Monthly Archives: July 2016

August Personal Training course (ENGLISH ONLY)

largeletterhead

education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com
espacio_parasol_sevillaHere in Seville Spain, the city heads for the coast during August. The temperature gets up quite a bit and so the annual holidays are taken then. All local businesses and restaurants and hotel are open so nothing changes as far as services go. If anything, things are a little cheaper. It’s a beautiful city to explore.

Due to circumstances, I find myself working here during August. To this end, the IHM is offering the personal training course in ENGLISH only during the month of August.

Let us know the dates that suit in August and we will work towards that goal.

An example of how we teach Hahnemanns therapy of homoeopathy.

The one week intensive personal training course.

Based in Seville Spain. English only course starting in August, Spanish course starting in September.

 

 

 

Below is an extraction of the discussion regarding Aphorism 3.

Aphorism 3 is the crux of homoeopathy, encapsulating all elements of homoeopathic prescribing and case-management.

The three main points are as follows:

1. The physician must clearly perceive what is to be cured in every individual case of disease

2. The physician must perceive what is curative in each individual medicine

3. The physician must know how to choose the most suitable medicine, to give the proper dose with appropriate repetition

On looking in more depth at 1, 2, and 3, several elements become clear.

1. What is to be cured.

Hahnemann emphasizes that this relates to each individual case of disease.espacio_parasol_sevilla The homoeopath is not looking for named diseases, but for the individual expression of disease in each patient. In addition, the homoeopath must only take symptoms which are “undoubtedly morbid in the patient”. These are clinically observable pathological symptoms, clearly part of the individual disease state as expressed by the patient. Guesswork, assumptions and speculations have no place here.

Individual expression of the disease may be defined most clearly through looking at causation, modifying factors, and those symptoms which are peculiar to the patient in nature or severity.

Here we see how this first point in the aphorism presents the structure for using information gained from the patient regarding his background, possible causation or chronic elements related to lifestyle or medical history – Aphorism 5 – and the information regarding changes in his health, Aphorism 6, where the changed pathological symptoms are the center of initial case-taking and prescription.

Although the changed pathological symptoms presenting “the true and only antonioconceivable portrait of the disease” central to the case, in chronic cases they may not be able to help us individualize the case enough to hone in on the most suitable remedies. While we will want all these symptoms to be present in the chosen remedy, we may not be able to use them in order to locate it.

Where the patient keeps getting sick, we must go back to Aphorism 5, to the patient’s medical timeline, to see if there is a miasm (i.e. the resulting symptom picture from having been infected in the past), if there is a pattern. It is possible in such cases that we will even take symptoms which are not currently present in the patient’s disease picture, seeing the patient’s symptoms over a longer period of time as one disease state.

2. What is curative in medicines:

gary-wWhere knowledge of medicines and their qualities is concerned, it must be absolutely clear – substances do not produce disease. They produce states of disorder – artificial states of disease.

Just as we individualize the patient’s disease in case-taking, during study of remedies it is important to individualize the disorders produced by substances in provings. As with patients, the same tools come into play – causation, modifying factors, and individual expressions of disorder which are peculiar to the remedy, the anxiety in Aconite for example, or the glazed eyes in Belladonna.

3. Adapting what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient.

During this process, we are treating the individualized expression of disease Boenninghausen3in the patient, the morbid pathology. We are not treating a named disease. Here we must match that individualized expression in the patient, with a substance that can cause such a symptom pattern.

In Boenninghausen’s pointers on symptoms (Concerning motion and rest
Translated from the allg. hom. zeit., vol., 65, p. 141)  he emphasizes the value of symptoms relating to movement and positions. If a person is aggravated on beginning movement, this narrows the case down to a small number of remedies. The same is true for aggravation on continued motion, or after motion. The differentiation is to be found within the modifying factors.

The prescribing symptoms used for this matching process are those that samuel_hahnemann_srepresent the state of the disease most clearly. This may be found through identifying modalities, as stated above, or through discerning an ongoing pattern with periodical disorders and recurring symptoms, or through a combination of both. Where particular modalities or pathological symptoms can be traced as recurring through the patient’s medical history, they are invaluable for prescribing.

Here are some more examples of this process.

If a patient is getting sick and exhibiting great anxiety, together with inflammation and perspiration, a fever may well be developing. Aconite will abort a developing fever, as the state as presented in the proving has apprehension and anxiety together with fever.

A patient has been diagnosed with measles, and is past the prodromal period. No substance will cause measles. However there are substances which will cause eruptions, fever, periodicity, discharges, and clinical observable mental states which are similar to the way in which this particular individual has been affected by this particular disease state. It is then necessary to look deeper and find the state which is strongly predominant in the individual, in order to locate the remedies in this group where a similar state is strongly expressed.

