Tag Archives: homeopathy. Hahnemann
The IHM is posting a wonderful and informative article by Dr. Guillermo Zamora, MD , Homeopath written in 2010.
As Homoeopathic physicians, we are often asked if usage is made of antibiotics in cases of infection, and I have long held that at times, judicious application of them may be necessary. This article will give food for thought. (Editor G.W.)
It is clear that at Dr. Hahnemann´s times, was unknown the existence of microbial life, however, it seems to be that Dr. Hahemann in some way alluded to the possibility that something else could cause illness. We can see this in the following paragraphs of the Organon:
Paragraph 31, Organon, 6th ed:
“The inimical forces, partly psychical, partly physical, to which our terrestrial existence is exposed, which are termed morbific noxious agents, do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally1; but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently disposed and susceptible to attack of the morbific cause that may be present, and to be altered in its health, deranged and made to undergo abnormal sensations and functions – hence they do not produce disease in every one nor at all times.”
In the next paragraph, Dr Hahnemann refers to the infectious miasmas:
- 78 Sixth Edition
“The true natural chronic diseases are those that arise from a chronic miasm, which when left to themselves, and unchecked by the employment of those remedies that are specific for them, always go on increasing and growing worse, notwithstanding the best mental and corporeal regimen, and torment the patient to the end of his life with ever aggravated sufferings. These, excepting those produced by medical malpractice (§ 74), are the most numerous and greatest scourges of the human race; for the most robust constitution, the best regulated mode of living and the most vigorous energy of the vital force are insufficient for their eradication.1”
Please read the footnote.
“1 During the flourishing years of youth and with the commencement of regular menstruation joined to a mode of life beneficial to soul, heart and body, they remain unrecognized for years. Those afflicted appeal in perfect health to their relatives and acquaintances and the disease that was received by infection or inheritance seems to have wholly disappeared. But in later years, after adverse events and conditions of life, they are sure to appear anew and develop the more rapidly and assume a more serious character in proportion as the vital principle has become disturbed by debilitating passions, worry and care, but especially when disordered by inappropriate medicinal treatment”.
Often come to mind the famous quotes of the famous Dr. Kent:
“I wonder if scientists reflect when they make statements about bacteria. Naturally they would say that the more bacteria the more danger, but this is not so.”
“Save the life of the patient first and don’t worry about the bacteria. They are useless things.”
“The Bacterium is an innocent feller, and if he carries disease he carries the Simple Substance which causes disease, just as an elephant would.”
In this last sentence, I wonder if the bacteria would transport only the simple substance or they are able to carry more than that, for example: Exotoxins.
*Exoenzyme (Taken from wikipedia):
“An exoenzyme, or extracellular enzyme, is an enzyme that is secreted by a cellL and that works outside of that cellL. It is usually used for breaking up large molecules that would not be able to enter the cell otherwise.”
“An exotoxin is a toxin excreted by a microorganism , including bacteria, fungi, algae, and protozoa. An exotoxin can cause damage to the host by destroying cells or disrupting normal cellular metabolism. They are highly potent and can cause major damage to the host. Exotoxins may be secreted, or, similar to endotoxins, may be released during lysis of the cell.
Most exotoxins can be destroyed by heating. They may exert their effect locally or produce systemic effects. Well known exotoxins include the botulinum toxin produced by Clostridium botulinum and the Corynebacterium diphtheriae exotoxin which is produced during life threatening symptoms of diphtheria.
Exotoxins are susceptible to antibodies produced by the immune system, but many exotoxins are so toxic that they may be fatal to the host before the immune system has a chance to mount defenses against it.”
It is according to the last paragraph where I would focus more, overall, to mention some of the most dangerous bacteria or bacterial gender in medicine.
Taken from: “ Microbiología Médica de Volk, 3rd edition.”
- Staphylococcus Aureus:
Gram + bacteria, which produces a light golden pigment, called Polysaccharide A. The ability of these to cause disease depends on its resistance to be phagocytosed and its production of extracellular toxins and enzymes, for example:
Coagulase: This is an extracellular enzyme coagulase-reacting normally present in plasma (perhaps prothrombin) and plasma coagulation by converting fibrinogen into fibrin. The only pathogenic effect has been suggested for this enzyme is covering with fibrin microorganisms to inhibit phagocytosis.
