Category Archives: Homeopathy

The principles of homoeopathy part 2

The most overlooked fact regarding homoeopathy is that it is a medical practice.

For those that have an allopathic medical degree, there (logically) should be an advantage, yet the truth is that the advantage lies in first aid, and disease diagnosis and understanding disease progression via knowledge of the prognosis. If a medically qualified person does not understand homoeopathy, then the other knowledge does not help.

Hahnemann’s writings on homoeopathy, and the principles he invokes, are MEDICAL principles and not suggestions. Each principle is based on years of experimentation, and not open to interpretation or change like the sensation method, remedy families, periodic table polarities, personality constitutional prescribing, polypharmacy etc. All these are breaches of the Hahnemannian design of homoeopathy, the practice. Homoeopathy is a practice built on this law with specific directives for the usage of the medicines and application of the same.  Hahnemann does encourage experimentation and development, but not outside of the medical principles he established. Its a waste of time and energy as he has tested every permutation of differences.

We will examine each principle in detail in coming posts.

 

 

 

 

The principles of homoeopathy part 1. What we need to understand.

Before we can discuss Principles, it is vital that the practitioner understands the rationale behind the approach of a homoeopath towards a sick patient.

Homoeopathy is a science and is focused on patient management of Disease. The process of analytics in managing a disease is based on a holistic overview of patient reaction to a disease influence. What is evident today in the poor training a homoeopath receives, is the harmful influence of the Swedenborg School of thinking (KENT) which is contradictory to the scientific mode of application as defined by Hahnemann and expanded on by Boenninghausen and others.

Hering and Kent and the influence of the American school of Homoeopathy did not influence the medical practice in the positive way the therapy displays it to be.

Kent And Hahneman

  1. 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.There should be a reassessment in light of the following contrast between the view of Kent and Hahnemann:

On “authority” and “experience”

KENT:

“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

HAHNEMANN: “Medicine is the science of experience…”4

“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 way6

“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.”7

“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 the 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

HAHNEMANN: “The diseases … springing from such 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 endeavours 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

HAHNEMANN: “…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 a 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 5th edition 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

HAHNEMANN: “… the instinctive, irrational, unreasoning vital force (instinktarige, verstandlose. keiner Uberlegung Fahige .. Lebnskraft — this could also be translated: instinctive, unable to reason/understand, without the 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”.

HAHNEMANN: “… 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 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 practised 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 behaviour 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 homoeopathy 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,30 his near modern views on nutrition31 and his suggestions for psychological exercise32 are all missing from Kent’s writings. One feels constrained to ponder how far the words of Inglis (on the relation of Galen to Hippocrates) would apply also to the relation of Kent to Hahnemann.

“Ostensibly by the Hippocratic School, he was to subvert its teachings. Hippocrates, Galen admitted, had led 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 

Conclusion-  

  1. Kent was a Swedenborgian, and he can be accused of including the fundamental concept of a mystical correspondence between the spirit world and humans to Homoeopathy. Which distract the Homoeopathic philosophy from Hahnemann’s “Rationality” to Kent’s “Metaphysical”.
  2. This shift from the basic nature of reality of the human system compelled 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 sickness, he searched for the totality where is actually lies but Kent arranged 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 the 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 a cure, whereas Hahnemann marked them as organism’s defence or reaction against wrong prescriptions and excess of doses.
  6.    Dr Kent may have a good, efficient and ardent homoeopath but his concepts and theories vary from Dr Hahnemann on most of the basic understandings of Homoeopathy which make differences in approach, the methodology for the treatment of a patient.
    7.  So accepting Kent as a true disciple of Hahnemann, as Kent himself claims, undermines the value of Hahnemannian theory and concepts of Homoeopathy. We must read and practice Homoeopathy as Hahnemannian methods and Kentian Methods, with their respective theories, concepts and differences from each other.

One method generally leads to a low success rate, If not outright failure.

