If you have completed a training course in homeopathy, and want to become the best practitioner you can, take a look at this video.
If you have completed a training course in homeopathy, and want to become the best practitioner you can, take a look at this video.
I.H.M. presents a personal view of the present and future state of Homoeopathy as a medical therapy. Written by Vladimir Polony MSc. A homoeopathic practitioner with deep clinical experience in Slovakia and California, A Computer Engineer and program designer, one half of the P & W research team delving into the writings of Hahnemann and colleagues and presenting them in the original texts in the SYNOPSIS computer Repertory program.
With this background of extensive knowledge, and with hands on experience with the methodologies discussed in this article, Vladimir has presented a compelling and though provoking argument for the abandoning of false practices under the banner of Homoeopathy.
The current practice of homoeopathy is in an appalling state. Therapists call themselves “homoeopaths”, or even “classical homoeopaths” without the slightest adherence to homeopathic principles as outlined in Samuel Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine. Any trace of empiric scientific methods that gave peer reviewed credibility to homeopathy is gone and has been replaced by the “transcendental” teachings of modern gurus.
The purpose of this commentary is to trace how we got from a very rational empirical science based on researched facts, to a collection of theories and teachings that are so absurd, that anyone in their right mind would not give credibility to homeopathy as a medical science.
I will especially reference the people responsible for this sorry state of homeopathy – the modern homeopathic gurus. Gurus, who claim to have a more precise and “transcendental” knowledge of homeopathy than the founder of homeopathy who practiced and researched medicine his whole life. These gurus make the claim to have seen the ultimate truth, to be able to see behind the symptoms, to perceive the elusive “essence” of homeopathy and essence of homeopathic remedies. They claim it is so simple, that even YOU can learn it very easily. It will be via an expensive training session of course. The sad thing is that once learned, it is less than useful in a homoeopathic medical clinic, and will fail you at every prescription.
You might be asking yourself, ‘who is this person to judge homoeopathy’? Apart from having been through an intensive and researched oriented University training and hold a Master’s Degree, I spent the first five years of my homoeopathic training learning the philosophy of, and working with the methods of Rajan Sankaran, Jan Scholten, Jeremy Sherr, Misha Norland and Peter Chappell. With Peter Chappell, I even purchased his made remedies and prescribed on his indications. The net result was that I became VERY disappointed in the therapy and was considering giving it up as a career. Please note. Like many people in this position, I was listening to these modern guru “classical homoeopaths”, and even though I applied their teachings and methods religiously and followed accurately, I was not having success in my prescriptions. I concluded that Homoeopathy was too difficult and not accurate, and ultimately, if these were the best teachers, a failure of modern medicine.
I stopped seeing new patients. At this time I met Gary Weaver who was working in Florida in a medical faculty. We discussed homoeopathy and I discovered that he only used the works of the old Masters, especially Hahnemann and Boenninghausen. He presented me with a few cured cases to work out the prescriptions, and I applied my learning to them, and came up with remedies like Carcinosinum, the AIDS nosode, etc. I would then look at his prescribing notes and see that one or more of the old everyday remedies had been given for some deep conditions and had cured.
I then shared some of my cases with him, in which all the prescriptions were failing. He would look into his old Repertory from one of the early homoeopaths, and then cross check in an early edition of Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura or Chronic Diseases, and prescribe a remedy from there. I reluctantly would follow his prescription for the patient, I say reluctantly because it was not a new modern medicine, in the main it was just a standard old polychrest remedy. However, the patient would react well to the medicine and either be cured or had another remedy to finish the case!
I became fascinated with his approach and started studying the old masters of homeopathy – Hahnemann and Boenninghausen. I spent months translating the old writings, and reading through original texts. With the help of Gary I have finally abandoned the modern transcendental theories and started practicing the original science based homoeopathy.
