Tag Archives: Practise

A reflective comment

Its 4:53am. I am awake and my mind is thinking back to my childhood My mother would treat all our minor illnesses with different ‘natural’ products. My hay fever was ‘cured’ with a polypharmacy over the counter homoeopathic product. I grew up having a great respect for non mainstream medicines, but conversely would use the doctor when something non resolvable occurred. It was at this point in my late teens that I observed a difference in ‘alternative medicine’ ie herbal, and a medical treatment following a defined curative path, like acupuncture and homoeopathy.

Therein lies the dichotomy and the answer to mankinds choice. Modern medicine has decreed that it is the ONLY solution to all disease and is squeezing out everything that does not follow the allopathic mode. They point to ‘lifesaving’ medicines and treatments, ignoring the fact that the patient might be on a suppressive regime of medicines to quell the symptoms of whatever ails the patient for the remainder of their shortened life, only to succumb to an iatrogenic ending.

The strange thing is that medicine per se comes down to, not as one would expect, medicines, but to a choice of protocols. One involves a natural law and the other does not.

Hahnemann, in his monumental works, The Organon of Medicine, and the Chronic Diseases, gives a completely researched and science based observation of how living Organisms function in health and disease. I find it sad that this work which actually outlines the theory of modern disease processes is the most attacked medical practice today. Maybe its accuracy yet individualised treatment of a person is the root of the discontent felt by medical professionals. These professionals who believe that a blanket approach to drug therapy for the disease in question is the required response. It is a an easy solution. To treat a named disease instead of the individualised reaction to a named disease.

With the passing of years and growth in  experience Hahnemann came upon to  regard man more as an organism than as a machine. A machine is composed of many  parts, originally separate. Once these parts are put together,  its manifoldncss becomes unity. Like the human individual, it is assembled for a specific purpose.

It is both simple and complex. A machine is primarily complex and secondarily simple. However to the contrary, man is primarily simple and  secondarily complex. He originates from a single cell.  His growth means  multiplication and self-differentiation of the primitive cell to form diverse tissues and organs. Thus an organism is not artificially made, but grows, not put  together by the force from the outside, but develops from the centre to the  periphery or from  the  whole to the parts.

In disease, we find the disturbance located in the ‘central like mechanism’  which is manifested through perceptible sensory and functional changes of the body as  a whole; here nosology fails to be applied  as the symptoms do not refer  to  any particular organ  or  tissue;  and the man,  though  showing deviations from the perfectly healthy state, is not termed as  specifically diseased.

This is the stage  of Latent Psora. (INFECTION)  In course of time the disharmony of the whole or central life  is reflected on to the disharmony of life in the tissues or organs; and the disorder is manifested more  on the functional  plane  related to tissues or organs.  This  is  the  stage of secondary psora (INFECTION DEVELOPMENT) when  the disease  is  predominantly functional  in nature without proportionate structural changes in the tissues and organs.  This is followed by the tertiary stage of psora (DISEASE MANIFESTATION) where the gross structural changes in the tissues or organs appear—the  domain of pathology proper and nosology. Central functional changes.

  • functional changes of individual tissues or organs.
  • gross anatomical/pathological changes of individual tissues or organs.

this seems to be the order of progression in chronic diseases. Here the disease process starts  in a simple  way and  ultimately develops  into multilateral directions accordingly as different tissues or organs (though originating from a primordial cell) are affected simultaneously or  successively in course of time.

Hahnemann contends that the miasms (INFECTIONS) responsible for psora, syphilis and sycosis are of such a nature  as they  attack the central life-force at the outset and the primary derangement of the central life-force thus produced, makes the organism susceptible to many other agents to develop functional and structural changes in  individual tissues or organs, thus providing occasions for diverse naming or labeling  of diseased  conditions corresponding  to diverse tissues or organs damaged.  So in Chronic. cases  the central  life-force is primarily disturbed.

