Category Archives: Homoeopathy

Completed Zaragoza Seminar

32 Delegates from the Zaragoza Association and independent homoeopaths joined together to discuss the practice of homoeopathy as defined by Hahnemann.

The viewpoint of Hahnemann was illustrated through the Organanon and his other writings in respect to casetaking, characteristic symptoms and what to prescribe for. Time was spent correcting erroneous viewpoints endemic in homoeopathy and pointing out the correct understanding again from sourced references.

We took a long hard look at miasms and stated Hahnemanns viewpoint and definition of what they were.

numerous case presentations underlined all the principles to cement the reliability of the practice.

The I.H.M.would like to state our gratefulness for the genuine caring and minding of the speaker in every respect. Dr Juan was the perfect host for attending to every need and requirement.

Dr Juan and his wife after picking me up from the airport.

Typical Lunch time menu for Spanish Delegates….. rows of us.



Specificity of Seat – James Compton Burnett and the Generalization of Locality

© Will Taylor, MD 2001

Section 1

Sections: 1 | 2

The previous 4 installments in this series have addressed the characterizing dimensions of symptoms. Last month’s article investigated Boenninghausen’s generalization of modalities and sensations, and the use of modalities and sensations by analogy in reconstructing complex symptoms. I’d like to turn attention now to investigating the dimension of Locality.

The characterizing value of Locality is often underrated by contemporary homeopathic practitioners. This may stem from a confusion between how we look at Local disease (as described in aphorisms 185-203 in Hahnemann’s Organon), versus how we can look at Locality as a characterizing dimension of complex symptomatology. The observation that we can generalize modalities and sensations and apply them by analogy across localities, along with the central importance of the mental/emotional state suggested by Hahnemann’s aphorisms 210-213, the writings of Kent, and the teachings of many contemporary lecturers, has sadly placed Locality somewhere in the background of our attention.

Yet Boenninghausen, in his grand essay A Contribution to the Judgement Concerning the Characteristic Value of Symptoms, reminds us:

” The seat of the disease … deserves to be more particularly emphasized, as it frequently furnishes a characteristic symptom, since almost every medicine acts more and also more decidedly on certain particular parts of the living organism.”

James Compton BurnettPerhaps no other name is as closely related to the topic of Locality, as that of James Compton Burnett (1840-1901). Burnett was born in Redlynch, England in 1840. He attended medical school in Vienna in 1865, where he remained 2 additional years studying anatomy, receiving a gold metal for his accomplishments in that field. He graduated from Glasgow in 1872, and completed an internship for his MD degree at Barnhill Parochial Hospital and Asylum in Glasgow in 1876.

Burnett was converted to homeopathy during his internship, by his friend and colleague Alfred Hawkes. He was contemporary with Richard Hughes (A Manual of Therapeutics, A Cyclopaedia of Drug Pathogenesy, A Manual of Pharmacodynamics), RE Dudgeon (Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homoeopathy, and translator of many of Hahnemann’s works into English), and JH Clarke (Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica and many other writings).

Johann RademacherIn addition to the influence of homeopathy in his work, Burnett was highly inspired by a contemporary of Hahnemann’s, Johann Gottfried Rademacher (1772-1850, in Goch, northwestern Germany). Rademacher published his 1600-page Erfahrungsheillehre (empiric medical practice) in 1841, giving birth to the practice of Organopathy. (The full title of his work was Rechtfertigung der von den Gelehrten misskannten, verstandes rechten Erfahringsheillehre der alten scheidenkunstigen Geheimarzte, und treue Mittheilung des Ergebnisses einer 25-jahrigen Erprobung dieser Lehre am Krankenbette – “Justification of the empiric medical practice of the old alchemistic physician, misjudged by the learned, yet perfectly rational, …”). Rademacher based his work on his own empirical observations, which he supported on the writings of Theophrastus Bombast von Hohenheim (Paracelesus), the 16th-century Swiss alchemist/physician. Many of Rademacher’s remedies were introduced to homeopathic practice, or saw homeopathic applications inspired by their organopathic uses, via Burnett.

ParacelsusTheophrastus is often credited with a pre-Hahnemannian understanding of the phenomenon of cure by similars, but there are important differences between Hahnemann’s homeopathy and Theophrastus’ appreciation and use of the principle of similars. Theophrastus emphasized a relationship between microcosm and macrocosm, a bringing of “the external lung” to “the internal lung” – the organ of the remedial substance to the organ of the person. Theophrastus’ similitude was based not on the detailed investigation of the totality of symptoms that characterized Hahnemann’s work, but rather on a gestalt that included empirical observations along with information from arcane sources such as astrology and the discernment of remedy signatures.

Rademacher’s Organopathy – drawing on Paracelsus to rationally support his empirical observations – posited the physical organs as the seat of disease, often creating symptoms seen & felt elsewhere in the body “through sympathetic affections of the strangest nature”. As with Hahnemann, Rademacher did not seek the nature of these diseases in the “invisible interior of the organism,” but rather identified them by similitude to their remedial substance – a Celandine liver disease, a Carduus Mariae liver disease, etc.

Remedies were selected on the basis of their affinity for the organ in which the disease was felt to reside, and differentiated further on the basis of the “genus” of the disease – a concept less well defined than Hahnemann’s totality of symptoms, and based on empiricism and considerations arcane to the practice.

It is immediately apparent how such a system would entice the anatomist in Burnett – author of Diseases of the Spleen, Diseases of the Liver, Enlarged Tonsils, Cataract, Consumptom, On Fistula, Gout, Diseases of the Skin, On Neuralgia, Tumours, Tumours of the Breast, Diseases of the Veins, (n.b. – Organopathy survives today principally through its vestiges in the “drainage” school of homeopathy in France, based on the teachings of Nebel and Vannier in the early 1900’s).

It would be superficially easy to disregard Burnett as a fringe-homeopath, mixing homeopathy inelegantly with an eclectic medical tradition, or to identify him more closely with the contemporary “drainage” practitioners, were it not for his close association with JH Clarke. Clarke references Burnett 140 times in his Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica. Clarke and Burnett met over dinner weekly for many years, as part of the “Cooper Club;” Clarke described Burnett as one of “the three most potent influences on the evolution of British Homeopathy … during the last twenty years Burnett has been the most powerful, the most fruitful, the most original force in homeopathy.”

Following Burnett’s death, Clarke devoted himself to writing Burnett’s biography, The Life and Work of James Compton Burnett. Margaret Tyler, a later member of the London-based “Cooper Club,” described Burnett as having “a genius for grasping [remedy] idiosyncrasies and possibilities and employing them with success for the patients that besieged him”.

Although Burnett initially cut his teeth on the writings of Richard Hughes, he came to regard Hughes’ work as “homoeopathic milk for allopathic babes” and fell in with the less allopathically-oriented group of Clarke, Cooper, and Thomas Skinner. Early on in his homeopathic career, he attended the clinic of Dr. John Drysdale at Liverpoole, along with Alfred Hawkes and JH Clarke. Drysdale came at the matter of Locality from a direction that must have touched closely on Burnett’s fascination with Organopathy. Of this, Richard Hughes wrote, in A Manual of Pharmacodynamics:

“Dr. Drysdale also has laid much stress on what he calls “specificity of seat,” connecting it with the special irritability displayed by the various parts for their natural stimuli and for causes of disease, and extending it to the minutest localities or nerve-branches which have anything independent and special about them.”

Burnett adopted Drysdale’s concept of “specificity of seat,” and used this term and concept liberally in his writings.

This concept of “specificity of seat” of a remedy, and Burnett’s borrowed Organopathic concept of organ-specific remedies for diseases “of the organs,” seem to stand in conflict with the homoeopathic understanding of disease originating in the dynamic plane, and of remedies acting on the dynamis, rather than on specific tissues of the body. Burnett fuels this seeming contradiction with his assertion (in Diseases of the Liver):

“That the organ in the organism does indeed possess not only autonomy but hegemony, i.e. the organ is an independent state in itself and in and on the organism exercises an important influence

Dana Ullman and K.C. Chandran

Dana Ullman- Foremost Spokesman Of Pseudo-scientific ‘Energy Medicine’ Theories of Homeopathy

Posted 25/09/2012 by Chandran K C

in his  eagerness to defend  his most cherished latest craze  ‘nanopharmacology’ concept, and to utilize it to provide a scientific glare to his pseudoscientific  ‘energy medicine’ theories, respected Dana Ullman now gives a new twist to nanoparticle theory of IIT scientists.

He says: “It doesn’t necessarily assert that it is the nanoparticles that have ALL of the impact. It could also mean that the nanoparticles change the entire sovent (the water medium)”

This is really a new contribution from dana ulman to nanoparticle theory. But it makes the whole puzzle more mysterious and complex, which is the actual intention of dana. By this statement, he is trying to utilize the ‘nanoparticle theory for justifying the most pseudoscientific ‘energy medicine theories’ in homeopathy’, of which he is a prominent proponent along with his CAM counterparts.

By this statement, he is trying to say that nanoparticles are not the real active principles of potentized drugs that makes “all impacts”, but they ‘change the whole solvent’ by inducing it to ‘vibrate’ exactly similar to ‘vibrations of drug substance’, and that these ‘immaterial dynamic vibrations’ are the active principles of potentized drugs! He would also say, these ‘vibrations’ will act upon ‘vital force’ in a ‘dynamic way’ by ‘resonance’ and produce cure!

Dana ullman ‘supports’ nanoparticle discovery of IIT scientists, and will not tolerate any questions being asked regarding this ‘scientific evidence’! But he is not interested in proposing a biological mechanism by which nanoparticles act as therapeutic agents when applied on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

On the contrary, he proposes “it doesn’t necessarily assert that it is the nanoparticles that have ALL of the impact. It could also mean that the nanoparticles change the entire sovent (the water medium)”. That means, he do not want to establish nanoparticles as active principles of potentized drugs. He theorizes ‘whole medium’ is changed by the ‘traces’ of nanoparticles which the scientists detected ‘floating in the upper layers’ of potentized drugs. What change is made to medium? He is not bothered to explain. It is implied that ‘whole medium’ is ‘changed’ in such a way that ‘vibrations’ of drug substances are ‘transferred’ to the ‘medium’, and it is these ‘vibrations’ that ‘resonate’ with ‘vibrations’ of ‘vital force’, thereby effecting a cure!

SEE how cleverly the ‘energy medicine’ proponents twist and hijack the nanoparticle theory proposed by IIT scientists in a way fitting to their pseudoscientific ‘dynamic energy- vibration-resonance-vital force’ frame work!!

His statement makes it very much obvious that dana ulmann and his ‘energy medicine’ friends are ‘supporting’ nanoparticle theory not to rationally resolve the riddles of homeopathy and make it more scientific, but hoping to utilize it to provide a ‘scientific’ glare to their nonsense ‘vibration’ theories.

