Category Archives: homoeopathic teaching

Training course 8-12 August. (English only)

ptcWe are now booking for the 8th of August in Seville. This course will be in English. The Spanish courses continue in September.

We keep the classes small. From 1-5 people only. Medical and non medically qualified practitioners accepted.

The teaching is interactive but highly structured. It is based solely on the works of Samuel Hahnemann with many examples and case studies to show the methodology in practice.

You will enjoy the city of Seville for a vacation. What better way to learn and relax than this.

Fine foods, good restaurants, a beautiful city to explore. 



This is a good opportunity to learn Hahnemannian homoeopathy in a beautiful setting. The most important thing is that the teaching is from original sources and therefore not reliant on personal interpretation or deviations from Hahnemanns methodology. Given that Hahnemann was most successful in the practice, we see no reason to adopt lesser practices or opposing viewpoints in the therapy.

You will leave the course with a notebook full of information and with cited references for home study to continue your education. 

We look forward the next student intake.

Vera Resnick – Learning Boenninghausen.

Oct2012bI came to Boenninghausen, and subsequently to the IHM, via a route that was somewhat painful. I had been trained in Kentian methods and was the proud possessor of MacRep software. After several years of practice I had begun to doubt the methods I was using, and was constantly in search of a greater degree of certainty in prescribing. I was not happy with my results or my process.

Then the first painful part of this particular journey happened. My computer was stolen, complete with software and dongle. It took a couple of months to sort this out – months where I had a replacement computer but no software. I still had my Synthesis in its fancy red binding, but found it very unwieldy, and was not sure any more whether it was a reliable source of information. And I had a small copy of Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book (Allen), which I had bought on a whim but never used.

At the time I was working with a patient in her 50s who had undergone IVF for the twelfth time, and was in early stages of pregnancy with twins. I was also working with a teenager with a stubborn case of constipation. I followed Allen’s instructions in his introduction and began working with the TPB. Although I found the book physically difficult to read (Indian edition) and the method was new to me, the results in both cases were very good and I felt a greater degree of certainty in prescribing.

In 2007 my route took me to George Dimitriadis and his Boenninghausen Repertory (TBR), a carefully edited repertory based on the TPB. This led me to even greater certainty that Boenninghausen had a stronger grasp than Kent on how homoeopathy should be practiced, and at the same time I began reading articles on Kent’s Swedenborgian influences. I began to get some inkling of how drastically Kent had shifted the practice of homoeopathy away from its original underpinnings.

During my studies I had already become very skeptical of intense psychological investigation which I was taught was an essential part of homoeopathic prescribing. The two- to three-hour sessions seemed more like some form of confession than focused treatment, and I felt uneasy with these methods, both as practitioner and as patient.

In 2010, I met Gary Weaver and in our initial conversations about homoeopathy in general and Boenninghausen in particular, he mentioned the magic words: “take only what has changed.” I began to take the Organon apart, to see it as an essential “users manual” rather than as a venerated philosophical work. To understand the differing energies of Aphorism 5 and Aphorism 6, the context and the change in every case.

Gary began teaching me how to work with the Therapeutic Pocketbook using the P&W software, which I translated into Hebrew. He told me it would take me six months to a year to unlearn the methods I had been taught and to pick up the simple laser-like focus required to work with the Therapeutic Pocketbook. I thought I knew this material, I had studied materia medica (although never provings…) it shouldn’t be so difficult, it would take me a month or two. But it took a year, most of which time was needed to acquire the open, focused mindset needed for case-taking, analysis and remedy choice.

Carl von BoenninghausenDuring my studies with Gary, I had to learn to identify the theories, protocols and prejudices I had about remedies and case-taking, and to forcibly put them aside in order to focus on the central facts of the case before me, the real prescribing symptoms which so often are obscured in lengthy case-taking by irrelevant material. I had to unlearn the automatic stress on mental symptoms I had been taught, and to identify cases where the mental symptoms were essential for prescribing, and where they were only brought in for differential diagnosis if at all.

Working with Gary led me towards what to me should be the ultimate goal of any homoeopath – increased certainty in prescribing. I began working with provings, specifically with Hahnemann’s provings which still seem to be more reliable than those carried out in our times. I understood more clearly why Hahnemann was so opposed to the “mongrel homoeopaths” who combined homoeopathy with allopathy, without understanding the central principle of “like cures like”.