In taking a case. A correct diagnosis would have been of equal importance
to the therapeutist and to the surgeon if each disease had a distinct cause, as characteristic of itself, as the disease is distinct from all others, however, this is not the case.

The same disease may arise from different causes in different cases, hence to the
therapeutist the diagnosis is of subordinate importance as a basis of treatment. It can be shown that constitutional peculiarities of a patient manifest themselves through certain concomitant symptoms which make a difference in the aggregate
of symptoms in each case. In each case of diseases bearing the same name, we find that the patient exhibits not only the symptoms of the named disease but also concomitant symptoms peculiar to the diseased patient and different from other diseased patients with the same disease name. Hahnemann realised that this combination of expressions of sympathetic disorders in other parts of the body now had become ‘Constitutional’ in its affection, and thus stopped being a local symptom, and the expression of the diseased patient has become an all-encompassing state.

These concomitant symptoms, along with other knowledge, force the homoeopath to relinquish the belief that the malady along with its local expressions is the sole object of treatment. The homoeopath is now forced to view the patient from a ‘causality’ view and look at the pattern of progression of development from all symptoms present, not just the local disease and in effect come to see that the sum of the symptoms is greater than just this new affection.

A clinical history, the basis for disease development in every individual, will necessitate the remedy having or corresponding to the sequence of physiological effects matching the patient’s disease in development. This disease ‘constitution’ in the medicine will be required to enable the patient to receive help from the similar. However, the homoeopath will take the FULL history and other episodes of dis-ease into account as well as the current issue.

Rational reasoning indicates that the development of diseases (with the same name) owes the difference in symptom exhibition simply because of the constitutional differences of each patient. To a therapeutist, the symptoms appearing in its evolutionary sequence represent the cause or a combination of causes of a particular disease condition.

So long as the disease is viewed as a local or anatomical problem, the question of determining the basis or indications of treatment, cannot be answered. A study of the clinical history of each case supplies the key to the solution of this problem.

This is one of the major differences in approach to treatment from allopathic therapeutics.

References:

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

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

Ibid – P.43.

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

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

Ibid – P.15 -16.

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

Ibid –P.325

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.

 

Can the use of antibiotics be reduced by homeopathic remedies?

Homeopathy:Bayerischer Landtag agrees for controversial homeopathy study

Can the use of antibiotics be reduced by homeopathic remedies? That should be tested in Bavaria with a study. The opposition is outraged.
Homeopathy: The effect of homeopathic medicines is controversial.
The effect of homeopathic medicines is controversial. © Fred Tanneau / AFP / Getty Images

The Bavarian state government wants to be scientifically examined whether the use of antibiotics can be reduced by homeopathic remedies . To this end, the state legislature approved, with the votes of the CSU and Free Voters’ governing parties, a request that a medical study should examine how the use of antibiotics can be reduced. At the same time, the role of homeopathic preparations in this context should be examined. 120 MPs voted in favor of the motion, eight more than the coalition itself.

The petition, which was part of a debate on so-called multidrug – resistant bacteria , has been the topic of controversy. Opponents and opponents of the project described the study as superfluous. “The project of the Bavarian state government is negligent, because it suggests already with the question, that homeopathic remedies such as globules could fight multi-resistant germs,” ​​criticized Dominik Spitzer (FDP). So far no scientific study could prove that homeopathic remedies alone worked against complaints.

The SPD MEP Ruth criticized the project of the state government. If homeopathy “really has a proven effect, then it is the share of talking medicine, the holistic view of the patient”. However, she does not understand that “in severe sepsis, it is only possible to think of administering these globules instead of antibiotics”.

CSU MPs, on the other hand, referred to studies that showed that the use of classical homeopathy prevented the use of antibiotics and improved individual infection control. Even in severely septic patients, a study had provided evidence that a homeopathic treatment “could be a useful treatment”.

In total, the CSU parliamentary group has submitted five motions aimed at preventing deaths from multidrug-resistant bacteria . In addition to the scientific study on the effectiveness of homeopathy, it is also about the controversial use of antibiotics in everyday life and in agriculture.

