathic drug.”

“This is a philosophical attitude which makes homoeopathy into a theology, and considers man to be made only of the soul. There is a great danger here…”

“This attitude has practically destroyed homoeopathy in America where it was at one time a flourishing discipline. It is now practiced by a few esoteric doctors.”

“One can say that this attitude is not in conformity with the methods set out and defined by Hahnemann, because generally the ‘psychic symptoms’ taken into consideration by the followers of Kent, are not experimental changes in the mental behavior of a patient, but the psychological characteristics of susceptible types of individuals. This is the result of the subjective interpretation of the experimenter and the patient. These doctors select the homoeopathic drugs on the basis of psychic symptoms … such a practice can be justifiably criticized …”25

Kent’s homeopathy is not necessarily always Hahnemannian. As Campbell recently put it : “Nevertheless, it does not take a very detailed study of the history of homoeopathy to show that modern practice actually differs in quite significant ways from Hahnemann’s own practice. In both England as well as America, for example, the influence of J.T.Kent, who imported certain ideas derived from Swedenborg, has been paramount since shortly after the turn of the century”.26

Hahnemann’s distinction between the responses of the animate and the inanimate; his view about adaptive responses of the organisms”, 28 his stress on the value of signals in biology;29 his almost foreshadowing of “the law of initial value” of Joseph Wilder,30his near modern views on nutrition31 and his suggestions for psychological exercise32are all missing from Kent’s writings. One feels constrained to ponder how far the words of Inglis (on relation of Galen to Hippocrates) would apply also to the relation of Kentto Hahnemann.

“Ostensibly by the Hippocratic School, he was to subvert its teachings. Hippocrates, Galen admitted, had lead the way … ‘He opened the road, I have made it possible’ … Galen was able to impose his views on how the road should be followed; and as a prolific writer, he saw to it that they were published.33 


  1. Kent was a Swedenborgian, and he can be accused of including the fundamental concept of mystical correspondence between spirit world and humans to Homoeopathy. Which distract the Homoeopathic philosophy from Hahnemann’s “Rationality” to Kent’s “Metaphysical”.
  2. This shift from basic nature of reality of human system compel the Kent to start unrealistic and unbalanced emphasis on “Mind” or “Mental Symptoms” or “Mental Origin” of every disease. Hahnemann is realistic and balanced in his approach in an individual case of sick, he searched for the totality where it actually lies but Kent arranges the “Mind” always on the beginning of a case. Kent pushed the basic methodology of Homoeopathy towards “Irrationalism”.
  3. On Miasm, Hahnemann is certain about three different basic causes of diseases, Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis but for Kent, Psora is only basic cause of all the diseases, including two other miasms too.
  4. Hahnemann always talks about the “gentle restoration” of the sick with only mild aggravations, but Kent admitted his was to cure with severe and long homoeopathic aggravations.
  5. Kent underlined the return of all the past symptoms, eliminations and exteriorization (developing skin lesions etc.)  in a case is a good indication and path towards cure, whereas Hahnemann marked them as organism’s defense or reaction against wrong prescriptions and excess of doses.
  6.  Dr Kent may have been a good, efficient and ardent homoeopath but his concepts and theories vary from Dr Hahnemann on most of the basic understandings of Homoeopathy which makes for differences in approach, methodology for treatment of a patient.
    7.  So accepting Kent as a true disciple of Hahneman, as Kent himself claims, undermines the value of Hahnemannian theory and concepts of Homoeopathy. We need to read and practice Homoeopathy as a Hahnemannian methods and Kentian Methods, with their respective theories, concepts and differences from each other.


