Category Archives: case-taking

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.

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.

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.

Concomitant symptoms, discussions between Zamora and Weaver of the I.H.M.

Thinking-ManOnce it is clearly stated that there are peculiar specifics for pure individual diseases according to how they are described (in a general-pure way) in the pathology books and that there are also specifics for the different expressions of the individual disease, we will start from the fact that the information in the elaboration of the anamnesis is intended, among other things, to establish a timeline between the different problems that the patient may have and the pathological relationship that they may have with the main symptom, and these as a whole in turn with the various spheres of action of the remedies (§ 22 & FN-25 Sixth Edition). It is perhaps at this point where concomitant symptoms become more relevant.

Since it is Hahnemann himself who expresses that the reactivated Psora results in pathologies with their different names, I understand that the different psoric symptomatic expressions are clearly defined by well-delimited symptomatic complexes for each of those specific pathologies connected to each other within a single great general pathology; Psora, which is the great base infection that reconfigures our immune system to predispose us to inflammatory, infectious, degenerative, neoplastic, vascular, etc. pathologies.

This implies that during the anamnesis of concomitant symptoms, they have an incidence with the main symptom in its timeline through their morbid activity (preface, § 69-70 Sixth Edition), that is, their peculiar and characteristic activity with the main symptom so that together they can, or at least try to do, match with the sphere of action of the remedy at the most optimal level. Which would avoid many selection problems. (§ 169 Sixth Edition)

Having said that, I dare to say that the concomitant symptoms are those that accompany the main symptom in its timeline, and that they may or may not be in connection with the specific pathology suggested by the chief ailment. These can be considered according to several slopes:

*Causality. Examples:

Encopresis due to fear / anxiety

Nephrolithiasis due to physical exertion

Vaccine paralysis

Epilepsy by milk crust suppression: Case of Boenninghausen narrated by Carroll Dunham, in which the Baron seems to have prescribed Viol-T based on the suppressed crusta lactea. PHILADELPHIA JOURNAL OF HOMOEOPATHY. VOL. IV. NOVEMBER, 1855. Num. VIII, Pages: 449-458 LETTER OF C. DUNHAM, M.D. WILDBAD, OCTOBER 6, 1855.

Deafness due to suppression of tinea capitis: Case of Carroll Dunham. Taken from Homeopathy the Science of Therapeutics.

* Rarity: “Rarely appear in connection with the leading disease, and are, therefore, also found rarely among the provings.” But they really are in connection with the main pathology. Examples:

As to the pathology:

Leukonychia during hypertension.

Orchitis during mumps

Virchow ganglion in stomach cancer.

As to the proving: symptoms that are rarely generated by a remedy or that when generated are only produced by a small group of remedies. What would define them not as extraordinary, rare or uncommon symptoms per se, but by the few remedies that produces them during a pathogenesis. Examples:

Squil and Rheum bubbling sensation.

Nausea and vomiting with the smell of food from Colch and Ars.

* Allen: “those which belong to another sphere of disease than the chief ailment” that at least appear constant or alternating (§ 232 fn) in the timeline of the disease under consideration. Examples:

Cough with diarrhea (Rumex)

Anal fissure with pharyngitis (See case Monsignor Varlet: P 154/155 Df 14)

* Well characterized: “those which have more or less of the characteristic signs of one of the medicines, even in case they have not before been noticed in the present juxtaposition.”

A symptom that does not belong to the pathology that the chief ailment indicates, but is so well characterized that it points better to a more appropriate remedy. It is not concomitant as such, but it becomes into a main symptom. A matter of focus.

The most common mistakes outlined in casetaking.

1/. I see this all the time. Sadly it is the Kentian spiritual teaching regarding mental emotional and Constitutional symptoms being the correct and essential prescribing criteria which has created this situation. It is false.

Hahnemann stated clearly:

1200px-Portrait_of_Samuel_Hahnemann._Wellcome_L0015074§ 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.

When analysis is applied to this directive, it becomes clear that there is no emphasis on the mind or desires or indeed, to personality, (another misleading emphasis in understanding remedies).

2/. In case taking, both the symptoms of the disease, and the individual reaction to the disease are to be noted. If we know the nature of a named disease, its progression and pathology, we can note clearly which aspects of its reach is affecting the patient, and how the patient processes the infection in an individual way.

§ 153 Sixth Edition
In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of thesamuel-hahnemann-1 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 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.

Many years ago, in my studies to find out how to take a case, I went out on a limb and noted only the chief characteristics of a patients presentation, one two or three symptoms which ‘peculiarised’ and personalised the case before me. As I refined this technique, I learned to see the disease through the patients expressions of symptoms, not all the symptoms were of the pathology of the named disease, yet were intrinsically part of that infection though not noted as part of that disease. the patient presented symptoms which were expressed reactively and individually and as such needed individual treatment.

dental_doctor-thinkingsmallEach living organism comes from a line of genetic encoding and also the line of disease and weakness in the family. One family will be tubercular inclined and another from the results of say, a syphilitic background which has been well diluted but expressed through acute diseases not immediately associated with syphilis.