Staphylococcal hemolysins: There are four: Alpha, beta, gamma and delta: It has been shown that alpha toxin, damages the smooth muscle cells and also destroys the skin (it dermonecrotic). It is also toxic to macrophages, platelets, and causes degranulation of PMNs.
Beta toxin is an enzyme that reacts with phosphorylcholine sphingomyelin to separate and further cooling causes cell rupture.
Gamma toxin, produces red blood cell destruction.
The toxin delta: injured a large number of blood cells and the injury apparently is a consequence of the reaction of hydrophobic amino acids in the phospholipids of the cell membrane.
Leukocidin: This toxin is composed of two separable components that act synergistically to cause damage to polymorphonuclear cells and macrophages.
Exfoliatina: This exotoxin, encoded by a plasmid, cause “severe exfoliative dermatitis” (Please see the case at the end); or also called “scalded skin syndrome of Staphylococcal origin”. It is characterized by the formation of wrinkles and exfoliation of the epidermis, resulting in significant loss of fluid through the skin bare. The epidermal sloughing is caused by an exotoxin diffusible, and thus infecting staphyloccocus may be present or absent in the affected skin area.
Staphylococcal enterotoxins: This exotoxin, causes food poisoning characterized by severe diarrhea and committees. Have been described 6 antigenically distinct enterotoxins A, B, C1, C2, D and E. These toxins are not destroyed and can be termoestabiles even if the food is heated sufficiently to destroy viable staphylococci.
Pyrogenic toxins: These toxins intensify the susceptibility to toxic shock (such as that occurs in women using tampons during menstruation) and cause a similar rash of scarlet fever.
Penicillinase: Enzyme capable of destroying penicillin.
- Excherinchia Coli:
- Coli: This produces one or two different toxins, the so-called thermolabile LT and is destroyed by heating at 85 degrees C for 30 minutes, and the thermostable, designated with the letters ST and is not destroyed by heating at 100 degrees C for 30 minutes.
E. Coli causes gastrointestinal infections in a severe way and sometimes fatal in infants. In adults, the infection is known by many names, for example, “Traveler’s diarrhea.” It can cause cystitis, pyelonephritis, abscesses, even sepsis.
So, as these two microorganisms producing lethal exotoxines, there are some more such as the following:
- The Clostridium Genre, for exemple, Clostridium Perfringens , C. Boulinum
- The Bacillus Genre : Bacillus Cereus (Rare and are required high concentrations of microrganisms). Bacillus Anthracis.
- Pseudomona Aeruginosa.
It seems that the quantity in number of bacteria is also important because for this it will depend the amount of toxins circulating in the body
Furthermore, and as I wrote in my article “How could coexist conventional medicine and homeopathy?”:
“III.-Poisons (i.e. bites of venenous animals, intoxications by known chemical substances), : These cases should not be viewed as dynamic diseases, therefore must be treated with the antidote from conventional medicine and / or supportive measures such as dialysis, antibodies filtration and some immunoglobulin used in immunology for blocking of certain toxins”
Now, I would add “And diseases produced by microorganisms producing lethal exotoxines should not be taken as dynamic diseases; therefore antibiotics should be used on circumstances where lethal toxins are endangering the patient´s life”
Of course, I would like to know about cured cases regarding this matter. Kindly, I invite you to share them with me.
This is a staphylococcus skin case of mine which was treated homeopathically for 5 days. A Lycopodium patient, male, 6 years old (Lycopodium the first two days was improving burning pain, itching, drying vesicles).
4 days of evolution (behind left knee)
Behind right knee
After 5 days the patient still was developing new vesicle eruptions and the vesicles that had dried, they were wet again. Furthermore, the patient started to get sloughing and fall of large areas of skin (exfoliation or desquamation) on more than 10% of body surface (As if he were burned). I made several changes: Belladonna (on the third day) and Arsenicum (5th day) … No results. Neither worsening nor improvement.
In this article, I could talk about my successful cases, however, it could be that I had failed (homeopathy never fails), or it could be that there is the need to establish new criteria in order to increase the patient´s safety. I must say that after 5 days, I took the patient to the hospital, and I administered antibiotics against Staphylococcus aureus. Locally, I washed his skin lesions (Three times a day) with soap and water and later I used Cantharis MT (5 drops into a glass water). The patient improved almost 100% in two days, therefore he was taken out of hospital. Doctors were surprised for the quick response and nobody believed that during six years the child had never taken antibiotics, but only homeopathy.
