Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?

 

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

*

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

*

Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help? Certainly don’t add more layers of research red-tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers. Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and post-publication peer review. Or improve research training and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year. One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profile errors, the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. Weidberg worried we set the bar for results in biomedicine far too low. In particle physics, significance is set at 5 sigma—a p value of 3 × 10–7 or 1 in 3·5 million (if the result is not true, this is the probability that the data would have been as extreme as they are). The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no firm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counterargument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.

Richard Horton richard.h orton@lancet.com

 

1380                                                                                                                                                       http://www.thelancet.com   Vol 385   April 11, 2015

ddd

When it goes wrong.

sad-man

I’m pretty good at acutes even if I say so myself. The occasional misprescription is fixed on the following medicine. I can manage the case through to completion.

So. My better half has had a sore throat and cough these past 4 days. She still has it, only now it is worse.  Symptoms have progressed to include a right-sided earache.

I could write all the symptoms here however I genuinely feel that I’ve noted all of them and balanced them out in both aetiology, severity and expression. I did ask 2 colleagues for their opinion and they both suggested remedies I had given and or considered.

There is a sense of  frustration and disappointment in myself today. This morning I gave a Paracetamol and a remedy in liquid, and she finally fell asleep on the couch.

My view of Homoeopathy. It is the prime curative medicinal system in the world. It stimulates the immune response and aids the body to restore health. We are talking cure here. Unfortunately sometimes in the process, pain relief is NOT always the intent of the immune response. Sometimes the immune system pushes the disease process toward cure quickly, and sometimes the process means some pain. If the remedy is wrong, the pain will happen anyway.

As a homoeopathic physician, I have no philosophic objection to pain relief. With most illnesses, the remedy will help, with some others, pain is present. When severe pain is present, I sometimes will use allopathic Medicine to relieve that pain. It is specific and localised and necessary for PAIN. Not for curative reasons. Sometimes for example, if a patient has a bacterial eye infection, an antibiotic is used to kill the bacteria and a remedy will be used to treat the presenting symptoms in the individual. If the bacteria is not treated, loss of eyesight can occur. This is my practice and I mention merely to point out that allopathic medicine for pain relief, not a curative treatment, is available and if can be given without impeding homoeopathic treatment, it should not be disregarded for the patient’s welfare.

When looking at the reasons for failing to find the right remedy for her, I have to mention one observation I have in dealing with patients.

2 vaccines or more seem to inhibit a quick response from remedy treatment. I don’t have peer-reviewed clinical evidence to validate this statement, but I do have a number of patients who do not react as quickly to treatment as previously. There is no judgement made on people who have been vaccinated. External pressure and restrictions placed on an individual will sometimes mean there is no choice given to that person in order to care for their family.

So. I carry on observing and will give a remedy when I feel I have enough prescribing symptoms… A tough one.

A Question

This is to ascertain the thinking of health concerns in general. If a patient is diagnosed with cancer and has lesions or a tumour internally, is it a good idea to remove the tumour surgically and treat the patient, or is it better homoeopathically to just treat the patient without surgical involvement? This question is asked to balance the viewpoint of homoeopathic professionals on both sides of the question and not to ‘legislate’ or mandate a course of action.

dt_161215_doctor_thinking_800x600

Looking at the presenting disease/diagnosis in homoeopathic medical treatment

1200px-Portrait_of_Samuel_Hahnemann._Wellcome_L0015074 Much as modern medicine tries, it can only treat disease as separate from a living organism. Homoeopathy treats disease as a deviation from the normal healthy condition that an organism enjoys. This is not at odds with recognising bacteria and viruses etc as a causative agent, but once contracted, it is the organism that is sick and the organism that produces the symptoms and the organism that needs healing. It has been my experience with some patients, a disease infection despite having been removed with antibiotics or antivirals, the patient can continue to be weakened or susceptible to further infections, or even have a continuation of the disease WITHOUT the primary infection being detectable in blood tests.

“Diagnosis of disease”  (allopathically) implies that detecting the location and nature of a lesion in the anatomy, be it an organ, a limb, or tissue (et al) is the understanding of the disease. This presupposes that the physical material part is the total reality of disease, and structural changes within the body are nothing but effects of the alterations of the physical parts.

