A Practitoner’s Thoughts

I have recently been reading material about the sensation method, with what seems to me to be back-tracking disguised as inclusiveness, with a new insistence on the value and importance of repertory and materia medica. All this termed, in political correctness, synergy.

For some odd reason, political correctness now seems to lead the homoeopathic field – and I have no idea how it got there. Hahnemann started off with something fairly straightforward – give substances to healthy people, write down the effects, use those symptoms to find the substance with similar symptoms to those of the disease. Really just hitchhiking on an investigated quirk of nature, “like cures like”, something that has proven itself in observation and experimentation.

But then the political correctness insinuated its way into the story, here in the importance of inclusion. One must never exclude. One mustn’t exclude the doctors with many years of experience in allopathic medicine and little or no knowledge of homoeopathy. One mustn’t exclude combining allopathic methods with homoeopathy, indeed, combining any methods with homoeopathy. One mustn’t exclude provings carried out in other ways, through sleep, dreams, meditations, or just a thought or two. One mustn’t exclude other ways of giving remedies, whether just thinking about a remedy, writing it down on a piece of paper, using hair transmission. One mustn’t exclude methods based on hand gestures, plant sensations, facial characteristics, auras, pseudo psychological analysis and assumption regarding delusions and more. And one certainly must not exclude the current reigning princes of homoeopathy, who certainly all include each other to preserve the charismatic status quo.

One mustn’t exclude. And those of us who do (and I am one of them – but I think you, gentle reader, know that already) are labeled rigid, old-fashioned, lacking in sufficient knowledge and understanding of modern methods and their great contribution to homoeopathy today.

And truth is – they are right! I’m old fashioned. I believe that the person who developed a method probably knew more about it than those who took his ideas and turned them into something else. Especially when that person said “experience alone declares it, and I believe more in experience than in my own intelligence.” So if that’s the method I want to use – I need to go to source. That’s where I want to begin. Organon. Provings. Lesser Writings.

When messing with other people’s health – and that is what we homoeopaths are doing – I want to stay as close as possible to the certain and sure. Where is that certainty in the sensation method? Where is it in the periodic table? And in case-taking – where is it in the arrogance of the practitioner who believes he can understand the deepest motivators, characteristics and behaviours of the human being sitting opposite him? Where treatment becomes more about the homoeopath’s personal sixth sense, rather than about objective information regarding the patient’s disease, and specialized objective observation that should be part of every homoeopath’s training?

Certainty rests on clear principles, on procedures which can be repeated and which produce results. As soon as a method moves away from the objective and the observed into the murky world populated by words such as “I felt”, “I believed”, “the patient seemed to be”, and by concepts such as delusions, imaginations, and the practitioner’s interpretations of the patient’s deeply repressed emotions – we have moved away from the certain.

And when moving away from certainty is justified through politically correct dictates of inclusion – well that way lies madness. And a world full of naked Emperors…


The CDC’s patent on Ebola

ebola pic
(NaturalNews), by Mike Adams

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control owns a patent on a particular strain of Ebola known as “EboBun.” It’s patent No. CA2741523A1 and it was awarded in 2010. You can view it here. (Thanks to Natural News readers who found this and brought it to our attention.) Continue reading

The IHM International Register

I’ve added a link in the menu for those wishing to apply to join the IHM International Register of Homoeopaths.

The Register is a list of HAHNEMANIAN practitioners who practice homoeopathy for the benefit of the patient using tried and tested and effective methods.

For more information click here.

Schuessler’s Tissue Salts

By Dr. Gary Weaver.  For the original post, click here

SchuesslerBorn 1821 Died 1898. Medical Doctor and Naturopath.

We have been asked why Hahnemannian Homoeopaths do not use or prescribe the 12 salts of Schuessler. Continue reading

Is knowledge of the Organon needed for prescribing?

I would definitely recommend the Organon … while it may not be the best for prescribing well it does show you the original philosophy behind homeopathy!

viewed through proving defaultI received the above comment on my recommended reading post . The comment demonstrated so sharply how even those with sincere and constant interest in homoeopathy have clearly been harmed by inadequate (gentle understatement) teaching or from reading material on the internet written by those who (another gentle understatement on the way) have no idea what they are talking about. Continue reading

Homoeopathy – recommended reading

booksRecently I saw a series of responses to a request for recommendations of books on homoeopathy. Predictably, nothing by Hahnemann was recommended. The list – for those who want to know – ranged from Kent’s philosophy, through Vithoulkas, Boericke, Clarke, Coulter, and all the usual suspects. Just not the Organon. No original Hahnemannian provings. No earlier writings at all, really.

I was trying to feel fired up about writing a response, a post, something about how you cannot proceed with homoeopathy without understanding what it was intended to do, using what mechanism and what recommended methodology. But I found I was just too tired of it. Tired of seeing homoeopaths talking about homoeopathy without once mentioning the law of similars – or when they did mention it, making it clear that they did not understand it. Tired of hearing that those (such as me…) who say you have to start where it all started, with Hahnemann, the Organon, the first provings – are pseudo-religious nutters, hanging on to old texts with maddened zeal, ranting (as Hahnemann did) rather than accepting the brilliance and experience of today’s homoeopaths.

