Tag Archives: homoeopathy

Hahnemann by Ameke: a Sound and Reliable Witness.


by Peter Morrell

 


Dream of Egypt, 1995 – Peter Morrell

 

Dr Wilhelm AMEKE (1847-1886)This short piece brings to the attention of others the useful work of Wilhelm Ameke from his little known book ‘A History of Homeopathy.’ Being out of print for over a century and hard to obtain, this useful text illuminates Hahnemann’s life in a fresh and masterful way. This is an interim piece I compiled recently for some lectures, and which will be extended as time permits. In due course, it is hoped that the full text of Ameke might be placed online where all can admire its many gems. This selection mostly focuses upon Ameke’s description of Hahnemann’s views on many clinical matters and snippets regarding the origin of homeopathy. It also highlights what is unusual, important and remarkable in his character as a physician.

***************

Dr Joseph Von QUARIN (1733-1814)Although Hahnemann retained enormous affection and respect for his teacher at Vienna, Dr von Quarin, it remains certain that von Quarin “was an advocate of bleeding till the day of his death,” [Ameke, 59] in 1812. Hahnemann stated, “I owe to him whatever there is of physician in me.” [Ameke, 58] Although Hahnemann “employed bleeding…but he always applied it cautiously.” [Ameke, 67] Though as early “as 1784 he contended…against bleeding,” [Ameke, 67] yet “he still bled in 1797…and [even as late as] 1800 he was not an absolute opponent of it.” [Ameke, 67] But he always felt it was abused and used to excess by most physicians. He “was a great enemy of coffee, but a great advocate of exercise and open air…change of climate and residence at the seaside.” [Ameke, 60] On the therapeutic use of cold water “Hahnemann writes at length…and gives exact instructions.” [Ameke, 62] He always gave “only one remedy at a time, and carefully watched its effects.” [Ameke, 74] For every addition of a “second or a third [remedy] only deranges the object we have in view.” [Ameke, 86] Giving only one drug, we must “wait till its action is exhausted before giving another.” [Ameke, 87] Once he was convinced of something “he enunciated it with the greatest precision, and did not easily allow himself to be turned from it.” [Ameke, 63]

Even as a young physician, Hahnemann seems to “have been unaffected by the prevalent belief in authority,” [Ameke, 59] preferring instead to formulate his own medical views, very largely based upon his powers of reflection and his very keen observational powers.

Tendencies Hahnemann condemned

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)In 1808 Hahnemann sharply condemned the main method of “treating most diseases by scouring out the stomach and bowels.” [Ameke, 94] This is also the “method which regards the diseased body as a mere chemically decomposed mass,” [Ameke, 94] and which regards diseases as having “no other originating cause but mucosities…[inspiring treatments that seek the] combat of putridity.” [Ameke, 94] Such a view also pretends that only by “the strength of the doses of most powerful and costly medicines,” [Ameke, 94] can such disease ever be subdued or cured. Hahnemann bemoans the “search into the internal essence of diseases,” [Ameke, 95] which he regards as an utterly futile endeavour. He also condemns this system as one that respects only “the mechanical origin of diseases…[and] which derives diseases from the original form of the parts.” [Ameke, 95] Such a view he regards as too simplistic, too mechanistic and not sufficiently holistic in its perception of the living organism.

Hahnemann condemned those medical systems that claimed “most diseases were produced by impure and acid humours which were to be expelled from the body,” [Ameke, 42] or which claimed that “most illnesses resulted from gastric impurities, especially bile,” [Ameke, 43] and which therefore believed that “the removal of these matters by emetics and purgatives was the principal means resorted to.” [Ameke, 43] As far as Hahnemann was concerned, such medical systems incorrectly concluded, “purgatives and emetics demonstrated the truth of these theories.” [Ameke, 43] One such idea was “infarcts…an unnatural condition of the blood vessels…distended in various places by ill-concocted, variously degenerated, fluid-bereft, inspissated, viscid, bilious, polypous and coagulated blood…” [Ameke, 43] Hahnemann had nothing but contempt for such theories and regarded them as entirely imaginary concepts and dangerous fantasies with no reality whatever. Therefore, he was equally dismissive of the methods employed such as “clysters…to which various appropriate drugs were added…employed to disperse these infarctus.” [Ameke, 44] This treatment with clysters [enemas] “was much in vogue among physicians, patients and even healthy persons, for many years.” [Ameke, 45]

Hahnemann was as dismissive of clysters and the theories of infarcts as he was of the strong mixed drugs also in vogue at the same time. Such remedies as “senna, spirits of wine, dandelion, rhubarb, sal-ammoniac, mercury, dog’s grass and antimony…which were supposed to cleanse the tubes and passages of the human body from their foul accumulations.” [Ameke, 45] Hahnemann simply did not believe the monstrous theory that every patient had these mythical obstructions and poisons. He was therefore wholly opposed to the idea that they must all be “sweated and purged, puked, bled and salivated,” [Ameke, 45] back to health by these heroic measures.

It is no surprise therefore that he roundly condemned and dismissed on instinct “bleeding, cold, emetics, purgatives, diaphoretics.” [Ameke, 46] He denounced the “vomiting, purging and sweating,” [Ameke, 46] view that “inflammatory matters, impure fermenting substances, acridities and degenerated bile,” [Ameke, 91] were the causes of disease or that they should be “energetically evacuated,” [Ameke, 91] in order to cure the patient. All such talk he depicts as merely a “euphemism for emetics and purgatives,” [Ameke, 92] and indeed, for “the lancet, tepid drinks, miserable diet, emetics, purgatives…[which] threatened to destroy our generation.” [Ameke, 96]

He denounced the use of “blisters, baths, fomentations, anodynes, and repeated enemata,” [Ameke, 68] just as he maintained that “refrigerating and laxative salts, watery drinks, and bleeding act as poisons. Emetics and blisters do harm.” [Ameke, 68] To most practitioners it must have been “very tempting to utilise the great chemical discoveries in the treatment of disease,” [Ameke, 50] but Hahnemann [almost alone] successfully resisted this temptation. Most physicians were “too impatient to utilise,” [Ameke, 50] new discoveries, too eager “to reap when they had barely finished sowing.” [Ameke, 50] They dismally failed to “observe how the functions of their patients were carried on.” [Ameke, 53] Even at this early stage, one can see that Hahnemann was cautiously and judiciously trying to work out precisely why the medicine he had been taught did not work and one can detect his endeavour to find a harmless yet efficacious therapeutic method.