Using this primary thought pattern, it becomes obvious that the body is viewed mechanically with each organ being independent and replaceable. This viewpoint means the approach is to treat each damaged or diseased organ individually and this will fix the problem.shutterstock_791110975

Homoeopathy treats the organism as a whole. This is more than the sum of its individual parts. The organism as a whole is not limited either in function or disease and therefore the parts are not exhausted individually or treated individually. The trend of orthodox medicine is to generalise, diagnose and treat illnesses and their causes as far as these are accessible for diagnosis and treatment. The homoeopath’s direction is to individualise the patient and the drug and treat accordingly as a patient suffering under a set of circumstances or particular conditions. Thus the diagnosis of the disease is not indispensable from the homoeopathic point of view for treating patients; or rather the emphasis on nosological diagnosis may, in many cases mislead the homoeopathic physician in the art of selecting the similimum.

Putting the assessment in the place of nosological diagnosis takes a different value if we attach a wider significance to it. The diagnostic problems that confront us today involve more than the naming of the maladies and recognition of their anatomical substrate; they include the making of pathological physiologic diagnosis,  the discovery of aetiologic factors, the determination of the series of events that have intervened between the action of causes and their later results (that is to say the detection of several links in the pathogenetic chain), the separation of constitutional from environmental factors In the origin of inadequacies of biological adjustments, the reactions of human persons, as a whole, to the stimulations in which they find themselves and the discovery of the physical, chemical, psychological and situational means that can be employed to gain and to maintain the highest possible level of vital efficiency of each person examined.  This represents a vast widening of our ideas of the functions of medical diagnosis. After all, is  said and done, we cannot in the selection of the”similimum,” ignore pathology or as a matter of fact, nosological diagnosis, for without it we deprive ourselves of some advantages that might be derived from pathological symptoms, which may be summed up as follows:

(1) Only by means of it we can know the symptoms that are common to the disease, and hence those that are peculiar to the patient.

(2) We also thereby know at certain stages of some diseases that no matter how similar the symptoms produced by certain remedies may appear to those of the patient, yet, owing to the superficial character of their action,  it is not possible for them to prove curative.

(3) Pathology enables us to decide when new symptoms arise and whether they are due to the natural progress of the disease or to the action of the remedy.

(4)  Pathology also warns us that it is dangerous to attempt to cure certain disease conditions, e.g.,  advanced phthisis or deeply seated abscesses or where foreign bodies are encysted near vital organs.

The intention of this monograph is:

1/. To know what is curable in our patients.

2/. To assess his symptoms for prescribing.

3/.To separate the symptoms ultimating from his disease from those that characterise his fight against it. (immune system, vital principle)

4/. To decide on ancillary therapy.

5/. In the interest of public health.

6/. To maintain the reputation of homoeopathy by showing the non-homoeopathic physician that we do not disregard his Values, but add a deeper insight to healing the patient.

Homoeopathy is about understanding the case.

So what does understanding the case mean in real terms?

shutterstock_791110975Firstly, if a person is to take a case, they will have to follow the directions for doing so PRECISELY from Hahnemann’s writings. For those that have skipped learning from the ORGANON and Chronic DISEASES, I’m afraid you will have to take the time to investigate and understand the applied methodology. No modern teaching replaces the methodology required to ascertain what is required to cure the patient.

There are 3 areas of investigation. Aphorism 5, Aphorism 6 and aph 153.

  1. A word about health. First, there is the constitutional makeup of a person. The genetic predisposition of family traits, disease inheritance and weaknesses. These things are the bedrock of an individual’s life soil upon which sickness can take hold. It is the background for the term susceptibility, in the main not forgetting life events which can weaken and predispose a person to illness. This is covered in aphorism 5.
  2.  Aphorism 6 contains the instructions on how to note the symptoms of a presenting case of illness, be it acute or chronic. How to examine all the presenting symptoms of the patient including symptoms that arose that are NOT symptoms of the named disease, but arose during this bout of illness.
  3. Once all these bits and pieces of information have been collated and itemised by location, sensation and modalities, the case can then be synthesised through the filter of aphorism 153, to find the closest remedy to the chosen symptoms.