Experts cite the increased and in part non-targeted use of antibiotics in humans and animals as a cause for the spread of resistant pathogens . Resistant germs are usually harmless to people with intact immune systems. However, the pathogens can be dangerous for weakened patients, for example in intensive care units. They can cause urinary tract infections or pneumonia and are difficult to treat because of their resistance.

 

The Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.

In 1810, Hahnemann presented his groundbreaking new medicine and therapy via the book the Organon of the Medical Art. He presented his method in carefully structured detail. He compiled a database of medical substance proving’s which were listed in the Fragmenta, the Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. Hahnemann taught his methods to many students and colleagues, but only put his trust in a small number of practitioners, of whom Clemens Maria Franz (Friedrich) Freiherr (Baron) von Bönninghausen was perhaps the most prominent.

Bönninghausen’s projects of reportorial works culminating in the Therapeutic Pocket Book, was approved by Hahnemann as being an accurate representation of the proving’s database and clinical experience. (The T.P.B. actually is an amazing synthetic approach of how Hahnemann’s mind worked in case analysis.)

Although Hahnemann revised the Organon six times before his death and constantly examined possible changes to the methodology, he never made changes to the central prescribing principle of like cures like, without which homoeopathy (the therapy) cannot exist as a separate modality. If the principle of “like cures like”, with its required database of provings, is abandoned, as has been the case with modern approaches and methods, the certainty offered by prescribing to principle is lost, the path obliterated.

At the IHM we look no further than Hahnemann’s circle of trust. We work with Hahnemann’s structure of method and database, Organon and proving’s. We explore the writings of those whom Hahnemann commended, and study and apply the work of Boenninghausen in great depth.

We do not do this slavishly. In order to validate the method, the works and writings of others claiming to be homoeopaths are examined for similarities and differences in approach to the therapy. Sadly, the decline in homoeopathic integrity began with one of its most able practitioners who was politically naïve.

On the political level, Carroll Dunham was a peacemaker. It was said of him that he had no enemies. His liberal and generous mind made it easier for him to accept compromise. Unfortunately, compromise on the search for the truth leads to error. In 1870 he made a notable presentation before the American Institute of Homœopathy (AIH) called ‘Freedom of Medical Opinion and Action: a Vital Necessity and a Great Responsibility’. He believed, contrary to his predecessors, that liberty of opinion and practice should prevail within the AIH. He said that he was sure that “perfect liberty will sooner bring knowledge of the truth and that purity of practice which we all desire.” His speech provided license to the pseudo-homoeopaths to practice as they wanted and be still identified as homoeopaths. Subsequent to his address knowledge of homoeopathy was removed in 1874 as a requirement for membership in the AIH. Dunham died in 1877 and did not witness the disastrous effect his noble but naïve vision eventually had on the course of homoeopathy in the U.S.A. as most of our institutions disappeared after its members had adopted practices at variance with the teachings of Hahnemann.

(Our Noble and Beloved Carroll Dunham by Dr André Saine, D.C., N.D., F.C.A.H.)

We work with great care and certainty because we value our integrity as homoeopathic practitioners, and we owe it to our patients to treat based on a tried and true principle, to avoid speculation, theorizing, and invented systems whether based on sensation, the periodic table, kabala, shamanism, kingdoms, families and the like.

Hahnemann’s homoeopathy is the modality which achieved tremendous successes in the cholera epidemic of the early 1830s, leading to its acceptance in medical faculties in Europe at the time as a discipline for study. The original works are filled with discussions and cases demonstrating the efficiency of the method across the spectrum of diseases afflicting mankind.

Today homoeopathy is either being outlawed or relegated to treatment of the most minor problems. Its vast ability as a medical modality is being lost. Poor training, poor understanding of the medical science behind its development and a search for novelty in case analysis all have contributed to its demise as a valid therapy and is thought of as an intuitive healing method rather than the effective treatment it really is.