In the early 1790s, he “gave one remedy at a time, and carefully watched its effects.” [Ameke, 74] This sums up his approach very accurately. He also “succeeded in achieving many splendid cures by his simple method of treatment…[soon having] the reputation of a careful and successful practitioner.” [Ameke, 74-5] His basic powers of patient observation were truly remarkable. Not only did he want to know “what is hurtful or irrational,” [Ameke, 87] in the medicine of his day but why and how one can proceed to escape from such a useless muddle. In medicine, he despised whatever was harmful and what did not make sense, usually both together. “That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer.” [Jacob Bronowski (1908–1974), The Ascent of Man, ch. 4 (1973)] Hahnemann had the immense audacity and conviction to “prescribe one single, simple medicament and nothing more,” [Ameke, 97] and then simply wait and observe. This was the essence of his approach for the reform of medicine.

Other influences were also at work in their impact on medicine. One problem that reared its head was “the whirligig of natural philosophy” [Ameke, 48] which had taken hold of many people, most of whom were “suffering from the spirit of the age.” [Ameke, 48] None of this brought any benefit to medicine, according to Hahnemann. It just gave the signal and increased the tendency to invent more wild theories. Yet, in therapeutics, disease was increasingly regarded as a “departure from normal form and composition, that is, anatomical and chemical change.” [Ameke, 49] Consequently, “one theory was superseded by another,” [Ameke, 53] and people frequently switched sides many times. As a result, “dogmatism and a persecuting spirit,” [Ameke, 57] became the dominant spirit, just as if religious sectarianism were breaking out in medicine and inspiring many unnecessarily “embittered disputes.” [Ameke, 58] Eighteenth century medicine was crisis-torn, with rival theories pitched against each other in an unseemly battle for supremacy.

As early as 1784, he “speaks contemptuously of fashionable physicians.” [Ameke, 76] He also tried to “direct the attention of his fellow-practitioners to the many absurdities of the day.” [Ameke, 77] Why? because he wanted them to be more critical. A good example is when he says, “we must forcibly sever ourselves from these deified oracles if we wish to shake off the yoke of ignorance and credulity.” [Ameke, 77] He rebelled against any deference to medical authority [because so and so says this] as a means of validating a method or concept. He insisted on thinking for himself and experiment as a superior path. He infinitely preferred consulting “nature and experience,” [Ameke, 126] to any medical theory.

Hahnemann was taught the medicine of mixed strong drugs, which he confessed, “clung to him more obstinately than the miasma of any disease.” [Ameke, 78] Although in the first few years of his practice he adhered to this approach, “he was gradually emancipating himself from this bad system.” [Ameke, 78] It did not work, in spite of his best efforts. As early as 1784, “he advocates a simple method…instead of the farrago of contradictory prescriptions.” [Ameke, 78] In the year 1798, “he inveighs against the physicians who love prescriptions containing many ingredients…[regarding it as] the height of empiricism…the employment of mixtures of strong medicines.” [Ameke, 81] He was realising that the chief problems were mixed drugs, strong doses and damaging methods like blood-letting, purges and enemas. Nothing in the medicine of his day was either curative or gentle.

Instead of mixed drugs he would increasingly “give only one simple remedy at a time…[Ameke, and so] in these simplest maladies he gave single simple remedies out of the store of existing drugs which was then small.” [Ameke, 80] His careful and methodical approach reveals just “how earnest was his striving after truth and how great his anxiety for the improvement of therapeutics.” [Ameke, 85] He especially “surpassed his mixture-loving contemporaries in the gifts of observation and investigation.” [Ameke, 85] Hahnemann confidently declares that, “using several drugs at once…is the true sign of charlatanism. Quackery always goes hand in hand with complicated mixtures…[which is] so far removed from the simple ways and laws of nature.” [Ameke, 86]

In 1805, he states “a single simple remedy is always…the most beneficial…it is never necessary to give two at once.” [Ameke, 86] He denounces “drugs…which must fight against diseases,” [Ameke, 87] as deriving from a misunderstanding of sickness with such doctors viewing patients “through glasses tinged with ideal systems,” [Ameke, 87] which are utterly useless means to cure sickness. They did this rather than investigate matters for themselves, as he was doing. They obstinately clung to theory and eschewed the spirit of empiricism Hahnemann loved and which was the guiding beacon of his life. No physicians other than Hahnemann “preached this important truth with such energy and such conviction.” [Ameke, 87] He “attacked deference to authority in therapeutics as early as 1786 and 1790.” [Ameke, 87]

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)It is perfectly true that “no physician since Paracelsus had dared to expose with such frankness and boldness the miserable condition of the medical treatment of the period…[and] that requires a thorough reform from top to bottom.” [Ameke, 98] Is modern medicine really any better? Is it less harmful, more logical or more curative? Which, if any?

In therapeutics, Hahnemann regarded the many who became “involved in gossamer subtleties,” [Ameke, 97] as fools, because such was “a misdirection of mental energy,” [Ameke, 97] that might be much better employed for the more serious task of observing patients and using single drugs in small doses. Rather than do that, they foolishly preferred to use “sweetening, diluting, purifying, loosening, thickening, cooling and evacuating measures,” [Ameke, 95] that would not cure the patient anyway. Therefore, in his view, patients faced “the wretched and hopeless choice of one of the numerous methods, almost all equally impotent…[with] no fixed therapeutic principles of acknowledged value.” [Ameke, 99] In medicine, such was the outrageous state of affairs in the early years of the 19th century.

