Tag Archives: homoeopathy

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.



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?

FDA: All Homeopathic Drugs Illegal 

FDA: All Homeopathic Drugs Illegal


But not all will be pulled from the market, yet. Action Alert!

The policy comes in the form of a guidance document, which lays out the FDA’s current position on the regulation of homeopathic drugs.

In the guidance, the FDA says:

  1. Any homeopathic drug that has not been considered “generally recognized as safe and effective” (GRAS/E) is considered a new drug;
  2. FDA has not determined that any homeopathic drugs are GRAS/E;
  3. A new drug cannot be marketed unless it goes through the FDA’s approval process;
  4. No homeopathic drugs have gone through FDA approval nor can any producer afford to take them through the approval process.

That’s right: in one fell swoop, the FDA has declared that virtually every single homeopathic drug on the market is being sold illegally. The guidance explains that the agency will apply a risk-based regulatory approach that will prioritize enforcement actions against:

  • products with reported safety concerns;
  • products that contain or claim to contain ingredients associated with potentially significant safety concerns, e.g., belladonna or strychnine;
  • products for routes of administration other than oral and topical, e.g., injectable and ophthalmic products;
  • products intended to be used for the prevention or treatment of serious and/or life-threatening diseases and conditions, e.g., cancer, heart disease and opioid addition;
  • products for vulnerable populations, e.g., children; and
  • products that are deemed adulterated under FDC Act § 501, e.g., do not meet standards of quality, strength or purity as required under the law.

The FDA also says that it recognizes that many homeopathic drugs fall outside of these categories and does not intend to take action against such products at this time, but the writing is on the wall. If it wants to, the FDA could go after any homeopathic drug currently on the market.

Is this level of regulatory scrutiny necessary? No. Although prior to the release of FDA’s guidance document homeopathic drugs did not need to go through the New Drug Approval process, they underwent a different kind of pre-market approval.  Homeopathic drugs traditionally required a monograph from the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS), which involves clinical verification of the efficacy of the substance.

FDA’s process started two years ago, when the agency held a public hearing to evaluate its enforcement policies for homeopathic products. We suspected the agency was planning to tighten its grip on homeopathy, which, after all, competes with the pharmaceutical drugs that fund the FDA.

Causal Medicine and homoeopathy. (2 of 2)

Part 1 https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/causal-medicine-and-homoeopathy/

We left off in the preceding post after bringing up the subject of Miasms. The intention is that students of Homoeopathy obtain accurate understanding of Hahnemanns words and meaning, so as to be confident practitioners in the therapy.

Let us begin by giving you facts to consider.

Hahnemann published a pamphlet in 1831 regarding what he then thought to be the mode of propagation of the Asiatic Cholera (see Lesser Writings, page 753 Pages may vary in different printings.) In this work he used such expressions as “excessively minute invisible living creatures so inimical to human life of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consist. The physicians and nurses take away with them in their clothes in their hair, probably also in their breath, the invisible [probably animated) contagious matter surrounding the cholera patient”.

you cannot take Hahnemann’s conjecture resting on probabilities in 1831 to be his real conviction or his assumed foreknowledge of modern Bacilli to be the cause or spreading agent of cholera. Evidence shows that Hahnemann never repeated or confirmed by his subsequent writing up to 1843,  (the time of his death) what he had tentatively  written in 1831.

Hahnemann eschewed the materialism of his time and promulgated that it is the vital force, (Life Principle, Immune system) the immaterial, invisible force which keeps man alive, happy and prosperous in health to realise the higher purposes of his existence. but when deranged by the dynamic influence of morbific agents inimical to life, it produces disagreeable sensations in the organism and bends it to irregular processes which the physician can ascertain symptoms to render aid.

These disagreeable sensations etc. occur during an overpowering attack of immaterial miasm (infection) on the immaterial vital force on the invisible immaterial plane.

For infection takes place by affection of the Vital Force (Life Principle, Immune System) with immaterial, invisible, miasmatic (infectious) influences which lead ultimately to material changes, where you find Bacteria, Bacilli etc in the human economy.