The IHM puts all its efforts into teaching from original materials, working with practitioners to achieve greater certainty and effectiveness in prescribing through a full understanding of the central principle of homoeopathy and the best ways to apply it in homoeopathic practice.

We do not wish to add more novel ideas to the world of homoeopathy. We do see it as part of our professional duty, to keep the standards high and teach the real methodology to all who desire to practice proper medicine in the prescribed manner. We lay no claim to being ‘better’ prescribers. We do however concede that our results based on the instructions of Hahnemann give better resolution to medical problems than other interpretive methods of prescribing. There is great latitude in applying the therapy, however, deviating from its central core or adding a false overlay of psychological analysis and emphasizing or interpreting physical symptoms as delusional states are not the answer.

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, Email:acantusclinic@gmail.com

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

When you can’t find a proving (or can’t find it in English)…

Why view remedies through the P&W repertory?

I have written on the importance of source material, especially of provings, in working to principle. As Hahnemann specified in Aphorism 3, in order to do homoeopathy we need to know what’s wrong with the patient, what the remedies can do and how to match a remedy to a complaint – with the proviso regarding appropriate potency and dosing.

How do we know what remedies can do? Through provings, first and foremost – the symptoms can a substance cause in a healthy person.

Hahnemann’s lesser writings include an essential article published in 1796, among his writings leading up to the Organon published in 1810. It is entitled “Essay on a New Principle for Ascertaining the Curative Powers of Drugs.” In this article, Hahnemann tackles existing methods one by one, and demonstrates their problematic nature. One after the other, with reasoned arguments and logical discussion, he knocks over chemistry as partial, nixes mixing unknown drugs with newly drawn blood, and more. He counsels against the doctrine of signatures, botanical affinity and families, stating categorically that the hints of the natural system “can only help to confirm and serve as a commentary to facts already known… or in the case of untried plants they may give rise to hypothetical conjectures which are, however, far from approaching even to probability.” He discusses experiments on the sick and how many discoveries were made by chance – and then laments “how humiliating for proud humanity did his very preservation depend on chance alone…”

Through step-by-step argument, Hahnemann comes to the conclusion that “nothing then remains but to test the medicines we wish to investigate on the human body itself,” which he states has so far been done “empirically and capriciously in diseases.” A standard human response to medicines, “some natural normal standard,” he states “can only be derived from the effects that a given medicinal substance has, by itself in this and that dose developed in the healthy human body.”

The body of provings which is easiest for us to access nowadays is in the Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. All the symptoms were carefully sifted through by Hahnemann, so if we see Hahnemann as a reliable source of information, that reliability extends to the provings he collated – and to his decisions to include some symptoms not taken from provings, rather from clinical work. We have less knowledge regarding the provings of other remedies noted in Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, although here again, if we see Boenninghausen as a reliable source, information about these remedies will be important in our work. There is information in Hughes Cyclopaedia, and many other materia medica refer to provings, but all too often provings information is intermixed with symptoms derived from therapeutic clinical work and poisonings, or separate as in Hughes, but not organized.

But we have another source of information for those remedies whose provings were not collated or overseen by Hahnemann – the Therapeutic Pocketbook itself. Boenninghausen examined and brought together all the remedies in use in his time. Some were proven by Hahnemann but not published by him. Some were proven by Hartlaub and Trinks and others. Furthermore, Boenninghausen was kind enough to give us a grading system, indicating where a symptom derives from a proving of a remedy with grades 1 and 2, and strengthening the relevance of that symptom for that remedy from his clinical work with grades 3 and 4.

This means that if we take a remedy through the Reversed Materia Medica in the P&W software, we can actually gain a picture of the proving through grades 1 and 2, together with reliable clinical expansion on that remedy through grades 3 and 4. This in itself is information from early and primary sources, with Boenninghausen and Hahnemann’s stamp of approval. Furthermore, thanks to P&W, this information is available in English, Spanish, and Hebrew in addition to the original German. And there are other languages on the way. This means that those who have difficulty accessing the Materia Medica Pura in their own languages and use the P&W reversed to shed more light on these primary sources.