I was recently asked about Phosphorous in eruptions. Specifically I was asked why Phosphorous doesn’t appear in the TPB symptom Eruption, pustules (symptom no. 1426 in P&W Synopsis), when the word “pustule” appears twice in Hahnemann’s proving.
In the proving “Pustules” appears in the following contexts:
431 – Eruption of pimples in the face
432 – Eruption of pimples on both of the cheeks.
433 – Frequent pustules and scurf from suppuration in the face, after the least lesion of its skin.
434 – Rough, red, mottled eruption of the face, slightly elevated. [Ng.].
459 – Burning pain on the red of the lower lip, with white blisters on the inner side of it, with burning pain (aft. 11 d.).
460 – The lower lip is cracked wide open, in the middle.
461 – An itching spot on the left lower jaw, he had to scratch it raw.
462 – Itching of the upper lip, with pain after rubbing.
463 – Swollen upper lip, every morning.
464 – Eruption on the red of both the lips, at times with stitches.
465 – Pustules on the commissures of the lips.
Trawling through Merriam Webster revealed that although pustules usually refer only to blister-like eruptions, and not always to pus filled ones, it is often used interchangeably with pimples, used to imply a more impressive presence of the eruption.
So bearing in mind that when looking through provings we are dealing with several levels of translation – from sensation to words in German, from words of the prover to Hahnemann’s collated and edited proving in German, and from Hahnemann’s German to modern (fairly) English – we probably have to include pimples in this. This is P&W’s footnote on the TPB rubric:
 Pustules, any type of skin eruptions, which elevate over the skin and can be filled either with pus or pus-like fluid and form crusts that may or may not erode the skin.
Why have I put you through so many pimples and pustules? Because this kind of question is why so many people miss the point when starting to work with the TPB.
The TPB is essentially a practical manual, a guide to materia medica. It reflects how Boenninghausen used the provings in his clinic, how he searched for information and how he deduced the symptoms to use and the remedies to investigate.
So you may be dealing with pimples. Or pustules. Or pimples which are turning into pustules. In the case I was asked about, the practitioner seemed fairly sure of the Phosphorous for the other symptoms, but found the absence of the remedy in pimples gave him reason to hesitate.
In such cases the issue is not whether the eruption is a pimple or a pustule. The issue is far more about the nature of the pimple/pustule.
– Is it crusted?
– Is there fluid in the pimple/pustule?
– Is there a colour, a texture, a smell?
– Is there pain on touching?
– Is there constant pain, and what is its nature? Burning, aching, stitching?
– Is the patient crippled with embarrassment about the pimple/pustule, much more than usually?
– Is it before/during/after menses?
– Is it after binge eating?
Do you see where I’m going with this? The remedy will become clear not from the question “what is it, pimple or pustule?” but from all the other questions. To remind you of Boenninghausen’s questions:
Quis – Who is the patient, what does he do, what’s his usual state of health
Quid – What is the complaint – sensation
Ubi – Where is the problem – location
Quibus Auxilibus – with what/concomitants
Cur – Why, trigger, maintaining causes
Quomodo – Modalities, aggravations and ameliorations
Quando – Time modalities, occurrence, aggravation and amelioration.
My main point here is that learning to work with Boenninghausen means learning to think very differently about symptoms and case-taking. If you’re starting out with Boenninghausen from a Kentian background – as I did – looking for rubrics can feel like hunting for a tooth which has been pulled out. You will not find the rubric you’re looking for if you’re searching for Face, eruptions, cheeks, pustule, yellow, excoriating. If you’re lucky – as you will be here, you will find Face eruptions cheeks. And you’ll have to look for the rest step by step – Eruptions yellow, eruptions excoriating, pustules (and pimples). My preference is to look more for the smell, the color, the modalities – and then once I’ve narrowed things down to several remedies, to search for the other qualities through the reversed materia medica and through the proving itself.
“………….I live in XXXXX, can you recommend a homoeopath?”
We all get asked. I have a policy of not suggesting a name if I dont know anyone personally. I found it to be a fatal error to do so.
“……..You look so elegant, a long neck, for these reasons I am going to prescribe SWAN 1m for you….”
“………..You said you felt like you were drowning in problems, that your business was under water, for these reasons I am only going to look at sea mammal remedies for the similimum….”
At some point I gave up on mainstream homoeopathy. The therapy has lost its way. The people who use the medicines, I am loath to call them homoeopaths, have succumbed to the quasi healer thinking in the schools and never did learn to be physicians, instead relying on disparate teachings of the sensation method and mentalisations rather than solid prescribing symptoms. Most have not read the Organon or understand disease process and prefer to put their trust in the Universe rather than Hahnemanns directions.
