Category Archives: Homeopathy

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.

Advertisements

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.

 

 

Causal Medicine and homoeopathy. (2 of 2)

Part 1 https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/causal-medicine-and-homoeopathy/

We left off in the preceding post after bringing up the subject of Miasms. The intention is that students of Homoeopathy obtain accurate understanding of Hahnemanns words and meaning, so as to be confident practitioners in the therapy.

Let us begin by giving you facts to consider.

Hahnemann published a pamphlet in 1831 regarding what he then thought to be the mode of propagation of the Asiatic Cholera (see Lesser Writings, page 753 Pages may vary in different printings.) In this work he used such expressions as “excessively minute invisible living creatures so inimical to human life of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consist. The physicians and nurses take away with them in their clothes in their hair, probably also in their breath, the invisible [probably animated) contagious matter surrounding the cholera patient”.

you cannot take Hahnemann’s conjecture resting on probabilities in 1831 to be his real conviction or his assumed foreknowledge of modern Bacilli to be the cause or spreading agent of cholera. Evidence shows that Hahnemann never repeated or confirmed by his subsequent writing up to 1843,  (the time of his death) what he had tentatively  written in 1831.

Hahnemann eschewed the materialism of his time and promulgated that it is the vital force, (Life Principle, Immune system) the immaterial, invisible force which keeps man alive, happy and prosperous in health to realise the higher purposes of his existence. but when deranged by the dynamic influence of morbific agents inimical to life, it produces disagreeable sensations in the organism and bends it to irregular processes which the physician can ascertain symptoms to render aid.

These disagreeable sensations etc. occur during an overpowering attack of immaterial miasm (infection) on the immaterial vital force on the invisible immaterial plane.

For infection takes place by affection of the Vital Force (Life Principle, Immune System) with immaterial, invisible, miasmatic (infectious) influences which lead ultimately to material changes, where you find Bacteria, Bacilli etc in the human economy.

The meaning of the dynamic influence has been clearly explained byHahnemann in the foot-note of aphorism 11 (6th edition Organon). There he writes, “The dynamic effect of the sick making influences upon healthy man as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the vital principle in the restoration of health, is nothing else than infection and so not in anyway material, nor in any way mechanical, just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material or mechanical. It is purely specific, conceptual influence that communicates to a near child, small-pox or measles in the same way as a magnet communicates to the near needle, the magnetic Property . Again, if one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this antiperistaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination ?”

Thus we see, Hahnemann speaks of vital force, disease producing force and medicinal force—all these are invisible, immaterial, conceptual and spirit-like forces.

To drag him down to the material plane of Bacteriology, is an error which every thinking rational Homceopath should avoid religiously. To inaugurate the bacteria theory and infuse it into the minds of innocent students instead of susceptibility or vital weakness as cause of disease (as said by Hahnemann) is simply to axe out Hahnemannian Homceopathy.

Hahnemann’s statement from his Lesser Writings published in 1831 regarding the spread of Cholera occurring on board the ships in the river Ganges in India.

He is reported to have said: “In the confined spaces, filled with mouldy, watery vapours the cholera miasm finds a favourite element for its multiplication and grows [Please note here, the real meaning of The invisible cholera miasm” gradually developing into material form from internal, invisible, immaterial state
(as is natural in every infection) into an enormously increased brood of these excessively minute, invisible living creatures so inimical to life of which the contagious matter of cholera most probably consists. The cause of this is undoubtedly the invisible cloud that hovers closely around the sailors who have remained free from the disease composed of probably millions of the miasmatic (Means—developed from miasm, or resultant disease from an infection) animated beings which at first developed on the broad marshy banks of the tepid Ganges always searching out in preference the human being to his destruction. This pestiferous, infectious matter as he calls it, “which is carried about in the clothes, hair, beards, soiled hands, instruments of physicians, nurses and others seems to spread the infection and cause epidemics. “

Hahnemann never saw or admitted any material cause, Bacteria or Bacilli, as is clearly apparent from quotations from his subsequent writings in the Organon without any doubt 0r probability as shown above.  Here, I should again draw the attention to the fact that this statement in the Lesser Writings naturally of lesser importance and authenticity was never referred to by Hahnemann in his future writings.