My success rate has increased from roughly 20 % to 85 – 95 % (first prescription). When using the precise homeopathic teaching and tools left by Hahnemann, I have a confidence that even if the remedy is not absolutely correct, it is still close enough to produce a change in the patient that will allow me to discover the correct remedy more easily.
Samuel Hahnemann was the founder of homeopathy, his works are essential to understanding and practicing homeopathy. Among the most important works are, the Organon of Medicine (all versions but especially the 6th edition), Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. In terms of defining what homeopathy is, there cannot be a more important book than the Organon of Medicine. In this work, Samuel Hahnemann has very precisely defined homeopathy as a science and all the necessary steps leading to prescription of correct remedies, methods of discovering their actions, regimen for the sick as well as manufacturing of medicines and their administering.
In the 1800’s when the physicians were trying to find the CAUSE of the disease and prescribing on a speculative and unproven postulation, Hahnemann proposed a radical new approach. Instead of looking for this elusive cause, the physician should use his senses (empirical approach) and determine the CURRENT STATE of the disease in the patient. The physician’s role is not to determine the cause of the disease, but to heal the patient.
Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann – Aphorism 1:
The physician’s high and ONLY mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed. 1
1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant – whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.
In the first few aphorisms, to define what homoeopathy is, Samuel Hahnemann dismissed EVERYTHING that the modern homeopathic gurus are doing. Their teachings consist solely of empty speculations, trying to discover the “essences” behind the homeopathic remedies, and have produced a spiritual transcendental approach to the medical science.
In aphorism 11 Hahnemann wrote:
“When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self-acting
(automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is
primarily deranged by the dynamic influence upon it of a morbific agent
inimical to life…”
In short, Hahnemann has described a perfectly empirical definition of a disease. We know that there is a cause of the disease which is some dynamic force, but with certainty we can only use the information collected by our senses (our observation). Anything else is a pure speculation. However, the modern homeopathy is full of these speculations.
Rajan Sankaran – The diseases are caused by some delusions that the patient has about the reality.
Peter Chappell – The diseases are caused by the “CEED” – Chronic Effects of Epidemic Diseases.
Jan Scholten – The cause of the disease is described as coming from desires, disappointments and fears arising from them.
Notice that, in each individual approach, the empirical principle is non-existent and application has once more moved from observation to speculation. The modern gurus seem to be able to peer behind the veil of reality and give us their unique insight into the causation of disease. However, from the empirical standpoint it remains a pure speculation, and a return to the dark days of the 1800’s medical system pre Hahnemann.
Interesting fact is, that in order to cure the disease using homeopathy, we do not need to know this transcendental causation. All we need to know are facts gathered by our senses (physical observation, tests, patients medical history, present exhibition of symptoms) and through the homeopathic principle (like cures like), we can observe the effects of homeopathic remedies on healthy subjects and prescribe the remedy that causes the similar symptoms in the healthy person.
Why do these modern gurus then insist on “discovering” the “true nature” of disease ? The answer is quite simple. Money, Power and Adoration. It requires that a new method of “science” be created in order to market classical homoeopathy in a manner that makes a lot of income, is copyrighted and keeps an individual in the Public focus. There are no facts involved in this presentation, just ideas and concepts.
The real damage to homeopathy does not come from empty speculations regarding health and disease or from deliberations on the causes of diseases. It comes when they apply their foolish nonscientific, non-proved speculative theory to the process of case taking.
Samuel Hahnemann has clearly stated that:
The unprejudiced observer … takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind … which can be perceived externally by means of the senses … he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual… (Aphorism 6)
Symptoms are the language of the disease and we take note of only the symptoms themselves as they can be perceived by our senses (including lab tests and disease knowledge) but always noting the individual expression of a disease state as the patient expresses them. This is again a perfect example of homeopathy being an empirical science – we use only the data we can gather through our senses, we do not make deductions or rationalizations. In empirical science, there is no room for abstractions, speculations or deductions.