1 Kanjilal et al – An Appeal to the Homoeopaths of India to Save Homoeopathy. Hahnemannian Gleanings 1979,XLVI,471

2 Kent J.T. – Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy. P.19,Chicago : Ehrhart & Karl,  1954.

3 Ibid – P.43.

4 Dudgeon R.E. – Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. P.439, New Delhi: Swaran (reprint of New York; Willian Radde, 1852 edition)

5 Hahnemann  S. – Organon der Heilkunst, P.7, Dresden: Arnold, 1819.

6 Ibid – P.15 -16.

7 Dudley P ed. – The Chronic Diseases by Samuel Hahnemann, P.124, f.n. New Delhi, Jain Reprint

8 Ibid –P.325

9 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.27

10 Dudley P. – The Chronic Diseases, P.17.

11 Ibid – P.32.

12 Ibid – P.36.

13 Ibid – P.36 f.n.

14 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P146.

15 Dudley P. – The Chronic Diseases, P.8.

16 Ibid – P.9.

17 Ibid – P.14.

18  Castiglioni A. – A History of Medicine, P.586, New York: Alfred Knoff, 1958.

19 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.76-77.

20 Haehl R. – Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and Work. P.136, New Delhi, B.Jain Reprint.

21 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.79.

22 Hahnemann  S. – Organon der Heilkunst, P.IV, Dresden and Leipzig, Arnold, 1829.

23 Ibid – P.146.

24 Hehr G.S. – Bacteriology and Homoeopathy.Br.Hom.J. 1982, 71,62,64-5.

25 Jouanny J. – Essentials of Homoeopathic Therapeutics, P.39, Laboratories Boiron, 1980.

26  Campbell A.C.H. – Editorial, Br. Hom. J., 1980, 69, 3.

27 Hahnemann  S. – Organon der rationallen Heilkunde, P.5-8, Anm.  Dresden, Arnold, 1810.

28 Dudgeon  R.E. – Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. P.62, Para 289-290.

29 Hahnemann S. – Fingerzeige auf den homoopathischen Gabrauch der Arzneien in der bisherigen praxis. Neues Journal der practischen Arzneikunde von Hufeland 1807, 43.

30  Dudgeon R.E. – Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. P.34.

31 Hehr G.S. – Hahnemann and Nutrition. Br. Hom. J. 1981,70,208-12.

32 Hehr G.S. – Self awareness and Homoeopathy, Br. Hom. J. 1983, 72, 90-5.

33 Inglis B. – Natural Medicine, 0.18. London, Collins, 1979.

The compiler expresses his gratitude to “Institut fur Geschichte der Medzin der Bosch Stifung”, Stuttgart, for their generosity in supplying Xerox copies of many paper and microfilms of all editions of Organon, without which the paper could not have been completed.

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.

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:


Using the T.P.B. successfully.

Polony and Weaver have many thousands of copies of the SYNOPSIS software in general use in the homoeopathic community. People write us asking why they cannot find certain locations or symptoms in the Therapeutic Pocket Book and find it limiting because of this. Its not actually true, however there is a small learning curve with the T.P.B.

5 weeks ago, one such comment was made by a local practitioner regarding a patient of his with cancer. He presented me with a 5 page dossier of the case notes and another 3 pages of notes related to working out the case.

I laughed and told him to just tell me the symptoms of the physical disease expression. Within 5 minutes, I gave him a remedy to consider. He was stunned how on, in his words, a prescription could be made on “an incomplete case analysis”.  Big mistake, huge. For the next 20 minutes I went through his case symptom by symptom and demonstrated how each of the expressed sx were covered by the remedy. I showed him HOW the disease could only be considered on altered sx and that all of his mental emotional notes were either unchanged or personality and thus of no use.

He decided to prove me wrong and gave the remedy to the patient. To his amazement, the patient has begun to respond well to the prescription and is doing much better.

How long does I take to work a case out in the T.P.B.? Usually only a few minutes and either a single remedy is found or there may be 2 or three for consideration. A read of them in the MM will decide which should be used.

To use the T.P.B. is relatively easy. To understand the methodology requires a practitioner to change the method of casetaking a little. No bad thing when you realise is really moving closer to the method utilised by Hahnemann. More accurate and more successful.