A few year ago, a well known female homoeopath, prominent in her public persona and a staunch supporter of Sankaran, got very sick with food poisoning… for some reason she called me. I noted the symptoms, prescribed and waited on the phone with her as the medicine did its work and cleared the system. She never acknowledged it. Later I saw her lauding the power of the remedy but neglecting to mention me or the help she received. She did not have much to do with me after the episode… too embarrassed I guess that a person who practises in the Hahnemannian way saved her life.
Some of the modern provings are based on dreams, and used even though the person who had the dream NEVER took the remedy! Yet vast swathes of modern prescribers use the remedies and swear by their effectiveness, only to later drop the remedy from their medicine kit and privately admit they were not effective. This because the proving overseer is a ‘master practitioner’. This is a another fallacy simply because a well trained homoeopath would never let such a poorly tested and proven remedy see the light of day.
A colleague of mine in another country, is constantly amazed when talking to recently graduated practitioners that they know little or NOTHING of the Organon. “How can they treat people without knowing Hahnemanns instructions? she asked……… I just shrug.
By John Henry Clarke, M. D.
Hahnemann’s Doctrine of the Chronic Miasms.
By “chronic disease” Hahnemann did not mean exactly the same thing as is now generally understood by the phrase – a disease that lasts a long time and is incurable. To make his meaning clear, I can not do better than quote Hahnemann’s own definition of acute and chronic diseases, from paragraph 72 of his Organon :-
“The diseases to which is liable are either rapid morbid processes of the abnormally deranged vital force, which have a tendency to finish their course more or less quickly, but always in a moderate time – these are termed acute diseases ; or they are diseases of such a character that, with small, often imperceptible beginnings, dynamically derange the living organism, each in its own peculiar manner, and cause it to deviate from the healthy condition in such a way that the automatic life energy, called vital force, whose office it is preserve the health, only opposes to them at the commencement and during their progress, imperfect, unsuitable, useless resistance, but must helplessly suffer (them to spread and ) itself to be more and more abnormally deranged, until at length the organism is destroyed ; these are termed chronic diseases. They are caused by infection from a chronic miasm.”
By “miasm” Hahnemann means an infectious principle, which, when taken into the organism, may set up a specific disease. According to Hahnemann, there were not only miasms of acute disease, like the infectious principle of scarlatina, for example, but also of chronic diseases. Among the latter he recognised three-syphilis, sycosis and psora. The first is the lues venerea, which is recognised by all schools alike. The second is allied to this, but is distinguished by the production of characteristic warty growths. The third is a discovery of Hahnemann’s, about which there has been the greatest misconception.
Before giving an account of what Hahnemann meant by “psora,” I will give a familiar instance of a chronic miasm – the disease set up by vaccination. Vaccinia or “Cow-pox,” as the late Dr. Matthews Duncan pointed out, is extremely analogous to syphilis in many of its characters, and not the least in the appearance of secondary disorders after the primary illness is over. The course of the disease is well known. The virus having been introduced through an abrasion of the skin, in about a week inflammation occurs at the spot. Then there appears first a vesicle, then a pustule, then a scab, and finally a scar when the scab drops off. During the time that this series of events is occurring, constitutional symptoms manifest themselves, chiefly in the form of fever and undefined malaise. When the healing has taken place, three may be nothing more occur. The organism may have reacted perfectly and discharged the miasm. But this is not often the case. The diminished susceptibility to small-pox infection shows a change of a deep constitutional character. This constitutional change has been named “vaccinosis” by Burnett, and, as I can attest, is the parent of much chronic illness. Often skin eruptions occur, lasting for years, or various other kinds of ill-health, lasting, it may be, as long as life lasts, and not seldom shortening life. When such a series of disorders occurs, it is not (according to Hahnemann’s doctrine, though he did not use this illustration) a succession of new diseases, but different evolutions of one and the same disease, the “miasm” of Vaccinia producing the chronic malady, vaccinosis.
In the early years of his homeopathic practice Hahnemann noticed that in certain cases the remedies he gave only produced temporary benefit. In these cases he found that the homśopathically of the remedies given was not complete. There was some factor in the case which had not been matched. It became apparent to him, then, that he had not only to take account of the malady from also of previous and apparently different maladies. And he found the remedies which corresponded, in their action, to the whole course of the pathological life of a patient were needed for a cure ; and through his provings he discovered what these deeply acting remedies were.