This hijacking of  nanoparticle concepts proposed by IIT scientists into ‘energy medicine’ path becomes a serious issue since it is done by a person like Dana Ullman. He is not an ‘ordinary’ man. Not a ‘small fish’ like me, but a ‘big shark’ ruling the vast oceans of international homeopathy. Dana himself claims: “My reputation is high and wide because of my body of positive work on homeopathy”. Positive or negative, he is ‘working’ a lot ‘for’ homeopathy. For making homeopathy a piece of mockery before the scientific community. Not only Skeptics and scientific community, but a good number of homeopaths consider Dana’s  writings as ‘authentic’ representation of homeopathy. When he talks nonsense theories, scientific people with will think homeopathy is that much nonsense, and homeopaths are idiots! His “reputation is high and wide”!

Dana Ullman, who is claimed to be described by TIME magazine as “the Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” and ABC News touted as “Homeopathy’s Foremost Spokesman”, is a prominent proponent of ‘ultra-scientific’ ‘energy medicine’ theories in homeopathy that severely discredit the scientific credentials of homeopathy.

Please read his articles on his site and try to understand what he says about the mechanism of homeopathic drug action. He has no opinion of his own. He will quote many others, and say ‘it is said’, ‘it is believed’. He never commits to any theory. Same time, all  articles of Dana Ulman have an undercurrent of ‘energy medicine’ theories.

Energy medicine theory is the greatest enemy of scientific homeopathy. Scientific community will never accept homeopathy as a medical science, if we go on talking ‘energy medicine’. We have to use the paradigms of science, language of science, concepts of science, terms of science, methods of science. We should explain homeopathy as a science, fitting to modern biochemistry, molecular biology and pathology.

Dana Ulmann would be the first person to write articles supporting any emerging theories or new research reports appearing in homeopathy. As I already said, he instantly ‘supports’ every new theories, but commits to nothing. If you ‘accept’ a theory in its real sense, you will have to discard and disown its contradicting theories. Ulmann will ‘support’ molecular imprints, next day he will write an article supporting ‘energy medicine’ theories. Next day he will support nanoparticle theory. The moment the IIT B research report appeared in media, he wrote an article declaring ‘homeopathy is nanopharmacology’, same time adding that ‘nanopaticles’ act by ‘vibrations’ and ‘resonance’! It is a wonderful exercise. He never goes into the depth of any theory. He only quote others. His all articles always contains ‘it is said’ and ‘it is believed’. He ‘says’ nothing specific. He never antagonize any theory directly, but very cleverly utilize every new ‘researches’ to justify the ‘energy medicine concepts.

The flag-ship article of his website  “Why Homeopathy Makes Sense and Works-A Great Introductory Article for Advocates OR Skeptics of Homeopathy” clearly shows that he is is totally blank on “How Homeopathy Works”.

He admits “precisely how homeopathic medicines work remains a mystery according to present scientific thinking”. If it is a mystery, how could he claim it is “nano-pharmacology”?

In this article, he says homeopathy uses “nanodoses” of medicinal substances. Either he has no idea about what “nano” means, or he is not aware that drugs potentized above 12c or avogadro number cannot contain a single drug molecule. How can something that does not contain a ‘single’ molecule be ‘nano-doses’ of drug substance? To be “nano-doses”, there should be drug molecules present!

In the same article, Ulmann says Homeopathy works on the basis of ‘hormesis’. Hormesis is all about the biological actions of ‘small’ quantities of drugs. How could Ullman talk about hormesis knowing well that potentized drugs contain no drug substance? If you accept homeopathy as hormesis, you are obviously discarding the principles of homeopathic potentization. Homeopathy is not SMALL doses- it is NO doses!

DANA ULLMAN SAYS:  “One metaphor that may help us understand how and why extremely small doses of medicinal agents may work derives from present knowledge of modern submarine radio communications. Normal radio waves simply do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low frequency radio wave. However, the terms “extremely low” are inadequate to describe this specific situation because radio waves used by submarines to penetrate water are so low that a single wavelength is typically several miles long! If one considers that the human body is 70-80% water, perhaps the best way to provide pharmacological information to the body and into intercellular fluids is with nanodoses. Like the above mentioned extremely low frequency radio waves, it may be necessary to use extremely low (and activated) doses as used in homeopathic medicines, in order for a person to receive the medicinal effect.”

SEE ANOTHER ‘METAPHOR’:  “It is commonly known that certain species of moths can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles in distance. It is no simple coincidence that species only sense pheromones from those in the same species who emit them (akin to the homeopathic principle of similars), as though they have developed exquisite and specific receptor sites for what they need to survive and to propagate their species. Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at distances, and when one considers the volume of water in the ocean, it becomes obvious that sharks, like all living creatures, develop extreme hypersensitivity for whatever will help ensure their survival. It is therefore not surprising that renowned astronomer Johann Kepler once said, “Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

These are a very ‘funny’ metaphors only ‘Ulmanian logic’ can decipher relating with ‘how homeopathy works’.!

In the article “Nobel Prize-Winning Virologist’s New Research Gives Significant Support to Homeopathic Pharmacology” Ullman claims that Luc Montaigner’s researches using ‘aqueous dilutions’ of bacterial DNA supports homeopathic potentization, even though “homeopathy is not mentioned anywhere” by Montaigner. But Ullman conveniently ignores the fact that Montaigner never used dilutions above 12x, which is very much lower to avogadro limit. Upto 23x, there is always chance for original molecules to be present. Montaigner even said he could not detect any ‘electromagnetic signals’ above 18x. How can Ullman claim Montaigner proved the efficacy of ‘high dilutions’ used in homeopathy?

For my appraisal of Montaigner’s observations, go to this link:

Dana is never bothered or does not notice the fact that Montaigner’s ‘ghost dna’ theory and nanoparticle theory of IIT-B team contradict each other!. He ‘supports’ both theories!. That is a very special quality of Dana- he can support and promote any number of contradicting theories same time, without any ‘partiality’.  He commits to nothing. He would connect any contradicting theories using his ‘energy medicine’ theories of ‘electromagnetic radiations’ and ‘biomagnetic resonance’!  According to him, homeopathic medicines act by ‘resonance’, nanoparticles act by ‘resonance’, ‘ghost dna’ act by ‘resonance’. Life is ‘resonance’, disease is lack of ‘resonance’, cure is re-establishment of ‘resonance’. Everything could fit well into this ‘resonance’ theory- let it be homeopathy, faith healing, distant healing, radionics, dowsing, drug transmission or any occult practice. ‘Resonance’ and ‘radiations’ is the answer.

In his article “Homeopathic Medicine is Nanopharmacology”, Dana Ullman answers the question “How does homeopathy work” as follows:

“How homeopathic medicines work is presently a mystery. And yet, nature is replete with striking examples of the powerful effects of extremely small doses of active agents.

It is commonly known that certain species of moths can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles away. Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at large distances.

I stress again that nanopharmacological doses will not have any effect unless the person is hypersensitive to the specific medicinal substance. Hypersensitivity is created when there is some type of resonance between the medicine and the person. Because the system of homeopathy bases its selection of the medicine on its ability to cause in overdose the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing, homeopathy’s “law of similars,” as it is called, is simply a practical method of finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive.

The homeopathic principle of similars makes further sense when one considers that physiologists and pathologists now recognize that disease is not simply the result of breakdown or surrender of the body but that symptoms are instead representative of the body’s efforts to fight infection or adapt to stress. Fever, inflammation, pain, discharge, and even high blood pressure are but a small number of the common symptoms that the organism creates in order to defend and to try to heal itself.

Over 200 years of experience by homeopathic physicians hav found that a homeopathic medicine acts longer and deeper when it is more potentized. Although no one knows precisely why this happens, it is conjectured that highly potentized nanopharmacological doses can more deeply penetrate cells and the blood-brain barrier than less potentized medicines. Although there is no consensus on why these ultramolecular doses work more deeply, there is consensus from users of these natural medicines that they do.

One cannot help but sense the potential treasure-trove of knowledge that further research in homeopathy and nanopharmacology will bring in this new millennium.”



Only thing I got is he explains “law of similars,” as “simply a practical method of finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive”, and this “hypersensitivity is created when there is some type of resonance between the medicine and the person”. According to Dana that is how homeopathy works- “resonance between medicine and person”! He pretends to be talking science by saying ‘homeopathy is nanopharmacology’, whereas his ‘nano-pharmocology’ has nothing to do with modern nanotechnology or pharmacology.  His ‘nano pharmacology’ acts by resonance!

That is the wonderful quality of Dana Ullman’s writings. He talks a lot, he writes a lot- of course in a very knowledgeable and ‘scientific’ language. But nobody gets nothing from him. Everything begins in mystery and ends in mystery.

And you should know, he is “the Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” and “Homeopathy’s Foremost Spokesman” in western world”!

My request to Dan Ullman is, he should be a little more cautious and consistent  while explaining homeopathy. Being the most noted  “Foremost Spokesman” of homeopathy, he should be more responsible. While saying homeopathy is ‘hormesis’, ‘small doses’ and ‘nanopharmacology’, he should be aware that he is contradicting the concept of homeopathic potentization. He should try to explain how potentized drugs, even without a single drug molecule contained them, act therapeutically on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. Any reasonable theory about homeopathy should explain what actually happens during potentization, what are the active principles of potentized drugs, and what is the exact molecular mechanism by which these active principles produces a therapeutic effect. We should explain potentization and similia similibus curentur in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge. Most importantly, we should be consistent in our explanation, whatever it be.

Dana Ullman should always remember, there is an elite and skeptic  scientific community keeping watchful eyes on whatever he says. He should be cautious not to provide new arms and ammunition to them to attack homeopathy, by making inconsistent and self-contradicting statements and promoting obviously unscientific theories about homeopathy.

I would expect Dana Ulman to provide specific answers to following direct questions, if he is serious in his inquiry ‘how homeopathy works’

1. What exactly happens during potentization? What is the exact process involved?

2. What are the active principles of potentized drugs?

3. What is the exact process by which these active principles of potentized drugs interact with the organism and produce a therapeutic effect?

4. How would you explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ in the light of your understanding of potentization and therapeutic action of potentized drugs?

Homoeopathy works

Adolph Lippe

The history of Homoeopathy will only be complete if proper and honest assessment is made and imbibed, of the glorious past of our fore-bearers, whose dedication and contribution have enriched our science. There are innumerable stories and numberless life histories of our forbearers, which are of extreme value to us in the present day. Dr. Adolph Von Lippes life deserves special mention because he was a staunch and uncompromising bearer of the torch of strict Hahnemannian Homoeopathy.

Birth: Lippe was born on 11th of May, 1812 in Goerlitz
Family: Lippe was a young member of a very aristocratic old and illustrious family of Goerlitz of Prussia. Count Ludwig was his father and Countess Augusta zur Lippe was his mother. His fathers estate was situated near Georlitz town.
Education: His parents wanted him to study law, but Lippe was very much impressed by the new method of the healing art and made up his mind to become a homoeopathic physician.

After his school study he went to Berlin for his medical education and graduated in 1837.

Then, Lippe decided to go to America to study Homoeopathy. During that time the only existing homoeopathic college was Allentown Academy of Hering. Lippe took admission and studied for four years in this college and completed his homoeopathic education. Lippe was very fortunate to receive his diploma on 27th July 1841 from the hand of Dr. Constantine Hering, the founder of Allentown Academy.