Good Reputation

Hahnemann “acquired a great reputation for his improvements in the practice of medicine, in pharmacology, and especially in hygiene.” [Ameke, iv] Hufeland, for example, “never lost respect for Hahnemann’s genius and services to medicine.” [Ameke, iv] As a translator Hahnemann always “intercalates various improvements and inventions.” [Ameke, 12] He was widely regarded as “a writer who has improved and perfected,” [Ameke, 14] any text translation he undertook. This was no chance comment. Numerous examples exist of this observation. Numerous honours and accomplishments in chemistry and pharmacy preceded his discovery of homeopathy, what Ameke calls “his pre-homeopathic labours.” [Ameke, x] Various writers refer to “Hahnemann’s superiority,” [Ameke, 18] or to this “very valuable book by my esteemed friend, Dr Samuel Hahnemann.” [Ameke, 18]

These comments mostly allude to his innumerable minor discoveries and embellishments to the art of chemistry, or to the value of his translation footnotes all completed before the emergence of homeopathy. For example, “in 1788, Hahnemann discovered the solubility of metallic sulphates in boiling nitric acid.” [Ameke, 28] Another is “the test for wine invented by Dr Hahnemann [which] has especially pleased me.” [Ameke, 29] Or “Hahnemann’s mercury, an excellent and mild preparation, the usefulness of which has been proved.” [Ameke, 32] He is variously described as “a capable physician,” [Ameke, 75] and “one of the most distinguished physicians of Germany…of matured experience and reflection…a man rendered famous by his writings.” [Ameke, 75]

In 1799 one writer alludes to Hahnemann by calling him “a man who has made himself a name in Germany both as a chemist and a practitioner [who] deserves especial recommendation,” [Ameke, 37] and adds that “every article gives evidence of having been written with the greatest care.” [Ameke, 37] Another critic expresses his admiration for “a man who has conferred so many benefits on science…by his valuable translations…that are faithful and successful…[who has] added precious notes which expand and elucidate [the original]” [Ameke, 40] such that “he has thus enhanced the value of the work.” [Ameke, 40] So highly regarded were Hahnemann’s translations “which he has enriched with his own notes.” [Ameke, 40] These “great many explanatory and supplementary remarks…give the translation a great advantage over the original.” [Ameke, 40]

Such writers could clearly appreciate the “thoroughness of his emendations…his short notes…[which] serve to explain the text…and which is enhanced by the translator’s notes.” [Ameke, 40-41] Such comments reveal the clear and unambiguous recognition which he received for his “thorough pharmaceutical knowledge and industry…this celebrated chemist…this meritorious physician…the meritorious Hahnemann…whom chemistry has to thank for many important discoveries.” [Ameke, 41] He is unanimously applauded as one who “has won for himself unfading laurels,” [Ameke, 42] for his contributions to science. Hahnemann was “so much respected and renowned for his valuable services,” [Ameke, 90] that he did not require to “to make himself more popular with the German public.” [Ameke, 90]

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)When Hahnemann correctly stated that “Arsenic does not contain muriatic acid…[this showed] Hahnemann’s superiority,” [Ameke, 18] in points of chemistry. In all his translations, “accuracy prevails everywhere,” [Ameke, 22] and reflects the “extreme care he employed in his labours.” [Ameke, 22] As early as 1784, “Hahnemann advocated the crystallisation of tartar emetic.” [Ameke, 24] It was in the fine details of his corrections and footnote additions that he earned his reputation as a meticulous, highly knowledgeable, diligent and thus reliable scientific translator. In time, he garnered a similar reputation for his work reforming pharmacy, for example, “the regulation and sale of poisons,” [Ameke, 34] the “preservation of odoriferous substances,” [Ameke, 34] and the “evaporation of extracts over water baths.” [Ameke, 34] Ameke also lists many pages of examples of his contributions to pharmacy and examples of his recommended small doses for drugs of all types.

In such innumerable ways Hahnemann was considered to have “enriched our therapeutic thesaurus.” [Ameke, 35] In every case, they all prove “how thoroughly Hahnemann had studied the subject,” [Ameke, 34] in question, whether it was botany, pharmacy or chemistry. It meant that when he made a statement “every page shows that the well informed author speaks from experience,” [Ameke, 37] it shows his great diligence, that he composed work of more than “an ordinary character,” [Ameke, 37] that he always produced “useful work,” [Ameke, 38] and that “he surpassed most of them in knowledge of the subjects,” [Ameke, 38] on which he expounded. Such factors considerably enhanced his scientific credentials.

Dose Reduction

Hahnemann “even wished to see the names of diseases abolished.” [Ameke, 116] Though he recognised the obvious convenience of disease classification schemes, he “always advocated individualisation and taught it systematically.” [Ameke, 116] He felt that giving diseases names was a highly misleading habit that inevitably led to disreputable rote prescribing, and to viewing a sickness as an actual thing. Though he did use crude drugs throughout the 1790s, he developed a peculiar method of administering the drug “in very small but continually increasing doses, till some severe symptoms manifest themselves.” [Ameke, 119] He later called this the ‘primary toxic action’ of a drug. Then the dose was abruptly stopped and beneficial results awaited. He later called this the ‘curative secondary reaction’ of the vital force elicited by a drug [see Organon §57, 59, 63, 64-6, 69, 112, 114-5, 130, 133, 137-8, 161 for primary and secondary effects of drugs]. He gradually diminished the doses he used throughout that decade. He always used smaller doses than his contemporaries, and experimented a great deal in achieving good results from the tiniest doses. These trials obviously flowed from his conviction that large doses were intrinsically harmful and felt it was his duty to find a saner, more rational and less damaging approach to the whole question of dosage of drugs. He soon saw the reform of drug dosage as absolutely crucial for any reform of medicine itself.