It was made, without actually seeing a case of cholera, without visiting India, without having a glimpse of the Ganges, without feeling the temperatures of the waters of the Ganges so pleasant and something more than pleasingly cool (Hahnemann described it as tepid) without having the good fortune of knowing the wonderful antiseptic properties of the cold stream which comes down from the Himalayas. But Hahnemann describes it as tepid for want of actual experience. Another wonderful feature of the statement is that it is qualified by the words “Seems”, “Probably”, “Most probably” as stated above. To make a passing remark without actually seeing a disease or anything connected with it, is one affair and solid opinion formed after close observation and handling it, is certainly essentially different. The theoretical assumptions are liable to be falsified by cool thinking, practical and repeated observations or experience extending over a length of time. Maybe the reality is that Hahnemann was passing through a doubtful state of mind but he never settled into a solid opinion as it appears from later writings.

But correctly speaking his assumption is due to misinterpretation.

In the preface of the the sixth edition of the Organon published in 1843 Hahnemann says: “It can easily convince every reflecting person that the diseases of man are not caused by any substance, any acridity, that is to say disease matter but they are solely spirit-like (dynamic) derangements of the spirit-like power [vital principle) that animates the human body (Aph 11.).

Here, please notice, there is no word “probably” etc. in the assertion of Hahnemann. This was written in 1833 and published in 1843, that is, at least two years if not ten years after Hahnemann’s observation regarding the probable affection and spread of Cholera published in 1831.

In the 11th para of Organon Hahnemann says—“When a person falls ill it is only the spiritual self-acting (automatic) vital force everywhere present in the organism that is primarily deranged by the dynamic influence of morbific agent inimical to life, it is the vital principle deranged to such an abnormal state that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations and incline it to irregular processes which we call disease.”

Again in the 12th para he repeats the same thing “it is morbidly affected vital forces alone that produces the disease.”

In a foot-note to the 12th para Hahnemann says “How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is how it produces disease, it would be of no utility to physician to know.”

This remark was made by Hahnemann here only because he had bitter experience in trying to explain how cholera spreads or affects persons with a probable, i.e., doubtful theory.

Now what was the bitter experience he had? It was the challenge by Dr. Hufeland, of his theory of the “Probable” cause of the spread of cholera. quoting from the Lesser Writings of Hahnemann,. At para 758 Hahnemann says:—

The Only fact brought forward by Hufeland against my proofs that on board an English Ship in the open sea about the latitude of Riga that had no communication (?)with the town two sailors were suddenly seized with the cholera, proves nothing, for it is not known how near the ship came to the infected town of Riga so that the sphere of miasm exhalation from the town although diluted might yet have reached and infected the sailors who were still unused to the miasm (infecting agent) especially if they as is often the case were rendered more susceptible to it from intemperance.”

Here Hahnemann being cornered by Hufeland has been compelled to admit that sailors on board the ship near Riga were attacked with cholera not from infectious matter washed out from the town, a far-fetched idea, but was attacked with the miasm (infecting agent) of cholera being susceptible to it from the lowered vitality or vital weakness due to their intemperance, etc. Now everybody with common sense is bound to admit that sailors on board the ship in the Ganges were also affected with cholera, from the same cause of lowered vitality caused by intemperance, etc. The dismal unhealthy condition which helped the growth of cholera miasm (infecting agent) certainly lowered the vitality of sailors also on the Ganges. Of course, the bad odour, mouldy atmosphere, etc., added fuel to the fire in spreading the disease. So the meteoric or telluric influences causing sporadic or epidemic attacks of Acute diseases cannot be thrown overboard with bad logic or fallacious arguments. What Hahnemann had published in 1843 in Organon must have greater authenticity than what he gave out in his Lesser Writings.

The most striking example of infection and rapid spread of cholera as is well-known and as the journals inform us in this way:

“On board ships in the confined spaces filled with watery vapours the cholera miasm (infecting agent)  finds a favourable element for its Multiplication, etc.”

If the sailors on the sea near Riga are liable to attack of cholera without any actual contact due to intemperance lowering the power of vital force to resist the disease miasm (infecting agent) the sailors on board the ship near the shore of the Ganges living under same unhealthy condition and character had their vitality lowered by intemperance. The same causes have been expressed in paragraph 73 of the Organon of epidemic diseases which prevail among thickly congregated masses of human beings. That calamities of war, inundations and famine also produce Acute diseases by lowering the strength of the vital force and thereby developing susceptibility to diseases when innumerable persons gather together and live under unhealthy conditions and privations, is readily understandable.