Let’s have a look at the Rajan Sankaran’s system of “vital sensations”. Vital sensations push homeopathy deeper into the realm of empty speculation by disregarding all the symptoms and by using the mental observations as devised by one person – Rajan Sankaran.
In his system, he separates the remedies into “kingdoms” such as plant, animal, mineral, nosode, etc. Based on his speculations, he attributes to each “kingdom” some “vital sensations”. These vital sensations have nothing to do with the drug provings and with the symptoms of remedies. He looks at the original substances and sees how they behave or feel like and then makes a deduction, that since the original substances have certain properties, then the homeopathic remedies must have the same properties.
There are a few problems with this approach. First of all it ignores the data from drug provings that were gathered using scientific methods and replaces them with observations of one person.
Secondly, it overly generalizes by using deductions and speculations that have not been tested or proved.
Thirdly, all interpretations of the vital sensations are by definition subjective and change from observer to observer – this means that objectivity in observation which was so strictly applied by Hahnemann and which makes homeopathy scientific has been removed. This makes any result speculative, subjective and not reproducible. Totally poor and bad science.
The question arises how it is possible that such a non-scientific approach can be so easily accepted by the homeopathic community. The roots of this lie in the acceptance of the “doctrine of signatures”. Doctrine of signatures originally taught that substances (plants) that resemble various parts of body can be used to treat them. Snakeroot was used to treat snake bites, Liverwort was used to treat liver, etc. In homeopathy this was again generalized further and expanded to include all other substances as well. Modern gurus such as Frans Vermeulen and Peter Chappell teach us, that if a person looks like something or in our mind resembles something, the remedy prepared from this will be the similimum.
I have heard multiple stories of patients that came to the homeopath wearing green and brown colors being prescribed plant remedies, because they resemble plants. Those wearing red aggressive colors got prescribed animal remedies because animals are aggressive and even cases when people wearing striped shirts leaving with a remedy prepared from Zebra. It does not stop here. The speculations have no end. People working as pilots get only remedies make from birds, people working with earth such as gardeners get only plant remedies and if you are unfortunate enough to have a hobby such a playing football and being a goalkeeper, you will get a remedy prepared from a web-weaving spider.
As you can see, the ideas presented in “vital sensation” method by Rajan Sankaran are by no means new. They have been around for a long time and all he has done is to create a framework for them so that they can be perceived as a new and exciting concept, copyrighted of course, and marketed for lots of money.
Another good example of this is Jan Scholten. He pushes the idea of non-scientific abstraction and speculation to a new level. In his system he looks at the periodic table of elements and deduced that elements in the same groups and periods share the same “essences”. Then the intersection of the group and period will make it possible to “explore” even the remedies which were never proved.
Just to give an example how simplistic this method is, let’s have a look at some of the remedies:
Ferrum Metallicum (Iron) – Iron is used to create tools, so according to Scholten theme of this remedy is “Worker, Task, Duty”. Since peasants work with iron or use iron, the region is “Village” and philosophy is “Practical”.
Argentum Metallicum (Silver) – Silver is a precious metal, so “logically” theme is “Artistic, Queen, Scientist” and philosophy is “Aesthetics and Beauty”.
Aurum Metallicum (Gold) – Gold is used as currency and is valuable, so of course themes are “King, Leader” and philosophy is “Politics”.
The gist of this “system” is to ignore any provings that were done using the scientific methods described by Hahnemann in the Organon. This unfortunately means, that people start prescribing remedies that have not been proven, using just one generalized indication.
When I started studying homeopathy, I was prescribed 4 remedies based on this system by an expert in this method and needless to say all of them failed. It was not until I was treated by a homoeopath using the Hahnemannian protocol of matching real symptoms with proven medicines that I was cured.
Homeopathy as described by Samuel Hahnemann in the Organon of Medicine a scientific method of discovering effects of remedies. The main principles of a scientific proving are: objectivity and empiric approach. This means, that provings need to be conducted in a way that would remove all speculations and in a way that would assure objectivity of a proving. Needless to say the principle of a double blind trial is necessary to assure that the provers or conductors of the proving to not distort the information gained by provings.