The meaning of the dynamic influence has been clearly explained byHahnemann in the foot-note of aphorism 11 (6th edition Organon). There he writes, “The dynamic effect of the sick making influences upon healthy man as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the vital principle in the restoration of health, is nothing else than infection and so not in anyway material, nor in any way mechanical, just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material or mechanical. It is purely specific, conceptual influence that communicates to a near child, small-pox or measles in the same way as a magnet communicates to the near needle, the magnetic Property . Again, if one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this antiperistaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination ?”

Thus we see, Hahnemann speaks of vital force, disease producing force and medicinal force—all these are invisible, immaterial, conceptual and spirit-like forces.

To drag him down to the material plane of Bacteriology, is an error which every thinking rational Homceopath should avoid religiously. To inaugurate the bacteria theory and infuse it into the minds of innocent students instead of susceptibility or vital weakness as cause of disease (as said by Hahnemann) is simply to axe out Hahnemannian Homceopathy.

Hahnemann’s statement from his Lesser Writings published in 1831 regarding the spread of Cholera occurring on board the ships in the river Ganges in India.

He is reported to have said: “In the confined spaces, filled with mouldy, watery vapours the cholera miasm finds a favourite element for its multiplication and grows [Please note here, the real meaning of The invisible cholera miasm” gradually developing into material form from internal, invisible, immaterial state
(as is natural in every infection) into an enormously increased brood of these excessively minute, invisible living creatures so inimical to life of which the contagious matter of cholera most probably consists. The cause of this is undoubtedly the invisible cloud that hovers closely around the sailors who have remained free from the disease composed of probably millions of the miasmatic (Means—developed from miasm, or resultant disease from an infection) animated beings which at first developed on the broad marshy banks of the tepid Ganges always searching out in preference the human being to his destruction. This pestiferous, infectious matter as he calls it, “which is carried about in the clothes, hair, beards, soiled hands, instruments of physicians, nurses and others seems to spread the infection and cause epidemics. “

Hahnemann never saw or admitted any material cause, Bacteria or Bacilli, as is clearly apparent from quotations from his subsequent writings in the Organon without any doubt 0r probability as shown above.  Here, I should again draw the attention to the fact that this statement in the Lesser Writings naturally of lesser importance and authenticity was never referred to by Hahnemann in his future writings.

It was made, without actually seeing a case of cholera, without visiting India, without having a glimpse of the Ganges, without feeling the temperatures of the waters of the Ganges so pleasant and something more than pleasingly cool (Hahnemann described it as tepid) without having the good fortune of knowing the wonderful antiseptic properties of the cold stream which comes down from the Himalayas. But Hahnemann describes it as tepid for want of actual experience. Another wonderful feature of the statement is that it is qualified by the words “Seems”, “Probably”, “Most probably” as stated above. To make a passing remark without actually seeing a disease or anything connected with it, is one affair and solid opinion formed after close observation and handling it, is certainly essentially different. The theoretical assumptions are liable to be falsified by cool thinking, practical and repeated observations or experience extending over a length of time. Maybe the reality is that Hahnemann was passing through a doubtful state of mind but he never settled into a solid opinion as it appears from later writings.

But correctly speaking his assumption is due to misinterpretation.

In the preface of the the sixth edition of the Organon published in 1843 Hahnemann says: “It can easily convince every reflecting person that the diseases of man are not caused by any substance, any acridity, that is to say disease matter but they are solely spirit-like (dynamic) derangements of the spirit-like power [vital principle) that animates the human body (Aph 11.).

Here, please notice, there is no word “probably” etc. in the assertion of Hahnemann. This was written in 1833 and published in 1843, that is, at least two years if not ten years after Hahnemann’s observation regarding the probable affection and spread of Cholera published in 1831.

In the 11th para of Organon Hahnemann says—“When a person falls ill it is only the spiritual self-acting (automatic) vital force everywhere present in the organism that is primarily deranged by the dynamic influence of morbific agent inimical to life, it is the vital principle deranged to such an abnormal state that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations and incline it to irregular processes which we call disease.”

Again in the 12th para he repeats the same thing “it is morbidly affected vital forces alone that produces the disease.”

In a foot-note to the 12th para Hahnemann says “How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is how it produces disease, it would be of no utility to physician to know.”

This remark was made by Hahnemann here only because he had bitter experience in trying to explain how cholera spreads or affects persons with a probable, i.e., doubtful theory.