Mercury in syphilis is probably “the only instance after 1799 in which he recommends stronger doses.” [Ameke, 121] His method “began with small ones and gradually increased them up to the point of slight toxic action.” [Ameke, 121] In this manner he aimed to transform himself into “the zealous, careful observer, the conscientious physician.” [Ameke, 121] Though he had not as yet “raised the smallness of the dose to a general therapeutic principle,” [Ameke, 121] yet this practice of unrelenting dose experimentation “was peculiar to him, and distinguished him from all his colleagues.” [Ameke, 121] He also “noted accurately the duration of action,” [Ameke, 121] of drugs that he used. No-one else was doing this. And all the while these experiments formed an essential part of “his laudable endeavours to attain to simplicity of treatment.” [Ameke, 121]

In recommending smaller doses for numerous drugs, Hahnemann was basing his view on direct observations of the actions of drugs on the body. Repeatedly, he grounds his medical views not in high-faluting theories but through consulting “nature and experience,” [Ameke, 126] as his chief guides in all that he says. In the footnotes to Cullen [1790], Monro [1791] and the Edinburgh Dispensatorium [1797], he disagrees with almost every dosage listed by the original author, concluding always that “large doses…must do harm.” [Ameke, 126] Instinctively, he rebelled against large doses as harmful.

In every case, therefore, he recommends “an incredibly small quantity,” [Ameke, 127] of the drugs he discusses, because the large doses “multiplied experience will not allow me to advise.” [Ameke, 127] The results “of the zealous and careful researches of our genial investigator forced upon him…the conviction that the doses…accepted as normal, were much too large.” [Ameke, 127] History records “no instance…of a physician ever having attempted to determine the question of the suitable dose with such zealous endeavour as the clear-sighted, indefatigable and thoughtful Hahnemann.” [Ameke, 127]

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)Severing his link with tradition, and basing his views solely upon direct observation and experience, he “proceeded still further in the diminution of the dose.” [Ameke, 128] Nor did he recommend drugs on the old basis. He did not aim “to produce emesis, purgation, or narcosis; neither did he employ them to cleanse the blood of acridities…cutting the phlegm, softening of indurations, or destroying parasites.” [Ameke, 128-9] What such low dose preparations he used did, was to “favourably influence the curative process.” [Ameke, 129] This means they assist the natural healing powers. This was a radically new therapeutic concept.

Furthermore, he found that small doses of the best remedy would create “as great an impression as if they were infants at the breast.” [Ameke, 129] By this he meant, “the sensitiveness of the human body to medicines…transcends all belief.” [Ameke, 129] He especially means sensitivity to similar medicines. He himself was “astounded at his discovery.” [Ameke, 129] He too regarded as incredible “the results obtained by a millionth, a billionth, etc, part of a grain of medicine.” [Ameke, 129] As is now well known, he soon went on to obtain “results which could not be obtained with the crude substances.” [Ameke, 131] Drugs, which obviously contained no detectable substance, still “possessed great healing power.” [Ameke, 131] They heal by their similarity to the case totality and by stimulating the innate self-healing powers.

This breakthrough in dose reduction and medicine preparation also meant that many previously “highly poisonous substances,” [Ameke, 131] could now be brought into harmless use as healing agents. They could indeed be “converted into…powerful remedial agents in the hands of a skilful physician.” [Ameke, 131] Dismissing the views of his “dogmatical and credulous predecessors,” [Ameke, 133] whose theories and “deductions ran counter to the maxims of experience,” [Ameke, 133] Hahnemann, as “a practical physician,” [Ameke, 133] grounded his medical views solely in the “science of experience.” [Ameke, 133] He roundly condemned the “imaginings of physicians,” [Ameke, 133] which he felt to have no place in any rational healing art. What he also called “speculative refinements, arbitrary axioms…dogmatic assumptions…[and the] magnificent conjuring games of so-called theoretical medicine.” [Ameke, 134] Instead, Hahnemann had respect solely for “a science of pure experience…knowledge of the disease to be treated and the actions of drugs.” [Ameke, 134] These, he insists can only be deduced “from pure experience and observation,” [Ameke, 134] rather than from signatures or ‘old wives tales,’ which he despised.

Appearance

Dr Robert Ellis DUDGEON (1820-1904)In his own house “he liked to wear a brightly-flowered dressing-gown, yellow slippers and black velvet cap.” [Ameke, 157] His long pipe “was seldom out of his hand, and this indulgence in tobacco was the only relaxation from his abstemious mode of life…his food extremely frugal.” [Ameke, 157] When seeing patients, instead of a bureau, “he used a large plain square table on which three or four huge folios lay, in which he had entered the histories of the maladies of his patients…[and] in which he wrote down their cases…with the exactness which he recommends in his Organon.” [Ameke, 157]

Source

Wilhelm Ameke, History of Homœopathy, with an appendix on the present state of University medicine, translated by A. E. Drysdale, edited by R. E. Dudgeon, London: E. Gould & Son, 1885.

Advertisements

The Mexico clinic.

This is the personal clinic of Dr Guillermo Zamora in Mexico..

He treats the local populace there for reasonable prices..

 

I love to see how the clinics look and run in other countries…

 

 

 

He dispenses his own medicines.

 

 

 

 

The consulting room…

Is an allopathic qualification essential to being a good homoeopathic practitioner?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E-mail: education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com

Website: https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.wordpress.com

Please feel free to contact us on the email above.

Dear Colleagues.

Is an allopathic qualification essential to being a good homoeopathic practitioner?

After much discussion ~ and based on the reality that most allopathically trained physicians do NOT have a good grasp on the correct practice of homoeopathy, we at the IHM have concluded that it is not, and moreover, that bridging the gap between medical and non-medical homoeopaths is an integral part of the therapy’s future.

To this end, we have decided on the following:

  • We aim to strengthen the IHM’s presence worldwide, and especially in Spain where its headquarters are currently located, by continuing as an independent homoeopathic research and teaching association offering international seminars, practitioner training and master classes. We have presented Seminars since 1987 and formed 5 teaching colleges.
  • To offer IHM membership to medical and non-medical practitioners, according to IHM’s membership requirements, which will endorse a practitioner as a well trained specialist in homoeopathic medicine regardless of allopathic qualifications. We only teach the therapy as per the Organon and do not overlay the writings of Kent or any modern thinking regarding what homoeopathy is.