Hahnemann says:—
Morbific noxious agents do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently susceptible to the attack of the morbific cause—(Organon aph 31).

The truth is unless the vital force is weak and susceptible, no acute or chronic miasm can ever affect the vital force.

To clarify further.

The second edition of Hahnemann’s “Chronic Diseases” was published by parts between 1835 and 1838. In that edition Hahnemann retained those passages in the body of his book, which refer to “the parasitic existence” of Chronic miasms (vide p. 9, para 2, Chronic Disease, Second Edition 1835) and not merely the very suggestive foot-notes In the sixth edition of Organon (the manuscript of which he was supposed to have completed in 1843 or in February1842, according to Haehl) in a foot-note to sec. 80 he refers the readers to the above-mentioned 2nd edition of “Chronic Disease”.

This shows that what he conceived of the nature of miasms was maintained by him till his death. During the Cholera Epidemic years of 1831 and 1832 Hahnemann was a resolute, clear thinking man of seventy-six. So his writings during this period came out of a mature brain and were not of “lesser” importance just because his scattered articles were collected and published in a book form by Dr. Dudgeon under the name “Lesser Writings”.

Dr. Dudgeon, for instance, charged Hahnemann with “frequent changes and repetition of the same thing, etc.” He certainly failed to reckon the necessities for introduction of a perplexing new thing in questions of life and death. Others with more profound knowledge found in Hahnemann’s huge writings which they mostly misunderstood unwarranted presumption, dogmatic assertion, obscure conception, undue generalisation, incomplete formulations and arguments in a vicious circle.

We point out that Hahnemann was a cautious scientist. How could he write otherwise in absence of positive visual observation? But his intuition and clear logic led him to hint about the invisible living beings which had something to do with incidence and spread of the Cholera disease in an epidemic form. Here a bit of medical history will clarify the situation. Long before Hahnemann’s birth the microscope was invented. The researches of Kircher, Malphigii, Leewenhoek, Hooker etc. (during 1626-1651) established the existence of microbes. But till Hahnemann’s time it was not definitely known whether pathogenic micro-organisms did exist or in the event of their existence whether they had any causal relation with the human organism in the production of diseases. The idea of infection by micro-organisms was also hinted at by G. Fracastoro when he published his book “De Contagione” in 1546 after the great plague epidemic in Europe. Hahnemann was a scholar and a voracious reader. He must have known about Fracastoro’s writings. During the Cholera epidemic the people and medical men were confronted with the same problems of checking the spread of the disease as during the previousplague period. Though Hahnemann, in the beginning was against all classification and nomenclature of diseases, the epidemic diseases where many persons were simultaneously attacked with a very similar type of disease set him thinking deeply and led him to conclude about the existence of “fixed miasms”—proofs of which are before our eyes in his writings of Sec. 73 (Organon, 6th Ed.).  Hahnemann came to fix the nature of these “fixed miasms” as living micro-organisms. He wrote four letters concerning Cholera during June to October in 1831—where he not only gave clear hints about the nature of the causative agents, their mode of transmission, their curative treatment but also about the preventive steps to be taken to check the spread of that terrible disease. He wrote about sterilising the infected clothes with a heat of about 80°C; and certainly Hahnemann did not think of sterilising “immaterial, conceptual, spirit-like dynamic forces” with heat (Haehl’s Biography of Hahnemann).

The then medical profession including the great Dr. Hufeland stood for the atmospheric-telluric theory for the cholera epidemic and decried the preventive measures suggested byHahnemann. It was Hahnemann alone who stood for the microbic nature of infection which has been proved up to the hilt by systematic researches of Pasteur and Koch. That Hahnemannwas cornered by Hufeland in certain points proves nothing but the fact that the full and precise knowledge about transmission of infecting organisms was not known to the former. Hahnemann  through sheer intuition and clear logic and correct observations anticipated their works.That Hahnemann meant by “miasm” what we mean by microbes is established beyond any doubt.

Dynamic action.

