Category Archives: Organon

Not following Hahnemanns teaching of homoeopathy.

By Dr. Guillermo Zamora. M.D.,I.H.M. D.hom med (Lic)

Dr+Gsmall

At this analysis I would like to establish fundamental differences between Hahnemann´s homeopathy and the different thinking in the world.

Fundamental differences between Hahnemann and:

A. Leon Vannier
B. James Tyler Kent
C. Eilhelm Heinrich Schüssler
D. Francisco Xavier Eisayaga
E. Bernard Poitevin
F. G Vithoulkas
G. Proceso Sanchez Ortega
H. Tarsicio Escalante Plancarte
I. Hebert A. Roberts
J. N. Ghatak

I am going to start with Leon Vannier (1880-1963)

The first difference that I would like to quote is about the laws, while Hahnemann used only the law of similar. Vannier used both as a similar law as contraries, often simultaneously.
Vannier took into account the human function, temperament and constitution to select the remedy, while Hahnemann only considered the totality of symptoms.

Regarding the classification of diseases, Hahnemann divided into acute and chronic miasmas: Psora, syphilis, and sycosis, while Vannier based on the morphology of sensory, functional and lesional disorders, with acute or chronic genesis which in addition to Hahnemann´s miasmas, he added tuberculosis (Hering) and cancer. From the standpoint of disease´s causal agent, Hahnemann refers to morbific agent while Vannier a toxinic complex .

Regarding the dynamics of the consultation, Vannier referred that interrogation must be conducted by the physician at once this has been done, then patient must be explored with the same technique that orthodox medicine. In addition, he added iridology as one more technical exploration. Hahnemann established that the questioning must be done through the free tribune and mere observation of the patient and questions must not be directed to a negative or positive response.

Vannier divided the study of the drug in Analytical (characteristic signs, objective signs, subjective secondary signs, procedures), Synthetics (subjective and objective symptoms ), homeopathic antidotes  and incompatibilities. Hahnemann did the most complete study about remedies’ concordances

About the dosage, Hahnemann did little emphasis on the exact dosage of the drug (although he recommended and experienced the minimal dose), but rather the response towards the remedy, while, it seems to be, Vannier studied the dosage and administration interval.

Treatment Technique:
Hahnemann used a similar single drug at a time, while Vannier used a combination of homeopathic medicines at once. Beside, Vannier used methods such as drainage, Organic and toxinic regulation and he also used therapeutic series and families of remedies.

James Tyler Kent
(1849-1916)
James T. Kent, graduated from Eclectic Medical Institute in the year 1871.
Kent received his diploma as homeopath from homeopathic school in Missouri in 1889.
His teachers writings include Dr. Samuel Hahnemann and Emanuel Swedenborg.
Dean of the Post-graduate school of homeopathy “in Philadelphia.
Professor of medical materia in the “Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital”, in Chicago, and “Hering Medical College “, Chicago.

Kent thinks that Psora is the origin of all diseases, believing that was the original sin over which rests all human pathology (Swedenborgian influence). He says the Psora is found in the body from birth and refers that the other two chronic miasmas (sycosis and syphilis) could not exist if Psora had not established  on mankind. Dr. Hahnemann considers that patients may present any disease without necessarily having Psora.

Regarding the dose, for Kent had no difference in quantity, for Hahnemann each pill remedy had a certain amount of medicinal energy. For Kent quantity was just a static factor while the potency is a dynamic factor. (Swedenborgian influence)

Vital Force: Kent believed that the energy came from a single substance, to him, there was no such thing as a pure energy, while Hahnemann considered that there is pure energy without a physical or even a simple substance, he (Hahnemann) thought that it comes from a force Electromagnetic.

Although the germ theory is not a difference, it could be, let me explain it. Kent did not believe that microorganisms play an active role in disease´s processes. He said: – “Most of the doctors are going crazy about the bug and they have been made a vice to say that these (bugs) are the cause of the disease and they think that these” young friends “are extremely dangerous.” Also says: “The bacteria are innocent colleagues and if they carry diseases they only carry the simple substance that causes the disease like an elephant would do it. It seems to be that Hahnemann wrote the first comprehensive study on the effects of microorganisms in the human. Although expressing the importance of susceptibility and constitution of the patient.