Now what was the bitter experience he had? It was the challenge by Dr. Hufeland, of his theory of the “Probable” cause of the spread of cholera. quoting from the Lesser Writings of Hahnemann,. At para 758 Hahnemann says:—

The Only fact brought forward by Hufeland against my proofs that on board an English Ship in the open sea about the latitude of Riga that had no communication (?)with the town two sailors were suddenly seized with the cholera, proves nothing, for it is not known how near the ship came to the infected town of Riga so that the sphere of miasm exhalation from the town although diluted might yet have reached and infected the sailors who were still unused to the miasm (infecting agent) especially if they as is often the case were rendered more susceptible to it from intemperance.”

Here Hahnemann being cornered by Hufeland has been compelled to admit that sailors on board the ship near Riga were attacked with cholera not from infectious matter washed out from the town, a far-fetched idea, but was attacked with the miasm (infecting agent) of cholera being susceptible to it from the lowered vitality or vital weakness due to their intemperance, etc. Now everybody with common sense is bound to admit that sailors on board the ship in the Ganges were also affected with cholera, from the same cause of lowered vitality caused by intemperance, etc. The dismal unhealthy condition which helped the growth of cholera miasm (infecting agent) certainly lowered the vitality of sailors also on the Ganges. Of course, the bad odour, mouldy atmosphere, etc., added fuel to the fire in spreading the disease. So the meteoric or telluric influences causing sporadic or epidemic attacks of Acute diseases cannot be thrown overboard with bad logic or fallacious arguments. What Hahnemann had published in 1843 in Organon must have greater authenticity than what he gave out in his Lesser Writings.

The most striking example of infection and rapid spread of cholera as is well-known and as the journals inform us in this way:

“On board ships in the confined spaces filled with watery vapours the cholera miasm (infecting agent)  finds a favourable element for its Multiplication, etc.”

If the sailors on the sea near Riga are liable to attack of cholera without any actual contact due to intemperance lowering the power of vital force to resist the disease miasm (infecting agent) the sailors on board the ship near the shore of the Ganges living under same unhealthy condition and character had their vitality lowered by intemperance. The same causes have been expressed in paragraph 73 of the Organon of epidemic diseases which prevail among thickly congregated masses of human beings. That calamities of war, inundations and famine also produce Acute diseases by lowering the strength of the vital force and thereby developing susceptibility to diseases when innumerable persons gather together and live under unhealthy conditions and privations, is readily understandable.

Hahnemann says:—
Morbific noxious agents do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently susceptible to the attack of the morbific cause—(Organon aph 31).

The truth is unless the vital force is weak and susceptible, no acute or chronic miasm can ever affect the vital force.

To clarify further.

The second edition of Hahnemann’s “Chronic Diseases” was published by parts between 1835 and 1838. In that edition Hahnemann retained those passages in the body of his book, which refer to “the parasitic existence” of Chronic miasms (vide p. 9, para 2, Chronic Disease, Second Edition 1835) and not merely the very suggestive foot-notes In the sixth edition of Organon (the manuscript of which he was supposed to have completed in 1843 or in February1842, according to Haehl) in a foot-note to sec. 80 he refers the readers to the above-mentioned 2nd edition of “Chronic Disease”.

This shows that what he conceived of the nature of miasms was maintained by him till his death. During the Cholera Epidemic years of 1831 and 1832 Hahnemann was a resolute, clear thinking man of seventy-six. So his writings during this period came out of a mature brain and were not of “lesser” importance just because his scattered articles were collected and published in a book form by Dr. Dudgeon under the name “Lesser Writings”.

Dr. Dudgeon, for instance, charged Hahnemann with “frequent changes and repetition of the same thing, etc.” He certainly failed to reckon the necessities for introduction of a perplexing new thing in questions of life and death. Others with more profound knowledge found in Hahnemann’s huge writings which they mostly misunderstood unwarranted presumption, dogmatic assertion, obscure conception, undue generalisation, incomplete formulations and arguments in a vicious circle.