As there is a central life mechanism  corresponding to  the whole, there is life in the parts, tissues  or organs and there  is life in  every cell. Life is  a scale of energy forming a sort of hierarchy from cell-life to collective or central  life. Disease is disorder in any plane—material, vital or mental—as a whole or as a part constituting or conforming to the whole. In acute diseases, the disorder starts from lower scale of life in  the tissues or organs and this disorder acts on the  whole or central life, here the disease process is  the resultant of the action of the part and the reaction of the whole to it.  Here the disease process  seems to start  from outside to within or in the ascending order in the  hierarchy of life. The central life mechanism is disturbed eventually  but the change is  of more  a  superficial nature analogous somewhat to the condition of “induced magnetism”.

In chronic cases, the whole or central life is attacked and  disturbed first by some morbific agent of a miasmatic (INFECTIOUS) nature;  this central disturbance  leads to disturbance in  the life of tissues, organs or cells.

Here the disease process seems to start from within outwards or  in the descending hierarchy of life. That is why, in chronic diseases, constitutional symptoms (i.e., symptoms indicative of the disturbance of the central life mechanism)  are more marked;  whereas  in acute  cases, structural and functional changes of the tissues and  organism overshadow the constitutional symptoms. Herein  we get clues for evaluation  of symptoms in case-taking to treat patients  homoeopathically.

As is patently obvious, a person does not have to accept any of the above. Modern medicine accepts its own version and perception and stays within the bounds of its own concepts.

One thing I am sure of, the terminology gives it away. A ‘curative response’ comes from the organism and not from a medicine. Ergo a medicine CANNOT cure, it can only stimulate an organism to cure itself. If it does not follow this protocol, it is suppression.



I cannot repertorize mental symptoms with the T.P.B!

This is a common complaint from people who move from Kents repertory to the stressed_tired_drTherapeutic Pocket Book.

In our advanced practitioner course, we spend time showing people the correct way to analyse a case and how to use ‘states’ that reflect the altered disposition of the patient, as opposed to personality symptoms that are not signs of pathology.

The patients original condition was vertigo which came on without obvious causation. It was treated with two remedies which removed 95% of the Vertigo and relieved other symptoms experienced. However and again for no observable reason, an internal anxiety arose and has become the focus of the problem. The patient said that the type of anxiety experienced was something observed before over 40 some years ago, but not troubled overmuch by these symptoms after that.

Briefly, here is a recently received patient note and the analysis of the same.

…..Started feeling a building up of uneasiness. It feels like coldness inside the body. Inside the arms and sometimes the abdomen chest and head. Then apprehensiveness that something isn’t right, something’s going to happen. It keeps on coming, I have to work to relax.  Then slight wooziness began which in turn increases the cold sensation.
At times the tingling in the buttocks as well (explained he felt the anxiety in his body and currently is in buttocks.)
Have to lie in the chair and concentrate on relaxing, which helps, but is very difficult it it gets too bad. My wife had to leave to do some errands, I would rather she had stayed, made me more nervous to have her gone.
It seems like this comes from the body coldness sensation first, then the apprehension with no definite thoughts, then wooziness, then everything seems to excite more nervousness.

So here we have a pathological ‘state’ combined with a vertigo. The anxiety is out of proportion and has also spread into any thought that he has where something has not gone correctly as it should have. For example: “….I bought too much meat at the market and now I have bag it and freeze it…aargh!”

Rather than get into the  minutiae of his words and try to do a psychological evaluation, I just looked at the expression of his ‘state’ and went to the repertory.

Firstly the symptoms are aggravated by vertigo. He is aggravated, vexed by little things and they produce an anxious state. He becomes restless and feels anxiety in the body. There is a sensation of coldness internally. He desires to not be alone and the presence of someone else is comforting.

This is the entire picture of the pathology experienced. I repertorised in this way.




He had already had Lycopodium which removed the vertigo symptoms, and a quick read of Arsenicum confirmed that this indeed was the remedy to give at this point.

….thanks Gary, I just took it. Seems to be relaxing. I’ll try to go back to bed if I can.

Questions that have been asked regarding homoeopathy.


What is Psora?