It is at this point in the case analysis, that the medical evaluation of the patient’s illness is diagnosed. Please note, I said the patient’s illness, NOT the named pathological disease. The symptoms of the named disease are examined carefully to see what is common to the illness, and what symptoms are prominent in the patient.

Aph 153 is the key to making a prescription.

§ 153 Sixth Edition

“In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.”

This observation by Dr Samuel Hahnemann is one of the most misunderstood, misquoted and mistaught aphorisms in the whole Organon. I have seen false teachers of homoeopathy, spend hours if not days, lecturing on finding the hidden personal psychiatric symptoms of a mind that “represents” the inner disease which bears no relationship to the suffering experienced by the patient.

A competent student of homoeopathy, having diligently applied him or herself, to the writings of Samuel Hahnemann, will have no trouble in comprehending the true meaning of this aphorism in relationship to, studying the disease state of the patient, and in finding the similarity to a  Medicinal agent that has the power to cause similar symptoms.

The word “Peculiar”  is one of those words, which has been taken out of context and lost its true meaning within the range of the aphorism and the subjects being discussed.

“….Belonging distinctively or primarily to one person, group, or kind; special or unique:  Example: “a species peculiar to this area.”

We, therefore, see, simply by reading the aphorism, that Hahnemann is directing our attention to signs and symptoms of both the disease state AND  and a proven substance that can reproduce accurately the same distinctive, or peculiar, collection of symptoms that is expressed through the patient’s observable symptoms.

All symptoms of disease, singularly, may be common, vague,  non-distinct,  and representative of 1000 different ailments, until, they are linked together and form a pattern and a discernible representation of a pathological expression of one known disease. In the same way, a collection of symptoms noted by a homoeopathic physician,  that represents the entirety of the internal disorder or disease, will find its correlation in few medicines,  simply because of the “peculiarity” of the combined symptoms, that is to say, the “strangeness and the rareness” of these symptoms being found together and expressed by the patient in its expression. Strange and rare do not imply the symptoms are strange or rare, it implies the characteristics of their combination are rarely found except in a few medicines.

This combination then becomes the CHARACTERISTIC or peculiarity of both the medicine and the disease.

We are not looking for anything else, other than accurately observed symptoms of the disorder in the patient, that by its individual expression, for example, the modalities, the aggravations and ameliorations of times and circumstances, or by the combination of particular symptoms,  that individualise this particular case of disease, which is matched in its singularity (by the combination of symptoms or type of onset, or periodicity) by a proven medicine to individualise it.

Example:

Patient: 10 symptoms. Each symptom individually is covered by 125 medicines. (Common)

Three modalities of the patient’s disease are represented in only 5 medicines in COMBINATION.

Three Modalities and one location is covered by only ONE Medicine in the expression of the disease.

Please please go through the several cases posted on this website, https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.org/ and using this information see how we look for the more defined symptoms in the case of disease that may or may not be representative of a known pathological named disease, but are present in the patient and therefore cannot be ignored.

By using this knowledge, and also following the recommendation in § 6 Sixth Edition:

The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

it should be possible now, without speculation, or metaphysical thinking, to apply Hannemann’s directions in every case of disease and try to elicit the true guiding symptoms that are characteristic of the disease and are matched as near as possible to a medicine that is capable of producing the same symptom picture, and therefore elicit a curative action.

Thoughts regarding our profession

▲ 

Thoughts……

cute-doctor-thinking-with-hand-chin_13339-249478



I was in the company of a homoepathic colleague several years ago. He expressed the wish that all allopathic surgeries were taken over by homoeopaths.

Sadly, I could not agree with him. This cannot and SHOULD not happen. The truth is that a lot, if not the majority of homoeopaths are not sufficiently trained to practice and prescribe quickly on Hahnemannian principles for the benefit of the patients. Also, we as a profession need to re-establish our credentials by having central training, especially for those without knowledge of anatomy and physiology, disease processes, and knowledge of current allopathic treatments for health conditions.