How can we begin to analyze this mass of information? The TPB was developed to help repertorize, guide the practitioner towards remedies to read up on more intensively. But the computerized version has given us the ability to access the material in different ways, including using the Reversed Materia Medica as a “back door” into gaining reliable knowledge of remedies where the provings are not accessible.

For example, on a very basic level, we can see a remedy’s position in any rubric. We can see if it’s there because it’s in the proving, graded 1 or 2, or because Boenninghausen emphasized its clinical use with grades 3 and 4. A remedy may appear in a symptom with very few other remedies, giving it additional importance in that symptom regardless of its grade. A remedy may appear in a large rubric, with over a hundred remedies, and there we may want to see if it’s in a higher grade than other remedies, if that symptom is very strongly connected to the remedy we’re examining. The relationship between remedy grade and rubric size may have relevance in the case we’re working on. All this while keeping in mind that the appearance of a remedy in proving is the basis for prescribing, and Boenninghausen’s clinical use of that remedy is an added bonus.

For those interested in working to principle, which means using provings-based materia medica, the reversed MM offers a treasure trove of information about provings which are harder to access, which is definitely worth while exploring.

End of an era as NHS cancels funding for homeopathy in Bristol U.K.

Funding for homeopathy on the NHS in Bristol is to end after health bosses agreed to drop homeopathy remedies from the list of options available for patients.The Portland Centre for Integrative Medicine was the last in England to offer publicly-funded homeopathy.

But Bristol Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) has approved changes that mean patients will now only be able to access homeopathy for free in “exceptional circumstances”.

In a statement, the Portland Centre said it was extremely sorry that the service was ending as it supported a much-needed model of wellness.

“Over the 70 years of playing a part within the NHS, medical homeopathy has helped thousands of people across Bristol and the region. The Portland Centre has about 1,500 registered patients who access NHS medical homeopathy. As ever this change in service provision most impacts those who might not know about or who can’t afford to pay for holistic approaches,” the statement added.

Clinical evidence for the benefits of homeopathy, including research from the University of Bristol, shows that doctors trained in homeopathy prescribe fewer antibiotics and could save the NHS money, it added.

The Society of Homeopaths also expressed its disappointment at the decision and said homeopathy had much to contribute to the wellness agenda now coming to the fore.

“Homeopathy offers a holistic model which can play an important role in helping patients to get well and stay well,” said Sue Crump, chair of the Public Affairs Committee, adding that, at a time of increasing concern about the costs, availability and side-effects of many drug treatments, there is growing evidence that homeopathy can save the NHS money.

“We regret that the NHS has now decided to reduce patient choice and effectively turned its back on homeopathy’s contribution to healthcare.”

The British Homeopathic Association (BHA) argued that the change would not help to improve patient health or balance the books.

“It will have a negative impact on the lives of those in the care of Bristol CCG as most of the referral patients have chronic conditions which have not been helped through conventional treatment and now have to go back to treatments that do not work for them and cost more,” the BHA said in a statement. “The highly-rated, doctor-led service at Portland will continue to be available to paying patients but, sadly, will now be unavailable to those without funds and often in most need who were being helped through the referral service.”

The Portland Centre is to create a new ‘access fund’ for patients in Bristol with support from the BHA.

Dr Jonathan Hayes, Bristol CCG chairman, said: “We are working hard to become an evidence-informed organisation because we need to make the best use of all resources to offer treatment and care to the widest range of people. The decision on homeopathy funding today is a step towards this and brings us in line with national guidelines.”

Thoughts.

LM posology

By Vera Resnick

I have recently been asked about changing potencies in LMs, with people mentioning using odd numbers, even numbers, going up in steps of 2 potencies (LM1 – LM3 – LM5) etc.