220px-hahnemannPsora is Hahnemanns model for a disease process stemming from a singular root. Hahnemann considered it as the most common ailment to affect mankind. He also made the point that it was acquired by INFECTION and therefore was not transferred by hereditary.  A full and thorough examination of the medical models of Psora Sycosis and Syphilis is conducted in the IHM Advanced training course. It is not a disease per se, it is a process via infection and the resultant sequela.

What are Homoeopathic remedies?

Homoeopathic remedies are medicines. They are powerful substances that should not be given except when required in a particular circumstance for a set of matching symptoms in a disease state to aid the immune system to overcome the illness.

Schuesslers Tissue Salts.

Not homoeopathy. Not based on proper evaluation or proving protocol. Dangerous if misused.

Remedy repetition, alternation of remedies and changes of remedies.

Sadly, a lot of information on the web is incorrect. Remedies should always be given in water, not repeated whilst a curative action is taking place, and not alternated morning and night. Remedies are given on a totality basis and when that totality changes, only then should the remedy be changed. Also, whilst under the action of a remedy, symptoms may change, HOWEVER a change of remedy should not be thought of unless the disease picture changes, not just a single symptom. Qualification of this statement is discussed in the advanced training course.

Use of remedies.

They should not be used to ‘boost’ the immune system and should always be used sparingly and just enough to let the body do the work. The totality of symptoms is not the same as the totality of all the symptoms of the disease. (Aph 6, 153 and Aph 253). It is hard enough for a trained physician to elicit prescribing symptoms so for the home user it is even more difficult. Repetition or change of medicines should be done judiciously, and not using a whole plethora of medicines. Chasing symptoms with medicines will make a person very sick.


Q1/. I have experienced aggravation of the symptoms after taking what seems to be the correct remedy. Itch and headache for example. Is this due to the low potency? I mostly use 30C.

Q1A/ Impossible to qualify in an answer without knowing the problem or whether the remedy is correct. It depends on dose frequency, how is taken and what is termed an aggravation of symptoms.

tpbpwQ2/. When selecting the symptoms of a disease in the TPB, selecting two different areas of the body and two different modalities for the sensation, how does the program recognize which sensation is related to which modality? Or is this irrelevant?

Q2A/. The evaluation model used by Boenninghausen is a synthetic approach which sorts out the relationship of rubrics/symptoms.

Q3/. In a chronic case, how can a homeopath tell how long to continue the first dose and how often?

Q3A/. A dose is a single application of a medicine. Evaluation of its action will be a combination of re-action, changes, and watching carefully. Repeating the dose will be based on the criteria in the Organon.

Q4/. In order to verify that patient has a latent psora, does the physician always have to look for sign of an itch that may have been present only in the past?

Q4A/. The homoeopath does not need to verify this. The totality of symptoms is the only method of prescribing. Most information on the web regarding Psora.Sycosis and Syphilis is totally incorrect therefore treatment of a ‘miasmatic’ disease may be for the wrong miasm. A careful understanding of the medical model may include using Sulphur or Mercurius but will be applied on the basis of symptoms exhibited or suppressed.

Q5/. Should the remedy Warnings always be checked before prescribing?

Q5A/. Given that again, most of the information regarding remedies is incorrect, we have found it best to heed the comments by Hahnemann in his writings on each individual remedy.

Q6/. I remember you saying that one symptom is not a disease. If there are modalities associated with that symptom, is it still a single symptom? Or does the physician have to look for another symptom as well?

Q6A/. A symptom comprises of a location, a sensation and modalities. A symptom for prescribing does not exist without these three components. This is then a complete symptom. It will need the same criteria applied to each symptom considered for evaluation. One symptom does not a case make.

Q7/. I can understand by reading the chronic Diseases that if the itch is suppressed by means of ointments, baths of sulphur or mercury or other modern methods, it can bring about other diseases or symptom. If a symptom of a disease that is not an itch, and it is supressed, can that also act like a psora and bring about another disease or a symptom? What about Syphilis and Sycosis, are they supposed to be treated as Psora?