Homoeopathic Practice: Lippe started his practice as a homoeopathic physician in Pottville, P.A. though he practised here for a very short time. From Pottsville he moved to Carlisle where he distinguished himself by successful cure of the sick people in an epidemic prevailing in the Cumberland valley.

Finally he moved to Philadelphia where he established himself and practised till the last day of his life.

Lippe was a steadfast, loyal devotee of Hahnemannian homoeopathy. Throughout his life he followed Hahnemanns instructions in letter and in spirit. He was an ardent supporter of Hahnemanns Organon of Medicine and to him Organon was the last word in the science and art of healing. Lippe considered Homoeopathy as the only and sole means of cure for both acute and chronic diseases. He said that other systems of medicines were palliative and harmful.

Although Lippe was the author of few books, the number of his contributions to Homoeopathic literature remains unexcelled. Many of his papers were elucidations of homoeopathic philosophy, many to the methods and rules of correct homoeopathic practice. Many of Lippes papers enlighten us about the finer points of the Material Medica and enhance our ability to prescribe correctly. Lippe published a series of writings named Fatal Errors in the American Homoeopathic Observer, in which he vigorously opposed and criticized the vitiation of Homoeopathy; he considered this to be the cause of gradual downfall of the system. Dr. Adolph von Lippe is one of the few master guides who endeavored to perfect themselves in the art of prescribing according to the law of similars, for, probably this remarkable man was one of the most accomplished prescribers in the history of Homoeopathy. His style was clear and forceful, his arguments logical. Among the important contribution of Dr. Lippe in Homoeopathy should be considered his reports of “Clinical Cases.”

Lippe possessed a deep knowledge of Materia Medica. He was a keen observer and with uncanny accuracy he used to pick up the essential indications of the case, frequently making use of symptoms which seem trivial or having no evident connections with the patients ailment. He was a master in the art of presenting, the essential indications and unlike other writers, always told why he gave the remedy that cured the case.

Today we are often unsuccessful in our practice because of many reasons, the most common being an improper understanding of rules and time for repetition of the dose. Dr. Lippe was a master in this field and a devoted believer and practitioner of single remedy and single dose.

About Lippe, Dr. Harvey Farrington wrote- “Dr. Lippe once made a statement that I thought the most audacious that I had ever heard. He said that if he could visit a case of Diphtheria the first time before anybody had a chance to spoil it, he would generally cure the case with one remedy and often with one dose.”

His literary Contributions:

Adolph Lippe was co-editor of Homoeopathic News from 1854 to 1855 and of Hahnemannian monthly from 1865 to 1868.

1854– Key to the Materia Medica of Comparative Pharmacodynamics (This is the first and only number of a series which were to contain a characteristic Materia Medica).

1865– Who is a Homoeopathician? (A lecture delivered before the Hahnemannian Institute and published by order of the same).
1865– Cactus Grandiflorus (Translated from the original, with preface and notes of Dr. Russell.)
1866– Valedictory Address delivered at the 18th Annual Commencement of the Homoeopathic Medical College of Pennsylvania.
1866– Text book of Materia Medica.
1870– Liberty of Medical Opinion and Action (Read before the Central New York Homoeopathic Medical Society).
1876– Diphtheria (Printed by the American Institute of Homoeopathy for use at World Homoeopathic Convention, Philadelphia).
1877– A reply to professor William is Peppers Insult to Homoeopathic School of Medicine in his Opening Address delivered at the University of Pennsylvania.
1878– The Genius of the Homoeopathic Healing Art. (Preface to the second volume of Materia Medica Pura by S. Hahnemann. Translated by Adolph Von Lippe.)
1885– Cholera: Its Treatment by Homoeopathy.
1886– What is Homoeopathy? A lecture delivered on 10th May 1886 before the Womens Homoeopathic Association of Pennsylvania at the Medical Surgical and Maternal Hospital, North 20th Street and Susquehanna Avenue.

Demise: After a long successful practice and exemplary service to Homoeopathy for 46 years. Lippe died on 24th of January 1888 in Philadelphia.



by Peter Morrell
Honorary Research Associate in the History of Medicine, Staffordshire University, UK


Kents philosophy was the end of REAL medical homeopathy.


Kent also created the first coherent, persuasive and highly influential philosophy, which has largely gone unchallenged within the movement. It was formulated as a synthesis of Swedenborgian mysticism and the more romantic portions of Hahnemann’s Organon and the Miasm Theory of The Chronic Diseases [see Kent, 1900, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy].

However, as quickly became apparent, Kent’s homeopathy was rooted in a rather dogmatic and puritanical attitude, and seems to derive from a pedantically scholastic and uncritical reverence for everything Hahnemann wrote.

“Kentianism, then, was metaphysical, dogmatic, puritanical and millennial. Homoeopaths who failed to achieve results with the high dilutions lacked intellectual skill and rigour, as well as the moral fibre for the arduous task of identifying the simillimum. In short, so far as Kentians were concerned, the faithless were responsible for the corruption and decline of the movement.” [Treuherz, 1983]

It is also deductive and didactic and denies that the facts of the outer world are in any sense superior to, or an arbiter for, theoretical ‘principles’. In that sense it seems stubbornly medieval in its extreme deductivism. It turns its back completely on the empirical approach of scientific rationalism and thus on allopathy.

‘When a man thinks from the microscope, and his neighbor’s opinion, he thinks false-ly. Nothing good can come from this. Evil must take place, and changes, which are the ultimates of his internal thought, will take place in the body’ [Kent, 1926]

‘The microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be carried away by these idle Allopathic dreams and vain imaginations but should correct the Vital Force'[Kent, 1926]

‘The Bacterium is an innocent feller, and if he carries disease he carries the Simple Substance which causes disease, just as an elephant would.’ [Kent, 1926]

This stubborn determination to studiously ignore the rest of medicine and the ‘ideological push’ of the last 200 years, makes it appear to the modern eye, as reactionary, hard-line and perverse.

“You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual, to his outermost natural.” [Kent, 1926]

‘Experience has a place in science, but only a confirmatory place. It can only confirm that which has been discovered through principle or law guiding in the proper direction. Experience leads to no discoveries, but when man is fully indoctrinated in principle that which he observes by experience may confirm the things that are consistent with law.’ [Kent, 1900, p.40]

This passage, which is typical of Kent, can only make sense to a follower of pure dogma; Hahnemann, for example, would have totally disagreed by saying that ‘experience’ had taught him all he knew. Science, like homeopathy, is rooted in observations and experiments in the outer world, not in the enforcement of dogmas. Kent seems to place ‘the cart before the horse’ by stressing the philosophy and principles of homeopathy over and above the simple fact that it is primarily a system of therapeutics in which the progress of the patient is always far more important than the religious [or other] beliefs of the practitioner. In every science principles derive from observations, and do not dictate them.

Maybe this ideal of detachment and emotional neutrality even science subtly fails to comply with at times. Science occasionally gainsays the event before it happens and in effect dictates the outcome or ‘spin’ which should be placed upon some experimental data. This may be based upon theoretical considerations, political or financial factors. For example, the allopathic view of most clinical trials of unorthodox medicine, can hardly be described as ‘emotionally neutral’ or detached. Someone watching a horse-race with a million dollars placed on one horse, can hardly be expected to manifest very much emotional detachment and neutrality!

However, as one of the most important homeopaths after Hahnemann, Kent has had a big influence as a theoretician, a practitioner, a writer and as a teacher of homeopathy. His influence has been especially strong on American, Indian and British homeopathy [see Nicholls, 1988, p.186], while the Continentals seem to have been largely untouched by his influence, except in Switzerland and the influence of Dr. Pierre Schmidt. In the case of India, their delight in homeopathy in general and Kentianism specifically might depend to some degree upon their own general interest in philosophical aphorisms and religious matters. Homeopathy supplies them both; Kent supplies them in profusion.

Pierre SCHMIDT (1894-1987)
(Courtesy Dr R. Séror)
Pierre SCHMIDT (1894-1987)

Georges Vithoulkas
Georges Vithoulkas

As a follower of the Christian mystical sect of Immanuel Swedenborg, Kent delivered a blend of Hahnemann’s Organon and miasm theory, spiritual forces and a crude psychology, comprising only will, understanding and intellect [see Aphorisms].Some details of Kent’s ‘psychology’ and his ‘hierarchies’ are discussed by Taylor [1997, pp.5-7], elaborated by Vithoulkas [1980, pp.23-57 and especially pp.46-7 and pp.23-25], and considered by Sharma [1995, pp.39-40].Kent approached his philosophy with typical vigour. He viewed all Hahnemann’s works and especially The Organon with a fundamentalist zeal, seeking to amplify and reinterpret every word of the Master, much like a theology scholar or biblical commentator. His Lectures On Philosophy, for example, form quite literally a rambling Swedenborgian commentary to the first half of Hahnemann’s Organon. To him these were precious and immutable homeopathic truths that it is sacrilege for anyone even to question, let alone ignore, dilute, negotiate or compromise. He even goes as far as saying:

‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homoeopath.'[Kent, 1926, Aphorisms]

It is especially in Kent’s rather arrogant use of language, which hits us when reading his works, which really illustrates this fundamentalism and the precious certainty of his approach to homeopathy. The following quote from many possible ones, clearly demonstrates this:

‘…beware of the opinions of men of science. Hahnemann has given us principles… it is law that governs the world and not matters of opinion or hypotheses. We must begin by having a respect for law, for we have no starting point unless we base our propositions on law.’ [Kent, 1900, p.18]

Kent infers that homeopaths should base their whole approach upon the hard dogmatism of these ideas, which he elevates to the status of certitudes, and not upon the ever-shifting ideas of ‘mere men’. He is claiming a great authority and power behind such ‘immutable principles’, a power which like some divine form, stands ‘above and behind us’ and which we dare not abrogate or dilute for fear of one’s soul’s damnation.

As an attitude, this is so indistinguishable from that of fundamentalist religion, that it is clearly apparent how this form of homeopathy possessed, and generated for itself, so many problems with creative and imaginative people who much prefer to experiment and find truths out for themselves, eg. Samuel Hahnemann. This whole approach denies anyone the privilege or luxury of that kind of freedom. Total and unquestioning devotion to a given creed seems to be the basis of Kentianism, not reason or real-world experiment. As to whether Kent was truly a Hahnemannian homeopath see Henr 1995 and Cassam, 1999.