The scientific proving should be conducted based on these simple rules:
Unfortunately even proving methodology has not escaped the creativity of the modern homeopaths.
Let’s start with the dream provings and meditational provings. Dream provings are conducted by most of the modern gurus and involve multiple modalities. The prover either does not take the remedy but places it under his pillow and goes to sleep and then records the dreams he had. The contents of the dreams are then considered to be the essence of the remedy.
Other modality involves a group of provers taking the remedy with a group of “psychics” dreaming in the room adjacent to the room with the provers. Again, the people dreaming and recording their dreams have not taken the actual remedy.
Meditational proving is very similar. A group of people makes the remedy from the 3rd potency and records ideas they had during making the remedy. Then they meditate on this and record their thoughts. Again, no scientific method and no objectivity.
Even provings that are conducted following a “scientific-like” method are compromised for instance by provers knowing that they are taking the remedy and even which remedy they are taking (as an example I would like to use the proving of Latex Vulcani by the School of Homoeopathy). Two of the provers knew the remedy and their “symptoms” were similar to the symptoms of the other provers, so they were recorded in the proving. By symptoms I do not mean physical symptoms of course, these are mental “symptoms”. I think it is reasonable to question the fact that these 2 provers could have influenced by their interactions the rest of the group and lead the proving towards the desired results. And again, since this was probably the case, the themes of the condom proving are what the thoughts and “themes” that you would get if you would think about everything related to a condom – separation, bubble, fear of diseases, etc.
In other provings this is even more evident where proving information includes also information by people who have not taken the remedy, but were given a placebo, because “they were influenced by the remedy regardless of taking it”.
Other provings blatantly skip the whole double blind trial aspect and declare that everyone is taking a particular remedy and even what is the remedy made of. So, if the proving is about a remedy made from bear’s blood, everyone will feel like a bear.
The other provings are even less scientific, the whole groups of provers know that they are taking a particular remedy and they know which remedy it is. Therefore they make an image in their mind of the symptoms they should have and they WILL experience them. This is no different to a brainstorming session.
These “provings” only prove one thing – the fact that they are worthless and that any scientific credibility the homeopathy had is lost.
The problems outlined here only demonstrate the decline of homeopathy from a controversial, but nevertheless empirical science to a strange spiritual nonsense. The scientific methods gave way to transcendental speculations and the scientific credibility homeopathy had is lost.
The only thing left to say is “Rest in Peace homeopathy”. In the current state how it is taught by Rajan Sankaran, Jan Scholten, Frans Vermeulen, Peter Chappell, Jeremy Sherr and all their followers. If this is to be the new face of homoeopathy, I can only hope, In its present form that the practice is banned before too much damage is done.
A very interesting two part interview with David Little has arrived on the net. part one can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9NN0fqdvrQ
Fascinating to hear of the journey one man took to discover Hahnemanns methodology in practice. David uncovered a lot of the falseness of the homoeopathy that is taught today and observed how Kent did not practise in the manner Hahnemann insisted on. David laid out a lot of the differences and showed how in some cases the differences were actually dangerous to the patient, especially in volume of dose given.
Here at the IHM, we encourage and enjoy talking with homoeopaths that know their subject. FACTS supersede opinion and FACTS are the bedrock of practice.
Over the years we have come to realise that FACTS are subject to defined conclusions and herein is where issues start to arise in practice.
David carefully presented the differences between the Organon instructions regarding practice and showed how practitioners who give medicines according to the 4th edition, the 5th edition and the 6th edition all have success in curing the patient. For us at the IHM, we noted this many years ago and after examination of the FACTS, concluded that it is the similarity of the MEDICINE to the disease that is the curative element, and that potency is a fine tuning to the organism.