Q7A/. You understand incorrectly. There is no such thing as ‘a Psora’. Psora is in the medical model a singular disease process from which all expressions of the Psoric disease originate. Suppression on any level will not create a ‘new’ disease, but will produce a different expression of the same disease and possibly of a more dangerous nature due to having to find an alternate outlet. All diseases are treated via the methodology of how the organism reacts to the infecting agent. It is an individualising of the REACTIVE process rather than the infection that guides for a prescription.

Q8/. Lastly which may sound awkward or silly. Can psora be treated and got rid of completely?

Q8A/. I see the disease in question can be removed with treatment. As to removal of Psora completely, I do not think so. A person is always liable to reinfection.


A new IHM graduate and associate.

We are pleased to announce that Arden Wong of HongKong has completed the intensive professional entry course for the IHM and exceeded in the requirements. He is now Arden Wong. DHom Med (Lic) I.H.M.

P1060316This particular course is available only to current practitioners and is designed to test knowledge of homoeopathy and a demonstrated ability to understand patient pathology as expressed and translate into prescribing symptoms. We presented among many other discussions, 20 Powerpoint and video cases covering both acute and chronic cases, and related all the pertinent points back to the Organon and Chronic Diseases.

Arden has spent the last few years utilising the Therapeutic Pocket Book  in his P1060331practice and was happy to expand his knowledge to have a fuller understanding of  rubrics and see them in action during the cases.

It was a genuine pleasure to work with Arden. He is an accomplished practitioner and we wish him much success in his professional life.


Do Doctors make better homoeopaths part 2.

A lot of response to to this article. As expected, many comments from the medical fraternity who lay claim to being homoeopaths deriding both the content and me personally.  I can live with that. Historically speaking, NOTHING has changed since Hahnemanns day in the attitudes and opinions of allopathically trained persons who ’embraced’ the practice of homoeopathic medicine and did  not learn the therapy properly or understand its principles.

I note that a few who sneered at the comments and lay claim to practice homoeopathy, are also acupuncturists, practitioners of Chinese medicine and naturopaths. This alone is indicative of the lack of understanding of the principles of homoeopathic Medicine and needs no further response from the IHM.

If truth be told, most people learning homoeopathy in Europe, have been influenced by well known individuals and practice according to that individuals method and teaching. This can leave huge gaps in knowledge of the proper methodology as  taught by Samuel Hahnemann, and consequently will prohibit the practitioner from ever achieving a better success rate or comprehension of the scientific application of the therapeutics properly.

Hahnemann during his lifetime, as founder and researcher of the practice, was actually banned from membership and entry to two homoeopathic associations because the doctors members felt they knew better than him.

There are moves in every country, by the homoeopathic medical fraternity, to limit practice to Doctors only. In theory, a well trained person in medical knowledge of systems and disease, sounds like the ideal candidate for the job. However there is the other side of the coin where years of training in allopathic therapeutics and application of antipathic methods, cloud the issue of treatment and understanding of the effectiveness of homoeopathic applications. This is indicative of the arrogance of the medical profession per se, that they know better in every respect. This attitude even extends to our homoeopathic brethren who are inadequately cognizant of the real practice of homoeopathy, but still reach for the exclusivity of total dominance of the homoeopathic arena.

In writing articles critical of the practices endemic in homoeopathy, we at the IHM often get accusations leveled at us  as being elitist, fundamentalist or as claiming to be the only ones with proper knowledge. The only claim we make is that we can read and have spent more that 30 years in research of Hahnemanns writings and applying them in practice, and have never seen a reason to discard either the methodology or the results of his experimentation and conclusions. We do not have access to special books, everything we have is in the public domain. ANYONE can read it.

All people who lay claim to the title ‘homoeopath’ need to take a long hard look at their practice and compare it to the works of Hahnemann as opposed to the guru that they learned their understanding from. If you compare everyone from Kent to the modern day teachers to Hahnemann, you will conclude that a diametric opposition to Hahnemanns writings exist, and it should move the honest hearted practitioner to fix the problem.

Will you?

Below is a quote by Hahnemann found in the theoretic part of the Chronic Diseases as a footnote.