Negatively it is an action other than mechanical, physical or chemical. Positively it is a qualitative action. If the drugs can possess dynamic action, if the human organism can exert dynamic action, why not the living micro-organisms no matter whether they are visible or invisible ? Allopathy tries toexplain the modus operandi of the process of infection by the interaction of the chemistry of the body with the toxins secreted by the microbes. Hahnemann, on the other hand, claims that the chemico-physical processes just fall short of the total and complex living phenomena. As the drugs act on the living body through their essential qualities besides their physico chemical properties, so the living microbes can also act through their essential qualities (possessed by their life-force) to change the qualitative state of the organism. That’s all, where is the
difficulty to understand this simple thing? During Hahnemann’s time the word “miasm” was used loosely to express many things viz., morbific emanations from putrescent organic matter, animal or vegetable, and sometimes the effluvia arising from the bodies of those affected by certain diseases some of which were regarded as infectious and others not. Hahnemann fixed the connotation and denotation of this vaguely used word—miasm. From the Organon it can be clearly proved that Hahnemann included physical, psychic and these biological causes under the general name of morbific noxious agents. But all these agents act on the living organism through dynamic (i.e., qualitative) actions and interactions to alter the state of health of the organism. The inclusion of biological agents i.e., miasms (in old terminology) or microbes (in modern terminology) in the list of the morbific noxious agents i.e., “contagium Vivum” is the greatest contribution of Hahnemann in the field of medical thought. Dyna- mis means force and force is always invisible and imperceptible to our senses but their existence is inferred through their workings. The immaterial force must have a material vehicle. As substantial entity of a drug is the vehicle and carrier of its dynamic property, so the microbic body is the vehicle and carrier of their dynamic property. Where is the difficulty to understand this?

Hahnemann talked about “Dynamic influences of morbific agents”—and we tried to establish the identity of one group of the morbific agents. Bacteria etc., are living beings and not material substances. Bacteria belong to the group of fission-fungi of the plant kingdom. Hahnemann could not possibly know that but surmised that they must be living beings. He used the word “animated”.

Our human organism is an integrated indivisible whole of mentalised
living matter. It presents different aspects—material, vital and mental—which we take as distinctive entities for the facilitation of our comprehension (aph 15 of Organon 6th Ed.), but which are not so in factual reality. Here, again, we give credit to Hahnemann for anticipating the psycho-somatic conception of modern times. The truth is that the human organism is neither a machine nor a chemical factory nor a vital or psychic being, each to the exclusion of all others but it is a whole including all aspects and at the same time transcending them all. But towards the end of his life Hahnemann leaned more and more to the pure vitalistic school whereas the rapid advances in the knowledge of physical sciences tipped the balance on the side of the materialistic school. History reveals that he was more influenced by the theories of Stahl, Barthez and Hoffmann , who all belonged to the animistic and vitalistic school though
he tried to keep away from the irrational parts of their theories.

Comparative study of the successive editions of Organon shows that this allusion to “vital force” occurs first in the 5th Edition (1833) as “vital force” has often been substituted for the words “Organism”, body, state of health of the previous
edition. In the 6th edition he came to believe in the substantial entity of the vital principle. But this trenchant division into rival schools of thought has lost its significance as the latest development in the knowledge of physical sciences has served to dematerialise matter and found mass and energy to be convertible terms and as theoretical physics pushed to its extremes is on the point of losing itself in the realms of metaphysics. We feel a contradiction and conflict in Hahnemann’s ideas if we read sees. 11, 12, 13 with 15 of Organon, (6th edition). In sec. 15 we read the body-life as a complex indivisible whole, although “in thought our mind separates this unity into two distinct conceptions for the sake of easy comprehension. Here the factual reality is that the body and life are not two entirely separate substantial entities; whereas in aphs. 11, 12, 13 we are given to understand that it is only the vital principle which is primarily affected in disease and which leads to subsequent disorders in the material body. There is a mechanical view of cause and effect implicit behind this statement which Hahnemann shared with the sixteenth and the seventeenth century physicians that the living body did not work itself but it was tenanted by a principle that made it “live”, something immaterial that used the body as a craftsman uses a tool.  But if life and body are inseparable and one cannot exist without the other what happens when a man dies ? Surely something which kept the organism alive is missing and the vitalistic school pounced upon this phenomena and asserted the independent existence of the life-principle.

Neither the science nor the philosophy of the West could explain this apparently anomalous phenomenon. For an explanation we have to delve deep into the
realm of metaphysics which is just the thing Hahnemann wanted us to avoid. That is why in a footnote to aph. 31 he wrote that he did not wish to give a hyper-physical (i.e., metaphysical) explanation of the internal nature of the disease or the essential nature of life-force in healthy or unhealthy condition. To him disease is just a state of alteration in health i.e., a qualitative change comprising sensational and functional changes which are perceptible to our senses. The human organism has a material part (body) which is also liable to change but it is the qualitative change which the patient feels and suffers therefrom. But here Hahnemann apparently forgets his body-life integration and like a pure vitalist asserts that this qualitative change is absolutely independent of physico-chemical alterations of the physical body.