The IHM will be running 2 day intensives shortly on how to take the case and how to use the P&W Therapeutic Book to maximise results. It seems such a shame to have the repertory that Hahnemann approved and not know how to use it properly.

We will conduct in Spanish and English here is Seville Spain. Contact us if you have a group that would benefit from learning Hahnemanns method.

Case analysis using Boenninghausens Therapeutic Pocket Book.

It is true that the TPB only contains 125 remedies for evaluation. However, in practice, it is also true that most practitioners do not know the value or scope of most remedial actions. It is amazing to find out the curative power of remedies that we have a pre- conceived opinion of as to its field of action, and see it restore sickness to health outside of our comfort zone.

Let me give an example of a recent case with few symptoms. I tried a few remedies in the first 2 days of the presented fever, and nothing really worked. In the end I sat down and looked for what could be observed visually.

The patient had a sticky greasy perspiration. Mainly on the left side of his body.

I repertorised these 3 Sx .  I saw Bryonia clearly was top in the numerical values and as such I was preparing a dose of LM potency to give…

However, given that numerical values are only an indication of the frequent presence of a symptom in a remedy and not an INTENSITY value,  I went back and looked at the patient again and noticed yet another symptom. The perspiration was not clear, it had a brown dirty colour to it on the skin. Discoloured perspiration is not in BRYONIA.

I gave CHINA LM 0/1. Within 4 hours the patient was recovering.

What do we learn from this case? I believe that accuracy in symptom gathering is the requirement of the day. Once gathered, it must be assessed SOLELY on the basis of the symptoms and repertorised ACCURATELY and without prejudice to what we THINK the remedy is. Where a physical SX exists it cannot be ignored if it is a result of the infection.


March 2017. Mentor training course.

So you have spent a lot of money, invested a couple of years of your life in training, observed several different methods of approach to casetaking and prescribing,  now hold your piece of paper and are on your own in the world of homoeopathy.

Feel alone? A sense of being lost? Not confident in your approach and results?

clinic1The Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine, established in 1986 is very familiar with your situation. The IHM conducts an average of 7 international seminars a year and many thousands of training hours teaching individuals the Hahnemannian methodology of casetaking and case evaluation through the Therapeutic Pocket Book approach by Boenninghausen.

Due to the multitude of prescribing methods taught, we see the confusion in a graduate many times.

Hahnemann developed a very precise and penetrating case analysis mode for ascertaining the precise sx of the disease state.  Modern ‘homoeopathic’ approaches do not utilise ANY of the founders instructions and therefore success in clinical terms is not high on the list.  I often hear, “but the patient feels better”… yes, but they still have the problem they came to you with….

Boenninghausen was Hahnemanns most competent student. To the professions benefit, Boenninghausen managed to encapsulate the manner in which Hahnemann examined a case via symptoms, and was able to formulate the process in an invaluable repertorial process known as the Therapeutic Pocket Book.

tpbpwVladimir Polony and Gary Weaver undertook to do a re translation work (starting in 2007, completed in 2010/11) into English from the original 1846 edition, thus repairing many of the errors found in Allens version. It is now available in English, Spanish, Italian and Hebrew.


the IHM is offering a special 3 day personal mentoring and teaching weekend with Gary Weaver.


During the month of March 2017 dates:

17th-19th inclusive.

24th-26th inclusive.

31st-2nd April inclusive.

The 3 day course is available to both Medically qualified and non medically qualified practitioners.

Based in Sevilla Spain.

ENGLISH language only. 

(We can supply a Spanish homoeopathic translator for an extra €150 if required)

There will be a section of the course regarding understanding Materia Medica that will be conducted via Internet with Vera Resnick D.Hom med I.H.M.

What will be included in this 3 day Training.

  • All refreshments and snacks.
  • Tapas lunch.