(* The importance of avoiding the above-described two errors will hardly be realized by physicians. These great, pure truths will be questioned yet for years even by most of the homoeopathic physicians, and will not, therefore, be practiced, on account of the theoretical reflection and the reigning thought: It requires quite an effort to believe that so little a thing, so prodigiously small a dose of medicine, could effect the least thing in the human body, especially in coping with such enormously great, tedious diseases; but that the physician must cease to reason, if he should believe that these prodigiously small doses can act not only two or three days, but even twenty, thirty and forty days and longer yet, and cause, even to the last day of their operation, important, beneficent effects otherwise unattainable. Nevertheless this true theorem is not to be reckoned among those which should be comprehended, nor among those for which I ask a blind faith. I demand no faith at all, and do not demand that anybody should comprehend it. Neither do I comprehend it; it is enough, that it is a fact and nothing else. Experience alone declares it, and I believe more in experience than in my own intelligence.
But who will arrogate to himself the power of weighing the invisible forces that have hitherto been concealed in the inner bosom of nature, when they are brought out of the crude state of apparently dead matter through a new, hitherto undiscovered agency, such as is potentizing by long continued trituration and succussion. But he who will not allow himself to be convinced of this and who will not, therefore, imitate what I now teach after many years of trial and experience (and what does the physician risk, if he imitates it exactly?), he who is not willing to imitate it exactly, can leave this greatest problem of our art unsolved, he can also leave the most important chronic diseases uncured, as they have remained unhealed; indeed, up to the time of my teaching. I have no more to say about this. It seemed to me my duty to publish the great truths to the world that needs them, untroubled as to whether people can compel themselves to follow them exactly or not. If it is not done with exactness, let no one boast to have imitated me, nor expect a good result.
Do we refuse to imitate any operation until the wonderful forces of nature on which the result is based are clearly brought before our eyes and made comprehensible even to a child? Would it not be silly to refuse to strike sparks from the stone and flint, because we cannot comprehend how so much combined caloric can be in these bodies, or how this can be drawn out by rubbing or striking, so that the particles of steel which are rubbed off by the stroke of the hard stone are melted, and, as glowing little balls, cause the tinder to catch fire? And yet we strike fire with it, without understanding or comprehending this miracle of the inexhaustible caloric hidden in the cold steel, or the possibility of calling it out with a frictional stroke. Again, it would be just as silly as if we should refuse to learn to write, because we cannot comprehend how one man can communicate his thought to another through pen, ink, and paper – and yet we communicate our thoughts to a friend in a letter without either being able or desirous of comprehending this psychico-physical miracle! Why, then, should we hesitate to conquer and heal the bitterest foes of the life of our fellowman, the Chronic diseases, in the stated way, which, punctually followed, is the best possible method, because we do not see how these cures are effected?)

How confident are you? How confident should you be?

Vera Resnick.


On confidence:

How confident should we be as practitioners? This is a question which worried me greatly when I started out. I felt uncertain (not surprisingly as I was entering the world of sickness and health armed with a copy of Kent’s repertory – a copy of which a colleague justly through out of a window in a different continent – and some basic core delusions about Sankaran’s teaching.). I was qualified, I had the grades, supervised clinical work and diploma to prove it. And after all that training, I did not feel confident.

It will come, some said. The more patients you work with, the more confidence you’ll feel. Until a cold voice cut through the general internet babble, as a colleague (armed with a handbag full of plumbum crude – if you’re reading this, you know who you are) said sharply “if you’re not confident in what you’re doing, you shouldn’t be practicing.”

I see my own inner debate of that time reflected in many forums, where some few honest souls admit to worry and lack of confidence. With hindsight and its freedom of constraint, I see that confidence, for a homeopath, actually relates to at least two separate issues.

We must feel confident in our tools. If we do not feel confident in the principles of homoeopathy – not a blind faith but a clear understanding of the rationale of our practice, if we only know how to parrot “like cures like” without understanding what that means and more specifically, what that demands of us – we really should not be practicing. If we do not grasp that there is a quirk and a default in nature, whereby a stronger similar disease can annihilate a weaker one and will always do so unless something else is standing in the way of cure, whether it is a maintaining cause or a deeper inherited miasmatic taint – if we don’t get that then we really should not be practicing. We’re not talking about confidence in our ability. Here this is the confidence that our tools work. That “like cures like” is a prescribing principle, not a holistic “airy-fairy” slogan.