It is especially when he lapses into the moral sphere of homeopathy that his deep dogmatism reveals itself. When he is speaking purely about homeopathy, which is comparatively rare, he does well, but as soon as he enters human affairs, a certain clearly-recognisable ‘Bible-punching’ tone seems to shines through. As the following quotes clearly demonstrate:

‘It is law that governs the world and not matters of opinion or hypothesis. We must begin by having a respect for law…’ [Kent, 1900, p.18]

‘This means law, it means fixed principles, it means a law as certain as that of gravitation… our principles have never changed, they have always been the same and will remain the same…’ [Kent, 1900, p.28]

‘Had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race, the other two chronic diseases would have been impossible and susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible…’ [ibid. p.126]

Kent would have no dealings with allopaths nor with low-dilutionists, who were pejoratively portrayed as ‘mongrel, milk-and-water half-homeopaths’. Homeopathy was seen very dogmatically by them as pure classical homeopathy as ‘laid down in tablets of stone by the master’ or nothing. This narrow, simplistic and somewhat inflexible view of homeopathy had split American homeopathy right down the middle, causing a very acrimonious clash of ideologies. It is generally conceded that this bitter wrangling contributed significantly to the precipitous decline of homeopathy in the USA during the first half of this century [Kaufman, Coulter, Rothstein, Gevitz].



The Swedenborgian influence

To Swedenborg, the realms of nature, and particularly the body and mind of man, were theatres of divine activity…A ‘universal analogy’ existed between the various realms of creation. The physical world was symbolical of the spir-itual world and this, in turn, of God. He conceived a resonant system of hierarchies of God, universe and man. He became a theologian and established the ‘Church of the New Jerusalem’ [see Nicholls, 1988, pp.262-5; also Rankin, pp.70, 82, 94-5, 107, 112].

A Supreme Divine purpose reigned throughout creation. The life of the universe, whether physical, mental or spiritual was the activity of Divine Love. The physical universe is given its true place in the economy of creation, the womb of man’s most enduring and real life. Briefly, Swedenborg was heretical to mainstream Christianity, because he espoused that personal liberation could be won easily from an all-loving God and that ‘original sin’ was non-existent.

‘…he dispensed with the idea of original sin’, [Treuherz, 1983, p.48]

As with Paracelsus and ‘later theosophies’, the link with homeopathy is to be found in the vast hierarchies of form and spirit that he conceived as existing between God, mind and matter and penetrating throughout the universe. Kent linked all of this to the process of potentisation, the vital force and the miasms of Hahnemann, seeing them both as philosophies that fully confirm each other and which for him, married together splendidly, into a new organic creation. The following quotes from his Aphorisms more than amply illustrate this point:

‘Radiant substances have degrees within degrees, in series too numerous for the finite mind to grasp.’

‘The lower potency corresponds to a series of outer degrees, less fine and less interior than the higher.’

‘When it has passed to simple substance, the Radiant form of matter, it has infinite degrees. To express the degrees from the Outermost to the Innermost, we might say a grain of Silica is the Outermost; the Innermost is The Creator.’

‘There are degrees of fineness of the Vital Force. We may think of internal man as possessing infinite degrees and of external man as possessing finite degrees.’

‘There are degrees within degrees to infinity.’

‘Low potencies can cure acute diseases because acute diseases act upon the outermost degree of the Simple Substance and the body. In chronic disease the trouble is deeper seated, and the degrees are finer, hence the remedy must be reduced to finer or higher degrees so as to be similar to the degrees of chronic disease.’

Swedenborg composed a ‘theory of correspondences or connections between the visible and invisible worlds’, [Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 1981, p.617]. The James family including Henry and William were Swedenborgians and in Massachusetts and East Coast ‘among its adherents [were] most of the social, intellectual and business elite.’ [Coulter, vol. 3, pp.467-8; see also Winston, 1999, pp.166-7]. At that time, many of the ‘Transcendentalists’, led by Emerson, were very taken with philosophies like Swedenborg’s.

Henry James 1843-1916
Henry James 1843-1916
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
William Blake (1757-1827)
Self portrait of
William Blake (1757-1827)
sweden03.jpg (5967 octets)
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772)

Another important adherent was Dr. John James Garth Wilkinson [1812-99] who was a big friend of Henry James senior. Wilkinson had trained at Hahnemann College Philadelphia and published several books on the sect. Indeed, many people were attracted to Swedenborg’s ideas, including the English artist and poet William Blake [see F Treuherz, 1983, The Homeopaths, 4:2, winter 1983, Heklae Lava or the Influence of Swedenborg on Homeopathy, p.36-7 [pp.35-53; see also Barrow, 1985]; re Blake see Ackroyd, 1994:

‘[Blake]… picked up separate ideas, or fragments of knowledge, as he needed them. He was a synthesiser and a systematiser, like so many of his generation, but it was his own synthesis designed to establish his own system of belief… he borrowed notions from Swedenborg or Paracelsus. He was above everything else an artist and not an orthodox thinker’ [Ackroyd, p.90]

‘…Blake has picked up elements of Thomas Taylor’s Neoplatonism as well as Swedenborgian doctrine and some alchemical terminology. Everything upon the earth has a spiritual correspondence, and the world itself is inspired with the breath of divine humanity.’ [Ackroyd, p.116]

‘Blake was very clear about his spiritual ancestors. He told John Flaxman that ‘Paracelsus and Behmen appeared to me’, but their arrival meant he turned away from Swedenborg. ‘Swedenborg’s writings are a recapitulation of all superficial opinions, and an analysis of the more sublime, but no further. Have now another plain fact: any man of mechanical talents may from the writings of Paracelsus or Jacob Behmen, produce ten thousand volumes of equal value with Swedenborg’s.’ It is true that the writings of Paracelsus and Boehme [Behmen] do seem to come from a purer spring of spiritual revelation than those of Swedenborg…’ [Ackroyd, p.147]

‘..many critics have noticed how intimately the ‘Marriage of Heaven and Hell’ is related to Blake’s movement from Swedenborg towards Boehme and Paracelsus…’ [Ackroyd, p.15]

‘…there is no doubt that the ‘Marriage’ represents Blake’s most serious attack upon Swedenborg and Swedenborgians…’ [Ackroyd, p.153]

There are definite links with other forms of American Transcendentalism in the 19th century especially the Romantic literary figures like Thoreau, Hawthorne and Emerson.

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1882)
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1882)

The teachings of Swedenborg are especially reflected in Kent’s ‘Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy’, where they are shaken up with parts of Hahnemann’s Organon to form an attractive but baffling cocktail of ideas. Before his death, he published three main works: ‘Repertory’, ‘Lecture on Materia Medica’, ‘Lectures On Philosophy’. He also edited the ‘Journal of Homeopathics’ from 1897 to 1903: seven volumes, constituting the lectures which he gave to advanced doctors and personal articles. Kent’s writings on Philosophy and Materia Medica were published in this journal before they came out in book form. After his death a collection of aphorisms, lesser writings and notes and cases was published [1926, ‘Lesser Writings, New Remedies, Aphorisms, etc.’].

Kent seemed to emphasise a rather tenuous link between religion and science and this spilled out into a form of hard, dogmatic, fundamentalist creed. There seemed to be no middle ground, no shade of grey.

Presumably this approach worked well in the USA at that time and held converts of homeopathy together. Over here it tended to make Kentian homeopaths look rather strange and to set homeopathy itself even further apart from mainstream allopathy than before. Once the Kentian creed became the official, legitimised creed of the BHS [c.1910-60] then it seemed that one had to be like that in order to practise any form of homeopathy. This tended to push homeopathy as a subject, even further out on a limb from allopathy than before, and thus no further dialogue between them became possible.

“In practice, Kentian homeopathy was, according to Wheeler, ‘slightly contemptuous of any attempt to make terms with other medical knowledge regarding, as it were, the teaching as something so transcendental that no reasoned explanations are likely to have any validity.”

It is of interest that Dr. Percy Hall-Smith, in 1930, a member of the BHS, said:

“My own conviction is that our teaching is not sufficiently practical, and the approach unduly philosophical, and too far removed from the line of thought of the average doctor… It requires a rather special type of mind and outlook to swallow at the first blush undiluted ‘Kentian principles’. The average mind trained on a more materialistic basis is liable to be repelled by such teaching at the outset. “

Dr Gordon Smith [Faculty]:

“But for high dilution, the man of the 200th potency is nowhere, he is still among the crudities of posology. For we have brethren who are not happy till they get to the 10,000th, and even then they are not quite at home, they deem the 100,000th a good point to start from, and hence upwards to anything you like… I am satisfied in my mind that the 100,000th potency or dilution made according to, and by, the Hahnemannian method has never yet been seen on our planet. And if it should some day make its appearance, someone will have spent much time over its preparation which might have been employed to better purpose.”

Kent’s Obituary appeared in the BHJ 6, 1916, pp. 337, 541. As Kent himself implies, in order to be a good homeopath one must also be a good Swedenborgian first! This idea is relatively easy to illustrate from looking at his writings, which are packed with aphoristic certitudes.


Kent’s Morality

Disease might be seen as an entirely human phenomenon. It probably also reflects the fact that nature ‘in the raw’ is in a state of near-perfect balance and harmony, which contrasts with the many conflicts and disharmonies of the world of human affairs.

We can also argue that perhaps it is the ‘moral uprightness’ of animals which protects them from disease. By ‘moral uprightness’ I mean their purity and the way they stick very strictly to their received pathways in life, never deviating from ingrained habit patterns and conventionalised patterns of accepted behaviour. By contrast, humans seem to lack these ingrained habit patterns and to conduct themselves in various diverse ways driven on according to their own innate willpower. No doubt Kent, and other religious moralists, would tend to regard ‘the way you live your life’ as being very intimately bound up with the quality of such a life [on a spiritual basis] and its relative ‘sickness’ with regard to the possible experience of suffering, symptoms and signs of disorder, imbalance and disease. Such moralists, as we shall see, do regard disease as having a moral dimension, and of very largely deriving from slack morals.

Kent took the view that the basis for this human ‘origin’ of disease is moral. That means that we have disease because we have lost a moral order for our lives, and that it is a direct and inevitable result. Are the two equated at all?

We don’t have to search very hard to find a mass of moral ideas within homeopathy which illustrate how puritanical and moralising homeopaths tend to be. The following quotes from Kent’s Lectures and from his Lesser Writings reveal a very rich seam of such material:

“You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural” [Kent, 1926, Lesser Writings, p.641]

“A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.” [ibid., p.671]

‘The body became corrupt because man’s interior will became corrupt.’ [ibid., p.681]

‘Man… becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil, through thinking wrong…’ [ibid., p.664]

‘Psora is the evolution of the state of man’s will, the ultimates of sin.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil willing, is Psora.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘Thinking, willing and doing are the 3 things in life from which finally proceed the chronic miasms.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘…had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race… susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible… it is the foundation of all sickness.’ [Kent, 1900, p.126]

‘Psora… is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing evils.’ [ibid., p.135]

‘The human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little better than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the present day. To put it another way everyone is Psoric.’ [ibid., p.135]

‘Psora… would not exist in a perfectly healthy race.’ [ibid., p.133]

‘As long as man continued to think that which was true and held that which was good to the neighbour, that which was uprightness and justice, so long man remained free from disease, because that was the state in which he was created.’ [ibid., p.134]

‘The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him; therefore, the environment is not the cause…’ [ibid., p.136]

‘Diseases correspond to man’s affections, and the diseases upon the human race today are but the outward expression of man’s interiors… man hates his neighbour, he is willing to violate every commandment; such is the state of man today. This state is represented in man’s diseases.’ [ibid., p.136]

‘The Itch is looked upon as a disgraceful affair; so is everything that has a similar correspondence; because the Itch in itself has a correspondence with adultery…’ [ibid., p.137]

‘How long can this thing go on before the human race is swept from the earth with the results of the suppression of Psora?’ [ibid., pp.137-8]

‘Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness… is the underlying cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human race.’ [ibid., p.126]

‘…for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness… which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases. [ibid., p.126]

It seems pretty clear from these quotes that Kent took a very puritanical and moral line about the origins of disease within the human race and he apparently felt that Psora was equivalent to Original Sin or the Fall of Man. That is the clear implication of the above remarks he made. He got himself into this very strange position very largely from insisting that homeopathy necessarily involves a religious dimension which places a moral duty upon the practitioner, and thus the homeopath has a morally redeeming influence through cure. Thus he viewed the homeopath as a Godly saviour who dispenses spiritual as well as physical cures; and that illness stems from a corrupted state of man, which homeopathy can cure. Kent’s logic is rather like…’all sick men are bad; Socrates is sick, therefore Socrates is bad’. And he also contends:

‘all sickness originates from internal causes; internal causes are spiritual; therefore all sickness has a spiritual basis’

And then from there he equates internal and spiritual causes as the miasms. Thus in his view the miasms are to be viewed as internal spiritual sins, or derivatives of them.