The IHM Association will comprise of

  • Support members. (Non practitioners.)
  • Student Homoeopaths
  • H.M licentiate Homoeopaths (medical and non medical)

Only Licentiate Practitioners, those who have trained with the IHM and have passed the requisite entry requirements for endorsement, will be promoted on the IHM’s official register.

What we offer:

Based on the writings and thoughts of Samuel Hahnemann,

 “…I have decided to open here in Leipsic, at the beginning of April, an Institute for Graduated Physicians. In this Institute I shall elucidate in every respect the entire homoeopathic system of healing as taught in the “Organon,” and shall make a practical application of it with patients treated in their presence, and thus place my pupils in a condition to be able to practise this system in all cases themselves. A six months’ course will be sufficient to enable any intelligent mind to grasp the principles of this most helpful science of healing. More detailed conditions will be sent on receipt of a prepaid envelope. Dr. Samuel Hahnemann.Leipsic. 4th December, 1811.”

We took a look at the procedure to train persons to become a homoeopathic physician. Knowing that most people cannot take a 6 months sabbatical (as per Hahnemanns proposal) we have devised a method of seminar attendance and home study that spans one year. This will include:

Details pertaining to the professional one year training course. Leading to Licenciateship with the IHM

  • An initial 4 day intensive training session at our Seville Spain faculty. This training is for both neophytes and practicing consultants.
  • A further period of guided home study.Online discussions.Another day 5 training session in our Seville faculty with emphasis on case management.
  • A final assessment by the IHM officers and moderators as to readiness to be placed on the IHM register as a licentiate of the Institute.

(If in the opinion of the training officers, if is thought that a practitioner is of sufficient knowledge and expertise and practices according to Hahnemanns methods, the IHM will consider awarding a licentiateship after the primary one week training.)

What we cover in the 4 day intensive.

  • A thorough grounding in Hahnemanns methodology and teachings.
  • You will see through case analysis how his method of understanding the disease state is superior to any other and allows for an accurate case management program.
  • You will see what a ‘miasm’ is and how to take it into account if required.
  • You will learn LM or Q potencies and how to use them.
  • You will learn rubric understanding of the Therapeutic Pocket Book and see its superiority in case analysis.
  • You will have more success in your practice utilizing Hahnemanns directions.

The languages used for teaching are English or Spanish.

(For those in South America, we also have a IHM teaching course in operation: https://institutodemedicinahomoeopaticaamericalatina.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/curso-de-capacitacion-homeopatica-para-principiantes-online-o-semipresencial/

For those in Asia, we have a course for beginners based in Hong kong. http://homeopathyhk.academy/

For those in Israel we have a practitioner training. Contact vera.homeopath@gmail . com

We will consider traveling to a location and conducting the teaching on site for 6 or more students for the 4 day intensive. Contact us to discuss.

We also conduct 2 day seminars in Spain. Contact us to discuss.

The IHM uses primary source materials for all of its teachings. Gary Weaver and Vladimir Polony compiled the SYNOPSIS computer program and spent 3 years working on updating the 1846 Therapeutic Pocket Book by Boenninghausen, to correct errors of insertion, gradings and removing the incorrect additions by Allen. P & W also clarified the outdated English language and revised the terminology yet remained true to the original meaning. The repertory has been translated from the original German (included in the program) to English, Spanish, Italian, Hebrew and Polish. More languages will be added as and when.

http://homeopathyonline.org/repertories.php

http://homeopathyonline.org/materia_medicas.php

The officers of the IHM are also the teachers.

Manuel Gutiérrez Ontiveros

Licenciado en Medicina por la Universidad de Sevilla, año 1983

Formación en Homeopatía

Estudios en Homeopatía de México

Máster en Homeoptía por la Universidad de Sevilla

Cursos de especialización en Homeopatía con diversos profesores internacionales

Ejercicio en Homeopatía desde el año 1983

Contacto

Consulta: Barriada los Príncipes Parcela 7 Bloque 8, Sevilla

Tlf 606 207 345

e-mail:  mgo1712@yahoo.es

 

Antonio Gil Ortega

Licenciado en Medicina por la Universidad de Sevilla en 1982

Formacion en Homeopatia en Mexico D.F. en 1984-85 por el IMHAC

Formación continuada en Homeopatia por diferentes Profesores Internacionales reconocidos.

Acreditación en Medicina Homeopatica por el Real e Ilustre Colegio Oficial de Médicos de Sevilla

Ejercicio Clínico-Homeopatico desde 1983

Consulta: C/ Guadalupe, 5, 1ºB, Sevilla

Tfno.: 619956365

e-mail: pranada11@gmail.com

 

 

Ed Nunnery

Dhom med (Lic) IHM Licencia de Homeopatia Institute for Homoeopathic Medicina U.S.A. 2010.

Degree in Art.

Degree in Music Theory.

Studied Homoeopathy in the Vithoulkas method 1988.

Studied and practiced the Andre Saine method for 8 years.

Trained with the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine for 4 years.

Semi retired private Practice in Pasadena California. Works for the I.H.M. Administration.

Email: ed@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com

 

Vera Resnick. Dhom med (Lic) IHM.
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
email: vera.homeopath@gmail.com
phone: 972-54-4640736
SKYPE available.

English and Hebrew speaker.

 

Dr. Gary Weaver D.O., Dhommed I.H.M., H.A.Delhi., M.C.C.H (England), H.B.C.C. (India)., Dgrad H.I.Sydney.Dr. Weaver began his studies in Homoeopathy in 1979 training in England and India. In 1987 he became the co-founder of the Manchester College of Classical Homoeopathy and in 1989 founded the Leeds College of Classical Homoeopathy. In 1990 he founded the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine in Dublin Ireland. In 1990 he opened the Kuopio Homoeopathic Education and Research Association in Finland. From 2003-2007 he conducted research into the original repertory of Boenninhausen, and is co- director of OpenRep SYNOPSIS the specialist Boenninghausen software.  Gary Weaver has presented seminars in Australia, India, Hong Kong, Finland Spain and England.