Personal confidence is another thing altogether. We have to get used to working with patients, to eliciting the information we need for prescribing, to listening to our patients without interrupting, to allow the picture of the disease to take shape before our eyes. We have to keep studying Organon, materia medica, provings, Hahnemann and Boenninghausen’s writings and works of similar value to keep our abilities honed and our homoeopathic knowledge checked and re-checked. We have to gain confidence in prescribing, in case-management, in effective follow-up.

Personal confidence is something every practitioner gains in time – in any field. But without confidence in our tools, that personal confidence is worthless. It’s worthless in the sense that if we are genuinely trying to work according to principle and don’t understand it, our confidence is a thin shell, a shiny veneer covering a world of insecurity in practice.

However, the worst expression of the worthlessness of personal confidence without true professional conviction is that those bumping up their levels of such personal confidence to overcome the lack of professional conviction are drawn to the new and the shiny, to developing their own new and shiny theories to astound the world.  As a result, they never investigate the tools properly, and learn to work faithfully and honestly to principle.

Something Hahnemann said in the Organon within a slightly different context seems an apt quote to close this post:

“A true homoeopathic physician, one who never acts without correct fundamental principles, never gambles with the life of the sick entrusted to him as in a lottery where the winner is in the ratio of 1 to 500 or 1000 (blanks here consisting of aggravation or death)…” (note to Aphorism 285).

Nash: thought of the day

Nash states: “The old saying used to be (and was sanctioned by Hahnemann) that acute diseases generally tend to recovery ; chronic never.

There is much truth in it. None but the true homoeopathic physician realizes the importance of thoroughly taking and working out such cases. It is worth $25 to $100 to make the first study of a very difficult case, and mark out the line of treatment. Rarely will a case come out so clearly that the cure can be per- formed with one remedy; but a succession of remedies will be necessary, and here is where the so- called complementary relations of remedies come in for recognition and skillful application.

Some will object that they cannot afford to pay such a price for a single study of a case. Well, it is probable that such will pay more than that for work done over and over again, because not well done at the start ; and worse still, will stand little if any chance of ever getting a cure. It is a clear case of ” penny wise and pound foolish.’ ‘

Many persons go through life invalids, patching symptoms, or temporary manifestations of disease, which, if understood and dealt with in their entirety, as they should have been at the start, they might have been well and happy. To be sure it is for the pecuniary advantage of the physician to do that kind of patching a few dollars at a time, without curing it. It makes him, or some brother physician, a ” job” for life. If the patient gets tired, or disgusted, and goes to Dr. A., one of Dr. A.’s patients does the same thing, and comes to him, and so the good work goes on. Physicians are about the only profession that are expected to do a good job for the same pay as a poor one. They are not expected to charge any more for prescribing for phthisis pulmonalis or any other chronic case that takes a week of careful study to do good work than they do for a simple case of indigestion from over-eating, which would get well of itself if let alone. The physician cannot therefore in justice to himself and the family dependant upon him spend the necessary time upon it. The pay is the same. So the doctor gets discouraged because he is not paid for good work, and the patient because he, or she, gets no benefit.

The biggest humbugs on earth get more wealth out of patent nostrums, out of the “grand elleptical Asiatical panticurial nervous cordials” that are warranted to cure all the ills to which flesh is heir than the most educated, able and conscientious physician in the world. Hence there is small encouragetnent for the educated physician, and less hope for the victims. Clairvoyants, ignorant Indians, charlatans and quacks of all shades and varieties ” boom their wares,” and the true physician looks on disgusted, but helpless.