We at the IHM have been looking hard at the current armoury of allopathic medications, and are discussing which treatments do not suppress the living organism and are perhaps necessary on a temporary basis to prevent further issues, ie blood thinners or some heart regulators.

Whilst all of us here in the IHM are dedicated to the practice of homoeopathy, and are convinced of the efficacy of the treatments, we are also realists in this over-medicated system, and try to work with the drugs that a patient is on until the remedial action of a remedy allows the body to self regulate. It is time-consuming and sometimes 3 steps forward and 2 steps backwards, yet that is part of how we have to work with the patients’ problems.

Our profession in the west is slowly disappearing. The term “Homoeopathy” continues, along with the designation “homoeopath”, yet the real practice and application are no longer at the forefront of treatment. A patient looking for a practitioner is at a disadvantage, he or she no longer is sure of the Hahnemannian treatment. So sad. Homoeopathy is very forgiving, and for acute diseases. a remedy given that is close to the symptoms of the disease will trigger an immune response that will be curative. For deeper problems, an understanding of Hahnemann’s research is required.

The IHM teaches Hahnemannian homoeopathy, and each of the members of the Register practices in the manner described and taught by Hahnemann. Although we can’t help everybody, we can be assured that the methodology employed in treatment offers the best chance of success.

The IHM has moved to online teaching and will begin the second intake of students shortly. We will give details as soon as we can.

What we teach.

We give all the Hahnemannian directives and principles through case taking and case analysis. We cover the Organon pointers in each step that is taken during the process to ensure finding the best medicine. A few steps are required to be made before utilising aphorism 153 as the final arbiter.

P1060504

Not following Hahnemanns teaching of homoeopathy.

By Dr. Guillermo Zamora. M.D.,I.H.M. D.hom med (Lic)

Dr+Gsmall

At this analysis I would like to establish fundamental differences between Hahnemann´s homeopathy and the different thinking in the world.

Fundamental differences between Hahnemann and:

A. Leon Vannier
B. James Tyler Kent
C. Eilhelm Heinrich Schüssler
D. Francisco Xavier Eisayaga
E. Bernard Poitevin
F. G Vithoulkas
G. Proceso Sanchez Ortega
H. Tarsicio Escalante Plancarte
I. Hebert A. Roberts
J. N. Ghatak

I am going to start with Leon Vannier (1880-1963)

The first difference that I would like to quote is about the laws, while Hahnemann used only the law of similar. Vannier used both as a similar law as contraries, often simultaneously.
Vannier took into account the human function, temperament and constitution to select the remedy, while Hahnemann only considered the totality of symptoms.

Regarding the classification of diseases, Hahnemann divided into acute and chronic miasmas: Psora, syphilis, and sycosis, while Vannier based on the morphology of sensory, functional and lesional disorders, with acute or chronic genesis which in addition to Hahnemann´s miasmas, he added tuberculosis (Hering) and cancer. From the standpoint of disease´s causal agent, Hahnemann refers to morbific agent while Vannier a toxinic complex .

Regarding the dynamics of the consultation, Vannier referred that interrogation must be conducted by the physician at once this has been done, then patient must be explored with the same technique that orthodox medicine. In addition, he added iridology as one more technical exploration. Hahnemann established that the questioning must be done through the free tribune and mere observation of the patient and questions must not be directed to a negative or positive response.

Vannier divided the study of the drug in Analytical (characteristic signs, objective signs, subjective secondary signs, procedures), Synthetics (subjective and objective symptoms ), homeopathic antidotes  and incompatibilities. Hahnemann did the most complete study about remedies’ concordances

About the dosage, Hahnemann did little emphasis on the exact dosage of the drug (although he recommended and experienced the minimal dose), but rather the response towards the remedy, while, it seems to be, Vannier studied the dosage and administration interval.

Treatment Technique:
Hahnemann used a similar single drug at a time, while Vannier used a combination of homeopathic medicines at once. Beside, Vannier used methods such as drainage, Organic and toxinic regulation and he also used therapeutic series and families of remedies.