We also noted that Hahnemann was continually searching for a method to eliminate some of the strong medicinal aggravations that occurred with the application of a medicine in potency and the manner and vehicle of how the dose was given.
So several FACTS emerged.
David discovered that Hahnemann in his last years, used both the Q potencies and the Centesimal potencies in treating patients. The FACTS show that Hahnemann gave the different scales utilising the same methodology, in water and not repeating whilst a medicinal action was observed. David concluded that Hahnemann thus intended to use the centesimal scale for acutes and the Q potency for chronics. He rationalised that the scales harmonised with the nature of the two types of diseases.
We at the IHM have a slightly different take on the conclusion drawn by David.
Firstly, Hahnemann was still experimenting with the Q potencies. He was observing the action of the two scales on patients and had already applied a protocol of giving both scales in water. Remember this whole scenario was to find a medicinal application to obviate some of the excesses of aggravation, and also to shorten the time between giving doses to speed up the process of healing.
By coincidence, I too received my first LM (Q) kit from the same pharmacy as David did, in 1986. Because Hahnemann repeated his warning regarding the repetition of any medicine during AMELIORATION, I also noted that he called the new potency scale “new altered but perfected method”.
On this basis after reading § 246 and § 271, I completely moved over to the Q or LM scale. My pharmacy consisted from that day- LM potencies.
§ 246 Sixth Edition
(Hahnemann admonition for not repeating) Every perceptibly progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration during treatment is a condition which, as long as it lasts, completely precludes every repetition of the administration of any medicine whatsoever, because all the good the medicine taken continues to effect is now hastening towards its completion.
(Indicating use in ACUTE diseases} This is not infrequently the cause in acute diseases, but in more chronic diseases, on the other hand, a single dose of an appropriately selected homoeopathic remedy will at times complete even with but slowly progressive improvement and give the help which such a remedy in such a case can accomplish naturally within 40, 50, 60, 100 days. This is, however, but rarely the case; and besides, it must be a matter of great importance to the physician as well as to the patient that were it possible, this period should be diminished to one-half, one-quarter, and even still less, so that a much more rapid cure might be obtained. And this may be very happily affected, as recent and oft-repeated observations have taught me under the following conditions: firstly, if the medicine selected with the utmost care was perfectly homoeopathic; secondly, if it is highly potentized, dissolved in water and given in proper small dose that experience has taught as the most suitable in definite intervals for the quickest accomplishment of the cure but with the precaution, that the degree of every dose deviate somewhat from the preceding and following in order that the vital principle which is to be altered to a similar medicinal disease be not aroused to untoward reactions and revolt as is always the case1 with unmodified and especially rapidly repeated doses.
1 What I said in the fifth edition of the Organon, in a long note to this paragraph in order to prevent these undesirable reactions of the vital energy, was all the experience I then had justified. But during the last four or five years, however, all these difficulties are wholly solved by my new altered but perfected method. The same carefully selected medicine may now be given daily and for months, if necessary in this way, namely, after the lower degree of potency has been used for one or two weeks in the treatment of chronic disease, advance is made in the same way to higher degrees, (beginning according to the new dynamization method, taught herewith with the use of the lowest degrees).
The IHM do not legislate what potency scale a practitioner should use. We do however point out that Hahnemann himself recommended the use of LM or Q potencies to obviate the reactions to the artificial disease state caused by strong medicines in the living organism.
Gary Weaver has exclusively used the LM scale in his clinic for 25 years in both acute and chronic cases. He sees rapid resolution of acute diseases if the prescription is correct. He sees amazing curative responses in Chronic disease.
Something to consider.
Curative reaction in 2 weeks using LM potency. Patient had been treated in hospital for a long time using Steroids and other strong medicines.
Any 4 day consecutive period from 26th April to 14th of May 2017. We offer this because of flight scheduling. So for example, if you have a good price on a flight on Friday 28th of April, we can start the course on Saturday 29th for 4 days.