We point out that Hahnemann was a cautious scientist. How could he write otherwise in absence of positive visual observation? But his intuition and clear logic led him to hint about the invisible living beings which had something to do with incidence and spread of the Cholera disease in an epidemic form. Here a bit of medical history will clarify the situation. Long before Hahnemann’s birth the microscope was invented. The researches of Kircher, Malphigii, Leewenhoek, Hooker etc. (during 1626-1651) established the existence of microbes. But till Hahnemann’s time it was not definitely known whether pathogenic micro-organisms did exist or in the event of their existence whether they had any causal relation with the human organism in the production of diseases. The idea of infection by micro-organisms was also hinted at by G. Fracastoro when he published his book “De Contagione” in 1546 after the great plague epidemic in Europe. Hahnemann was a scholar and a voracious reader. He must have known about Fracastoro’s writings. During the Cholera epidemic the people and medical men were confronted with the same problems of checking the spread of the disease as during the previousplague period. Though Hahnemann, in the beginning was against all classification and nomenclature of diseases, the epidemic diseases where many persons were simultaneously attacked with a very similar type of disease set him thinking deeply and led him to conclude about the existence of “fixed miasms”—proofs of which are before our eyes in his writings of Sec. 73 (Organon, 6th Ed.).  Hahnemann came to fix the nature of these “fixed miasms” as living micro-organisms. He wrote four letters concerning Cholera during June to October in 1831—where he not only gave clear hints about the nature of the causative agents, their mode of transmission, their curative treatment but also about the preventive steps to be taken to check the spread of that terrible disease. He wrote about sterilising the infected clothes with a heat of about 80°C; and certainly Hahnemann did not think of sterilising “immaterial, conceptual, spirit-like dynamic forces” with heat (Haehl’s Biography of Hahnemann).

The then medical profession including the great Dr. Hufeland stood for the atmospheric-telluric theory for the cholera epidemic and decried the preventive measures suggested byHahnemann. It was Hahnemann alone who stood for the microbic nature of infection which has been proved up to the hilt by systematic researches of Pasteur and Koch. That Hahnemannwas cornered by Hufeland in certain points proves nothing but the fact that the full and precise knowledge about transmission of infecting organisms was not known to the former. Hahnemann  through sheer intuition and clear logic and correct observations anticipated their works.That Hahnemann meant by “miasm” what we mean by microbes is established beyond any doubt.

Dynamic action.

Negatively it is an action other than mechanical, physical or chemical. Positively it is a qualitative action. If the drugs can possess dynamic action, if the human organism can exert dynamic action, why not the living micro-organisms no matter whether they are visible or invisible ? Allopathy tries toexplain the modus operandi of the process of infection by the interaction of the chemistry of the body with the toxins secreted by the microbes. Hahnemann, on the other hand, claims that the chemico-physical processes just fall short of the total and complex living phenomena. As the drugs act on the living body through their essential qualities besides their physico chemical properties, so the living microbes can also act through their essential qualities (possessed by their life-force) to change the qualitative state of the organism. That’s all, where is the
difficulty to understand this simple thing? During Hahnemann’s time the word “miasm” was used loosely to express many things viz., morbific emanations from putrescent organic matter, animal or vegetable, and sometimes the effluvia arising from the bodies of those affected by certain diseases some of which were regarded as infectious and others not. Hahnemann fixed the connotation and denotation of this vaguely used word—miasm. From the Organon it can be clearly proved that Hahnemann included physical, psychic and these biological causes under the general name of morbific noxious agents. But all these agents act on the living organism through dynamic (i.e., qualitative) actions and interactions to alter the state of health of the organism. The inclusion of biological agents i.e., miasms (in old terminology) or microbes (in modern terminology) in the list of the morbific noxious agents i.e., “contagium Vivum” is the greatest contribution of Hahnemann in the field of medical thought. Dyna- mis means force and force is always invisible and imperceptible to our senses but their existence is inferred through their workings. The immaterial force must have a material vehicle. As substantial entity of a drug is the vehicle and carrier of its dynamic property, so the microbic body is the vehicle and carrier of their dynamic property. Where is the difficulty to understand this?

Hahnemann talked about “Dynamic influences of morbific agents”—and we tried to establish the identity of one group of the morbific agents. Bacteria etc., are living beings and not material substances. Bacteria belong to the group of fission-fungi of the plant kingdom. Hahnemann could not possibly know that but surmised that they must be living beings. He used the word “animated”.