The training is dedicated to the study of Hahnemanns methodology for case taking. We do not overlay with Kentian/Swedenborg influences and rely solely on the instructions given by Hahnemann,

This will involve:

  • A deep study of the related Organon sections to casetaking.
  • A comprehensive analysis of his rationale for understanding what disease is,
  • What to look for
  • How to complete a symptom
  • How to find the expression of the disease in an individual
  • How to link symptoms for a complete picture of the disease.

We will demonstrate each step of the process with video and powerpoint and multiple case examples.

We will also:

  • Demonstrate Hahnemanns thinking through the analysis process formulated by Boenninghausen in the Therapeutic Pocket Book.
  • This work when used correctly, can quickly point to the generals of a case or indeed the specific single symptoms that point to a remedy for use.
  • We will examine:
  • Miasms
  • Causal events
  • Organ failure
  • Acute diseases
  • Chronic diseases.
  • Totality treatment in one sided diseases
  • How to treat concurrent different diseases.
  • Repetition of medicines.
  • Alternating remedies.
  • LM or Q potencies. How to dose, Repetition, case management and how to deal with aggravations.
  • How to read Materia Medica to get the right medicine.

We award a Diploma for attendees and the chance to qualify for I.H.M. membership.

Fees: The course is offered as stated for €750 per person or less if multiple attendees come in a small group.

Following the instructions.

Its a hard lesson to learn. Not only for the patient but also for the practitioner.

I am not proud to admit that some of my failures in treatment have been because of not understanding WHY Hahnemann wrote to not repeat the medicine whilst improvement was happening in a patient. In my mind, repeating the dose would speed along the process and so in the early days I would re prescribe when improvement was slowing down rather than having stopped.

Here is what we sometime forget, or in many cases, do not know. NO MEDICINE CURES. Once we grasp this simple fact and fully take this on board, we can begin to understand the process of what happens when we prescribe for a patient. It is the immune system of the patient that cures.

A patient will present a set of symptoms that have arisen from an infection or disease process. We collect the information and place the expression of the existing state in a collation of symptoms. We then analyse the problem in terms of the pathology and change from the normal expression of health, and examine each symptom in relation to its:

  • Origins
  • Location
  • Sensations
  • Modifying factors
  • Relationship with other symptoms.

In doing this for each expression of the disease, NOT the preferences or personality of the patient, we begin to see HOW the disease is reflected individually in the patient. With this knowledge, we look for a well proven homoeopathic medicine that has the ability to create a similar set of symptoms, in effect produce an (increased) state of DIS-ease in a healthy person. In administering a medicine of similarity, what we are doing is amplifying what we consider the key symptoms or centre of the disease, and thus making the immune response ´focus´more intensely on dealing with this stronger disease state.

At this point we have modified the immune response to a singular assault on the strongest presenting problem, be it artificially induced, we observe changes in the economy as the process of removing the disease begins. Given that we do NOT know HOW the immune system will work or what it needs to clear first, we need to ALLOW the process to work to completion, or as Hahnemann states, we will ruin the case.

What does this mean in real terms?

In chronic cases, it took a long time for the patient to develop symptoms to the point where they are in the grip of a disease. Each part of the disease process followed another part and laid an extra layer of pathology until the presenting state is before you. We can only remove from the presenting symptoms with the newest symptoms taking precedence. In this way we hope to remove the disease state slowly back to the core issue layer by layer… the reality is that we do not know which symptoms are tied in to the underneath problem, and therefore might require time and various potencies of the same medicine to work We also do not know HOW it will work or when. What we do know is that as long as the patient is responding to the remedy, no matter how slowly is that the immune response is working. I find that I am reluctant to interfere with that process simply because my experience of working with LM or Q potencies shows me that over medicating can cause problems for an already weakened immune system.