I came across this issue before I started studying with David Little, from a post he wrote on the Minutus list, sometime around 2005.  He mentioned that while most people do just fine on a series of ascending potencies (LM1 – LM2 – LM3 etc.) he had noticed that some seem to do better on odd or even numbers of dilutions or succussions.  He also noted that Hahnemann didn’t always start with LM 1.

There are two issues in play here, in my view.

The first is the risk of putting theory before experience.  The beauty of homoeopathy is that Hahnemann first observed, then developed a way of harnessing the power of the similar stronger artificial disease without harming the patient, and  what he thought was the most probable explanation for what he was observing.  In Aphorism 28 (and elsewhere), Hahnemann sets out the basis for his thinking on experience versus explanations of how something happens:

“As this natural law of cure manifests itself in every pure experiment and every true observation in the world, the fact is consequently established; it matters little what may be the scientific explanation of how it takes place; and I do not attach much importance to the attempts made to explain it.  But the following view seems to commend itself as the most probable one, as it is founded on premises derived from experience.”

The second issue is the sensitivity of the patient, something that is difficult to assess ahead of time.  In Aphorism 278 Hahnemann explains that individual sensitivity can’t be deduced through “fine-spun reasoning” or “specious sophistry.”  In order to learn the appropriate dose, “pure experiment, careful observation of the sensitiveness of each patient and accurate experience can alone determine this in each individual case…”

To my mind it comes down to “specious sophistry” if we adopt a theory of odds and evens, where there is no solid backing for the theory, or to apply it and then say it worked – especially when there is a body of material showing that many patients do well just going up through the potency scale.  On the other hand, some patients do especially well on a particular potency, but we cannot know if it was the potency itself or if the improvement was built up by the work of the previous potencies and only manifested itself with the current one.

And furthermore – although it is natural to look for protocols, for theories which provide rules for action which can be employed in every case, we will then have moved away from the individualization of the patient, and of the patient’s sensitivity.

In my own experience, many patients do very well going up the scale, some seem to advance more with specific potencies in the scale, and if the remedy is going to help it is usually already visible in the patient’s response to LM1.

However, looking for a pattern in the sensitivity of individual patients and developing theories to govern posology rather than drawing on pure experiment, careful observation and accurate experience on an individual case-by-case basis seems to be a case of putting the dazzling cart of theory in front of the plodding hardworking horse of experience.  Specious to say the least.

A reflective comment

Its 4:53am. I am awake and my mind is thinking back to my childhood My mother would treat all our minor illnesses with different ‘natural’ products. My hay fever was ‘cured’ with a polypharmacy over the counter homoeopathic product. I grew up having a great respect for non mainstream medicines, but conversely would use the doctor when something non resolvable occurred. It was at this point in my late teens that I observed a difference in ‘alternative medicine’ ie herbal, and a medical treatment following a defined curative path, like acupuncture and homoeopathy.

Therein lies the dichotomy and the answer to mankinds choice. Modern medicine has decreed that it is the ONLY solution to all disease and is squeezing out everything that does not follow the allopathic mode. They point to ‘lifesaving’ medicines and treatments, ignoring the fact that the patient might be on a suppressive regime of medicines to quell the symptoms of whatever ails the patient for the remainder of their shortened life, only to succumb to an iatrogenic ending.

The strange thing is that medicine per se comes down to, not as one would expect, medicines, but to a choice of protocols. One involves a natural law and the other does not.

Hahnemann, in his monumental works, The Organon of Medicine, and the Chronic Diseases, gives a completely researched and science based observation of how living Organisms function in health and disease. I find it sad that this work which actually outlines the theory of modern disease processes is the most attacked medical practice today. Maybe its accuracy yet individualised treatment of a person is the root of the discontent felt by medical professionals. These professionals who believe that a blanket approach to drug therapy for the disease in question is the required response. It is a an easy solution. To treat a named disease instead of the individualised reaction to a named disease.