This statement has served to make the confusion worse.. The real truth is that though life can never be adequately explained through physico chemical processes it is as futile and untrue to say that life does not consist of chemico-physical processes as to say that poetry does not consist of words.  In our Surface-existence mind, life and body are integrated into an indivisible whole. To our senses are perceptible the phenomena of physical mind and physical life which do not exist apart from the material body. But the true mind and true life can exist apart from the body which go away in the event of death. ‘All diseases with which we medical men are concerned belong to our physical nature, whether in the gross physical or vital physical or the mental-physical level. We do not treat mind and life as such but as a mentalised living body. For in this world of matter everything is manifested through it. We do not see Life or mind existing by itself but always as a ‘bodied’ life and embodied mind. How the mind or life has come to be embodied is a metaphysical problem beyond our ordinary mental conception. Hahnemann referred to this fact in his foot-note No. 8 to sec. 12 of Organon, 6th Edition.

Hahnemann did not, could not, and wanted not to delve into these metaphysical questions. He stuck to the plane of phenomena on which he could tread with surer steps and he was satisfied to deduce only those conceptions which were warranted from his observations. Still he was a child of his times and leaned to vitalistic school in his later years. That is why Hughes regarded Hahnemann’s vital theory as a physiological hypothesis.

In aph 31 of Organon 6th Edition, Hahnemann writes that the action of drugs on the living organism is almost unconditional whereas the miasmatic infection is very much conditional, the susceptibility of the organism being a prior condition. As it takes two hands to produce a clap so we require the living body’s susceptibility on the one hand and the miasm, on the other for eventual pro- duction of disease. Leaving the miasm or microbe out of consideration and talking about the production of diseases only with the living body’s susceptibility is one-sided and incomplete. This distorted view axes out the Hahnemannian Homoeopathy. Hahnemann perfectly anticipated that the miasms (microbes) were not the absolute cause but only a conditioned cause in the production of diseases.

Bacteriology has solved the problem to a great extent of prevention of acute diseases, whether sporadic or epidemic; and Bacteriology has rounded off the theory of chronic diseases as propounded by Hahnemann. Whatever may be Hahnemann’s conception of the nature of the morbific agents his approach to the therapeutic problem is different from that of the Allopathic School.

Truth never cramps anyone’s mind; reception of truth leads to further mental expansion. The Organon is a critique of medical philosophy for all times.

A proper and accurate study of Hahnemann’s writing will never lead to difficulty but on the other hand will serve to clear away many misconceptions that have accumulated round the Homoeopathic philosophy.

references:

  • B.K.Sarkar.
  • Samuel Hahnemann
  • Richard Haehl
  • Clements Boenninghausen

Diagnosis, homoeopathy and you.

Many homoeopaths hold the viewpoint that diagnosis of a ‘disease’ is not important. By disease, I mean the descriptive name for a collection of symptoms that individualise a known condition, ie pneumonia, measles, eczema etc.

The reality is, and always has been, as taught by Hahnemann, to treat the DISEASE that the has destabilised the health of an individual. We do not take the collective totality of the personality, the likes and dislikes of the person, we take only the altered state CAUSED by the disease and expressed by the individual affected person.

The two single most useful Aphorisms in case taking are ~5 and ~6. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss in detail, if truth be told it requires time in a seminar to expand the writings and demonstrate fully so as to inculcate the understanding to reach the heart of a practitioner. If assimilated incorrectly, you will find that a lot of misprescriptions will be made based on faulty comprehension of Hahnemanns words.

This leads me to my next point. I ask a question: Are you a real homoeopath?

Firstly, after many years of thinking on this question, I realise that the question is incorrect. It should be: Are you a real believer in the law of similars?

The scope and sphere of Homoeopathy must be clearly expressed. In a  wider sense,  Homoeopathy, in the first place, means a  method of scientific study  and therapeutic practice; in the second place, it means the facts discovered by this method; and thirdly it signifies the theories that have been propounded  to explain and correlate  these facts.  In other words,  Homoeopathy  implies a particular way of applying drugs to diseases according to a  specific principle viz., “Similia Similibus Curentur”, and of potentitiation (dynamisation) of drugs. In a narrower and stricter sense, Homoeopathy means a specialised system of drug therapy, nothing  more  or nothing less.