Our human organism is an integrated indivisible whole of mentalised
living matter. It presents different aspects—material, vital and mental—which we take as distinctive entities for the facilitation of our comprehension (aph 15 of Organon 6th Ed.), but which are not so in factual reality. Here, again, we give credit to Hahnemann for anticipating the psycho-somatic conception of modern times. The truth is that the human organism is neither a machine nor a chemical factory nor a vital or psychic being, each to the exclusion of all others but it is a whole including all aspects and at the same time transcending them all. But towards the end of his life Hahnemann leaned more and more to the pure vitalistic school whereas the rapid advances in the knowledge of physical sciences tipped the balance on the side of the materialistic school. History reveals that he was more influenced by the theories of Stahl, Barthez and Hoffmann , who all belonged to the animistic and vitalistic school though
he tried to keep away from the irrational parts of their theories.

Comparative study of the successive editions of Organon shows that this allusion to “vital force” occurs first in the 5th Edition (1833) as “vital force” has often been substituted for the words “Organism”, body, state of health of the previous
edition. In the 6th edition he came to believe in the substantial entity of the vital principle. But this trenchant division into rival schools of thought has lost its significance as the latest development in the knowledge of physical sciences has served to dematerialise matter and found mass and energy to be convertible terms and as theoretical physics pushed to its extremes is on the point of losing itself in the realms of metaphysics. We feel a contradiction and conflict in Hahnemann’s ideas if we read sees. 11, 12, 13 with 15 of Organon, (6th edition). In sec. 15 we read the body-life as a complex indivisible whole, although “in thought our mind separates this unity into two distinct conceptions for the sake of easy comprehension. Here the factual reality is that the body and life are not two entirely separate substantial entities; whereas in aphs. 11, 12, 13 we are given to understand that it is only the vital principle which is primarily affected in disease and which leads to subsequent disorders in the material body. There is a mechanical view of cause and effect implicit behind this statement which Hahnemann shared with the sixteenth and the seventeenth century physicians that the living body did not work itself but it was tenanted by a principle that made it “live”, something immaterial that used the body as a craftsman uses a tool.  But if life and body are inseparable and one cannot exist without the other what happens when a man dies ? Surely something which kept the organism alive is missing and the vitalistic school pounced upon this phenomena and asserted the independent existence of the life-principle.

Neither the science nor the philosophy of the West could explain this apparently anomalous phenomenon. For an explanation we have to delve deep into the
realm of metaphysics which is just the thing Hahnemann wanted us to avoid. That is why in a footnote to aph. 31 he wrote that he did not wish to give a hyper-physical (i.e., metaphysical) explanation of the internal nature of the disease or the essential nature of life-force in healthy or unhealthy condition. To him disease is just a state of alteration in health i.e., a qualitative change comprising sensational and functional changes which are perceptible to our senses. The human organism has a material part (body) which is also liable to change but it is the qualitative change which the patient feels and suffers therefrom. But here Hahnemann apparently forgets his body-life integration and like a pure vitalist asserts that this qualitative change is absolutely independent of physico-chemical alterations of the physical body.

This statement has served to make the confusion worse.. The real truth is that though life can never be adequately explained through physico chemical processes it is as futile and untrue to say that life does not consist of chemico-physical processes as to say that poetry does not consist of words.  In our Surface-existence mind, life and body are integrated into an indivisible whole. To our senses are perceptible the phenomena of physical mind and physical life which do not exist apart from the material body. But the true mind and true life can exist apart from the body which go away in the event of death. ‘All diseases with which we medical men are concerned belong to our physical nature, whether in the gross physical or vital physical or the mental-physical level. We do not treat mind and life as such but as a mentalised living body. For in this world of matter everything is manifested through it. We do not see Life or mind existing by itself but always as a ‘bodied’ life and embodied mind. How the mind or life has come to be embodied is a metaphysical problem beyond our ordinary mental conception. Hahnemann referred to this fact in his foot-note No. 8 to sec. 12 of Organon, 6th Edition.

Hahnemann did not, could not, and wanted not to delve into these metaphysical questions. He stuck to the plane of phenomena on which he could tread with surer steps and he was satisfied to deduce only those conceptions which were warranted from his observations. Still he was a child of his times and leaned to vitalistic school in his later years. That is why Hughes regarded Hahnemann’s vital theory as a physiological hypothesis.