James Tyler Kent
(1849-1916)
James T. Kent, graduated from Eclectic Medical Institute in the year 1871.
Kent received his diploma as homeopath from homeopathic school in Missouri in 1889.
His teachers writings include Dr. Samuel Hahnemann and Emanuel Swedenborg.
Dean of the Post-graduate school of homeopathy “in Philadelphia.
Professor of medical materia in the “Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital”, in Chicago, and “Hering Medical College “, Chicago.

Kent thinks that Psora is the origin of all diseases, believing that was the original sin over which rests all human pathology (Swedenborgian influence). He says the Psora is found in the body from birth and refers that the other two chronic miasmas (sycosis and syphilis) could not exist if Psora had not established  on mankind. Dr. Hahnemann considers that patients may present any disease without necessarily having Psora.

Regarding the dose, for Kent had no difference in quantity, for Hahnemann each pill remedy had a certain amount of medicinal energy. For Kent quantity was just a static factor while the potency is a dynamic factor. (Swedenborgian influence)

Vital Force: Kent believed that the energy came from a single substance, to him, there was no such thing as a pure energy, while Hahnemann considered that there is pure energy without a physical or even a simple substance, he (Hahnemann) thought that it comes from a force Electromagnetic.

Although the germ theory is not a difference, it could be, let me explain it. Kent did not believe that microorganisms play an active role in disease´s processes. He said: – “Most of the doctors are going crazy about the bug and they have been made a vice to say that these (bugs) are the cause of the disease and they think that these” young friends “are extremely dangerous.” Also says: “The bacteria are innocent colleagues and if they carry diseases they only carry the simple substance that causes the disease like an elephant would do it. It seems to be that Hahnemann wrote the first comprehensive study on the effects of microorganisms in the human. Although expressing the importance of susceptibility and constitution of the patient.

Hahnemann used the term infection in a very wide sense, to him; anyone can be infected by any external stimulus which produces a reaction of the body. This reaction is explained by Hahnemann within the conceptual, supra sensual or virtual level, it means, No chemical nor mechanical, then dynamic. There might be positive (healthy) and negative reactions for the body, it depends on the objective, subjective and functional sides. Thus, Hahnemann can consider external stimulus (infectious agents) to factors coming from the enviroment (i,e light sun) until the medicines themselves as they can get a reaction from the body, and in personal opinion, why not, even microorganisms (I mean, any factor able to get a reaction from the body). Therefore, a miasma is a disease (reaction) which is developed, after an infection with an external stimulus (Infectious agent).

Without the existence of microscopes, Hahnemann explains the various phases of an acute disease as if were a microbial disease.

Kent set the mind symptom as the most essential in his repertorization symptoms and he confuses it with personality. Hahnemann only takes the mind symptom which has been concomitant to the disease and never takes personality into account for his repertorization method. (example: How mood changes while in a disease state).

Kent used his own repertory which is filled with errors and additions from doubtful sources, wrong translations and misunderstood techniques on the collection and graduation of symptoms. Hahnemann used the techniques that formed  Boenninghausen´s Repertory 1846 under his Collection (complete symptom and its elements) and graduation protocol.

Eilhelm Heinrich Schüssler
Born in Oldenburg, Germany.
He lived from 1821 to 1898.
1.-He says that the lack of certain minerals in the cells (law of minimum) produces illness.
2.-These lacks of salts were gotten from ashes of cremated bodies.
3.-According to Schüssler, one prepared can be administered simultaneously with various salts and only will be absorbed the needed salt, the others will be eliminated.
4.-He accepts that these salts can be used prophylactically.
5.-He does not take into account the totality of symptoms but the relationship of the disease and salts lacks theory.
6.-He believes that such salts are nutrients that are part of the body. Salts are not drugs.
7.-He did not classify the diseases.