Many cases he met with in practice in which the ill-health dated from the suppression of a skin disease, probably years before. That skin disease, said Hahnemann, is really a part of the present disorder. To take a common example, asthma is often found to appear after the “cure” by external means of a skin disorder. The patient is not suffering from two diseases : there is, according to Hahnemann’s pathology, one chronic miasm at work producing the two effects.
The large majority of chronic diseases Hahnemann traced to the chronic miasm he termed “psora,” and he maintained on the skin of the miasm was an eruption of itching vesicles, of which the itch vesicle was a type. It has of which the itch vesicle was a type. It has been started that Hahnemann ascribed to the itch the production of nine-tenths of chronic diseases, and he has been accused of ignorance in not knowing that itch was caused by an insect. But Hahnemann not only knew of the itch-insect, he actually figured it in one of his works. But he maintained that, in spite of the presence of the insect, this was not the whole of the disease – just as the tubercle bacillus is not the whole of pulmonary consumption. If it were, no doctors would escape consumption, since they inhale the bacillus constantly from their patients. “The itch,” Hahnemann maintained, “is chiefly an internal disease’. ‘Psora is an internal disease – a sort of internal itch – an may exist with or without an eruption upon the skin.’ ‘Psora forms the basis of the itch.’ To the reckless suppression of the chief external symptoms of psora Hahnemann ascribed the prevalence of chronic disorders.
To put it in other words, the psora doctrine of Hahnemann is practically the same as the doctrine of certain French authorities who ascribe a great variety of chronic diseases to what they call a ‘herpetic diathesis’, that is to say, a morbid state of the organism liable to manifest itself on the skin by an itching vesicular eruption.
The essential truth of Hahnemann’s doctrine may be seen by taking a glance at the history of individuals and families. The skin eruptions of childhood, the late development of bones and teeth, the anaemia of puberty, and the consumption which finally carries off the patient, are not so many different diseases, but different manifestations of one and the same disease, whether we call it ‘psora’ with Hahnemann, or ‘herpetic diathesis’ with the French. Then, again, take a family : one member has enlarged and inflamed glands, one ulceration of the eyes, one a chronic cough, one hysteria, one eczema. They are all children of the same parents, with the same elements of heredity, and their diseases are essentially one and the same, only manifesting itself differently in different individuals. This disease Hahnemann called a ‘chronic miasm’. The seat of its operations is the vital force, which can only be freed from it by dynamically acting homśopathic remedies.
In his study of the chronic miasms Hahnemann found many other very characteristic symptoms besides the occurrence of eruptions on the skin; and he found remedies having corresponding symptoms, which he gave to patients with signal success. Among those remedies which he found to produce symptoms likest to those occurring in psoric patients, Sulphur takes the foremost place.
Hahnemann’s great works on Chronic Diseases gives the symptoms of these remedies at length. This work, of which the full title is “The Chronic Diseases : their Specific Nature and Homśopathic Treatment,” is the crowning work of Hahnemann’s career.
It will be seen from the above sketch that Hahnemann’s theory of disease is profoundly philosophical and intensity practical. It is as far as possible removed from tentative and fragmentary theories of disease current in his own and in our day. Hahnemann’s pathology goes hand in hand with treatment, and is thus checked at every step by the test of practice.
Here in Spain, It would appear that members of the administration committee including the president of the medical associations, do not like homoeopathy. They have passed an edict banning medically qualified homoeopaths from using the facilities in every town and city belonging to their members. NO more meetings, no more seminars…. no more anything to do with homoeopathy.
This single act of arrogance affects not only the doctors, but also the general public. In this regard, they are acting a lot like our American cousins in government, who know something is illegal but do it anyway. The wait until someone challenges them, waste a lot of money and then rescind the order down the line.
However in this case, the leadership IS accountable and not under governmental protection and in my singular view, should be removed from their positions because they have acted purposefully and selfishly in accord with their own prejudices. I hope the legal challenge that is coming will ask for reproof including dismissal from office.
I recently read an article:
and laughed my way through the rebuttals given by Mark Crislip on October 24, 2008. I was not laughing at him but with him. From a modern medical point of view, the questions raised have not been answered properly by homoeopaths.