He also avers another line of argument:

‘all disease causes [inner world] are invisible and nebulous; all potentised remedies are of a similar nature; thus potentised substance, and especially the higher potencies, are the only means of curing disease [by reaching into the subtle interior realm of disease causes]’

This also leads to his oft-repeated adage of ‘the higher the deeper’. This probably also forms the basis for his strong advocacy and use of the very highest potencies. In this manner we can analyse and dissect Kent’s brand of homeopathy.

Like the Mediaeval Churchmen, Kent shows a remarkable devotion to deductive logic and an apparent ignorance of induction or of knowledge based upon experiment, data and the evidence of the senses, to which he also remains either oblivious or contemptuous. There are some good parallels between Kent and Thomas Aquinas [1225-74] in that both treat their subject matter with immense reverence as received dogma which cannot even be questioned, and then build upon that base their towers of speculation and philosophy. Both also tend in the direction of rigid dogmatism, excessive preciousness and zealous devotion to ‘truth’ as received dogma, not as freedom of thought or experimentation, towards which both seem utterly opposed.

Kent, like many others seems to regard illness as an unwanted evil, obtained through contamination, which must be ‘cleansed’ out of the system by the healer. In most cultures the healer is thus regarded as an agent of divine assistance, a cleanser, or purifier of souls.

Kent seems to have causally linked together two otherwise distinct and separate observations, which may not be causally connected at all. Is it really true that lack of morals leads to disease? Are the sick to be viewed as bad? And the bad as sick? And what of those who die of cancer, disfigured by arthritis, ravaged by Human BSE, muscular dystrophy or MS? Are we to truly believe they ‘deserved’ those illnesses? And to have reaped what they have sown? Or is this all a nonsense? It is so very hard to say. Perhaps Kent has mistaken ‘moral rectitude’ with health and purity and hence concluded that disease must therefore stem, pretty fundamentally, from an amoral or immoral position. But it is surely quite a different thing to arrive at such a conclusion from sustained observation and contemplation of the natural world, than it is by deciding that is the way things have to be, because some religious dogmas say so.


An older Post revisited.

I was looking through the archives and came across this post. It holds true today as it did 2 years ago. Worth another read.

Killing the Goose.


The I.H.M. presents a personal view of the present and future state of Homoeopathy as a medical therapy. Written by Vladimir Polony MSc. A homoeopathic practitioner with deep clinical experience in Slovakia and California, A Computer Engineer and program designer, one half of the P & W research team delving into the writings of Hahnemann and colleagues and presenting them in the original texts in the SYNOPSIS computer Repertory program.

With this background of extensive knowledge, and with hands on experience with the methodologies discussed in this article, Vladimir has presented a compelling and though provoking argument for the abandoning of false practices under the banner of Homoeopathy.

Rest In Peace Homeopathy

The current practice of homoeopathy is in an appalling state. Therapists call themselves “homoeopaths”, or even “classical homoeopaths” without the slightest adherence to homeopathic principles as outlined in Samuel Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine. Any trace of empiric scientific methods that gave peer reviewed credibility to homeopathy is gone and has been replaced by the “transcendental” teachings of modern gurus.

The purpose of this commentary is to trace how we got from a very rational empirical science based on researched facts, to a collection of theories and teachings that are so absurd, that anyone in their right mind would not give credibility to homeopathy as a medical science.

I will especially reference the people responsible for this sorry state of homeopathy – the modern homeopathic gurus. Gurus, who claim to have a more precise and “transcendental” knowledge of homeopathy than the founder of homeopathy who practiced and researched medicine his whole life. These gurus make the claim to have seen the ultimate truth, to be able to see behind the symptoms, to perceive the elusive “essence” of homeopathy and essence of homeopathic remedies. They claim it is so simple, that even YOU can learn it very easily. It will be via an expensive training session of course. The sad thing is that once learned, it is less than useful in a homoeopathic medical clinic, and will fail you at every prescription.

You might be asking yourself, ‘who is this person to judge homoeopathy’? Apart from having been through an intensive and researched oriented University training and hold a Master’s Degree, I spent the first five years of my homoeopathic training learning the philosophy of, and working with the methods of Rajan Sankaran, Jan Scholten, Jeremy Sherr, Misha Norland and Peter Chappell. With Peter Chappell, I even purchased his self made remedies and prescribed on his indications. The net result was that I became VERY disappointed in the therapy and was considering giving it up as a career. Please note. Like many people in this position, I was listening to these modern guru “classical homoeopaths”, and even though I applied their teachings and methods religiously and followed accurately, I was not having success in my prescriptions. I concluded that Homoeopathy was too difficult and not accurate, and ultimately, if these were the best teachers, a failure of modern medicine.

I stopped seeing new patients. At this time I met Gary Weaver who was working in Florida in a medical faculty. We discussed homoeopathy and I discovered that he only used the works of the old Masters, especially Hahnemann and Boenninghausen. He presented me with a few cured cases to work out the prescriptions, and I applied my learning to them, and came up with remedies like Carcinosinum, the AIDS nosode, etc. I would then look at his prescribing notes and see that one or more of the old everyday remedies had been given for some deep conditions and had cured.

I then shared some of my cases with him, in which all the prescriptions were failing. He would look into his old Repertory from one of the early homoeopaths, and then cross check in an early edition of Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura or Chronic Diseases, and prescribe a remedy from there. I reluctantly would follow his prescription for the patient, I say reluctantly because it was not a new modern medicine, in the main it was just a standard old polychrest remedy. However, the patient would react well to the medicine and either be cured or had another remedy to finish the case!

I became fascinated with his approach and started studying the old masters of homeopathy – Hahnemann and Boenninghausen. I spent months translating the old writings, and reading through original texts. With the help of Gary I have finally abandoned the modern transcendental theories and started practicing the original science based homoeopathy.

My success rate has increased from roughly 20 % to 85 – 95 % (first prescription). When using the precise homeopathic teaching and tools left by Hahnemann, I have a confidence that even if the remedy is not absolutely correct, it is still close enough to produce a change in the patient that will allow me to discover the correct remedy more easily.

 Cause of a disease – necessity or an empty speculation

Samuel Hahnemann was the founder of homeopathy, his works are essential to understanding and practicing homeopathy. Among the most important works are, the Organon of Medicine (all versions but especially the 6th edition), Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. In terms of defining what homeopathy is, there cannot be a more important book than the Organon of Medicine. In this work, Samuel Hahnemann has very precisely defined homeopathy as a science and all the necessary steps leading to prescription of correct remedies, methods of discovering their actions, regimen for the sick as well as manufacturing of medicines and their administering.

In the 1800’s when the physicians were trying to find the CAUSE of the disease and prescribing on a speculative and unproven postulation, Hahnemann proposed a radical new approach. Instead of looking for this elusive cause, the physician should use his senses (empirical approach) and determine the CURRENT STATE of the disease in the patient. The physician’s role is not to determine the cause of the disease, but to heal the patient.

Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann – Aphorism 1:

 The physician’s high and ONLY mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed. 1

1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant – whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.

 In the first few aphorisms, to define what homoeopathy is, Samuel Hahnemann dismissed EVERYTHING that the modern homeopathic gurus are doing. Their teachings consist solely of empty speculations, trying to discover the “essences” behind the homeopathic remedies, and have produced a spiritual transcendental approach to the medical science.

In aphorism 11 Hahnemann wrote:

“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 influence upon it of a morbific agent 
inimical to life…”

In short, Hahnemann has described a perfectly empirical definition of a disease. We know that there is a cause of the disease which is some dynamic force, but with certainty we can only use the information collected by our senses (our observation). Anything else is a pure speculation. However, the modern homeopathy is full of these speculations.

 Causes of diseases as described by some of the modern gurus:

 Rajan Sankaran – The diseases are caused by some delusions that the patient has about the reality.

 Peter Chappell – The diseases are caused by the “CEED” – Chronic Effects of Epidemic Diseases.

Jan Scholten – The cause of the disease is described as coming from desires, disappointments and fears arising from them.

Notice that, in each individual approach, the empirical principle is non-existent and application has once more moved from observation to speculation. The modern gurus seem to be able to peer behind the veil of reality and give us their unique insight into the causation of disease. However, from the empirical standpoint it remains a pure speculation, and a return to the dark days of the 1800’s medical system pre Hahnemann.

Interesting fact is, that in order to cure the disease using homeopathy, we do not need to know this transcendental causation. All we need to know are facts gathered by our senses (physical observation, tests, patients medical history, present exhibition of symptoms) and through the homeopathic principle (like cures like), we can observe the effects of homeopathic remedies on healthy subjects and prescribe the remedy that causes the similar symptoms in the healthy person.

Why do these modern gurus then insist on “discovering” the “true nature” of disease ? The answer is quite simple. Money, Power and Adoration. It requires that a new method of “science” be created in order to market classical homoeopathy in a manner that makes a lot of income, is copyrighted and keeps an individual in the Public focus. There are no facts involved in this presentation, just ideas and concepts.

Case taking – symptoms, essences, vital sensations

The real damage to homeopathy does not come from empty speculations regarding health and disease or from deliberations on the causes of diseases. It comes when they apply their foolish nonscientific, non-proved speculative theory to the process of case taking.

Samuel Hahnemann has clearly stated that:

The unprejudiced observer … takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind … which can be perceived externally by means of the senses … he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual… (Aphorism 6)

 Symptoms are the language of the disease and we take note of only the symptoms themselves as they can be perceived by our senses (including lab tests and disease knowledge) but always noting the individual expression of a disease state as the patient expresses them. This is again a perfect example of homeopathy being an empirical science – we use only the data we can gather through our senses, we do not make deductions or rationalizations. In empirical science, there is no room for abstractions, speculations or deductions.