Case example:

Male, late 50s presented with skin eruption on lower limbs of both legs. Hot red p1060321and flaking. Started interior side of right lower leg and round spots developed on anterior side of lower limbs growing to same size as original area. Itching, red flaking. The eruptions then started on the left leg mirroring the right left from starting on the inside and then going to the outside of the leg.p1060332

Based on the prescribing symptoms.. Sulphur 200c was given in water, 2 doses 5 hours apart. (due to initial dose manufacturer doubts over the medicines viabilty. )The patient reported tiredness and increase in itching a week later. By the end of 4 weeks, the redness had disappeared, the flaking stopped and the eruptions shrinking. Although the tiredness continued, the medicine was allowed to work for 2 months. After two months mild itching returned and the eruptions were not progressing further. This time the patient was given a single dose of LM 01. The eruptions then continued to clear up. a month later, the patient had a prostate issue with a mild infection. In the repertorisation Sulphur was again indicated so the medicine was allowed to work uninterrupted. Despite increase in desire to urinate and mild aching in the prostate, no medicine was given. 2 weeks later, these symptoms cleared up by 80%. The patient is due for re evaluation soon t see if the same medicine is indicated or a change required.

We must be careful not to interfere with the immune response from implementing a medicinal action. Too much medicine is far worse than too little especially in a weakened state. Better to wait than to initiate a problem. In this case it is obvious that there are things going on in the patients health that needed treating carefully and sparingly. Due attention to detail and not being in a hurry to over medicate is a must. Once the medicine is given, the immune response goes into action and it will do what imust and take as long as it needs. We help it along when no further progress is happening and not before.


Homoeopathic to the Disease State.

dental_doctor-thinkingsmall“Whatever the emphasis or valuation put on any special symptom or group of symptoms, it first must be fundamentally agreed that the totality alone is essential to the selection of a remedy homoeopathic to the diseased state of the patient. No detail is too insignificant. Scrupulous and painstaking care in case taking is paramount. No values must be written into the record, nor over emphasis placed on any division of the symptom total; the mind kept open until all the evidence carefully weighed is in. To possess actual value symptoms must be reliable and definite, of the very warp and woof, unaffected by their appearance or use in other cases; in short, symptoms that clearly individualize the case under consideration- a totality that sets the case apart from any other previously observed. Until this totality is on paper before us there can be no ranking or ascribing of values. Hence the need, however tedious, of sound case taking, for it is fundamental and not to be compromised by bias or past clinical experience.

In order to match the genius of the disease with the genius of the remedy we then seek to rearrange and rank individual symptoms to better discern the remedial agent. Of the symptoms related or observed many may not particularly distinguish. What are some of these?

Pathological symptoms, so-called, indicative of the results of disease were described as ultimates by Kent. These evidences of tissue changes are helpful in diagnosis or prognosis, but because they are effects, not causes, they do not become of primary importance in pointing to a curative remedy. All processes have an origin, and it is their beginnings to which a similar drug pathogenesy may be comparable. Likewise in epilepsy, the remedy is not seem in the actual seizure, but rather in what has preceded perhaps long before.

Symptoms common to all cases of a certain disease are little indicative of a similar remedy. There is nothing here to be found individual and compelling our choice. Symptoms common to many drugs likewise do not stand out in the selection of a similar drug picture.

Symptoms due to drugging, or improperly chosen remedies, or too early repetition do not present the individual nature of the disease as manifested in the changed state and hinder differentiation. Again the long list given by a hysterical patient is difficult to value.

The predominating “my” symptoms in reference to particular parts of the body also belong in the class of lesser values, unless these are striking, or becoming general because they are similarly evidenced throughout the various parts of the patient. Particulars rarely distinguish the individual and to that extent are weak in value.

So are common symptoms, such as loss of appetite, headache, exhaustion, discomfort, etc., often indefinite and therefore not to be emphasized unless qualified further to really individualize the case.