The IHM is an organization dedicated to research and dissemination of accurate Hahnemannian knowledge regarding homoeopathy. We teach from the sources and hold no affinity to modern methods of practice or thinking.
We believe that homoeopathy is a branch of medicine based on the law of similars which is the best method for curing sickness. For a person willing to apply themselves to the learning of the principles and methodology of the practice, we believe (if it taught correctly) it can be learned in 6 to 12 months. This does not include other medical subjects like anatomy and physiology.
It is our experience that a practitioner who has learned the accurate knowledge of the medical practice as defined and proven by Hahnemann, is a practitioner that has surety in his ability to follow the principles and directives that will lead to success in his or her prescribing.
A Prescriber utilising the Boenninghausen developed methodology, based on Hahnemanns logic and thinking, will have a far greater understanding of the remedies and application of and what they are capable of and be able to manage the case through to a successful conclusion.
There has been no beneficial advances made in recent years to enhance the logical and accurate methodology as defined by Hahnemann. The reverse sadly is true.
An IHM trained clinician usually is able to collect the required data for analysis in less than one hour, and extract the essential prescribing symptoms quickly.
To this end, we offer the following.
A four day intensive course for an individual or small group, in a training environment for the learning of Hahnemannian homoeopathy.
Q. Where is the location?
Seville (Spain) .
Q.What Language is the course in?
Primarily English but with Spanish speaking translation if required.
Q. What will I learn?
Our course is based around all the writings of Hahnemann.
Therefore we will:
Q. Who is the course open to?
Persons who wish to learn the method of practice of Hahnemann and Boenninghausen.
Q. Do I have to be be medically qualified?
No. THE COURSE IS OPEN TO PERSONS WITH OR WITHOUT A MEDICAL DEGREE
Q. Do I need to be a practitioner?
No. The course has been designed to teach both practitioners and those with some basic knowledge. For the practitioner, it will be more difficult as they will have to “unlearn” a lot of incorrect teachings, and for the neophyte it will be an accurate placement of primary knowledge.
Q. Who will be teaching me? For the entire session it will be Gary Weaver. Other teachers may be available during the training. Vera Resnick will give a training session via SKYPE on understanding remedies.
Funcionarios del Instituto
Isidre Lara i Llobet
Licenciado en Medicina y Cirugía por la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona en 1980.
Formación en Homeopatía con Homoeopathia Europea con Jacques Imberechts desde 1978, y en cursos de la escuela argentina (Tomás Pablo Paschero, Eugenio Candebabe, …) y mexicana (Proceso Sánchez Ortega). Formación en el método de Alfonso Masi Elizalde en San Sebastián, 1987-1992.
Práctica clínica de medicina homeopática desde 1980; en Palma de Mallorca desde 1984.
Centre de Medicina Homeopàtica de Mallorca. Av. Joan March, nº 8, 5-1. Palma de Mallorca –España.
Tlf.: +34 971 20 65 66 / 658 810 910
Gary Weaver. D.O. med. D.hom med.
Qualified in 1982. Director of Institute for Homoeopathic medicine from 1986. International lecturer and researcher.
Co developer of the P&W OpenRep SYNOPSIS computer program.
Clinic in Seville Spain. Specialising in phone consultations (english only) Spanish translator in the clinic.
telephone: +44 2921256260 English speaking only. It is an English phone number on SKYPE which I can pick up in Spain.
BA International Relations, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel 1986
Qualified from Madicin, Tel Aviv, Israel (Homoeopathy) in 2004
Post Graduate studies with David Little 2004-2006
Advanced Clinical Studies with the IHM 2010-
Clinic: 43 Emek Refaim, Jerusalem, Israel
English and Hebrew speaker.
