Monthly Archives: September 2015

Thou shalt never read in bed again…

By Vera Resnick

Many practitioners struggle with the question of how much to limit patients in terms of diet. Patients ask quaveringly “does this mean I can never have coffee any more?” as they clutch cans of caffeine-laden Coca-Cola with whitening knuckles. Is Homeopathy intended to be draconian in food and lifestyle restrictions? Continue reading

Jim Carrey Attacks California Vaccine Law and Big Pharma on Twitter

Most people know Jim Carrey for this famous comedic acting and standup but Carrey got pretty serious in a recent tweet he made regarding his feelings about California’s new vaccine law, earning the famous actor headlines.

California’s new vaccine law removes religious and personal exemptions effectively forcing all children to be vaccinated without parental choice.  In his controversial tweets, Carrey called Jerry Brown, the California Governor a “corporate fascist,” and was met with huge response from many of his 14 million twitter followers.

Carrey also made a post which entitled “Safety and Civil Liberties: Is Corporate Clout Calling the Shots?” Though calling California’s governor a corporate fascist could seem a bit aggressive, in his post Carrey expresses an opinion that is fully logical, balanced, and simply the result of any conscious mind reviewing the situation. Carrey explains that he does indeed support the use of vaccines in many situations but that they should still be used on an individual basis and never be forced by the government, that the people should always have free choice and autonomy with their bodies.

He writes, “Let me be clear: I fully support the use of vaccines and believe they play a vital role in protecting the health of individuals and the public at large. That does not mean, however, that every vaccine is healthy, imperative, or right for every individual in every circumstance.”

He goes on to note that many vaccines have been life-saving and important tools for public health, but tat a line must be drawn and he then moves the discussion to the little-known vaccine court in the US saying,“There is no question that many of these vaccines have been among the greatest medical advancements in history. There is also no question that vaccines can and do injure people as the hundreds of millions of dollars awarded in vaccine court have proved.”

If you are unfamiliar with the vaccine court, you are not alone, as it is an office that is tucked away into a quiet corner in the intersection between the government and big pharma (synonyms?).  The vaccine court is officially called the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  It is a system specifically in place to process the claims of Americans who believe their children have been harmed or injured due to vaccine administration.  It is a part of the federal judiciary system, yet it is special in that the cases are not overseen by judges but instead by ‘special masters.’ reports,

“In late 2014, TruthInMedia reported that the Associated Press examined hundreds of court decisions, performed more than 100 interviews, and studied a database containing more than 14,500 cases. The database was last updated in January 2013, with the government refusing to release any new updates.”

“The AP investigation found several issues with the court. These included tens of millions of taxpayer dollars paid to private attorneys who often practice “churning,” a practice described as filing a large number of claims regardless of the quality of the claims. In the private court, attorneys are paid out whether or not they succeed in convincing the court. That fact has lead to questionable billing practices and an increase in court claims.”


“The AP report also found that “expert” witnesses for the families and the government often have a lack of credibility or conflicts of interest. The report said that some of the experts are also involved in setting up nonprofits that question vaccine safety. Meanwhile, doctors hired by the government to testify in defense of vaccines have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.”


Thanks to the inside view provided by the AP report, Carrey’s views and concerns on this controversial public health topic are not too hard to understand. “Over the past 20 or so years, pharmaceutical companies have given nearly $300 million to candidates for federal office, spent almost $200 million influencing California state elections, and have amassed over $3 billion in fees for high-powered lobbyists in Washington,” he writes. “I don’t think its crazy to be suspicious when these companies receive guaranteed revenue streams from politicians they have spent billions trying to influence.”

Carrey goes on to discuss additional aspects of the vaccine and public health sphere that are not so forthcoming and trustworthy including the often dubious practices of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) who he says operates a ‘revolving door’ that ‘spins in perpetuitiy.’  A recent whistleblower rose from the CDS, a man named Dr. William Thompson. Thompson admitted that numbers had been purposely altered in a study he had worked on in order to falsely claim that a lower number than reality of black children had been harmed by a certain vaccine.

Documents regarding the falsehoods knowingly present in this study were provided to Congressman Bill Posey’s office,

“Congressman Bill Posey’s office has confirmed exclusively to that a ‘very large number’ of documents have been turned over by CDC scientist, Dr. William Thompson, who has admitted that the CDC suppressed information about the links between the MMR vaccine and autism in some cases.

“According to Congressman Posey’s spokesman, George Cecala, ‘I can confirm that we have received a very large number of documents and we are going through those documents now. There are a lot of them, so it will take some time.’ Cecala could not say exactly how many documents are in possession of the Congressman’s staff though sources tell me that as many as 100,000 documents have been handed over.”

Taking an anti-vaccine position or even consciously questioning routine vaccination is still one of those things in society that will earn you quite a good amount of raised eyebrows. It seems that most people would still rather just turn a blind eye and not have to think about it.  Yet even with these small pieces of information revealed, it is easy to understand that Jim Carrey is  a logical, level headed person who is asking intelligent questions about a public health practice that is not done in honesty, clear cut scientific understanding, or guaranteed safety.  It must be hard for a very famous individual to come out with such a controversial standpoint, yet Carrey was right and courageous and honest to do so and hopefully his educational commentary will help to open the minds of many more Americans so that we may gain and move into full health autonomy as humans.