What symptoms, then, stand forth, compelling and of major rank, pointing more directly toward what is essential for cure? A consideration of homoeopathic philosophy antedates proper symptom valuation. Very briefly, it is not the body of man that expresses disease, but the reaction of his vital force against invasion. Nature’s response is in the way of symptoms experienced through sensation, etc. Individualization means the reaction to any morbific agent as evidenced in the patient under our care. When this is clear to the prescriber, there is no thought of remedies based other than on the patient himself. Not the present symptoms alone, but those detectable from birth, show the conflict which has harassed the inner real life in its bid for mortal existence.

Ray W. Spalding MD

How to treat with homoeopathy.

hahnem14After 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.

Symptoms and all that.

So aphorism 6 is the bedrock of detailing how symptoms expressed by the organism in disease, both mental and physical, are the totality of disease. Wonderful, we have the complete picture of the disease now.

Yet, and in truth… it doesn’t really help except where an application of common sense and thought process is applied to the knowledge.

Here is the rub. Most homoeopaths just throw symptoms into the repertory, lots of them and gives what comes up top.

185309103Not so fast you prescribers, not so fast.

Aphorism 153 details what we do with the picture of the disease.

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.

This is finding the essential nature of the disease from which all other symptoms spring, and thus can be ignored.

We teach this in the course with case examples. Many case examples.

New developments in Repertorial analysis.

What is a prescribing symptom?

According to Hahnemann:

§ 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, samuel_christian_hahnemannsingular, 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.

So while we follow and compile symptoms to form a true picture of the disease, the prescribing symptoms are the characteristic symptoms of the expression of the disease AND characteristic of a remedy.

A lot of practitioners do not understand that we cannot just throw all the symptoms into the computer and come up with an accurate remedy prescription, Neither can we elevate mental emotional states above essential physical symptoms. We have to separate the person from the disease, and in the disease picture, we have to isolate characteristic expressions of the individual reaction to the disease and not involve personality or preference or weaknesses or lifestyle as outlined in aphorism 5.

If we read the aphorism above, Hahnemann clearly states that general and undefined symptoms are not to be considered.

To test the understanding of students, I would give a case with 10 symptoms and ask them to grade them in terms of importance to the case. Sometimes it would take an hour and with some students it could take days. There is more to grading symptoms than I am mentioning here but all the instructions are in the Organon… and we teach it in our courses.

A few months ago, I was going through the TPB and wondering if it was possible to have a list of 3 or 4 essentials symptoms that only a few remedies had and know them as the characteristic prescribing symptoms of both a disease and a remedy. Vladimir came up with model to check this out and we soon decided that it was a non starter. Too many possibilities and too many nonsensical triads.

However, we pursued the idea and recently Vladimir put together a variant on the concept and Ive been working with it for the past week. Today I sent him an email with defined rules for the software and we will trial that when it is prepared.

However. I have gone through a lot of my old cases on the mark 1 version, and I have been surprised how characteristic remedies that cured the patient were found in two or three rubrics. It made me look at my rubric choices and re repertorize with only PRESCRIBING SYMPTOMS.

In a few cases where I had failed, I got remedy suggestions that I never considered. When I read the remedies, I was surprised how they fitted in all the key points.

I have taken 6 cases using the module this week, Based on the criteria Vlad and I implemented, at first the cases were not working out too well. In the end, I repertorized the cases with ONLY absolutes and within 3 rubrics, I had my remedy defined. Afterwards, I checked through all the ancillary symptoms, and found it was easy to get sidetracked as these were generally undefined and vague.

So what do I think of the module we are testing? Its a mathematical formula that is infallible in terms of finding connections based on what is possible to match and what is not. However, it can never choose the right rubric/s to input. Using the module has made me be brave and ONLY choose essential symptoms and disregard others. There are cautions in using it, and we are changing things to fine tune but………….. it works. We just need to be sure that we do not disregard something important. Its a work in progress, but the potential is enormous.

Question-iconOf the 6 new cases I took using the module, 3 were acute. The remedies were found in less than 1 minute and ALL have worked. In one of the chronic cases, I saw immediately where I had misled myself and rectified the medicine immediately. I have no follow up results yet.

Exciting things ahead….