Q. What happens after the course?
The course is an intensive based at university level education level. There will much to read and recap over the following 6 months to consolidate and ratify everything you have absorbed. For the practitioner, it will be something he or she will slowly incorporate into the clinic, and as they grow more confident with the results, it will transform their clinic work immensely. For the neophyte who wish to continue in training, we will offer some online options.
Q. What is the cost of the 4 days of training?
The cost is €1000 Euros. This is for the course only, not included is the cost of accommodation, airfares and transportation The training will be at one of our clinics. We will provide refreshments and lunch (mainly Spanish traditional cooking at local restaurants. We can provide guidance on Vegetarian, halal and koshe fare if required.)
Q. What books do I need?
We recommend the computer version of the P & W OpenRep SYNOPSIS. It contains all the materials required. The retail price is $799 but for students of the course it can be obtained for $450. €400 Euro.
The course director is Gary Weaver, co translator of the P & W Therapeutic Pocket Book, an accurate modern day revised version of the original 1846 version. It took over 3 years of work to make it to an acceptable working version for the computer. (A book version in English is available as well). Gary spent a number of years from 1998 researching the original writings of Hahnemann and collating his methodology for personal practice. Since then, the information has been presented to several hundreds of people in sminars and workshops.
It is a great opportunity to take a holiday with the family and combine it with intensive training. We will arrange the teaching schedule so as to maximise your learning and yet leave enough space for time with your family if required.
Please contact email@example.com for further information and date availability.
For practitioners who demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the principles, at the discretion of the officers of the IHM, they may be offered licentiateship.
§ 76 Sixth Edition
Too often the physician finds a patient before him that has been plyed with numerous drugs in the treatment of their affection. How much can homoeopathy do in a situation like this?
Hahnemann points out that in his experience, if the energy of the patient has not been completely depleted by drugs, it will be by the sole action of the immune system/Vital force that can restore health. Accessory help can be given by looking at the primary miasm/infection and helping to remove that, but primarily it is only the organism that can cure and this can take several years. Sometimes structural changes in the organism occur from the drug action, and the resultant action from the immune system to save life produce incurable or unchangeable situations.
For this reason Hahnemann asserts that Homoeopathy is only really useful in the treatment of NATURAL DISEASES and that these acute and chronic non miasmatic iatrogenic drug diseases are almost impossible to treat successfully.
I have sadly turned away several patients with drug induced disease states that did not respond to treatment on this basis.
Homeopathy in the world today is in crisis. I am not referring to the lack of medical doctors and professionals who practice it, but by the senselessness in which it has become immersed.
Impurifications will divert every river from its original path, and this is a metaphor for what I believe has happened to homeopathy from its beginnings until today; with the passing of time homeopathy has been contaminated with multiple theories and notions beyond its control that have done it a great disservice.
I can argue that everything evolves in life and homeopathy should not be indifferent to this evolution and change. We agree on this point. However, when we talk about evolution, we speak of an evolution which makes sense, of evolution which occurs in a logical and coherent line from the principles that gave birth to it. We are not talking of a multilinear, random evolution of philosophical and psychological concepts which fall outside core homoeopathic doctrine.
I will not go into the possible contamination of homoeopathy perpetrated by Kent. This has already been discussed in these pages. I do however want to emphasize the two most serious contaminations that I see Homeopathy is suffering from today – the psychological and the spiritualist.
The psychological contamination of homoeopathy has come about partly from the influence of psychoanalysis and its ramifications, and the schools of homoeopathy built on these psychoanalytical misrepresentations, such as the South American schools of today.
The other serious deviation has come from spiritualist, typically new age currents which have infiltrated Homoeopathy and have led to such serious absurdities as sleep provings of remedies and other aberrations that I will not go into here. All of these practices have created a Homoeopathy which has been “disembodied” and removed from the reality of the patient, preferring to seek answers in the patient’s hidden pseudo-spiritual spaces.