Francisco Javier Eisayaga
He was married to Amalia Bertha Klein both formed a united family with strong values of affection and good principles. They had eight children, three of them are medical doctors currently.
He died on June 26, 2001 at 9:30 pm.
Prof. Dr. Francisco Xavier Eisayaga is graduated from the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
He was Urologist at several hospitals in urology in Buenos Aires.
He studied homeopathy in 1949-50, in Argentina Homeopathic Medical Association.
Lecturer and then as vice president and of that association.
He has authored numerous articles and books among which are his Treatise on Homeopathic Medicine and his “masterpiece” translation of The Modern Repertory of Kent.
He was president of the International Homeopathic Medical League from 1988 to 1996

Differences:
1.-Dr. Eisayaga agrees to make clinical diagnostic pathology.
2.-He agrees with experiments on sick people.
3.-Dr. Eisayaga accepts the 2 additional miasmas Dr. Leon Vannier (Tuberculinism and Cancerinism).
4.-He recognizes the achievements of the allopathic medicine.
5.-He reports that Psora may be predisposing for acute illnesses.
6.-In the other hand, he accepts the use of more palliative homeopathic substances.

Bernard Pointevin
1.-Dr. Pointevin attaches importance to characterological traits and morphological typology for the specificity of a patient with the medication.
2.-Vitalistic explanation differs from Hahnemann, He said that the current interpretation should be based on physical-chemical knowledge applied in contemporary biology.
3.-He did not recognize as a “Law” to the similar´s Law but as a therapeutic relationship of similarity.
4.-He says the objective of the consultation is the therapy and understanding of the physiological mechanism and lesion of the disease.
5.-He says, it must do nosological and functional diagnoses.
6.-He mentions that drugs should be prescribed according to both clinical syndrome and homeopathic diagnosis, to be complemented.
7.-He agrees with the antibiotic therapy if the individual does not react to homeopathic medicine or if there is lack of experience in homeopathy.
8.-He experiments on animals.
9.-He doubts remedies work above 9 CH.
10.-He calls empiricism to homeopathic practice.
11.-He takes into consideration the active principle of a substance to experiment its effects within a homeopathic remedy.

G. Vithoulkas
1.-To George. Vithoulkas, the vital force is the same that an electromagnetic field (the concept of resonance). Each substance has a frequency that must resonate with the body so that there is healing.
2.-Similar´s law relates to the above (resonance).
3.-He tries to explain the mechanism of action of the remedies through physicochemical ideas (Poitevin) in biology. (Electromagnetic fields)
4.-Defense mechanism and dynamic and vital force are the same.
5.-Patient first must get sick of Psora to get syphilis and sycosis. (Kent)
6.-He accepts that acupuncture, allopathy, and magnetism can also achieve cure by touching the dynamic plane.
7.-He states that there are plenty of miasmas and not just three.
8.-Accepts treat one miasma every time, in layers of predisposition (layer by layer).
9.-Accepts nosodes as therapy. (Based on Isopathic terms)
10.-The miasma is a diathesis (predisposition) and not disease.
11.-He reports that remedies must be experienced in healthy subjects but who are familiar to the Materia Medica, with an average of ages, between 18 and 45 years old.

Proceso Sanchez Ortega
1.-Dr. Sanchez accepted the therapy in a bi-miasmatic or tri-miasmatic, this (therapy) should be focused towards the prevailing miasma, and then proceed to the next that is most prevalent and so on.
2.-He compares Miasmatic diseases with colors, even; he compares the character and temperament with colors either.
3.-He makes a numerical classification of the miasmas (according to personalities) with combination´s codes that must fit between persons in order of getting a better interpersonal and social communication.
4.-He considers to the miasma as diathesis (predisposition) or a genetic disease.
5.-He made his own miasmatic classification of the remedies.

Escalante Tarsicio Plancarte
1.-He calls to homeopaths as simil therapists, vitalistic (simil) and materialistic (Therapists) respectively.
2.-He based the action of remedies based on their pharmacodynamy.
3.-Dr. Escalante refers that Homeopathic medicine is chosen by the principle of similar but it heals by contraries law.
4.-He supports experiments in animals and other living beings.
5.-He says that homeopathic medicines act in different systems depending on the dose (potency), which invert their action while they are more diluted.
6.-He notes that remedies which exceed the 9c in the practice or the Avogadro limit (12 CH) are useless for healing.
7.-He accepts the Alternatism and complexism. (For alternating or giving several bottles)
8.-He says that the miasma must be attached to the germ theory because Hahnemann did not know abut it.
10.-He supports Isopathy, even he considers it as a Law.