Jim Carrey finishes by saying, “I haven’t lost my sense of humor folks. It’s just buried under the rubble that was once my faith in government oversight. But there’s a time to laugh and a time for a serious debate over what it could mean to have our civil liberties taken away by our government at the behest of pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders. If we just sit back and let corporate clout call the shots our children may not remember what freedom was.”

Face shapes and other red herrings

By Vera Resnick

I have a friend who accuses me of being drawn by anything new, bright and shiny – by anything interesting, not to put too fine a point on it. And I have to admit, he is right.

So much in life is boring, especially for a homoeopath. We plod through tales of stools, stomach pains and ‘that niggling feeling I get in my head when I go to the bathroom’. We discuss sputum, coryza, leucorrhea, diarrhea and constipation ad infinitum. The floaters in the eyes ‘only when I look up’, the sinus pain ‘only when I look down’, the belching after eating and the incontinence after a pint… Continue reading

Restrictions during homoeopathic treatment – in Hahnemann’s words

By Vera Resnick


han2Reading Hahnemann is often a bracing experience. When I read his thoughts, which he expresses so succinctly and sharply, I find myself looking at my practice and wondering… Hahnemann’s introduction to China offers many expressions of the bracing sort… This particular subject, relating to medications and lifestyle of the patient while in treatment , appears in Hahnemann’s notes on his proving of China. Continue reading

Pathological desires in homoeopathy…

By Vera Resnick

But is it part of the disease state?

But is it part of the disease state?

A recent sample case showed a patient who said he kept wanting to move – even though he knew it would hurt him. When and how should we use such symptoms?

In this case the patient had dislocated his shoulder. He stated a constant desire to move even though movement was painful for him. Continue reading

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?)

Do Doctors make better homoeopaths?

You would think so wouldn’t you? Hahnemann was a doctor. All the original practitioners were doctors, the American writers of homoeopathy were doctors, and they are held in high esteem in books and writings about them. Kent was a Doctor. Hering was a Doctor. Both supposedly able homoeopaths.

However, the greatest homoeopath of all in terms of cure and surety in prescription after Hahnemann was not a Doctor. Boenninghausen was his name.

The question should really be: What makes a good homoeopath?

A good homoeopath is someone:

  •  Someone who has read and understood all of Hahnemanns writings, starting with the rationale for its very existence.
  • Someone who understands the difference between a named disease, the results of a named disease, and the REAL disease as expressed by the patient in signs and symptoms.
  • Someone who does not confuse preferences or personality in tracing the picture of the disease.
  • Someone who understands what a prescribing symptom is.

I know a lot of medical doctors who practice homoeopathy. There are very few who meet the criteria of being a homoeopath with regard to adherence to the above requirements. There is also the problem of the main body of westerners who think they are practising homoeopathy by utilising the methodologies of Scholten, Sankaran Vithoullkas and others.

A few years ago, I was a member of a discussion group which included several prominent names in the homoeopathic community. One time, a question arose as to whether it was important to send a patient for a testing if cancer was suspected. A member, who is the president of a prominent American Homoeopathic Association emphatically stated that it was vital to do so. I asked him why.

“So the patient could get the appropriate and correct treatment for their cancer!” was the response.

I asked, “in your opinion, what is the appropriate and correct treatment for cancer?”  we all waited for the reply………. there was none. It was then that I realised that the allopathic view and treatment of patients had never changed to that of a homoeopath in him or most doctors.

I left the group.  There are clinics of doctors world wide who treat cancer with “homoeopathy” and once the tumour starts to diminish, then they will remove with surgery rather than allow the treatment to fix the problem. It is a bastardized process which actually is allopathic in nature using potentised medicines. I hear all the arguments for the process and get told of the successes, but are also aware of the failures with comments like, ” the cancer was too far advanced” “Secondaries started quickly and there was nothing we could do”…….. There are times when surgeries are necessary due to obstruction and complications, but to routinely remove cancer or without allowing the medicines to kill the disease process first, is asking for trouble.

So the question is, are YOU a homoeopath? Do you understand what homoeopathy can cure and where other therapeutic aids need to be implemented and why? Do YOU have confidence in the medicines? Do YOU know how to use homoeopathic medicines properly? Do YOU know what signs to look for and when to change a medicine?

This applies to medically qualified personnel as well.




Viewed through proving: Opium aggravates

Most of Opium’s proving symptoms can be summarized very simply in the following words: Opium aggravates.

The best overview of this remedy is that which Hahnemann gives in the introduction to the proving – so here it is. Go on, read the whole thing. You know you can do it. For those who get bored quickly, look for an important prescribing tip in the text relating to how to prescribe Opium effectively homoeopathically for pain relief.

Read on! Continue reading

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).