The people as ignorant of medicine as those who impose upon them “want to be humbugged” and are. If we object we will be met with the bluff that “you are mad be- cause you want the money there is in it.” What do the quacks and pretenders want ? But there is after all a bright side to this picture. There are persons, and quite a good “many of them, who believe in the educated physician as well as educated men in the other professions. They know how to appreciate the study, time, patience and pains-taking of the honest physician who works for them, and are willing to pay him. Only for this the practice of medicine, scientific medicine, would become a lost art. “

Naturopathic doctors gaining new powers

Naturopathic doctors in Ontario and British Columbia are celebrating legislative gains that will allow them to prescribe drugs as well as natural products, and naturopaths in Manitoba and Alberta may soon be joining the party.

In Ontario, the provincial Standing Committee on Social Policy voted in October to approve Bill 179, which will amend the Naturopathy Act to allow qualified naturopaths to dispense, compound or sell drugs listed in accompanying regulations. Although the bill requires third reading and passage by the legislature, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care supports it and, given the Liberal majority, it is expected to pass.

The regulations that will determine which drugs naturopaths will be allowed to prescribe must still be hammered out — a process that could take up to three years. Although naturopathic doctors in Ontario believe they will eventually be able to prescribe basic primary care drugs and crash-cart medications, as in British Columbia, they also expect some lobbying against that power from organizations representing medical doctors.

“We feel very positive about the changes, the new regulations in British Columbia and what’s being proposed in Ontario,” says Shawn O’Reilly, executive director and director of government relations for the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors. “What we’re seeing is that shared scope of practice legislation is being tabled and approved across the country, and naturopathic doctors are being included in that legislation.”

The changes are in the best interests of patients and will foster comanagement with medical doctors and others, she adds.

Not everyone appears warm to the notion of expanding naturopath prescribing rights beyond natural health products, though.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is 1820e29f1.jpg

Will that be an herb? Or a drug? That prescriptive option will soon be available to many naturopathic doctors in Canada.

“The intent is just to allow them to do what they are already doing with the natural health products,” says David Jensen, a spokesman for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Whether pharmaceuticals are added to the list of products naturopaths will be permitted to prescribe, compound and dispense “will need to be seen as it is spelled out in the regulations,” he says.

In a statement, Dr. Suzanne Strasberg, president of the Ontario Medical Association, raised concerns about the proposed expansion of the scope of practice for naturopaths. “We believe that the use of pharmaceuticals or synthetic drugs is completely outside naturopathy’s educational framework and scope of practice,” she stated.

In British Columbia, the government last April passed legislation allowing naturopathic practitioners to prescribe Schedule I medications, which include basic primary care drugs such as antibiotics. In addition, qualified naturopaths will be able to prescribe hormones, botanicals, high-dose vitamins, amino acids and other natural substances they have traditionally used in their practices, but which are increasingly coming under federal control and scheduling limitations. In many provinces such as BC, only medical doctors, dentists and veterinarians could previously prescribe substances such as digitalis and other botanicals and hormones that naturopaths normally used.

Under BC’s legislation and accompanying regulations, naturopaths will not prescribe certain restricted classes of medications, such as antipsychotics and chemotherapy drugs. The regulatory board that governs naturopathic doctors is now finalizing the standards and list of substances that naturopaths will be allowed to prescribe.

But they will first have to meet educational requirements and pass a qualifying examination, says Christoff Kind, president of the British Columbia Naturopathic Association. “The whole thing really is just based on providing for a shared scope of practice model here in BC, which I think is coming across the country,” he says. “Professions that have the training should be allowed to practise to their level of education and expertise.”

The changes will mean that if a naturopath has a patient with acute pneumonia, for example, he will be able to prescribe an appropriate antibiotic instead of sending the patient to their family doctor, Kind says. “It will allow for more streamlined health care.”

Meanwhile, Manitoba has just approved umbrella legislation regulating health care professions that is similar to that of BC. Naturopaths are expected to be included “as part of the second wave moved under that legislation,” O’Reilly says. Alberta has done the same and regulations have been drafted there but not yet finalized.