In aph 31 of Organon 6th Edition, Hahnemann writes that the action of drugs on the living organism is almost unconditional whereas the miasmatic infection is very much conditional, the susceptibility of the organism being a prior condition. As it takes two hands to produce a clap so we require the living body’s susceptibility on the one hand and the miasm, on the other for eventual pro- duction of disease. Leaving the miasm or microbe out of consideration and talking about the production of diseases only with the living body’s susceptibility is one-sided and incomplete. This distorted view axes out the Hahnemannian Homoeopathy. Hahnemann perfectly anticipated that the miasms (microbes) were not the absolute cause but only a conditioned cause in the production of diseases.

Bacteriology has solved the problem to a great extent of prevention of acute diseases, whether sporadic or epidemic; and Bacteriology has rounded off the theory of chronic diseases as propounded by Hahnemann. Whatever may be Hahnemann’s conception of the nature of the morbific agents his approach to the therapeutic problem is different from that of the Allopathic School.

Truth never cramps anyone’s mind; reception of truth leads to further mental expansion. The Organon is a critique of medical philosophy for all times.

A proper and accurate study of Hahnemann’s writing will never lead to difficulty but on the other hand will serve to clear away many misconceptions that have accumulated round the Homoeopathic philosophy.


  • B.K.Sarkar.
  • Samuel Hahnemann
  • Richard Haehl
  • Clements Boenninghausen

Causal Medicine and homoeopathy. (1 of 2)

The Thrust of modern medicine is to find causes of disease conditions and to  remove them with the idea that by removing the cause the effect will cease and result in cure of a disease.

According to the thinking of mainstream medicine,  three things have been pointed  out as causal factors  of  diseases, e.g.,  pathological structure,  pathological  function  and  indirectly pathogenic bacteria capable of producing disease conditions.

Science postulates the  cause is  the invariable,  unconditional  and immediate antecedent of the effect or the sum-total of conditions, positive and negative, taken together which  are sufficient to produce the  effect without the presence of any  other antecedent  or in other  words,  in scientific investigations,  the  cause must be regarded as the entire aggregate of conditions or circumstances requisite to the effect.

However it can easily be demonstrated that neither structure, nor function or  micro-organisms possess the  properties of cause (strictly according to the  canons of logic), which are as  follows:

  • when the cause appears the effect must always follow it;
  • when the cause  disappears the  effect must always disappear;
  • when the cause varies the  effect must always  vary accordingly;
  • the  cause precedes the effect.

Since the principle of causation is a  hypothesis which up till  now has not been proven  in  practice and is theoretically unjustified, all  the researches devised for the purpose of finding causes  (prima causa morbi)  must be inconclusive. Little wonder,  then,  that despite the enormous amount of work done we have been unable to find the original causes of diseases and that  medical   theories  succeed one another with such extraordinary  rapidity.

The  claim of the orthodox system of medicine of being  a rational scientific one because of its being based on the principle of causality, fails.

Here  Homoeopathy  steps  in.  Hahnemann  gave  up  the attempt to  base his system of medicine on a causal basis. To him association or sequence of phenomena was enough. He presented Homoeopathy, based on the Law of Similars as  a descriptive  science,  based on  phenomenalism and not concerned  principally with causal explanations.  It is also  to be noted that  we find  Hahnemann’s ideas in accord with the most advanced conceptions of physical science.

Here, we must pause and reflect, ask questions and rationalize.  Is Hahnemann saying that Bacteria and Virii are not the cause of a disease? No. Hahnemann was among the first to describe bacteria as “living” creatures that carry disease inducing infection. After studying his words for 35 years, I have come to see that he divides causality and individual disease as two separate entities.

You can remove the cause, the bacteria, the virus, the fungus, and yet Dis-ease itself will continue to be present in the organism. Many times I have seen Gonnorhea infection ( Neisseria gonorrhoeaeremoved from a person, and yet health declines. Sometimes even the partners health can decline and no trace of gonorrhoea can be detected.

So a situation arises within homoeopathy and understanding of what Hahnemanns theory of Miasms is refering to. In my experience, 95% of all explanations are simply wrong. I bring Miasms into this discussion simply because it answers how we as homoeopaths can relate to the subject of causality and disease.