Firstly, our profession is in the midst of a great confusion. We have the majority of practitioners who have not learned the application of homoeopathy properly or understand clearly that it is a medical application of therapeutics to stimulate the immune response by giving a substance that will produce an artifically induced increase in certain symptoms from an external substance, and thus produce a more focused response from the organism to deal with the problem.
It has nothing to do with personality or disposition and everything to do with physiological expressions of the disease as expressed through the symptoms. It is a misnomer to say we treat the patient not the disease. We treat the disease.
We have a profession who misunderstand what a miasm is and prescribe incorrectly based on their erroneous view.
We have a profession with a large percentage of metaphysical thinkers who do not practice homoeopathy with understanding, utilising polypharmacy, the sensation method, false provings protocols, the elements and periodic table for remedy association etc etc.
We have a profession that teaches the religious view of Swedenborg through Kent as opposed to Hahnemanns many years of experimentations and conclusions.
We have a profession that is on the verge of extinction. Ostentiably from external pressures, yet I cant help feeling that the profession brought it upon itself.
Its not like its hard to understand the practice methodology… just reading the Organon and Chronic disease AS IS, without the Kentian spiritual overlay will do that for you. Letting go of any thoughts of it being a natural healing will do that for you….. grasping the reality that it is a MEDICAL practice of therapeutic application and not assigning personalities to medicines, and just seeing them as a symptom producing substance will aid in your understanding .
I give Pulsatilla to more men than women in colds and fever and urinary issue symptoms… that blows the blue eyed blonde girl tag right out the window….
We dont have a well regulated system of training in homoeopathy. So many variations on practice that the student is not catered to from the original sources. 90% of the ‘names’ in modern homoeopathy practice a variation or a deviation of the methodology that it is not funny anymore. How is a student to know what is real or not?
How would a student know which college to go to for training? Everyone claims to be Hahnemann based, everyone claims to teach the right way.
The IHM have been attacked for being “elitist” and “stuck in a fundamentalist mode”, “not keeping up with advances in homoeopathy”, for being “arrogant in our sureity of Hahnemanns methodology without really knowing the full picture of life and health and the things Hahnemann got wrong in his understanding in the 18th century…”
We at the IHM practice homoeopathy as a medical therapy based on the entire protocols as defined by Hahnemann. We do not make excuses for that.Without him there is no comprehension of the principles in action. Without him there is no approach to health care unless the steps he advocates are followed carefully. Without adherence to HIS protocols, there is no answer to the issues when a case gets complicated or goes wrong.
In the intensive 5 day teaching course, we relate EVERYTHING to sourced material with many examples, and always defer to Hahnemannian principles both in practice and health care. We show the PROTOCOLS for practice methodology and where to find the information pertaining to them from Hahnemann. We discuss openly and compare his observations with HIS cases and others as examples in matching the ESSENTIAL symptoms of disease presented in every patient… We dissect line by line his thoughts on miasms, what they are and how to use the knowledge of them to move a case forward…. we look at each step of the process in case management as outlined by him and show HOW and WHY he treats in the manner advocated. We will show his methodology of giving the LM potencies and the clinically observed benefits of using them in practice. We even offer a Boenninghausen LM 0/1 remedy kit to the course participants at an amazing price.
We will be starting the new year with two new training courses in Seville Spain. One in Spanish and one in English. Details will follow.
So aphorism 6 is the bedrock of detailing how symptoms expressed by the organism in disease, both mental and physical, are the totality of disease. Wonderful, we have the complete picture of the disease now.
Yet, and in truth… it doesn’t really help except where an application of common sense and thought process is applied to the knowledge.
Here is the rub. Most homoeopaths just throw symptoms into the repertory, lots of them and gives what comes up top.
Not so fast you prescribers, not so fast.
Aphorism 153 details what we do with the picture of the disease.
the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure.
The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.
This is finding the essential nature of the disease from which all other symptoms spring, and thus can be ignored.
We teach this in the course with case examples. Many case examples.
The IHM is a non partisan organisation. There is no allegiance or affinity towards any modern thinking or methodology that contradicts the researched and clinically proven system of medicine as defined by Hahnemann. For the IHM, it seems totally logical to work with a protocol that will lead to a positive conclusion as per utilising the provings, and that can be repeated time and time again even in different illnesses as long as that condition or state exists. This is good medicine.
So we pass on the research via seminars, teaching courses, personal training of practitioners, a clinical training venue, a difficult patient clinic and a pharmacy that makes the medicines correctly.