Let’s have a look at the Rajan Sankaran’s system of “vital sensations”. Vital sensations push homeopathy deeper into the realm of empty speculation by disregarding all the symptoms and by using the mental observations as devised by one person – Rajan Sankaran.

In his system, he separates the remedies into “kingdoms” such as plant, animal, mineral, nosode, etc. Based on his speculations, he attributes to each “kingdom” some “vital sensations”. These vital sensations have nothing to do with the drug provings and with the symptoms of remedies. He looks at the original substances and sees how they behave or feel like and then makes a deduction, that since the original substances have certain properties, then the homeopathic remedies must have the same properties.

There are a few problems with this approach. First of all it ignores the data from drug provings that were gathered using scientific methods and replaces them with observations of one person.

Secondly, it overly generalizes by using deductions and speculations that have not been tested or proved.

Thirdly, all interpretations of the vital sensations are by definition subjective and change from observer to observer – this means that objectivity in observation which was so strictly applied by Hahnemann and which makes homeopathy scientific has been removed. This makes any result speculative, subjective and not reproducible. Totally poor and bad science.

The question arises how it is possible that such a non-scientific approach can be so easily accepted by the homeopathic community. The roots of this lie in the acceptance of the “doctrine of signatures”. Doctrine of signatures originally taught that substances (plants) that resemble various parts of body can be used to treat them. Snakeroot was used to treat snake bites, Liverwort was used to treat liver, etc. In homeopathy this was again generalized further and expanded to include all other substances as well. Modern gurus such as Frans Vermeulen and Peter Chappell teach us, that if a person looks like something or in our mind resembles something, the remedy prepared from this will be the similimum.

I have heard multiple stories of patients that came to the homeopath wearing green and brown colors being prescribed plant remedies, because they resemble plants. Those wearing red aggressive colors got prescribed animal remedies because animals are aggressive and even cases when people wearing striped shirts leaving with a remedy prepared from Zebra. It does not stop here. The speculations have no end. People working as pilots get only remedies make from birds, people working with earth such as gardeners get only plant remedies and if you are unfortunate enough to have a hobby such a playing football and being a goalkeeper, you will get a remedy prepared from a web-weaving spider.

As you can see, the ideas presented in “vital sensation” method by Rajan Sankaran are by no means new. They have been around for a long time and all he has done is to create a framework for them so that they can be perceived as a new and exciting concept, copyrighted of course, and marketed for lots of money.

Another good example of this is Jan Scholten. He pushes the idea of non-scientific abstraction and speculation to a new level. In his system he looks at the periodic table of elements and deduced that elements in the same groups and periods share the same “essences”. Then the intersection of the group and period will make it possible to “explore” even the remedies which were never proved.

Just to give an example how simplistic this method is, let’s have a look at some of the remedies:

Ferrum Metallicum (Iron) – Iron is used to create tools, so according to Scholten theme of this remedy is “Worker, Task, Duty”. Since peasants work with iron or use iron, the region is “Village” and philosophy is “Practical”.

Argentum Metallicum (Silver) – Silver is a precious metal, so “logically” theme is “Artistic, Queen, Scientist” and philosophy is “Aesthetics and Beauty”.

Aurum Metallicum (Gold) – Gold is used as currency and is valuable, so of course themes are “King, Leader” and philosophy is “Politics”.

The gist of this “system” is to ignore any provings that were done using the scientific methods described by Hahnemann in the Organon. This unfortunately means, that people start prescribing remedies that have not been proven, using just one generalized indication.

When I started studying homeopathy, I was prescribed 4 remedies based on this system by an expert in this method and needless to say all of them failed. It was not until I was treated by a homoeopath using the Hahnemannian protocol of matching real symptoms with proven medicines that I was cured.

 Provings – from Science to Speculation

Homeopathy as described by Samuel Hahnemann in the Organon of Medicine a scientific method of discovering effects of remedies. The main principles of a scientific proving are: objectivity and empiric approach. This means, that provings need to be conducted in a way that would remove all speculations and in a way that would assure objectivity of a proving. Needless to say the principle of a double blind trial is necessary to assure that the provers or conductors of the proving to not distort the information gained by provings.

The scientific proving should be conducted based on these simple rules:

  1. Provers cannot know the remedy being proven.
  2. Provers cannot know whether they are taking the remedy or placebo.
  3. Conductor of the proving cannot know the remedy being proven.
  4. Conductor of the proving cannot know which people take the placebo and which ones take the remedy.
  5. Provers should write down any deviations from their normal state in their diary.
  6. The provers must be healthy.
  7. After the proving is finished all the information gathered by the provers that were taking the placebo must be erased.

Unfortunately even proving methodology has not escaped the creativity of the modern homeopaths.

Let’s start with the dream provings and meditational provings. Dream provings are conducted by most of the modern gurus and involve multiple modalities. The prover either does not take the remedy but places it under his pillow and goes to sleep and then records the dreams he had. The contents of the dreams are then considered to be the essence of the remedy.

Other modality involves a group of provers taking the remedy with a group of “psychics” dreaming in the room adjacent to the room with the provers. Again, the people dreaming and recording their dreams have not taken the actual remedy.

Meditational proving is very similar. A group of people makes the remedy from the 3rd potency and records ideas they had during making the remedy. Then they meditate on this and record their thoughts. Again, no scientific method and no objectivity.

Even provings that are conducted following a “scientific-like” method are compromised for instance by provers knowing that they are taking the remedy and even which remedy they are taking (as an example I would like to use the proving of Latex Vulcani by the School of Homoeopathy). Two of the provers knew the remedy and their “symptoms” were similar to the symptoms of the other provers, so they were recorded in the proving. By symptoms I do not mean physical symptoms of course, these are mental “symptoms”. I think it is reasonable to question the fact that these 2 provers could have influenced by their interactions the rest of the group and lead the proving towards the desired results. And again, since this was probably the case, the themes of the condom proving are what the thoughts and “themes” that you would get if you would think about everything related to a condom – separation, bubble, fear of diseases, etc.

In other provings this is even more evident where proving information includes also information by people who have not taken the remedy, but were given a placebo, because “they were influenced by the remedy regardless of taking it”.

Other provings blatantly skip the whole double blind trial aspect and declare that everyone is taking a particular remedy and even what is the remedy made of. So, if the proving is about a remedy made from bear’s blood, everyone will feel like a bear.

The other provings are even less scientific, the whole groups of provers know that they are taking a particular remedy and they know which remedy it is. Therefore they make an image in their mind of the symptoms they should have and they WILL experience them. This is no different to a brainstorming session.

These “provings” only prove one thing – the fact that they are worthless and that any scientific credibility the homeopathy had is lost.


The problems outlined here only demonstrate the decline of homeopathy from a controversial, but nevertheless empirical science to a strange spiritual nonsense. The scientific methods gave way to transcendental speculations and the scientific credibility homeopathy had is lost.

The only thing left to say is “Rest in Peace homeopathy”. In the current state how it is taught by Rajan Sankaran, Jan Scholten, Frans Vermeulen, Peter Chappell, Jeremy Sherr and all their followers. If this is to be the new face of homoeopathy, I can only hope, In its present form that the practice is banned before too much damage is done.

Examination of tabes Dorsalis and practitioner responsibility.

800 views and no criticism of the case analysis?

We present the cases here for the benefit of those studying with us, and share them with the public. In the main the cases are ‘in house” and are used to encourage the student practitioner to grow. You the public are privvy to how we do things and as such, see how we do things.

To the students..

“To say I am disappointed would be an understatement. Out there in the world, we have a body of people who have undertaken to treat illness as a professional, and with a ‘training’ in homoeopathy and yet, they also with an apparent inability to look at the case and DO THE WORK for themselves.

Several statements in the summation were made that should have made a well trained practitioner get out his or her repertory and work through the case, and more so a student who has this repeated constantly in training.

Our  job is to train the student practitioner to NOT ignore anything and double check for themselves. We at the I.H.M, have always warned against the mentality of following a single persons viewpoint, and insist that EACH student/ potential practitioner convince themselves of the prescriptions made through sound and logical examination of each and every case. This is the second time in 16 years the I.H.M. have put out a case analysis to ‘shake up the student practitioners” and now there will be a time for self reproach that  you got caught out. It is no wonder that 90% of people who claim to be homoeopaths in the west have little or NO understanding of what the therapy is and are easily derailed and follow spurious philosophies willingly. Just because it sounds logical, looks good does NOT mean it holds ANY validity………

You should NOT be afraid to question. You should NOT be afraid to disagree but mostly, you should NOT ever take anything at face value.

For those of you who feel aggrieved at this presentation, I apologise for hurt feelings. However, if you are one of those who took it at face value and accepted it, perhaps you too need to check medicines more often, to read what Hahnemann said regarding treatment of syphilis and treatment of disease according to symptoms, and question WHY you thought Mercurius was for syphilis. We will not do this again . But Please……… do what you are supposed to do.

We have people who look to us for all the answers, and we are busy encouraging them to look to Hahnemann. To not get too comfortable in their chairs and just listen to pass exams or whatever. Its not like we tried to hide ANYTHING…… the case is easily obtained for reference.

The key symptoms were not in Mercurius. A connection was made to miasms and Hahnemann and that he ALWAYS gave mercurius in syphilis, and that alone should have sent warning bells to the student practitioners. And it didnt.

I received this letter from one colleague who guessed at the reason for the case analysis as presented. (My colleagues first language is not English so please excuse the structure). As you can see he agrees with the general synopsis but went on to explain the reasoning for the prescription.

“…………………Thanks for the well explained analysis by  Gary, and Im sure he  will explain in due course, Mercurius was NEVER adminstered.

There is a more simple reasoning on how Boenninghausen came out to the remedies each time. Opportunely he considered the sight component symptoms, overall, modalities, so he figured out the crisis at that moment. I,e. the “inability to develop or hold out the rash in eruptive diseases” “when the old eruption together with the chilblains on the feet again appeared”, lead him on choosing Zincum which solved the situation; and several modalities and symptoms let him try the other various remedies. However, in a determinate moment, things went wrong regarding proper describing of the state and symptoms by the patient and he decided see her personally.

Boenninghausen´s knowledge on the tabes dorsalis symptoms (pathology) and the genius of the remedy, allowed him go ahead with the most adequate remedy in that moment.

As Gary wrote:
“weakness, diminished reflexes, paresthesias (shooting and burning pains, pricking sensations, and formication), hypoesthesias (abnormally diminished cutaneous, especially tactile, sensory modalities), tabetic gait (locomotor ataxia), progressive degeneration of the joints, loss of coordination, episodes of intense pain and disturbed sensation (including glossodynia), personality changes, urinary incontinence, dementia, deafness, visual impairment, positive Romberg’s test, and impaired response to light (Argyll Robertson pupil). The skeletal musculature is hypotonic due to destruction of the sensory limb of the spindle reflex. The deep tendon reflexes are also diminished or absent; for example, the “knee jerk” or patellar reflex may be lacking (Westphal’s sign). A complication of tabes dorsalis can be transient neuralgic paroxysmal pain affecting the eyes and the ophthalmic areas, previously called “Pel’s crises” after Dutch physician P.K. Pel. Now more commonly called “tabetic ocular crises,” an attack is characterized by sudden, intense ocular pain, lacrimation and photophobia.”

