Tag Archives: homeopathy. Hahnemann

Why I dont recommend a homoeopath….

………….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.

We need to clean up our profession.

 

 

 

Advertisements

HOMOEOPATHY EXPLAINED

HOMOEOPATHY EXPLAINED
By John Henry Clarke, M. D.

Hahnemann’s Doctrine of the Chronic Miasms.

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)     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.

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)     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.

 

Accountability.

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.

IHM and Hahnemann

I recently read an article:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/51-facts-about-homeopathy/

maxresdefaultand 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.

Identical women hugging trees in forest (digital composite)

Identical women hugging trees in forest (digital composite)

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.

Symptoms and all that.

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.

185309103Not 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.

So what does the IHM offer?

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 isvasculitis 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.

https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.wordpress.com/personal-training-course/

 

Review of IHM Training: Restoring the Art of Simple, Pure Homeopathy

 

Arden Wong    B.HSc., D.C.H., DHom Med(Lic) I.H.M.    Based in Hong Kong.

23rd September, 2016.

P1060316It’s been about a month since I attended the one week training with Dr Gary Weaver and Vera Resnick of IHM in Seville, August 2016.  And I am still feeling exhilarated from this empowering experience.

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.

espacio_parasol_sevillaI 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.

laptop2P.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 thetpbpw 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!

 

English only 5 day intensive course. Oct 6th-10th. 2016.

Following on this year from teaching practitioners (English language excluding Spanish) from Hong Kong, Austria, Poland and the UK, we have another 5 days mapped out. Starting Thursday the 6th right through till Monday 10th October.

You will be taught in the IHM North Seville clinic for 4 days, and on the Monday will tour a homoeopathic pharmacy and be instructed on the making and usage of the 50 millesimal potency range.                                                                                                     

We will keep you supplied with beverages and snacks and light food so your energy keeps up.

laptop2We will walk you through the teachings of the Organon and Chronic Diseases and show from original sources the foundation of homoeopathy, the therapy. We will build for you Hahnemanns model of casetaking, dispel the myths and show the reality of his methodology. We will present many cases for you at various stages of difficulty to work on and see how the Boenninghausen method of repertorisation works best. We will demonstrate how to understand miasms and how to use them in acute and Chronic diseases.  We will increase your confidence in the therapy by giving you the Hahnemannian guidelines for practice.

There has never been any other way to practice the therapy. What we have today from Kent on is a deviation from the clinically observed practice methodology of Hahnemann. By returning to the proper way, your patients benefit and the practice gains validity again as opposed to modern interpretive practices today which bear the name but not the proper application of the therapeutics. Once more the Materia Medica becomes the bedrock of successful prescribing based on observed symptoms and not speculative thinking.

Contact us at education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com

 

 

 

The IHM and what it stands for.

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 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 methodology, he never made changes to the central prescribing principle of like cures like, without which homeopathy (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.

hahnem14

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 peace maker. 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-homeopaths to practice as they wanted and be still identified as homeopaths. Subsequent to his address knowledge of homeopathy 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 homeopathy 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 boenninghausen goodof 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 a 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 is not the answer.

Video

Case taking