I began working with homeopathy in the 80s and have been practicing since that time. Like many of my colleagues, I have noted that the practice of Homoeopathy has come more and more psycho-spiritual than medical. I do not mean to disparage the field of psychology. However, it should be given the place allocated to it by Hahnemann and Boenninghausen within the overall framework of the study of the patient, as can be seen by simply examining the Organon and Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura.
The teachers who taught me homoeopathy constantly repeated the importance of returning to Hahnemannian homoeopathy, of going back to the sources, but in their practice, nothing was further from reality. In my view, returning to Hahnemann and to the best of his disciples and thus returning to sanity and logical Hahnemannian thinking, is the only thing which can save homoeopathy from the abyss to which it is being led by some schools of thought and pseudo-homoeopathic practice.
From a completely objective point of view, Dr. Gary’s teaching presents a return to the purest of Hahnemman methodological study. Not only that, it also provides security in what we are doing, far removed from the insecurity in the field demonstrated by other so-called homoeopathic practices.
There is an extraordinary coherence and internal logic in the method proposed by Dr. Gary, who himself only picks up the thread of Hahnneman and Boenninghausen’s teachings and demonstrates their implementation.
And it is in this sense that one can speak of a real and true homeopathic evolution
I took a look at the cost of 2 weeks in Seville for an American wanting a vacation and homoeopathic training.
Cost of AirFare USA to Sevilla is between $700 and $1600 depending on date and departure airport.
Hotel for 2 weeks is approx $600-$800
Cost for 5 days personalised training with the IHM is €1000 Euros.
Cost of buying P&W computer repertory at 50% discount if not already owning it is $399.
The 5 days of training is at our IHM clinics. All our staff speak fluent English. Gary Weaver is from Britain and lived in the States for 14 years.
You will study the Organon, Chronic Diseases, Case-taking, Case prescription, how to use the Therapeutic Pocket book, Materia Medica, the LM potency scale, how use and manage.
This is a University level teaching program. Intensive, fact filled but exampled all along the way.
We structure the course so you have free time during the evening, and of course in the second week the time is yours completely…. go visit Cadiz or Granada, take a river cruise and relax by yourself or your family…..
Next English speaking course starts at end of July 2016. (We conduct courses in Spanish and English)
Learn more and contact course details
We offer one free placement for 4 people booking together.
My name is Agata. I am from Poland.
Recently visiting with Gary Weaver in Palma Mallorca for reason of learning casetaking. I am doctor of pediatrics in Poland and use homeopathy. In my visit, Gary had cough and sore throat and I watched it better get with homeopathy.
I have studied homeopathy since 6 years. In short 3 days with him as colleague and friend, we related to homeopathy.
I learned more than all time spent in other studies. He showed me how to observe patient and how to find prescribing symptoms. Always he directed me to Organon and how to use common sense and ‘what is’ rather than speculation. He showed me symptoms appear where they come to and that prescribing symptoms are anywhere and do not need a hierarchy or mind component. He showed me method of giving LM medicines and how to evaluate results.
On my return to home this week. I gave remedy for long problem case here. Gary did not tell me the remedy, he helped me work it in the repertory with right symptoms. It already is working since case came 1 year ago! He is kind man with my English and made sure I understood.
I will book for next year and hope to have friends come and study more. I have much to read and much to learn
Eighty something year old woman, generally in good health and very active in her local community providing bread and cakes for folk.
Went in for Cataract surgery in both eyes. Post procedure, was suffering from dry eyes, a ‘film’ of sticky mucus and obscured vision.
At the same time, an old problem had raised its head again. A diarrhea after eating bread or pancakes.
So the case was analysed: P & W 2015 edition of the Therapeutic Pocket book.
The practitioner was really sure on each symptom he used for analysis.
After reading Pulsatilla, it was administered in water.
The results were within one day. The dryness cleared up, the sticky film disappeared and also the diarrhoea. The patient was advised to steer clear of wheat products.
The patient remains well 2 weeks later.
Practitioner: Ed Nunnery. Dhom med IHM. Sacremento California.