Hebert A. Roberts
I think that Roberts did a descriptive analysis of Hahnemann more than to establish a philosophy, He differs in the following:
1.-Roberts tries to explain the high dilutions of Hahnemann from the point of view of the atoms referring that these acquire radioactive attributes and therefore act at the level of vital energy which moves away from Hahnemannian dynamic concept.
2.-He refers that temperament must be considered for medical history, I.e. to prescribe pulsatilla: Women with blonde hair and blue eyes, or Nux vomica: Woman thin and brown skin.
3.-He called stigma instead of miasmas to syphilis and sycosis, due to the effect almost indelible injury in cells which has been left by these two miasmas.
4.-The author mixes symptoms of developed Psora such as mental and some other items in the stigma of syphilis and sycosis.

N. Ghatac
He is from India. Born in 1918
1.-The only way to activate Hering´s Law is through high Potencies.
2.-Ghatak takes to all diseases as one disease (Psora), Psora includes also the other two miasmas: Syphilis and sycosis
3.-The concept of symptomatic totality is different in acute and chronic cases, the prescription is based on the miasma acting, and it is not in the acute form.
4.-Dr. Ghatak believes that all remedies are tri-miasmatic.
5.-The disease only exists in the mind.
6.-The real action is only effective through homeopathic highly dilutions. All chronic case must be tried with 200c or higher.
7.-Although he considered that low potencies act only in the body, in any case is rarely a good response to 30c.
8.-He does not consider the totality of symptoms only the dominant miasma.

Bibliography
1.-Organon de la Medicina, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, tercera edición, Editorial Porrua.
2.-Las Enfermedades Crónicas y Su Peculiar Naturaleza y su Curación Homeopática, Del Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, Traducido por el Dr. José Antonio Ugartechea G.
3.-Enfermedades Crónicas, su causa y su curación, N. Gathak.
4.-Filosofía de la homeopatía, James Tyler Kent.
5.-Apuntes sobre los miasmas, Proceso Sanchez Ortega, 1ra edición 1977, México
6.-las Leyes y Principios de la Homeopatía en su Aplicación Práctica, G. Vithoulkas, español lanzado en 1997.
7.-Los principios y el Arte de curar por medio de la Homeopatía, Dr. Hebert A. Roberts.
8.-LA PRACTICA DE LA HOMEOPATIA de VANNIER, LEON EDITORIAL PORRUA, S.A.
9.-La terapéutica por el semejante, Dr. Tarsicio Escalante Plancarte.
10.-Introducción a la Homeopatía, bases experimentales y cientificas, Bernard Poitevin.
11.-Biblioteca de homeopatía de Guadalajara A.C.

How we can help your clinic to grow with our online seminars.

The rationale for success in Homoeopathy.

After 10 years in homoeopathic practice, I realised (and accepted) that my ability to help the majority of patients using homoeopathy was impaired. In facing this truth, accompanied by clinic statistics, I looked for where the problem lay. My choices were:

  • I was not a good homoeopath.
  • Homoeopathy did not work.
  • My approach and understanding of the application of the therapy were wrong.

I stopped practice for a while and conducted intense research through the pages of Hahnemann, Kent, Boenninghausen, and a lot of other contemporary writers of the time.

What became obvious was that The Swedenborg school (Kent et al) did not practice according to Hahnemann’s directions. Given that the Swedenborg approach has taken over the teaching curriculums of Homoeopathic Institutions, (and was the approach I used,) it became imperative to ascertain the differences from Hahnemann and see if this was the problem.

Kent places emphasis on the spiritual and mental symptoms a patient expresses. My research has shown there is a general but accurate approach to case taking, which is not limited to any single aspect of a patient. I will briefly explain this here. We will teach the full methodology in our online seminars.

Now after 36 years in practice, I have 26 years of practice in the Hahnemannian tradition with an average of 72% first prescription accuracy, and 81% cure rate.

Firstly, the following is a breakdown of what a practitioner needs to know.

Visual signs

  • Find the limits of the importance of the signs,
  • the ability to deconstruct signs, to break them into important aspects.
  • the ability to reconstruct signs in a totality
  • The use of Repertory and the symptom codes as found in remedies.