It took me a number of years of reading and re-reading the Chronic Diseases and the Organon to gain insight into the explanation of Hahnemanns words. For those of us with a training in homoeopathy that included Kents interpretive and religious overlay, it required a leap of faith to put aside the philosophy of Swedenborgianism and just look at Hahnemann without that veil. Once done, the meaning of Hahnemanns words became clear.

Miasm is an infecting agent.

Miasmatic Disease is the resultant illness after being infected. It is NOT the infecting agent.

So. following the logic, once infected a disease process starts up. This is no longer dependent on the infecting agent, and is a direct reaction to BEING infected. Removing the primary infection prevents a CONSTANT infection state, but does not stop the reactive disease production that has started.

We will discuss further in another article.


Diagnosis, homoeopathy and you.

Many homoeopaths hold the viewpoint that diagnosis of a ‘disease’ is not important. By disease, I mean the descriptive name for a collection of symptoms that individualise a known condition, ie pneumonia, measles, eczema etc.

The reality is, and always has been, as taught by Hahnemann, to treat the DISEASE that the has destabilised the health of an individual. We do not take the collective totality of the personality, the likes and dislikes of the person, we take only the altered state CAUSED by the disease and expressed by the individual affected person.

The two single most useful Aphorisms in case taking are ~5 and ~6. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss in detail, if truth be told it requires time in a seminar to expand the writings and demonstrate fully so as to inculcate the understanding to reach the heart of a practitioner. If assimilated incorrectly, you will find that a lot of misprescriptions will be made based on faulty comprehension of Hahnemanns words.

This leads me to my next point. I ask a question: Are you a real homoeopath?

Firstly, after many years of thinking on this question, I realise that the question is incorrect. It should be: Are you a real believer in the law of similars?

The scope and sphere of Homoeopathy must be clearly expressed. In a  wider sense,  Homoeopathy, in the first place, means a  method of scientific study  and therapeutic practice; in the second place, it means the facts discovered by this method; and thirdly it signifies the theories that have been propounded  to explain and correlate  these facts.  In other words,  Homoeopathy  implies a particular way of applying drugs to diseases according to a  specific principle viz., “Similia Similibus Curentur”, and of potentitiation (dynamisation) of drugs. In a narrower and stricter sense, Homoeopathy means a specialised system of drug therapy, nothing  more  or nothing less.

As Homoeopathy looks upon diseases as  an altered condition of the life principal  of a living being, Homoeopathy, as a therapeutic  method, is concerned primarily with  the morbid vital processes in the  living organism which are perceptibly represented by the symptoms  irrespective  of what caused them. Homoeopathy then is concerned only with dis-eases, per se in its primary functional or dynamical aspect.

With  the  morbific  agents  themselves  Homoeopathy  has no more to do than it has with  the tangible products or ultimates  of disease.  It is taken for granted that the physician acting  in another capacity than that of a prescriber of Homoeopathic  medicines will remove the causes of the disease and the obstacle to cure as far as possible before  he addresses himself to the  task of selecting and administering the remedy which is homoeopathic to the symptoms  of the case by which the cure is to be effected. Thus  Homoeopathy deals directly with disease itself, morbid  vital processes manifested  by perceptible symptoms in the functional side  of disease. In fact, Homoeopathy might well be defined as the science of vital dynamics.

It is confined  to and operative only in  the sphere of vital dynamics.

As Homoeopathy is primarily and pre eminently  a specialised system of drug therapy,  it is not a complete system of medicine (in the wide sense of the term); but it might  legitimately  claim itself to be a complete system of therapeutic medication.

It  is supreme within its legitimate sphere because it is a method  of therapeutic medication which is based on a fixed and definite law of nature. The time has come for defining the scope and limits of Homoeopathy. Wide as its scope is, it has its limitations as well and we have to  be cognisant of this fact.

Homoeopathy may have many  gaps which need  be  filled; may have many points of obscurity  which need illumination  and clarification and  may imply many directions  in which  researches can be carried out—but it  is and  will continue to be a distinct system of healing art; it is uncompromising with regard to following  items which can be claimed as specialities for itself. The most important speciality of Homoeopathy lies in the distinctive mode of approach to  the study of diseases and drug actions. It is a  clinical method of approach and the art of  individualising patients  and drug-actions.