 

Guillermo Zamora.
Médico Cirujano UAG., Dhom med (Lic) IHM
Clinic: Pino Suarez 464 ext. 2 Zamora Michoacán, México
Skype: dr.guillermo.zamora
E-mail: homeopathy5@hotmail.com
Cel: 351-134-7331
Spanish and English spoken

 

 

 

The loneliness of the long distance homoeopath

One day.

Recently a close colleague and friend refered a patient to me. I dont think he felt confident in his abilities to deal with the issue. I totally refute this erroneous notion but once I looked at the scans supplied of the patients disorder, I understood why. I was filled with sadness and dismay. Rarely have I seen such an infiltration of tumours in organs. I knew we were dealing with a small time frame in which to attempt to get get the body to heal itself if at all possible.

One day.

We talked on the phone and as I took the symptoms as felt by the patient, I was struck by the determination to overcome the problem, yet I also felt that the patient knew how difficult a position they were in. I was not asked for a prognosis, because between us in the short time we knew each other, only one hour, there was an openess and honesty present. We both knew what we were dealing with.

We got the core of the issue quickly. I believe our conversation allowed the patient to accept some things about life and let go of troublesome feelings. Relaxation was heard in the voice.

My mind had formulated a symptomatic choice of remedy, yet I wanted to be sure so as to not make a mistake. We talked on the Friday and I said that I would contact again on the Sunday with the remedy choice and protocol for taking.

One day.

24 hours later, the patients life ended due to being overwhelmed with the disease.

Im not a person to cry easily. I am a person to be affected deeply though by emotions. Death is so final. It is the culmination of life. Where there is hope and a quality of life to be had, I expend all my efforts to try and make it happen. I trust my therapy as the best one generally to facilitate that.

I cannot carry this experience as a failure on my part simply because I didnt get to initiate treatment. I am however grateful that I had the chance to talk with the patient and had the chance to extend support and kindness and human love in the hour of need. No promises, no false hopes, just a sharing.

There is no one to blame. It is the results of human biology and hereditary and environmental situations.

Would homoeopathy have helped? Who knows. Sometimes the human body will not respond depending on the maintaining causes, and sometimes a gentle persuasive touch from the similar remedy alters everything towards health.

I know the law of similars is the only real chance a living body has… so I keep going.

Im sorry I wasnt there earlier for you.

 

 

Further thoughts on Psora

A lot of reflective thinking today. If disease development follows infection along a pathway, for example Tuberculosis, there is a known pathology in the aetiology. We expect a singular disease expression. However, Hahnemann opened the concept that all non venereal disease could be linked in some way. He attributed it to skin ailments which could cause internal problems, and of course has had thousands of years to modify.

Conceptually, I accept the link. How it works even evaded Hahnemanns thinking, so he left the matter open for further investigation and consideration.

Here is where I am with it all. Its my thoughts and I take full responsibility if Im wrong…

There is nothing to prevent mankind from being susceptible to all things that affect mankind. Some diseases will overcome the immune system without mercy. SOME individuals will escape the effects but generally, mankind per se will be affected.

In real terms, we as Earths inhabitants, get sick, locally and globally. Some diseases affect nations of certain ethnic characteristics more than another and some nations have no immunity to other nations diseases at all. Yet in this day and age, the world is pretty much an open field as far as disease is concerned.

I postulate the theory that humans to a lesser or greater degree, carry genetically and biologically, the capacity to develop ANY disease as we are predisposed to them, and as such ALL disease share a link. There is no such thing as a PSORA infection. There however is the ability to contage an infection from someone who carries bacteria, or a virus, or a fungus which is PART of the connected worldwide disease source which is classified as Psora. Genetically, I am sure we pass on susceptibility which is triggered when we get infected.

Hahnemann stated that he himself never had Psora. Which logically means that he never contaged a connected disease, but was susceptible to annual acute diseases of no deeper connection.

This allows for people to stop looking for the missing infection of Psora… It is not there. IT never has been. Once infected with certain disease causations, we are open to everything, dependent on our immunity and level of health.

I welcome thoughts on this topic.

A students first prescription.

I was talking with the student who told me of this case, and I decided to write it up for her as a reminder of her first CASE taking and prescription. This student has studied the repertory very hard, to understand the meaning of the rubrics. English is her second language as with members of the Hong Kong Academy so I am doubly impressed with the efforts.

A family member caught a cold. She had a bland watery discharge from the nose. Body felt OK but eyes were tired, wanting to close which felt better. Appetite normal, Not much thirst but found herself wanting to drink water. Also had a chilliness internally, and feeling cold. There was a small cough present but not definable. As there were 121 remedies in cough rubric, it was left out because the other SX would cover.

Based on this, a careful evaluation of the sx led to this prescription.

So what happened? Within a day all sx cleared up. However, The patient had a Chicken Pie the next day and a cough developed.

Her SX were:

1. feeling itchy in throat 

2. cough but no expectoration 

3. feeling better after water

4. feel like something in throat

5. saliva more than normal

6. feeling cold.

She phoned me at this point, a little disheartened thinking that perhaps she had failed, so I spent time showing her how disease progresses and changes with SX and how we have to follow them as they develop. She was more than happy and competent to go back and re evaluate. I asked her to look at original rubric list and remove SX that were no longer there and add new Sx.

She came to this rep chart.

The patient has not been given any medicine due to not being around, but on reading the MM the student feels Phos fits the picture better than Nux now.

When a student has learned to trust the Materia Medica as the final arbiter in a case, I know that they have understood. Makes me very happy.

 

Intuition and Homoeopathy.

There is a trend with Kentian trained homoeopaths, to learn remedies based on personality prescriptions. The training undergone by the practitioners is slanted that way to make it ‘easier’ to prescribe.

The problem with this type of prescribing and remedy comprehension, is simply that it is wrong and dangerous.

