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.
- 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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 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.