The clinical phenomena are those which render themselves perceptible to our senses as a resultant  of the actions and reactions  of forces, physico-chemical, vital  and psychological operating in and through the diseased human  organism.

Homoeopathy disregards all  the  hypothetical and ever-changing explanations of physiology and  pathology  and uses this plane of clinical phenomena as  a guide to reach the unseen activities operating below the surface.

The  second  speciality is with  regard  to  classification  of diseases. The dominant  school of medicine follows the system of classificatory sciences  of botany and zoology. It classifies diseases into genus  and species. But Homoeopathy goes further and concentrates its attention on individuals—so it is closer to factual concrete reality. The “Totality of symptoms” is taken to be a guide for individualisation.

The  third speciality is  with regard to this: The essential question in Homoeopathy is not what the patient is suffering  from, but in what kind of way he reacts.

Diagnosis in Homoeopathy does not mean the labelling of the patient with the name of a  disease and then treating that nominal entity, but diagnosing  the patient in terms of drug reaction, which would restore his vital equilibrium. The patient is to be diagnosed in terms of treatment.  This is Homoeopathy in a nut shell.

But “it is a shell which some find hard to crack, but when cracked it is found  to be packed full  of sweet and wholesome meat with no  worms in it”—as Stuart Close points out in his book ‘Lecture on  Homoeopathic Philosophy”.

The selection  and administration of remedies constitute the science of therapeutics, as the investigation of the properties of drugs  constitutes  the science  of Materia  Medica.  It  is impossible to conceive  of a science i.e., systematized knowledge, which is  not based  on some  fundamental principle correlating the series of phenomena concerning any particular branch of study. The therapeutic branch of  medical knowledge consists of a study of disease phenomena on the one hand and that of positive effects  of drugs  on the healthy human beings  on the other. Hence any therapeutic study is incomplete and unscientific if a general law be not discovered between a  natural disease-condition and the action of a drug that  will be  curative. Homoeopathy supplies such a law—though the  orthodox  school of  medicine  apparently denies  the necessity for such a general therapeutic law and  relies only on unmethodized experience and fallacious reasoning and presumes to claim utter scientificity for itself by borrowing from chemico-physical sciences.

The therapeutic law  of  Similia Similibus Curentur is a scientific law as justified by the following considerations:

  •  It is based on observation, correct logical  principles of induction, deduction  and experimental verification.
  • It is based on no hypothesis or speculation but it is just a  statement of inter-relation  between two series  of phenomena  viz-,  the natural  disease  and drug-action.
  • Like  any other scientific law  it  is made use of in the matter of predicting future results.
  • Like any other scientific law it does not attempt to explain  the “how or why”  of drugs curing  diseases  but rests  contented with giving a  clear indication of what drug would be curative in which disease condition.

This therapeutic law of cure, as discovered in Homoeopathy, as regards  the treatment of diseases by drugs  which, when proved  on  healthy human  beings, possess the power to produce symptoms similar to those found in persons suffering from natural diseases—pursues at its every step the scientific methods of observation, classification, comparison of phenomena perceptible to our senses and  does not attempt  to enter into the misty realm of metaphysical speculation to divine the essential secrets of nature viz-, life, mind and body and their nature of inter-relationship and the “modus operandi” of drugs in producing symptoms in  healthy  human beings  or  curing disease conditions brought on by natural causes.

This law takes into account only the clinical phenomena (i.e.,perceptible   alterations  of sensations,  functions  and of tissues) in patients and drug provers—which hold good so long as observations are correct and complete and which are not liable to be changed with every altered biological conception, newer  medical terminologies or newer discoveries  in physiological and pathological sciences.  The clinical symptoms are facts—they do not change but may be added  to.

With the help of this Law of cure the study of therapeutic branch of medicine has been raised to an independent status having a  life of its own. While deriving its  sustenance from truths and conceptions of other sciences auxiliary to medicine it possesses freedom from whatever new knowledge might be acquired in those sciences in course of time.

On comparison with  other  therapeutic systems (with or without any basic law underlying) the Law of Simile stands out boldest  and most free from uncertainties,  imperfections and irrationality inherent in others.