As Homoeopathy looks upon diseases as  an altered condition of the life principal  of a living being, Homoeopathy, as a therapeutic  method, is concerned primarily with  the morbid vital processes in the  living organism which are perceptibly represented by the symptoms  irrespective  of what caused them. Homoeopathy then is concerned only with dis-eases, per se in its primary functional or dynamical aspect.

With  the  morbific  agents  themselves  Homoeopathy  has no more to do than it has with  the tangible products or ultimates  of disease.  It is taken for granted that the physician acting  in another capacity than that of a prescriber of Homoeopathic  medicines will remove the causes of the disease and the obstacle to cure as far as possible before  he addresses himself to the  task of selecting and administering the remedy which is homoeopathic to the symptoms  of the case by which the cure is to be effected. Thus  Homoeopathy deals directly with disease itself, morbid  vital processes manifested  by perceptible symptoms in the functional side  of disease. In fact, Homoeopathy might well be defined as the science of vital dynamics.

It is confined  to and operative only in  the sphere of vital dynamics.

As Homoeopathy is primarily and pre eminently  a specialised system of drug therapy,  it is not a complete system of medicine (in the wide sense of the term); but it might  legitimately  claim itself to be a complete system of therapeutic medication.

It  is supreme within its legitimate sphere because it is a method  of therapeutic medication which is based on a fixed and definite law of nature. The time has come for defining the scope and limits of Homoeopathy. Wide as its scope is, it has its limitations as well and we have to  be cognisant of this fact.

Homoeopathy may have many  gaps which need  be  filled; may have many points of obscurity  which need illumination  and clarification and  may imply many directions  in which  researches can be carried out—but it  is and  will continue to be a distinct system of healing art; it is uncompromising with regard to following  items which can be claimed as specialities for itself. The most important speciality of Homoeopathy lies in the distinctive mode of approach to  the study of diseases and drug actions. It is a  clinical method of approach and the art of  individualising patients  and drug-actions.

The clinical phenomena are those which render themselves perceptible to our senses as a resultant  of the actions and reactions  of forces, physico-chemical, vital  and psychological operating in and through the diseased human  organism.

Homoeopathy disregards all  the  hypothetical and ever-changing explanations of physiology and  pathology  and uses this plane of clinical phenomena as  a guide to reach the unseen activities operating below the surface.

The  second  speciality is with  regard  to  classification  of diseases. The dominant  school of medicine follows the system of classificatory sciences  of botany and zoology. It classifies diseases into genus  and species. But Homoeopathy goes further and concentrates its attention on individuals—so it is closer to factual concrete reality. The “Totality of symptoms” is taken to be a guide for individualisation.

The  third speciality is  with regard to this: The essential question in Homoeopathy is not what the patient is suffering  from, but in what kind of way he reacts.

Diagnosis in Homoeopathy does not mean the labelling of the patient with the name of a  disease and then treating that nominal entity, but diagnosing  the patient in terms of drug reaction, which would restore his vital equilibrium. The patient is to be diagnosed in terms of treatment.  This is Homoeopathy in a nut shell.

But “it is a shell which some find hard to crack, but when cracked it is found  to be packed full  of sweet and wholesome meat with no  worms in it”—as Stuart Close points out in his book ‘Lecture on  Homoeopathic Philosophy”.

The selection  and administration of remedies constitute the science of therapeutics, as the investigation of the properties of drugs  constitutes  the science  of Materia  Medica.  It  is impossible to conceive  of a science i.e., systematized knowledge, which is  not based  on some  fundamental principle correlating the series of phenomena concerning any particular branch of study. The therapeutic branch of  medical knowledge consists of a study of disease phenomena on the one hand and that of positive effects  of drugs  on the healthy human beings  on the other. Hence any therapeutic study is incomplete and unscientific if a general law be not discovered between a  natural disease-condition and the action of a drug that  will be  curative. Homoeopathy supplies such a law—though the  orthodox  school of  medicine  apparently denies  the necessity for such a general therapeutic law and  relies only on unmethodized experience and fallacious reasoning and presumes to claim utter scientificity for itself by borrowing from chemico-physical sciences.