Genius of the ALUMINA:
“Inactivity of the rectum; even the soft stool requires great straining” (CD ALUMINA 571-579)
“Locomotor ataxia: “Great heaviness in the lower limbs; can scarcely drag them; while walking staggers and has to sit down; in the evening.” (CD ALUMINA 193, 925, 959, 1012, 1058,)
“Inability to walk except with the eyes open and in the day time.” (CD ALUMINA 193, 925, 959, 1012, 1058,)
“Pain in the back as if a hot iron were thrust through the vertebræ.”(CD ALUMINA 567)

Even though Alumina is founded to have “Aphony” within its pathogenesis (see CD 730, 740), is evident, once the patient was observed, that Boenninghausen did consider it as part of the loss of coordination (tongue paralysis) and NOT in the context of an inflammation, edema, nodes or mucus excess in the larynx/vocal cords, as defined in the TPB for remedies included in the rubric. In the other hand, we find a component symptom of sensation as prominent for any kind of analysis, since this symptom only pertains to Alumina:

846 Sensations and Complaints; Generalities, Hot Iron, Pierced through, sensation of; Alumina grade 3.

From this perspective we are able to see that the analysis is possible and that Boenninghausen´s rationale is solid when he changes the remedy to Pulsatilla (please, use the Concordances):
879;954;722;2965; (P&W Repertory)

Same happens with Sulphur.

Once some symptoms were removed, then the symptoms still present were taken into account and related remedies were given.

A View on disease, vacination and health

We present some writings of one practitioner and his view on the topics in the Title.

David Little.
I am an American who has practiced in the USA and India for many, many years. First of all, so many children die young in India under bad hygienic conditions and infectious disease that only those with a strong resistance even make it too five years old. People living in unhygienic conditions on bad food do NOT live a healthy life. There is no doubt that those areas in India with better hygiene and living conditions are MUCH more healthy than those that live in dirty conditions on poor nutrition, etc.. I have seen the difference first hand though my world wide travels. Many of the rich are not that healthy because they abuse themselves with too much of everything. One cannot get too carried away with the idea that poor people living in squalor are healthier than those that have better living conditions. This an exaggeration of an observation that does possess some merit.

There is no doubt that the revolution in hygiene and food storage reduces the spread of infectious diseases. This is true during the 18th and 19th century in the West. I have seen changes in villages in India over the past 25 years due to the use of clean water, toilets and the safe removed of waste. The people are healthier and happier. Children in the poor districts of Calcutta are not healthy. They are dirty, sick and hungry. Some have been so damage in the first five years by poverty, infectious diseases and malnutrition that do not heal quickly. I have seen them firsthand. Those who live in the country side, and are not too poor, are much better off.. There is a balance in health and harm in excesses.

Nevertheless, the excessive use of antiseptics, chemically treated and fluoridated water, over immunizations, the abuse of antibiotics, fungicides and steroids, etc., has had a serious impact on the immune system in what I will called “over developed countries”. An increase in allergies, asthma and some other diseases has been linked to “excessive hygiene” in Western countries! Excessive (might I say anal retentive) hygiene has removed so many of the relatively harmless bacteria, mites, fungi, etc., that the immune system suffers from *lack of exposure* in the early years. This is the conclusion of many scientific studies.

When excessive hygiene is combined with the abuse of antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, etc., and over immunization the outcome is a weaken immune system and faulty reactions. This contributes to the inner and outer suppression of the acute, half acute and chronic miasms as well toxcity. This syndrome produces two extremes of reactions, i.e, over sensitivity leading to autoimmune diseases and allergies and hypersensitive leading to immunoeficiency disorders. This is making people harder to treat with homeopathy because our remedies work by the action-reaction model based on the vital force. When more persons over reactive or under reactive our job becomes more difficult.

Those who still live in the countryside and are exposed to normal parasitical pathogens actually suffer less of these modern problems. This is also the conclusion of several scientific reports. The immune system is supposed to learn how to fight diseases not have everything killed for it. When one combines todays tendency to *excessive* hygiene, over immunization, the abuse of antibiotics and other drugs with environmental degradation, over urbanizations, over population, etc., the outcome is faulty adaption, lack of resistance and idiosyncratic reactions.

Since the end of WW II there has been a radical increase in population, urbanization, and the number of persons working indoors in factories and offices in western countries. This is combined with the break down of the multi-generation families and the increase in nuclear families where both parents work. The increase in the pace of modern life, and the stress and strain associated with it, has had a great effect on the psyche and soma of people in the 1st world. it!

People are now so divorced from nature that many are suffering what may be called diseases of over civilization. This comes with an increase in obsessive compulsive, hysterical, hypochondriacal and anxiety neurosis as well as paranoid diseases and mood affective disorders like mania, manic-depression, melancholia. The outcomes is an increase in premature dementia, suicidal states, homicidal states, criminal insanity, sex crimes, psychosis and schizophrenia. In general Indians are more tolerant and contented than westerners because they have to be more adaptive. Many westerners act like little more than spoiled children who do not know how well they have it and cannot be satisfied by anything. This is true both mentally and physically.

The answer to the effects of all this modern stress is more drugs and suppression! Children raised in the new “rat race” are increasing put on psychoactive chemicals which suppress the natural reaction of the unconscious to negative situations without any real attempt at problems solving. Teenagers suffering from the effects of normal adolescent changes are put on drugs rather than giving support and counseling. Adults are increasing using psychoactive chemicals as suggested by so-called “consumer advocacy groups” which are supported by drug companies. People are given questionnaires that make it seem like everyone needs to take psychoactive drugs! Now they speak of “life enhancement” through these chemical which is little more than legal recreational drug pushing. General practitioners are giving massive amounts of these drugs to a greater number of patients with no psychological intervention. The entire Western culture is breaking down under the onslaught of the multi-national drug companies and their control of the environment, the inner terrain of the body and the psyche.

People cannot stand their governments and governments cannot stand their people.Children cannot stand their parents and parents cannot stand their children. Men cannot stand women and women can not stand men. Old people cannot stand young people and young people cannot stand old people. The middle age persons are dissatisfied and view the future with dread. Families, societies and the entire nations are suffering from ethical, psychical, and physical breakdown and this collective psychoses is increasing. Add to this the so-called war on terrorism and we have an increase in fear, paranoia, alienation, false nationalism, racism and religious and cultural prejudice. In the mean time the military industrial complex is thriving. All of this is having a dramatic effect on the psychological and physical health of millions.

This decline of humanity is reached epidemic proportions in Western countries and getting worse in counties that take on rapid westernization. I have only pointed out a few angles of what is increasingly become group suppression of the body’s needs, group hysteria and group psychoses. What is really interesting about this is that it was all predicted by Samuel Hahnemann in the introduction to the Organon!!! The Founder wrote:

“As long has humanity has existed, people have been exposed, individually and collectively, to illnesses of physical and moral causes. In the raw state of nature few means were needed, since the simple way of life admitted but few diseases. With civilization, however, the occasions for falling ill, and the need for help against diseases grew in equal measure. From then on (from after Hippocrates therefore for two thousand years) people have occupied themselves with the testament of ever more self-multiplying diseases. In the puzzling out how to help, using intellect and presumptions, they allowed themselves to be seduced by their vanity. Countless different view about the nature of disease and their redress sprang from so many very different heads.”

As long as humanity has existed people have been exposed both individually and collectively to illness of mental and physical causes. This statement implies has a dual nature, i.e., the collective and individual as well as the psychic and somatic. We suffers both individually and well as collectively from mental and psychical causes. When human beings lived in harmony with nature they suffer a less complicated state but with the advent of civilization they now suffer from a host of every multiplying diseases of a more and more complex nature. These symptoms have been met with new drugs, suppression and unnecessary surgeries which only produce more troublesome mutations of increasing destructive powers. I call this Hahnemann’s Genesis because it deals with the “fall of humanity”.

Many of these conditions are now called “diseases of civilization” because they have reached massive proportions in Westernized countries and are increasing in counties taking on rapid westernization. These are based on the suppression to the environment by the excessive use of antiseptics, pest control and herbicides with the internal suppression of all infections with antibiotics, antiviral, fungicides and vermifuges as well as over immunization one witnesses an increasing damage to immune system and an increase of chronic degenerative diseases. Now we have over population, over urbanization, ]chemical, nuclear and electromagnetic pollution and climate change on the outside and suppression, chemical toxins, faulty adaptation and ethical and mental degeneration on the inside. With it has come the decline of the family, of long term relationships and social responsibility. There is a desecration of civilization individually and collectively that is reaching serious pathological proportions that threaten the survival of the human race.

My dear homoeopaths, what we are facing today is of apocalyptic proportions. The modern epidemic of over and under reaction as well as idiosyncratic responses is just one more reason to learn Hahnemann’s advanced techniques and the methods of adjusting the dose and repetitions of the C and LM potency when needed. We must prove more remedies in the traditional manner and make a deeper study of individual and collective causes. It is one more reason to study the effects of drugs, suppression and the miasms. It is one more reason to assess the attending circumstances like constitution, temperament, predisposition, lifestyle, habits, occupational hazards as well as personal and social relationships. It is one more reason to come to terms with poisonings by chemicals. It is one more reason to study the long term affects of occasioning and continual maintaining causes that cannot be avoided. It is one more reason to pray and work for humanity as a whole.

The first subject I will take up is vaccination in general and then raising conceiving and raising children in particular. Without healthy, happier children tomorrow will not be a better world. As I reach later middle age and face old age I know that my work on this earth will someday be finished. At this stage of life what we leave behind becomes a more important issue and legacy a more important word. If we have any real legacy it is what we have done for others. This work starts at home and then spreads to the society and the entire global village.
The idea behind immunizations is based on similar substances in that the original substance has been modified so that it is not exactly the same as the natural infection. Hahnemann supported vaccination although his casebooks show that he sometimes treated the acute side effects of vaccination. He knew vaccination could cause problems and even suggested methods for reducing the risk. He felt that this method was homoeopathic and that other preventative remedies might be found in a similar manner,. Hahnemann observation was that vaccination had reduced the virulency and epidemic of smallpox. He thought, in his time and place, that the risk versus benefit ratio was in favor of vaccination. These are the historical facts so we best not ignore them based on our personal feelings.

It was Wolf and Boenninghausen who first spoke out strongly about the long term side effects of smallpox vaccination. Then Boenninghausen introduced Thuja as a curative as well as preventative remedy for the miasm. This was quickly followed by the use of Variolinum based on Hering’s experiments with nosodes. The smallpox nosode was used with great success in the USA during epidemics. There is ample documentation on this subject. The complications associated with the homeopathic campaigns were minimal and were mostly aggravations cause the dose and potency. The homeopathic method seems to have faired better than the orthodox vaccinations. So for smallpox, at least, we do have some statistical and clinic data that shows he nosodes work well. There are quite a few promising studies and even a few laboratory confirmations of immune reactions. Homoeopathic prophylaxis has worked well in the field over the last 162 years since Hahnemann passed away.