A patient presents with a sore throat, slight redness on the margins of the tongue, fever, glassy eyes and paleness of the face. This is an individual response to infection. Further examination shows intense redness of the fauces and tonsils with heat, inflammation, fever and lassitude. This state is peculiar to Belladonna, which will also be modified by aggravation from swallowing. In this case, we are individualizing the disease and individualizing the drug which produces the state. Although the sore throat is presenting, it is all the other information which enables us to come to the appropriate remedy. The sore throat in Belladonna is a result of its direct effect on the mucous membrane.

In another example, the patient is (apparently) a quiet, peaceful person, suffering from cancer of the stomach. In further conversation it emerges that the patient has has suppressed emotions relating to major life events, in order not to upset others. In keeping their feelings pent-up, such patients poison their own bodies. Although the clinical diagnosis is cancer of the stomach, the mental state here is also morbid, if not causative. Based on clinically observed symptoms, Natrum Mur will be one of the prescribing options.

Long-term chronic cases present the greatest difficulty, as causation usually cannot be used and the homoeopath must focus on the expression of the disease, often over many years. The patient may have experienced a series of ear infections, after which the disease locus may have moved to the throat, and then to the stomach. The entire history must be brought into play as these are all expressions of the same infection, termed “miasm” by Hahnemann. The current state before you is not sufficient, as it is the result of a progression which brought the patient to that particular current state.

Question-iconOn examination of long-term chronic cases, a symptom may suddenly fall into focus as having appeared in every disease state experienced by the patient – no matter what disease they are suffering from at the time. For example, some patients, in every disease state, suffer from left-sided symptoms. This modality must then be understood to be characteristic of the patient’s entire disease state, not just the current disorder.

Returning to Hahnneman

Original Spanish version here

manuelHomeopathy in the world today is in crisis. I am not referring to the lack of medical doctors and professionals who practice it, but by the senselessness in which it has become immersed.

Impurifications will divert every river from its original path, and this is a metaphor for what I believe has happened to homeopathy from its beginnings until today; with the passing of time homeopathy has been contaminated with multiple theories and notions beyond its control that have done it a great disservice.

I can argue that everything evolves in life and homeopathy should not be indifferent to this evolution and change. We agree on this point. However, when we talk about evolution, we speak of an evolution which makes sense, of evolution which occurs in a logical and coherent line from the principles that gave birth to it. We are not talking of a multilinear, random evolution of philosophical and psychological concepts which fall outside core homoeopathic doctrine.

I will not go into the possible contamination of homoeopathy perpetrated by Kent. This has already been discussed in these pages. I do however want to emphasize the two most serious contaminations that I see Homeopathy is suffering from today – the psychological and the spiritualist.

The psychological contamination of homoeopathy has come about partly from the influence of psychoanalysis and its ramifications, and the schools of homoeopathy built on these psychoanalytical misrepresentations, such as the South American schools of today.

The other serious deviation has come from spiritualist, typically new age currents which have infiltrated Homoeopathy and have led to such serious absurdities as sleep provings of remedies and other aberrations that I will not go into here. All of these practices have created a Homoeopathy which has been “disembodied” and removed from the reality of the patient, preferring to seek answers in the patient’s hidden pseudo-spiritual spaces.

I began working with homeopathy in the 80s and have been practicing since that time. Like many of my colleagues, I have noted that the practice of Homoeopathy has come more and more psycho-spiritual than medical. I do not mean to disparage the field of psychology. However, it should be given the place allocated to it by Hahnemann and Boenninghausen within the overall framework of the study of the patient, as can be seen by simply examining the Organon and Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura.

The teachers who taught me homoeopathy constantly repeated the importance of returning to Hahnemannian homoeopathy, of going back to the sources, but in their practice, nothing was further from reality. In my view, returning to Hahnemann and to the best of his disciples and thus returning to sanity and logical Hahnemannian thinking, is the only thing which can save homoeopathy from the abyss to which it is being led by some schools of thought and pseudo-homoeopathic practice.

From a completely objective point of view, Dr. Gary’s teaching presents a return to the purest of Hahnemman methodological study. Not only that, it also provides security in what we are doing, far removed from the insecurity in the field demonstrated by other so-called homoeopathic practices.

There is an extraordinary coherence and internal logic in the method proposed by Dr. Gary, who himself only picks up the thread of Hahnneman and Boenninghausen’s teachings and demonstrates their implementation.

And it is in this sense that one can speak of a real and true homeopathic evolution