Part of my disaffection with MacRep was the realization that I could find many sources giving a particular symptom in relation to a remedy – but that most of these sources were copied from each other, so a large number of “hits” did not represent a greater certainty of the remedy as appropriate for the symptom. Boenninghausen’s work in itself brings much greater clarity and certainty, in that it is based on primary sources, primarily Hahnemann’s materia medica, and on Boenninghausen’s own clinical experience. Hahnemann was not an easygoing master, but even he acknowledged Boenninghausen’s worth and the value of his repertory.

The IHM’s approach is solidly rooted in Hahnemann and Boenninghausen’s writings and teachings. There is no attempt to invent something new and shiny, bells and whistles, just constant in-depth study of the tried and true, around the unchanging principle of “like cures like”. Personal glory or fame is not the objective. Certainty and consistency in prescribing is.

I am very grateful to Gary for the amount I have learned, and continue to learn from him, for the time invested and the willingness and patience exhibited. By nature I question constantly, going over each point again and again, reviewing, rebutting, reinstating – so his patience is particularly appreciated (and frequently tested…). He is a dedicated teacher and practitioner, and I highly recommend the new program he’s offering in Spain.

Another personal reflection on training with the IHM.

I asked IHM members for their reflections and comments on why they studied the Therapeutic Pocket Book method with the IHM… Here is Guillermo Zamora.


I first read some articles from Gary Weaver on a homoeopathic web forum about 6 or 7 years ago. What attracted my attention was the adherence to the practice of homoeopathy through the writings of Samuel Hahnemann, and no affinity to any of the modern methods currently in evidence. In reading the few cases he presented, I saw a clarity of prescribing that did not prioritise mental symptoms over any other symptoms, but rather looked for the altered state of health where it lay.

I am a State trained medical homoeopath here in Mexico. Most of our training is in the works of KENT and later the modern ‘masters’. It has been my practice to read widely and examine everything especially from the early pioneers of our medical therapy.

dsc01521My son had developed a very bad excema. Help had been sought from another practitioner on the web forum but success was not to be found. I wrote Gary and asked if he could help. He asked for all the notes and for me to itemise each symptom carefully. He took the notes and would email for clarification on several points.

I had already decided on a remedy of Rhus Tox for the prescription and discussed it with Gary. He said that as his role in this case was advisory, he could not advise Rhus Tox as a prescription just yet.dsc01524

He explained to me how he had arrived at Sepia for the boy and why it could not be Rhus Tox.

Two main modalities that were exhibited was aggravated from heat and a high angry disposition. Gary told me that this was important in my sons case as both symptoms were strong in the disease.


Gary prescribed Sepia. To be honest, I was not happy with the prescription. It was against everything I knew about remedies. It was not an ‘eczema’ remedy. However, I went along with it.

Im so glad I did. My son is glad he did. We watched the eczema die. We saw it gently leave his skin. A few weeks later, Gary told me to give Rhus Tox as the symptoms had changed and required Rhus to finish.

After the Sepia.




Gary showed me through the clinic and the pages of Hahnemanns writings what the practice of the therapy was really about. A short time later, my father developed a life threatening illness and once more Gary showed me the efficacy of homoeopathy above any other system of medicine.

I decided to study the Therapeutic pocket book with Gary. I offered to translate the P&W Englsh version into Spanish and we worked together on that project for several months. Later I joined the IHM team and was asked to head up the Mexico IHM presence and school. It has been an amazing unfolding of understanding that has benefited my clinic and me personally. The IHM has always encouraged me to reach and study and reflect using the principles of the therapy so that I instinctively know what to do even if at the moment I do not know the answer.

Gary has an unswerving adherence to the law of similars. He is fully aware of the different approaches to health care and will utilise what is necessary in emergency situations, but always maintains that permanent cure comes through the application of similars.

As a fully trained medical practitioner of homoeopathy,  I was deeply surprised to find what I did not know, and even more surprised to find what I knew was incorrect on a lot of levels. The IHM has taught me by pointing my gaze in the right direction for answers, and also by conversations where Garys experience and research answered all my questions.

When I first started doing seminars here in Mexico, Gary did not try and control any of the material presented. He just said that I knew enough to be effective and I should go and enjoy the teaching. He has always been supportive of all of our efforts and gives information freely. There is a lot of respect shown to us.

I know that the IHMs main aim is to develop the independent practitioner who knows homoeopathy. I have never seen any ego displayed or the desire to teach a personal methodology.

For those contemplating an intensive in homoeopathic medicine, I will state that one week with the IHM will give you knowledge and understanding and the desire to continue along the path to be a Hahnemannian  homoeopath.