Because of the unknown backgrounds, we can ONLY prescribe on the symptoms presented. So for example, a patient presenting ringworm, we have a few remedies that deal with that infection readily. Occasionally, the patient does not resolve despite careful noting of the symptoms and a few doses of the requisite remedy. Compton-Burnett noted that ringworm ONLY appeared on susceptible people of a tubercular diathesis, and studied Bacillinum carefully, and then gave to the non resolving patients. Without exception, they all were relieved of Ringworm.

The practice of homoeopathy is solely effective based on the similarity of the remedy to the disease. However, it is ESSENTIAL to have the correct symptoms of the ‘disease’ to be effective.

The ‘disease’, is the individual presentation of the change in the patient and how that is expressed, not the symptoms of the named pathology. It is not merely the collection of symptoms collectively, it is the drilling down to the strangeness (to be discussed in seminars) the rarity of some symptoms (to be discussed in Seminars) and the characteristics (to be discussed in seminars) of both the disease and a considered remedy.

 

Where is homoeopathy in the 21st century?

I think the answer to this lies both in the history of the therapy and in the understanding of why it came into being at its inception.

allopathyModern medicine as defined, uses its pharmacy to treat disease by suppression or divergence of the expression of disease as exhibited by the patient. For example, a headache is treated by blocking the pain with pain relief medicine without treating the actual problem. Skin problems are treated with suppressive ointments or cortizone etc.

Hahnemann in his studies accepted that working with the patients immune system, and applying medicines that could produce matching symptoms, allowed a guide for the immune response to ‘focus’ on the disease expression, and cure itself.

This fundamental difference in approach, irrespective of the therapy of homoeopathy, is a law of nature and can be applied in a myriad ways. Homoeopathy as practiced the Hahnemannian way is a method to match accurately substances that can produce the symptoms of the disease and thus be applied curatively.

I have a firm grasp on the law of similars as being the method to cure disease. It is at odds with mainstream medicine in the West and as such those of us who feel the same are ridiculed and ostracised.

So for a person wanting to practice homoepathy, there is a need to be convinced that it is the bodys immune system that cures and nothing else.

§ 10 Sixth Edition
The material organism, without the vital force, is capable of no sensation, no function, no self-preservation 1, it derives all sensation and performs all the functions of life solely by means of the immaterial being (the vital principle) which animates the material organism in health and in disease.

§ 11 Sixth Edition
When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic 1 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known. 2
1 Materia peccans!
2  What is dynamic influence, – dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of he one substance upon the other substance.
For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.
In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot communicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.
It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.
Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?

§ 12 Sixth Edition
It is the morbidly affected vital energy alone that produces disease1, so that the morbid phenomena perceptible to our senses express at the same time all the internal change, that is to say, the whole morbid derangement of the internal dynamis; in a word, they reveal the whole disease; consequently, also, the disappearance under treatment of all the morbid phenomena and of all the morbid alterations that differ from the healthy vital operations, certainly affects and necessarily implies the restoration of the integrity of the vital force and, therefore, the recovered health of the whole organism.
1 How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is, how it produces disease, it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed from him; only what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it, has the Lord of life revealed to his senses.
§ 13
Therefore disease (that does not come within the province of manual surgery) considered, as it is by the allopathists, as a thing separate from the living whole, from the organism and its animating vital force, and hidden in the interior, be it ever so subtle a character, is an absurdity, that could only be imagined by minds of a materialistic stamp, and has for thousands of years given to the prevailing system of medicine all those pernicious impulses that have made it a truly mischievous [non-healing] art.
§ 14
There is, in the interior of man, nothing morbid that is curable and no invisible morbid alteration that is curable which does not make itself known to the accurately observing physicians by means of morbid signs and symptoms – an arrangement in perfect conformity with the infinite goodness of the all-wise Preserver of human life.  

Contained within the words of Hahnemann above, is the rationale for curative action by the law of similars.

Homoeopathy as a therapy, is not a touchy feely ‘alternative’ support to allopathy. It is a self contained medical practice that utililises a proven method of eliciting a curative response from a living organism be it human or animal. Where the organism is CAPABLE of responding and repairing itself, the effects are wonderful and almost miraculous to observe. If the organism is not capable of repair, sometimes we have to let allopathy take the lead in life preservation.

One of the major stumbling blocks to homoeopathy being accepted, is the scoffing maintained toward the dilutions. However science is slowly proving the power of water to absorb the effects.

The other and far more harmful issue within our therapy, is that a large number of practitioners have not learned real homoeopathy from Hahnemann. As such, individuals who are feted as good homoeopaths are misleading with their lack of knowledge and charisma, and not with accurate directives from Hahnemann.

So, if you are a practitioner, examine what you believe and practice by comparing it with the Organon. You will be surprised……………

The members of the IHM individually and collectively hold to the tenets of Hahnemannian practice and work in accordance to his directives. One of the noted features of our training courses, is that all aspects of the course are based around comprehension of the medical works of Hahnemann and Boenninghausen, usually each aphorism is backed up or explained by other texts so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the sublect under consideration. We teach the relevance of the written directives via cases to demonstrate WHY it has to be a certain way.

