Why Hahnemann?

For most people practising homoeopathy, the influence on their case taking and analysis is Kentian. If like me, back in the 80s,a yearly review of my patients showed less than a 45% cure rate which motivated me to return to the writings of Hahnemann and evaluate where I was going wrong.

What I learned-Kent was not a Hahnemannian.

https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.org/2019/08/13/the-problem-with-jt-kent-and-homoeopathy/

I then spent the next two years ‘unlearning Kent and re-establishing the correct case taking and evaluation techniques as defined by Hahnemann. My clinical cure rate went up to 80% as I applied Hahnemann’s methodology. Persons who attend the 4-day training for inclusion on the IHM Register also have high rates of success with utilising Hahnemann’s methodology and using the Therapeutic Pocket Book in daily practice.

Homoeopathy is a very forgiving therapy. A remedy that produces similar symptoms to the patient, will generally kick a curative response. However, when a patient requires a remedy to tackle the central disease state, aphorism 153 is the answer.

§ 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 symptoms1 of the case of the 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.

For a homoeopath, it is vital that they understand the meaning of the aphorism above. It is the cornerstone of finding the KEY symptoms for prescribing and matching with a correct remedy.

Kent, ignoring Hahnemann, emphasised the mental symptoms as the key. Nowhere does Hahnemann express the thought that the mind is the primary consideration, EXCEPT in mental diseases. Aph 210-220. He did say an altered disposition is always considered………..but it would have to be in line with aphorism 153 to be useful.

We teach how to isolate the prescribing symptoms to find the expression disease as per all the instruction and clues given by Hahnemann and Boenninghausen.

Once a practitioner is on the right track, everyone benefits.

 

3 responses to “Why Hahnemann?

  1. Interesting. George Vithoulkas considers himself Hahnemannian (has his bust on his desk) and Kentian (uses mostly Kent-based repertory). I’d say his cure rate is VERY high given the terribly mishandled and difficult chronic cases he is forced to see in front of the class.

    Be well, Helen

    Sent from the Dark Side of the Moon

    >

  2. I would say that you are not from the dark side of the moon even though you consider you are 🙂

  3. Magnifica considerazione e conferma. Giusta ! GRAZIE !!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.