At our Seville Spain HQ. we are conducting International 5 day intensive training courses for practitioners. These intensives are designed to instill factual knowledge and also give a thorough grounding in Hahnemanns methodology of casetaking and prescribing. We use many many case examples to demonstrate the thinking of Hahnemann. We show what is important in Hahnemanns view in the case to differentiate a prescribing symptom from the mass of symptoms collected from the patient. Plus MANY other things direct from Hahnemann.
For a practitioner, the 5 day intensive will make clear a lot of things not learned in schools or practice. It will give the solid Hahnemannian directives for how to give medicines, how to gauge medicinal action and how to manage the patient.
We have developed a facsimili copy of the 1846 Therapeutic Pocket book and updated it in terms of language, correcting the grading and also wrong remedy insertions. We have in Spanish, English, Italian and Hebrew, along with the ORIGINAL German version. We discuss rubric meanings in the course.
We have an ENGLISH speaking 5 day course starting 6th October. Hotel prices are very reasonable in October.
We have only 3 places left for the SPANISH course starting 27th October. Book soon or places will be filled by someone else.
Arden Wong B.HSc., D.C.H., DHom Med(Lic) I.H.M. Based in Hong Kong.
23rd September, 2016.
Revisiting Hahnemann’s philosophy of the pure similia, removing unnecessary theories, demystifying modern mis-interpretations of miasm theories, unlearning the overlay of Kent and others, what I achieve is clarity of mind, confidence in case-taking, logic in clinical reasoning, and, immediately improved clinical results.
During the training, I was given lots of case exercises with pictures and videos. We analysed the cases based on Hahnemann’s instructions outlined in the Organon, and repertorised with P&W’s edition of Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook (TPB) with the most precise rubrics. We worked the cases step by step. I also presented some difficult cases from my own clinic. I found out where my weakness had been, and where I could work on. I witnessed how simple accurate application of Hahnemann’s guidelines and Boenninghausen’s method can solve acute and chronic, minor and severe pathologies with less effort and each step with clear logic.
I have been in full-time clinical practice for over 14 years and learned from various teachers and schools of thoughts. Yet, it turns out that we are all mostly repeating the same mistakes in spite of all the ‘innovations’ from the masters and gurus. Some major errors and detours are:
- Excessive emphasis on mental symptoms and psychological analysis.
- New materia medica based on clinical symptoms without basis of provings. ‘Materia medica’ presented as ‘remedy personality portraits’, ‘constitutional pictures’ and ‘themes’ based on creative imaginations and theoretical speculations.
- Repertories ever expanding not in a non-homeopathic way. Old and new remedies are added to old rubrics. New rubrics are created from imaginations (namely ‘practitioner clinical experiences’, ‘meditative provings’). Unfortunately, few of them are based on high quality provings.
As a result, unprejudiced observation in case taking is biased to mental sphere with reduced details in morbid phenomena on the physical level. Inaccurate materia medica knowledge dominates our mind from subjective experiences and writings of gurus and teachers, rather than precise provings records. Unreliable modern repertories are glutted with unproven information. It’s emperor’s new cloth: homeopathic remedies today are no longer prescribed on the principle of similia.
Fortunately, I have found out that by restoring pure homeopathy: matching patient symptoms to proving symptoms, with the aid of provings-based repertory and pure materia medica, clinical results is warranted. Cure is certain. The physician’s mission is accomplished.
P.S. Why I chose to study with Dr. Gary Weaver? He is the translator of the Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook (Polony & Weaver Edition 2014). He studied the source materials from Hahnemann and Boenninghausen and verified every rubric and remedy in the repertory. TPB is by far the most reliably repertory based primarily on provings and the proven method of Boenninghausen’s and approved by Hahnemann. TPB(P&W 2014 edition) is the most faithful and accurate rendering of Boenninghausen’s TPB (1846) in modern understandable English. (I have compared a few other translations.) Learning from Dr. Weaver helps me clarify and understand the meaning of many rubrics in the original context. That’s priceless knowledge!
P.P.S. I got a bonus from the course. Vera Resnick’s session on studying Hahnemann’s provings. Honestly, few people today care to read them. Studying the Hahnemann’s pure materia medica is a daunting task. Vera has developed a systematic approach to ‘dissect’ the provings. Her historical knowledge of the provers also make understanding the provings more relevant and lively. Her presentation has debunked so many common misnomers of big polychrests. That’s eye-opening!