In the United States, 11 of 16 jurisdictions that regulate naturopathic medicine have awarded naturopathic doctors prescribing authority. Although the pharmaceutical formulary varies in different states, it is extremely broad in Hawaii, California and Washington. In Arizona and Oregon, naturopaths are allowed to prescribe most pharmaceuticals except some therapeutics and narcotics. In Utah, they may prescribe and dispense all non-controlled drugs, while in Maine, they must first complete a one-year collaborative relationship with a medical doctor.

When to change remedy based on symptoms.

I have a patient that came to me 27 years ago with chronic eczema.  Treatment was over 2.5 years and he has been free of eczema until August of 2014.

In the interim, he contracted gonorrhea 10 years ago, Chlamydia 5 years ago and then another infection of Chlamydia 1.5 years ago. All three infections were treated homoeopathically until symptom free and the tests showed clear.

It took nearly 11 months to clear this last bout of Chlamydia.  Latterly in the process, Mercurius was indicated again which cleared up the venereal infection completely. In August of 2014, patches of eczema started to appear again on his body and quickly spread all over. He now has eczema in all the places that he has 27 years ago.

It would seem that the infection with a venereal disease has removed the balance achieved for all this time. Skin problems are a family weakness, and he has been the only one to be free of it with treatment. Hahnemann pointed out that there are three main infections for the human race. 2 from direct contagion from Syphilis and from Gonorrhea, and one that is universal from an ancient disease source. He discussed how the infections can be conjoined or complicated.

I have treated the patient with 2 remedies, Mercurius and currently on Dulcamara. It has allowed the skin to calm a little but not too much.

I received this note last night.

“one thing i forgot to mention for the last 3 or 4 days my finger ends under the nails feel swollen and sore when i press them”

I questioned him if the finger ends were swollen and he stated that they felt like it more than obvious.

In examining the symptom in conjunction with the eczema, it came to Staphisagria.


He is starting on the remedy today.

What we have here is a concomitant symptom complete in location and sensation and modality. Added to the main complaint, only two remedies come through and Mercurius is no longer useful to the case as it aggravates, but Staphisagria covers the totality.



In depth case analysis-Really?

If you look on the internet, right now, there are a plethora of the modern guru’s promoting seminars for unraveling the mysteries of case analysis. This implies that there are secrets and difficulties in the process. Considering that the ‘secrets’ are freely available, along with the methodology in the Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann. For those that dont know, Hahnemann was the researcher that compiles the do’s and don’ts of the practice of Homoeopathic medicine.

He was not a mean man. He gave away freely the information regarding the practice. He would teach interested doctors the methodology, and lectured extensively on the matter. History shows that then as now, People did not listen.

Kent did not listen. Hering did not listen. The majority of the body of people claiming to practice homoeopathy today did not listen and refuse to listen now. Instead they prefer to have their ears tickled by ‘modern methods’ which go against the principles of practice by using personalities, sensations and elements to ‘prescribe’ a medicine that fits the patients disease.

You do need to be shown some things. You do need to be guided in your study of the Organon by someone not influenced by the Swedenborgian religious view of Kent. You do need to have the real Hahnemannian model of case taking explained  without a filter placed over it. You do need to practice the method on patients to see the benefits.

You also need to use a guide to the Materia Medica that is accurate and has the approval of Hahnemann. You do need to know what a prescribing symptom is, and how to combine it with other prescribing symptoms to form a picture of the remedy.

You do need to know what is fact and what is interpretation.

The modern homoeopath is at a tremendous disadvantage in the therapy. He or she has never been taught real homoeopathy, and has learned to despise it by taking up the false methodologies. Most worship Hahnemann and have a view of the therapy as being part of the spiritual life of humans. How much more wrong can a person be?

It is not a spiritual involvement. It is a medical practice. The success or failure of a treatment has nothing to do with religion or earth awareness or intent. Its a medical practice.

If a statement by a guru is in opposition to a statement by Hahnemann, or collectively leads toward a spiritual path, or a path that promotes personality prescribing, or a prescription based on a central delusion or sensation, or biased toward an element-then you have been misled. Hahnemann treated disease as expressed in ALTERED symptoms both mental and physical in the patient. It is not buried deep or require mental gymnastics to formulate a theory why it happened.

Go back to the beginning and read Hahnemann again.