With the passing of years and growth in  experience Hahnemann came upon to  regard man more as an organism than as a machine. A machine is composed of many  parts, originally separate. Once these parts are put together,  its manifoldncss becomes unity. Like the human individual, it is assembled for a specific purpose.

It is both simple and complex. A machine is primarily complex and secondarily simple. However to the contrary, man is primarily simple and  secondarily complex. He originates from a single cell.  His growth means  multiplication and self-differentiation of the primitive cell to form diverse tissues and organs. Thus an organism is not artificially made, but grows, not put  together by the force from the outside, but develops from the centre to the  periphery or from  the  whole to the parts.

In disease, we find the disturbance located in the ‘central like mechanism’  which is manifested through perceptible sensory and functional changes of the body as  a whole; here nosology fails to be applied  as the symptoms do not refer  to  any particular organ  or  tissue;  and the man,  though  showing deviations from the perfectly healthy state, is not termed as  specifically diseased.

This is the stage  of Latent Psora. (INFECTION)  In course of time the disharmony of the whole or central life  is reflected on to the disharmony of life in the tissues or organs; and the disorder is manifested more  on the functional  plane  related to tissues or organs.  This  is  the  stage of secondary psora (INFECTION DEVELOPMENT) when  the disease  is  predominantly functional  in nature without proportionate structural changes in the tissues and organs.  This is followed by the tertiary stage of psora (DISEASE MANIFESTATION) where the gross structural changes in the tissues or organs appear—the  domain of pathology proper and nosology. Central functional changes.

  • functional changes of individual tissues or organs.
  • gross anatomical/pathological changes of individual tissues or organs.

this seems to be the order of progression in chronic diseases. Here the disease process starts  in a simple  way and  ultimately develops  into multilateral directions accordingly as different tissues or organs (though originating from a primordial cell) are affected simultaneously or  successively in course of time.

Hahnemann contends that the miasms (INFECTIONS) responsible for psora, syphilis and sycosis are of such a nature  as they  attack the central life-force at the outset and the primary derangement of the central life-force thus produced, makes the organism susceptible to many other agents to develop functional and structural changes in  individual tissues or organs, thus providing occasions for diverse naming or labeling  of diseased  conditions corresponding  to diverse tissues or organs damaged.  So in Chronic. cases  the central  life-force is primarily disturbed.

As there is a central life mechanism  corresponding to  the whole, there is life in the parts, tissues  or organs and there  is life in  every cell. Life is  a scale of energy forming a sort of hierarchy from cell-life to collective or central  life. Disease is disorder in any plane—material, vital or mental—as a whole or as a part constituting or conforming to the whole. In acute diseases, the disorder starts from lower scale of life in  the tissues or organs and this disorder acts on the  whole or central life, here the disease process is  the resultant of the action of the part and the reaction of the whole to it.  Here the disease process  seems to start  from outside to within or in the ascending order in the  hierarchy of life. The central life mechanism is disturbed eventually  but the change is  of more  a  superficial nature analogous somewhat to the condition of “induced magnetism”.

In chronic cases, the whole or central life is attacked and  disturbed first by some morbific agent of a miasmatic (INFECTIOUS) nature;  this central disturbance  leads to disturbance in  the life of tissues, organs or cells.

Here the disease process seems to start from within outwards or  in the descending hierarchy of life. That is why, in chronic diseases, constitutional symptoms (i.e., symptoms indicative of the disturbance of the central life mechanism)  are more marked;  whereas  in acute  cases, structural and functional changes of the tissues and  organism overshadow the constitutional symptoms. Herein  we get clues for evaluation  of symptoms in case-taking to treat patients  homoeopathically.

As is patently obvious, a person does not have to accept any of the above. Modern medicine accepts its own version and perception and stays within the bounds of its own concepts.

One thing I am sure of, the terminology gives it away. A ‘curative response’ comes from the organism and not from a medicine. Ergo a medicine CANNOT cure, it can only stimulate an organism to cure itself. If it does not follow this protocol, it is suppression.