Orthodox immunization is similar in theory to the idea of nosode prophylaxis but the size of the dose and the tendency to mix several diseases together increases the danger associated with the method. The injection of larges doses of mixtures of miasms at the same time is very questionable because it is so unnatural. The immune system is not designed to be exposed to so many differing acute and chronic miasms in the first five years of life. There is also the danger of contamination which chemicals and other viruses.So what we have is the right idea being done in the wrong manner. This is what I call “over-immunization”. Too much of too many things too fast. In the end one ends up with so many dissimilar miasms affect the vital force that they form dissimilar layers that can only repress one another or form complex diseases but never cure each other.

The continual production of antibodies for so many dissimilar diseases so fast can cause the immune system to attack its own tissue producing vaccine related autoimmune disorders that appear as many different diseases not related to immunization. The exact nature of the final form of the vaccinosis is based on the heredity, constitution, temperament and predispositions of the individual as well as the nature of the iatrogenic miasm. The individualized nature of the reactions makes it almost impossible to related all the potential disorders by a simple 1+1= 2 linear causation. For this reason, only the grossest side-effects that take place more quickly are ever recorded. The rest is ignored or considered new diseases.

Now we come to the risk versus benefit of orthodox immunizations. Some say that all vaccinations do not work but this is too sweeping of a statement. Yes, studies show that certain vaccinations do not work very well if at all. For example, WHO did a massive study of BCG in India and found that it had no real effect on infection rates. Risk yes – cost yes- benefit no! An MD (who is using more and more homeopathy) told me that in his young years he saw lots of tetanus but he no longer sees it much these days. At the same time, he told that DPT does not seem to have reduced the incidents of whooping cough and many immunized children still get the disease. This was his unprejudiced observation over the last 30 years. At the same time, this shot is known cause serious complications in quite a few children. So what is the risk and what are the benefits? Should everyone get the shot now because someday they “might” need it? If one gets a deep puncture wound or serous laceration tetanus anti-toxin shots are available at the time. Ledum and Hypericum offer an alternative even then.

I once had a discussion with a pediatrician.about giving new born babies hepatitis B shots in the first day of their lives. I ask him what are the transmission vectors. He said the most common vectors were drug addicts sharing needles and sexual intercourse. Then I ask him what were the chances of a new born baby shooting drugs or having sex? He said “none”. Then I ask him why give them this immunization so close to birth when they did not need it? He was lost for words. He was stuck in the system and forced to follow standard practice.

They should not *over immunize* children for more and more disease every year as if there is no limited to what the human organism can tolerate. At first it causes a boast of specific antibodies but then it exhausts the immune system because it is not natural to be exposed to so many diseases at time. They may or may not get the disease the vaccination was given for but they do become more susceptible to host of other diseases. They should only give immunizations to those diseases that present a clear and present danger. They should only give one immunization at a time and then wait and watch the child’s health. They should not vaccinate children who an unhealthy or ill at the time. Each case should be individualized according to the patient, time and circumstances. If the orthodox school just followed these simple parameters the amount of complications would be reduced. What they are doing lacks common sense as well as medical prudence and is more about the assembly line production and money than health.

Now let us look at Nature’s Way. Why? Because if are going to find a better method than the orthodox mechanistic approach we must know what is natural first. The immature immune system is supposed to be strengthened through the parent’s genes, exposure the mother’s blood and fluids in the womb and by breast feeling. Breast milk increases the resistance to infection and helps strengthen the growing immune system. Exposure in the post-natal word to relative harmless microorganisms continues to develop the resistance and adaption of the growing infant further.

As the child starts to eat solid food the intestinal flora is developed so that there is a healthy balance of positive and so-called negative bacteria, fungi and parasites. If the internal terrain is balanced the potentially pathological microorganisms are harmless and the process further increases resistance and adaption. These are important phases of living on the earth. Bacteria-phobia is one of the reasons for the excessive use of antiseptics and chemical soaps has lead to the derangement of the system of mass defense leading to an increase of allergenic disorders. We can not live a healthy life without the millions of microorganisms that live within the human organism and surround us in life.

Life is a twin process of adaption or learning to live with relatively harmless microorganism and gaining resistance to those which have pathogenic potential. As long as the internal terrain is not unnaturally deranged the human organism is ready, willing and able to strike up a healthy balance in its internal medium. When there is a balance of learning to adapted to that which is not really a threat and learning to resist that which is a danger the individual heathy. If the internal terrain is unbalanced by immunizations, antibiotics, fungicides and chemicals the same relatively harmless microorganisms become out of balance and become extremely pathological.

On top of this natural resistance the growing infant must eat a good diet, feel loved and appreciated, and get enough exposure to the Nature’s elements to continue to evolve into its new environment. When such a child begin to socialize they are expose to the common acute miasms this is another chance to strengthen its system of mass defense. This is a natural immunization, which will make the child more resistance to all similar acute diseases and may even cure the predigestions to certain similar chronic disorders. In such a child their natural vitality and the acquired resistance is usually sufficient so that there are no complications.

This is the ideal situation not a reality for each and every child even in the natural world. Heredity, constitution, temperament and predisposition combined with environmental factors are leading factors. Some children are born with notable weaknesses, susceptibilities and lack of vitality. They are always at a higher risk to suffering acute and chronic miasmic infections and prone to complications. These children need special attention until they overcome there innate disabilities and reach a point of sufficient resistance, adaptation and vitality. Unfortunately, those with compromised health are the most at risk of side effects from orthodox immunization. It is a vicious circle.

What we know and what we don’t know.


By Vera Resnick

I’m writing this post in response to comments made on Gary’s post here:

There are homoeopaths who describe the process with a certainty as if they know everything.  Then there are homoeopaths, as in the comments, who state that they don’t know – that those who say they know are merely speaking from a deluded zeal of quasi-religious conviction.

Well, lets take a look at what Hahnemann knew and didn’t know, and where he knew it from.

And just because I like definitions – here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of EMPIRICAL: “originating in or based on observation or experience”

There is a natural law of similars – meaning, just as what goes up usually must come down, what produces a disease-like symptom picture in healthy people usually must cure a similar disease symptom-picture in sick people.
Sources:  Hippocrates, Paracelsus, Hahnemann’s writings
Hahnemann’s experiments on himself and others
Nature of the knowledge: empirical

Substances can be active even when highly diluted
Source:  Hahnemann’s experiments on himself and others, provings and treatments over 200 years
Nature of the knowledge: empirical

Succussion acts to increase the potency of remedies
Source:  Theory – Hahnemann’s Lesser Writings (see my article on the subject of potentisation)
Practice:  Hahnemann’s experiments on himself and others, further experimentation, provings and treatments over 200 years
Nature of the knowledge: empirical

Different substances produce different disease-like symptom pictures in healthy people
Source:  Hahnemann’s provings and those of others over 200 years, reports of poisonings
Nature of the knowledge: empirical

There are many other definitely, conclusively known factors involved in homoeopathic treatment, and the homoeopath must base treatment on the known – otherwise homoeopathy falls into the “hit-or-miss”, “trial-and-error” format that has more in common with allopathy than homoeopathy as originally formulated.

So what don’t we know?

Not known:  how cure through similars takes place inside the organism

In Aphorism 28 of the Organon, Hahnemann states (bold text from original):

“As this natural law of cure manifests itself in every pure experiment and every true observation in the world, the fact is consequently established; it matters little what may be the scientific explanation of how it takes place; and I do not attach much importance to the attempts made to explain it.  But the following view seems to commend itself as the most probable one, as it is founded on premises derived from experience.”

The “following view” referred to is Hahnemann’s assessment of how homeopathically prescribed medicines effect cure in the organism – something he developed from his experience with the method and observations resulting from this process.  This is what is presented in the Organon from aphorism 29 onwards – Hahnemann’s self-stated theory which he saw actualized in practice.  Since the whole Organon is an invitation to try the method out, it is also an invitation to examine the validity of his theory.  But he himself defines it as “the most probable one”.  Please note – not exactly the same as a religious epiphany or commandment…

Hahnemann stated frequently that the actual internal mechanism is not known.  See also the note to Aphorism 12

“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.. “

Some have assumed that Hahnemann, when referring to the unknown, intangible or immeasurable, is referring to the spiritual – but he states categorically that this is not the case.  In the footnote to aphorism 31, he states:

“when I call disease a derangement of man’s state of health, I am far from wishing thereby to give a hyperphysical explanation of the internal nature of diseases generally, or of any case of disease in particular.  It is only intended by this expression to intimate, what it can be proved diseases are not and cannot be, that they are not mechanical or chemical alterations of the material substance of the body, and not dependent on a material morbific substance, but that they are merely spirit-like (conceptual) dynamic derangements of the life.”

My personal favourite quote of Hahnemann’s acknowledgement that he does not know “how it works” appears in a footnote towards the end of the theoretical part of Chronic Diseases.  Here Hahnemann states categorically (bold is religiously mine…):

“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.

For the full quote, click here.

Many prescriptions today are based on assumptions of “how it works”, rather than based on the known information, whether about the method, the remedies, and the patient’s case itself.  In addition, many remedies are prescribed based on assumptions of what symptoms they can cure, often based more on the Doctrine of Signatures rather than anything else.  That is not a known.  Homeopathy today is often misunderstood to be based on these and other assumptions – rather than on the empirically based method developed by Hahnemann.  Hahnemann presented the Organon as a method of how to work based on the known – with what he felt was a probable explanation of how the cure is effected.  His “most probable” explanation forms a small part of the Organon – the bulk of which deals with intensely practical instructions on how to work based on the known, rather than preoccupation with the speculative.  It is a sign of the times that in many courses offered today the Organon is referred to as the basis for homoeopathic philosophy and taught as such – whereas it really is the Users Manual for homoeopathic practice.

Personally, I find it difficult to agree that knowing the exact nature of how the organism effects the cure would not help.  The greatest difficulty homeopaths experience in treatment is often not the prescriptions themselves, but the case-management and understanding the significance of each response to remedies along the path in order to determine the next steps.  Having said that, many many times difficulties in case-management can be traced back to unreported obstacles to cure, to incomplete or ineffective case-taking, to lifestyle and allopathic interventions and medications.

This post is inevitably a short “out-take” of a much larger picture.  However some elements are clear:

  1.  The Law of Similars is empirically known, and is the basis of the homoeopathic method.
  2. Use of remedies based on the Law of Similars is empirically known.
  3. Hahnemann has presented a picture of how cure takes place in the organism based on his observations – although initially theoretical, eventually empirically demonstrated, especially when compounded with  200 years of experience.
  4. Prescription of remedies not based on the Law of Similars is not based on the homoeopathically known.  (this does not invalidate clinical experience, merely defines that it cannot be a certain starting point for the homoeopath working based on the known foundations of homoeopathy as a medical therapeutic)
  5. Assessment of how homeopathically prescribed remedies effect cure in the organism is essentially theoretical, possibly empirically demonstrated, but ultimately not known.