The therapeutic law  of  Similia Similibus Curentur is a scientific law as justified by the following considerations:

  •  It is based on observation, correct logical  principles of induction, deduction  and experimental verification.
  • It is based on no hypothesis or speculation but it is just a  statement of inter-relation  between two series  of phenomena  viz-,  the natural  disease  and drug-action.
  • Like  any other scientific law  it  is made use of in the matter of predicting future results.
  • Like any other scientific law it does not attempt to explain  the “how or why”  of drugs curing  diseases  but rests  contented with giving a  clear indication of what drug would be curative in which disease condition.

This therapeutic law of cure, as discovered in Homoeopathy, as regards  the treatment of diseases by drugs  which, when proved  on  healthy human  beings, possess the power to produce symptoms similar to those found in persons suffering from natural diseases—pursues at its every step the scientific methods of observation, classification, comparison of phenomena perceptible to our senses and  does not attempt  to enter into the misty realm of metaphysical speculation to divine the essential secrets of nature viz-, life, mind and body and their nature of inter-relationship and the “modus operandi” of drugs in producing symptoms in  healthy  human beings  or  curing disease conditions brought on by natural causes.

This law takes into account only the clinical phenomena (i.e.,perceptible   alterations  of sensations,  functions  and of tissues) in patients and drug provers—which hold good so long as observations are correct and complete and which are not liable to be changed with every altered biological conception, newer  medical terminologies or newer discoveries  in physiological and pathological sciences.  The clinical symptoms are facts—they do not change but may be added  to.

With the help of this Law of cure the study of therapeutic branch of medicine has been raised to an independent status having a  life of its own. While deriving its  sustenance from truths and conceptions of other sciences auxiliary to medicine it possesses freedom from whatever new knowledge might be acquired in those sciences in course of time.

On comparison with  other  therapeutic systems (with or without any basic law underlying) the Law of Simile stands out boldest  and most free from uncertainties,  imperfections and irrationality inherent in others.

The grading system of Boenninghausen.

The more I read the writings of modern day homoeopathic ‘experts’, the more I realise that we cannot trust in their utterances. A simple thing like translating Boenninghausens Therapeutic Pocket Book from German to English by Allen was mangled. First by the grading system, then incorrect English translation of the German rubrics, and finally by the addition of extra remedies in a manner in which did not reflect the accuracy of the carefulness of grading the symptoms.

It is always best to go to source in order to establish the accuracy of the situation. Here is Boenninghausens own words in the preface to the 1846 edition.

“On account of the large number of remedies, under nearly every rubric, it has been thought indispensable, on account of both the above-mentioned objects, to distinguish their relative values by means of various types, as I have done in my former repertories, and which Hahnemann has repeatedly shown to be necessary. So, throughout the whole work, there will be found five classes distinguished by the type, of which the four most essential ones are in the first division,

Mind and Disposition, under the rubric ” Covetousness,” which may serve as an example. The word Puls, in spaced Italics, occupies the highest, most prominent place. After this follow, in descending order, in simple Italics, Ars. and Lyc, as less important, but still especially distinguished by the characteristics of the remedies as well as by practice. Of a still lower order are the spaced Roman letters in N a t r. and S e p., and in the last rank will be found Calc, printed in Roman letters not spaced. The fifth place, the last of all, contains the doubtful remedies, which require critical study, and which occur most seldom; these are enclosed in parentheses”.

Logic: Why would Boenninghausen include a grade for doubtful remedies? Doubtful remedies can not be graded for usefulness. Why did he state that The four most essential remedies are in the first division?

Further investigation from the handwritten copy of the 1846 printers edition, shows clearly what is meant. The underlining system was like this. Grade 1, no underline. Grade 2, one underline, Grade 3, 2 underlines. Grade 4, 3 underlines.

There was no grade attribution for remedies in parenthesis. There is only this system used throughout.

Further, 20 year later in the reprint, Boenninghausen removed the remedies in paranthesis and left the main work intact. One can only assume that the original parenthesis remedies were included for further study and research. NONE were added to the repertory.

Other homoeopaths of the time acknowledged the grading system. Hering for one.

Herings foreword to  His Guiding Symptoms.

Is the same as that in the “Analytical Therapeutics” and in the “Condensed Materia Medica.” A more complete and concise review of the arrangement will precede the Repertory, which is to follow close upon the last volume of this work.

     To facilitate the study of the relative value of symptoms, four marks of distinction have been adopted, “TextTextTextText”, which correspond to the four degrees in Bœnninghausen’s Repertory….”

There is no more to say.