Remedies dont have personalities. They are a collection of symptoms produced by a substance. The substances ‘poison’ the living host to produce reaction and the reactive host develops symptoms based entirely on the content of the substance and in the same manner every time. By attributing personalities to the remedy, it destroys the rationale of finding a disease state in a person or animal based on individual symptoms rather than being influenced by the ‘personality’ of the remedy, ie, sulphur is a dirty unkempt dreamer of many things.

I have been in the company of a ‘homoeopath’ for a week who uses intuition and kinesiology to prescribe. A sick patient was in his clinic and he asked me what I would give… after 5 minutes and checking a symptom in the repertory, I made a prescription. He took the bottle of the medicine I prescribed, placed it on her neck and raised her arm. He said, “I dont feel this remedy is correct” and gave her something else. I said to him gently that the patient was very sick and that the remedy I prescribed, in my experience and knowledge of both the disease and the remedy, would be effective in stopping a progression the acute disease.

He said that his intuition confirmed by the muscle testing said otherwise. Later that day, the patient worsened and was taken to hospital…. The homoeopath explained to me that obviously the patient was too sick for the remedy to work! The father of the patient, who had been in the room during our conversation, phoned me later that night, and told me the sx were the same and wanted to know the remedy name I prescribed to give the child. He came to my clinic, picked up the remedy and administered it. The child broke the fever, perspired and was feeling better in 7 hours.

I consider myself intuitive. I see intuition as a subconscious assimilation of experiences, observations and learned knowledge that is tucked away in the recesses of the mind. Many times in observing a patient, I have a feel for a medicine, BUT is based on symptoms expressed that I subconsciously have picked up through my senses and have observed before or have read about… I still balance this intuitive feel with the concrete reality of the Materia Medica.

Having the experience of thousands and thousands of patients over the years, there is knowledge assimilated of symptoms that respond to a certain remedy or treatment protocol. I see a triad of symptoms and recognise the ‘picture’ of a remedy which has these clinical characteristics, and despite the disease name, are present.

I am also keenly aware of subconscious behavioral changes in my relationships. I know when something is not quite right or is different or off. I may not know why, however I know something is going on. I think humans develop similar body behaviour patterns that a discerning observer can pick up subconsciously and relate to previous experiences and thus see what is going to happen shortly, and it does.

Intuition based on solid experience and training is helpful. Based on a false spiritual foundation will fail all too often.

When I work with my colleague Manuel in the clinic, we will come to a remedy based on solid logical reasons. However a few times, Manuel will say to me “you are not happy with this prescription are you?” This is a cue to re-evaluate the case and look for things we had missed.  I am unhappy with the prescription simply because it did not match the pace, pitch and power of my experience with the remedy. It does not “feel right” even though the symptoms match.

We had a child with a bad cold and pains in his body…difficult to get sx as was just less than 2 years old. He had been sick for a week. We arrived at a remedy…. this was a  “you are not happy with this prescription are you?” time.

So we just observed a little more. He was sat in the clinic, the temp was hot, just a diaper on… when the fan blew on him, it did not bother him at all. Our clinic table is glass. I picked the child up and placed him on the table. He immediately began to cry. A minute later I placed his hand on the table and he began to cry again.

I used the rubrics AGGRAVATION cold becoming, part of the body, and touching an object cold. These and other symptoms led us to RHUS TOX as the remedy. he was better the next day.

The correct use of intuition, willing to trust the inner knowledge gained with experience, is a good thing. However, is best to hone the intuition with checking the facts.

 

Hong Kong Seminar.

The IHM was invited to Hong Kong to have a four day Seminar with the Hong Kong Academy of Homoeopathy.

We had 4 days of intensive study together. A lot of case work, analysis, a couple of live cases and discussions on the use of LM medicines, both preparation and how to use following the protocols of the Paris notebooks of Hahnemann. We discussed Miasms and their influence today in illness, and a whole host of other subjects.

Considering that the students were relative newcomers to homoeopathy, it was interesting to see how from day one to day four, their abilities to focus on a case and look for correct symptoms increased dramatically as they applied the Hahnemannian protocols. We had three senior doctors from Bangkok join us for the seminar. A pleasure to see them.

Overseas Seminar season begins

The IHM begins its 2018 seminar season in Hong Kong. A four day intense at the Hong Kong academy of Homoeopathy starting March 10th.

The Principal of the Academy, Arden Wong, attended an intensive in Seville Spain to learn more regarding the use and application of the Therapeutic Pocket Book a year ago and invited me to the college to teach his students. The IHM was impressed with the knowledge and application of Homoeopathy in practice of Arden, so much so that he was awarded a licentiateship of the Institute after completion of the course.

We are looking forward to association with the students and also Drs and practitioners from other countries who are attending.

 

 

 

 

 

Why Boenninghausen?

Translated from the Spanish. Original Post here: https://institutodemedicinahomoeopaticaamericalatina.wordpress.com/por-que-boenninghausen/

By Dr. Guillermo Zamora, Surgeon UAG, Dhom. Lic. For the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.

The story begins about 14 years ago, when I was a little dissatisfied with the results of the method I was taught in the postgraduate school (the Kentian), I began to investigate other possibilities of obtaining a more exact remedy in my prescriptions.

At that time, one of our teachers, who taught the aforementioned method, alluded to a small book of medical matter that she held in her hand, and affirmed that her father (the founder of the school) was very successful in his prescriptions thanks to that work. At that time I paid close attention to that book and wrote down all the details of the reference on a small piece of blank sheet. Time later, I began to read it and I realized that it was a medical matter that contained symptoms that were called “Keynotes” (Key symptoms) … something completely removed from the logic of Kent.

Once I graduated, I decided to create a flowchart, which I organized based on the information contained in this work and some others that contained Keynotes symptoms. I arranged in different divisions corresponding for example to the locations, circumstances, Mentals, Sensations, Modalities, and many others. It took more than a year to finish ordering ALL the symptoms in this work.