For new students of homoeopathy, we ground the individual from day one in understanding the methodology and the rationale, and teach them how to view a case through Hahnemanns perspective. While we encourage experimentation, we have found that going against Hahnemanns tested and tried recommendations, always fails. We do not allow polypharmacy or the use of non homoeopathic treatments like the flower remedies.

A number of use use the LM potencies and can give pointers as to how to use them. I myself have used them more or less exclusively since 1987.

We will announce seminar dates to be held in our Eastbourne East Sussex HQ covering case taking, Materia medica understanding, Rubric understanding of the Therapeutic Pocket book etc. This is dependant on the UK government laws regarding numbers and rules for indoor teaching.

More to come.

Difficult cases. Leg unknown infection.

In Seville, Spain, a long time patient of my colleague Manuel went into hospital for several weeks after developing a strange leg infection. The skin was peeling and deep cracks appeared in the heel and ankle of the right foot. These photos were taken after being released from hospital.

Manuel asked Antonio and myself to come to the clinic and observe and offer suggestions. As you can imagine, walking was difficult and the lady was in a lot of pain.

We put her in the reception room as it was easier for her to sit there, and raised her leg onto another chair to view the issue.

We took an hour looking at it. I examined thoroughly, came to no conlcusion as to the cause, noted that the hospital treatment of antibiotics had reduced the infection a little but the problem persisted.

She cried when we touched the areas of skin that has peeled and the inflamed leg. Very painful. I asked what made it better and she said that nothing did.

leg1Going into the bathroom, I moistened a paper towel and came back and placed it on her ankle and top of her foot. She said how much it felt better. I touched the area and she didnt notice or complain as previously.

 

20170612_17385020170618_112850

Aphorism 153 indicates that we solely keep the view on the characteristic, the strange and the rare in the expression of the disease.

§ 153 Fifth 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 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.

We also note, Hahnemann indicated the more ‘ striking’ symptom must be taken into consideration. On this basis, I took the following rubrics:

leg

I didnt add the locations, simply because MOST remedies are in leg and foot and ankle. I took the effect of the disorder on the person, ie the cracking of the skin in the ankle and heels, and the nature of the disorder in terms of the flaking of the skin. For me, the outstanding modality was the immediate relief from moistening of the skin.

Manuel saw the patient one week later and the patient was walking. The skin was healing, still red but healing. No more peeling and the cracks had gone. I saw her about 6 weeks later and apart from slight redness, everything was better.

Why 3 rubrics only.?

The choice covered the disorder in its entirety. The modality was a clear indication of the bodys response to the disease. The essential symptom of both in the disease AND the remedy. The TPB showed that only 23 remedies had that modality. Combined with the other two rubrics, Pulsatilla was the only remedy to produce both the amelioration and the characteristics of the problem.

153: 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.

What is the true understanding of aphorism 153?

“In seeking for the specific homoeopathic remedy, i. e., in this juxtaposition of the phenomena of the natural disease and the list of symptoms of the medicines, in order to discover a morbid potency corresponding in similitude to the evil to be cured, the more striking, particular, unusual and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case should especially and almost solely be kept in view; for there must especially be some symptoms in the list of the medicine sought for corresponding to this if the remedy should be the one most suitable to effect the cure.’

Strange rare and peculiar is a phrase often used in homoeopathic circles, and one in which it appears to give licence for any symptom to be used in the case taking.  However, from the aphorism 153 taken from the 5th edition above, we can see the explanation and understanding of the meaning clearly, or we should if we dismiss the veil of Swedenborgianism from Kent that obscures the true case-taking skills as outlined by Hahnemann.

All disease is a collection of symptoms that define the ‘type’ of disease, and from this collection of symptoms, a disease can be classified and if well known, the pathology and progression and even prognosis can be elicited from knowledge.. and within that disease, we can pick out the defining expression that is peculiar to the reaction of the sick person to its influence. (this is not dismissing those diseases that have never been seen before and affect the host in a very unique way).

Reading carefully, we can see that the symptoms that are to be used, are the ones that define the host’s reaction to whatever the infection is, in a characteristic way AND also are defined in a remedy in a similar manner.

To complicate matters, the defining symptoms, may or may not be known to be within the sphere of the presenting disorder, yet are present.

Let me give an example from a remedy, and from a presenting symptom. It is my experience, that a marked and strange and characteristic symptom can be present and have nothing to do with the complaint, yet will also contain the symptoms taken in the intake.

Take a patient with a respiratory disorder. Lack of oxygen has caused the lips to discolour. Normally will be blue, yet in this patient, the skin is mottled, blue and orange and red, and diffuse over the lips.

Another patient with severe psoriasis, on close examination, has the same mottled skin all over her legs between the eruptions.

Yet another patient with skin allergies has presented patches of the same discolouration across his back.

In taking the case of each, the characteristic symptom is the skin discolouration. using that, regardless of the problem, there are few remedies, if actually only one, that produces that patterning. In the main, you will also find that other symptoms of each individual disorder are present in the remedy.

That remedy is Psorinum.

If a symptom is present to such a marked degree, it can become characteristic of both the disease AND a remedy..

We will talk more at another time regarding characteristic symptoms.