Seeing a visual expression of the disease symptom in question, the evidence of the expression is right in front of us. We must remember that one symptom must be in harmony with and be related by the existence of other signs and symptoms to produce a coherent whole to individualise a remedy choice.

There are at least 10 examples of ‘relationships’  Here are three.

How do we find a ‘totality’? Its an evaluation of each symptom involving visual signs.

  • One is several signs appearing in a localised area, which when examined complete an indication for a complete sign as in location sensation and modality. It is the peculiarity of this complex sign that makes it worthy of homoeopathic attention.
  • Another is a relationship between symptoms appearing in different locations.
  • Relationship of visual signs and pathology.

Another 7 carefully researched pointers will be taught in our online practitioner course.

I asked myself how does one remedy express itself in different diseases?

Clinical observation presents us only indicators, signs that point to some remedies. Rubrics help to narrow the field of possible medicines, however, the truly effective and definitive method is the collective appearance of signs that are connected by grouping, time and in the disease state under scrutiny.

Case example: (Gheorghe Jurj)

snake arm

The elements associated with this configuration are:

  • 1) large boils;
  • 2) swelling;
  • 3) ecchymosis;
  • 4) cyanosis;
  • 5) lymphatic affection. The cause of this picture is a toxic substance which produces:  1) micro thrombosis with 2) laceration of the superficial layer of the skin, which thus is detached forming boils;  3)  Lack of coagulation;  4)  disturbance in the microcirculation,  predominantly venous  (cyanosis); and 5) oedema. It can be a disease, as e.g. bullous pemphigo, it, it can be an intoxication. It is a snake bite. From the homoeopathic clinical viewpoint, this is extremely relevant:  a  similar grouping in a patient points to a snake-derived remedy,  e.g. Lachesis, as in the following cases.

Case To show grouping of Symptoms to use with repertory.

snake2

Patient consults with severe congestive heart failure; is in very poor general state, with dyspnea and very irritable. He had spent the last three weeks hospitalized, but there was no improvement; on auscultation he presented signs of chronic pulmonary edema and he also had ulcers in the legs.

snake3

Clinical picture was composed of characteristic signs of the disease (cyanosis, peripheral edema) as well as of signs of this individual-in-disease: deep blue discoloration of the distal extreme of the lower limbs with congestion in the proximal one and ulcers. His face presented similar signs : overall congestion and infiltration, deep-blue cyanosis (lips, nose, ears) and venectasis on the cheeks.

snake4

However, a closer look on the lips showed, in fact, an alternation between congestive and cyanotic areas, the same pattern as in the lower limbs.

Venectasis also on the back, which is an extremely rare localization for this phenomenon, therefore, a peculiar sign.

snake5

snake6The tongue was bifid, deviated to the left side, exhibited dramatic cyanosis and a toxic white coating. A closer look on the ulcers showed once again an alternation of red congestive and blue cyanotic small areas as well as a humid secretion. A coherent configuration leads to individualization: in each localization and lesion the same phenomena are present: alternation of congestion and cyanosis in small areas; toxic appearance; infiltration and swelling; ecchymosis (disturb of coagulation); microthrombosis and venous stasis. Prescription of Lachesis in low dilution (9cH) led to improvement of circulation, visible and also through auscultation, with reduction of pulmonary edema; improvement of dyspnea and weakness as well of the mental symptoms.

It is important to be the best practitioner you can be. The IHM does not claim to be anything else than followers of Hahnemann and adherents of his methodology. We do have a good track record of successful prescribing. We also can direct you on the right path to find success following Hahnemanns protocols.

We will welcome you to study with us either in the residential clinic or on line.

The four grades of Boenninghausen.

Please find a PDF from the IHM to you regarding the grading system of the TPB.

4 grades of Boenninghausen.

January 2022 online seminar courses.

Given to topicality of our current pandemic, we will have an interactive 2 hour presentation regarding homoeopathic treatment to deal with the ill effects of the disorder.

We will cover the symptoms experienced generally, and what remedies have been proven to be beneficial. These are the same remedies and treatments used in our clinic along with ancillary methods to speed recovery.

education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com