 

Flowchart

While I was doing the work I was impregnated with the keynote symptoms of this little book which I read and reread no less than 6 or 7 times, while my effectiveness rate improved day after day. It drew my attention that at some point the author quoted a certain Boenninghausen, at that time someone unknown to me, but as I divided my flow chart I began to realize that Keynotes were nothing other than COMBINATIONS of one location + one modality, or of a sensation with a modality, or even in some occasions, of a location with a sensation. For this reason, a little later I decided to get a copy of the Therapeutic Pocket Book (TPB), version 1846 of Boenninghausen.

During the time I tried to use this copy, an English version, the truth is that I was very confused to use it; I did not have a clear idea of ​​how to use it, and I was not familiar with it either. Most of the time, I used my flow chart, and to a lesser extent Kent’s repertoire to consult some rubric. However, although the effectiveness rate had increased markedly (say 20 to 50-60%), I still felt dissatisfied with the result.

One day, there comes one of those moments that you think you are not going to touch, and one of my children begins to get sick of the skin (Dermatitis), coming to present on one occasion Ritter syndrome (a disease caused by golden Staphylococcus) . Despite all my efforts, both in my diagram and through the use of Kent ‘s repertoire, only Rhus – T was thrown at me , which was in accordance with the recommendation of several international homeopaths whom I had asked for an interconsultation. If anything, the recommendation was made to use Sulfur as an alternative. Anyway, frustratingly these remedies did not give the desired result.

It is then, that after having read some of his dissertations, and astonished by the content of them, appears on the scene Dr. Gary Weaver, President of the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine, who selflessly and making use of his knowledge and expertise in The TPB, helped me with my son’s case. He told me that my conclusion of Rhus-T through my tools was logical and even close to the diagnosis, but that in reality the remedy was Sepia . Little convinced of his diagnosis, I followed every step in his prescription. The result that would come shortly after would be surprising; and a couple of remedy changes along the way would be enough to solve the case completely.

Thus through this excellent homeopath I acquired knowledge really Hahnemannian method and I realized the great favors a good tool offers ( s for this reason that translated the TPB of Polony & Weaver Spanish ).  Today, Dr. Gary Weaver is still the person to whom I consult when I have problems in the family. Recently, another of my loved ones almost died (literally) from a kidney problem, and once I learned that when emotions are mixed, it is better to consult a colleague, he gave me an example of the success obtained when using a good tool in the correct way.

During this learning process, I understood that in those combinations that I observed during the construction of my flow chart, the Keynote symptom was always made up of a part that was very consistent in the proving, and of another that was shared by few remedies ( as I now know that Guernsey claimed), and that most came from the Therapeutic Pocket Book of Boenninghausen. But I also realized that the TPB is built by the abstraction of symptoms from the provings and that it has the quality of being able to be used in order to recombine by analogysymptoms to obtain an infinity of combinations that have never even been seen before in a proving. That’s why we can deduce, that many combinations were out of those Keynotes. Therefore, it is also important to mention that this process of abstraction and recombination during the taking of a case has a specific methodology, which makes this repertoire a unique and indispensable work.

Nowadays I use the Boenninghausen repertoire most of the time in my daily practice (95%), sometimes I consult my flow chart (4%) and very rarely (Kent’s repertoire) (1%). My effectiveness rate has been increasing, from 85-95%.

You may ask: Is it possible to succeed using Kent’s repertoire? The answer is YES, but with a certain margin of error, and as long as we have an acceptable knowledge of Pure Materia Medica (and EC), we know what rubrics to use and what is the true method to take a case according to the Hahnemann guidelines. , who until now has only been misinterpreted and little investigated by most of the schools, even those that advertise themselves as very “Hahnemannian”. On the contrary, it is rare school that comes to support a seminar like ours, unique in its kind. What has happened is similar to the game of the “decomposed telephone” where a message that is given at the origin arrives completely distorted to the last receiver. By then, when we arrive with an apparently “new” message, but that simply was NOT taken into account (or was not known about it), interests are affected (school programs, homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc. ) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science was a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc.) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc.) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and really researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. or in the most measured of commentaries it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and really investigated. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home.

In the case of the teachers of the IMH none will teach a personal opinion, nor will teach philosophy, much less dare to tell you that they discovered the black thread or that they are the black thread as many modern gurus who are out there wanting self-proclaimed and that really AFFECT what is most important for a conscious homeopath; to his patients. The IMH teachers will only teach you genuine Homeopathy, as Hahnemann taught it and with which he cured tuberculosis, syphilis, pneumonia, psychosis, diarrhea, etc. etc. etc.

Now; returning to the best homeopath in history (after Hahnemann), Dr. Boenninghausen; I know that what I can say, being a little known person, may not have much value, but it is the same Hahnemann who bears witness to the sagacity of Boenninghausen. Hahnemann considered the work of Boenninghausen as one of the best works as we can see in the footnote number 109 of paragraph 153 in the Organon 6th. Edition:

“Dr. Von Boenninghausen, for the publication of the characteristic symptoms of homeopathic medicines and for his Repertory, has rendered a great service to Homeopathy …”

This repertoire fell into disuse given the popularity of Kent’s repertoire. However, thanks to the research of the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine team on the original works and materials, it has been possible to elucidate that the Boenninghausen repertoire, specifically the Therapeutic Pocket Book version 1846, leads to the methodology established by Hahnemann himself; this repertoire is in itself, a SYNOPSIS of everything that constitutes case-taking and follow-up. This is reflected in the following testimony of Hahnemann:

“… .Bon von Bönninghausen of Münster has studied and captured my homeopathic treatment system so completely that as a homeopath it deserves to be given full confidence, and if I fell ill and could not help myself, I would not be entrusted to any other doctor . “

… Haehl, R .: Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, 1922, 2 volumes, Indian edition, BJain, New Delhi, 1985, vol.2, p.483.

Only a few schools have made the decision to make a change in teaching, and only a handful of homeopaths have taken the decision in a personal and independent way to align themselves with the instructions proposed by Hahnemann by virtue of compliance with the principle of similar.

Is it too late to restore what has been destroyed?