But the Organon is really the place to start. It is the only place to start. It is pointless and worthless (and expensive) to invest in a large library of books before you understand what the person who discovered and developed the method intended. It’s not easy to read the Organon. But it’s not easy to be a homoeopath either. If you think you want to be a homoeopath, see first if you can survive the Organon. If you understand the principle and methodology. And then read it again, and again.

If you’re reading later materia medicas you also need to research who copied whom. You will find symptoms repeated from book to book in exactly the same language – which is something of a dead giveaway. This repetition often gives an artificial importance to a symptom, as if many writers are concurring about its relevance – which is clearly not the case. Sometimes the copying was intended as clinical corroboration, but most writers don’t specify that.

The worst is when writers explain Hahnemann – as if their explanation is so perfect that it absolves you from reading the original. That’s almost as bad as claiming to know someone through what other people say about them on facebook.

So what books would I recommend? Before Vithoulkas, before Stuart Close, before Coulter, before Kent, read Hahnemann and Boenninghausen.   Organon. Chronic Diseases. Materia Medica Pura. Lesser Writings.   These books set the foundations, the grounding for your future reading.  Once you have these works solidly under your belt, you will have the tools to assess any other work you read, to see what is useful and disregard the rest.


Viewed through proving: Ignatia’s alternating symptoms

I have been somewhat busy… but am reposting this as this kind of information bears constant revisiting…

OK, you prescribed Ignatia.  You’re absolutely sure of the remedy.  You’ve looked at it, repped it, slept on it, thought about it, checked materia medica, checked your patient notes, and you know.  You just do.

You gave the remedy and it did nothing.  Or it aggravated but didn’t seem to do anything interesting, worthwhile or exciting for homoeopathy.  But you were absolutely certain!

Time to look at Hahnemann’s Organon aphorism 251, and (if you can stomach what looks like an 11 line sentence with nary a full stop but lots of commas) the introduction to the proving.  Time to examine Ignatia’s membership in the club of remedies with alternating actions.

Here’s Aphorism 251.  The bold in the text is mine.

“There are some medicines (e.g., Ignatia, also Bryonia and Rhus, and sometimes Belladonna) whose power of altering man’s health consists chiefly in alternating actions – a kind of primary-action symptoms that are in part opposed to each other.

Should the practitioner find, on prescribing one of these, selected on strict homoeopathic principles, that no improvement follows, he will in most cases soon effect his object by giving (in acute diseases, even within a few hours) a fresh and equally small dose of the same medicine.

(Hahnemann’s footnote: As I have more particularly described in the introduction to “Ignatia” (in the first volume of the Materia Medica Pura).)”

And I’ve paraphrased the introduction to the proving to make it readable – with a little literary license (the original is in italics just below, I did warn you about the sentence…):

When Ignatia is used, sometimes the first dose doesn’t help as it’s acting on the disease with its opposite symptoms and not as a similar.  It could even aggravate.  Don’t give any other remedy, just give one more dose of Ignatia in the same dilution.  You’ll get the cure with the second dose. This is probably because of the alternating actions of this amazing remedy. But you won’t see this often, as usually in an acute disease (which is what Ignatia is best for), the first dose will do all it can if it was really homoeopathic to the case. (my version)

Original: (breathe deeply)
“In its employment it sometimes happens, which is seldom the case with other medicines, that where the first dose has not done what was intended, because (for some unknown cause) it first acted on the disease with its opposite symptoms and consequently soon caused an aggravation of the disease in its secondary action, like a palliative remedy, then (without any intermediate medicine having been given in alternation) a second dose of the same dilution can be given with the best curative effect, so that the cure is only obtained by the second dose. This is no doubt owing to the directly opposite symptoms (alternating actions) of this remarkable drug, of which I shall speak further on. But such cases do not often occur, for, as a rule, in an acute disease, the first dose effects all that this medicine can do in a homoeopathic way, if it has been accurately selected according to similarity of symptoms.”

So from Hahnemann’s directions here, we can use Ignatia’s alternating symptoms to understand and manage the progress of a case where we have prescribed Ignatia, are absolutely sure of our prescription, but the remedy doesn’t seem to be doing what we want it to do.

Where can these alternating symptoms be found?  Here are several examples from the proving, taken from Hahnemann’s notes referring to alternating states:

Does stooping low aggravate or ameliorate?

Symptoms  16, 17, 19, 47 and 51  describe situations where the prover must keep his head down, where raising the head will aggravate.
Symptoms 20, 21, 22 and 58  describe situations where stooping aggravates.

Do the pupils dilate or contract?

Symptom 106 describes contracted pupils.
Symptoms 107 and 108 describe pupils that are dilated, and have a tendency to dilate easily.

Is music agreeable to the Ignatia patient or not?

Symptom 120 states that “music causes an uncommon and agreeable sensation”.
Symptom 121 describes “insensibility to music”.

How about sour things or fruit?

According to symptoms 194 and 197, they really like sour things and fruit and do well on it.
But symptoms 193, 196 and 328 imply that it would be best to keep the Ignatia patient far away from the fruit bowl.

What about fears – fearful or fearless?

Symptom 762 says “fears every trifle”, whereas symptom 763 declares – “audacity”.

These are only a few of the alternating states highlighted by Hahnemann in the proving – Hahnemann notes around 25 issues in total.  If we work based on the principle that Ignatia is a remedy with alternating states – it’s very likely that we could see many situations of alternating states that won’t appear in the proving.