Hahnemann used the term infection in a very wide sense, to him; anyone can be infected by any external stimulus which produces a reaction of the body. This reaction is explained by Hahnemann within the conceptual, supra sensual or virtual level, it means, No chemical nor mechanical, then dynamic. There might be positive (healthy) and negative reactions for the body, it depends on the objective, subjective and functional sides. Thus, Hahnemann can consider external stimulus (infectious agents) to factors coming from the enviroment (i,e light sun) until the medicines themselves as they can get a reaction from the body, and in personal opinion, why not, even microorganisms (I mean, any factor able to get a reaction from the body). Therefore, a miasma is a disease (reaction) which is developed, after an infection with an external stimulus (Infectious agent).

Without the existence of microscopes, Hahnemann explains the various phases of an acute disease as if were a microbial disease.

Kent set the mind symptom as the most essential in his repertorization symptoms and he confuses it with personality. Hahnemann only takes the mind symptom which has been concomitant to the disease and never takes personality into account for his repertorization method. (example: How mood changes while in a disease state).

Kent used his own repertory which is filled with errors and additions from doubtful sources, wrong translations and misunderstood techniques on the collection and graduation of symptoms. Hahnemann used the techniques that formed  Boenninghausen´s Repertory 1846 under his Collection (complete symptom and its elements) and graduation protocol.

Eilhelm Heinrich Schüssler
Born in Oldenburg, Germany.
He lived from 1821 to 1898.
1.-He says that the lack of certain minerals in the cells (law of minimum) produces illness.
2.-These lacks of salts were gotten from ashes of cremated bodies.
3.-According to Schüssler, one prepared can be administered simultaneously with various salts and only will be absorbed the needed salt, the others will be eliminated.
4.-He accepts that these salts can be used prophylactically.
5.-He does not take into account the totality of symptoms but the relationship of the disease and salts lacks theory.
6.-He believes that such salts are nutrients that are part of the body. Salts are not drugs.
7.-He did not classify the diseases.

Francisco Javier Eisayaga
He was married to Amalia Bertha Klein both formed a united family with strong values of affection and good principles. They had eight children, three of them are medical doctors currently.
He died on June 26, 2001 at 9:30 pm.
Prof. Dr. Francisco Xavier Eisayaga is graduated from the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
He was Urologist at several hospitals in urology in Buenos Aires.
He studied homeopathy in 1949-50, in Argentina Homeopathic Medical Association.
Lecturer and then as vice president and of that association.
He has authored numerous articles and books among which are his Treatise on Homeopathic Medicine and his “masterpiece” translation of The Modern Repertory of Kent.
He was president of the International Homeopathic Medical League from 1988 to 1996

Differences:
1.-Dr. Eisayaga agrees to make clinical diagnostic pathology.
2.-He agrees with experiments on sick people.
3.-Dr. Eisayaga accepts the 2 additional miasmas Dr. Leon Vannier (Tuberculinism and Cancerinism).
4.-He recognizes the achievements of the allopathic medicine.
5.-He reports that Psora may be predisposing for acute illnesses.
6.-In the other hand, he accepts the use of more palliative homeopathic substances.

Bernard Pointevin
1.-Dr. Pointevin attaches importance to characterological traits and morphological typology for the specificity of a patient with the medication.
2.-Vitalistic explanation differs from Hahnemann, He said that the current interpretation should be based on physical-chemical knowledge applied in contemporary biology.
3.-He did not recognize as a “Law” to the similar´s Law but as a therapeutic relationship of similarity.
4.-He says the objective of the consultation is the therapy and understanding of the physiological mechanism and lesion of the disease.
5.-He says, it must do nosological and functional diagnoses.
6.-He mentions that drugs should be prescribed according to both clinical syndrome and homeopathic diagnosis, to be complemented.
7.-He agrees with the antibiotic therapy if the individual does not react to homeopathic medicine or if there is lack of experience in homeopathy.
8.-He experiments on animals.
9.-He doubts remedies work above 9 CH.
10.-He calls empiricism to homeopathic practice.
11.-He takes into consideration the active principle of a substance to experiment its effects within a homeopathic remedy.

G. Vithoulkas
1.-To George. Vithoulkas, the vital force is the same that an electromagnetic field (the concept of resonance). Each substance has a frequency that must resonate with the body so that there is healing.
2.-Similar´s law relates to the above (resonance).
3.-He tries to explain the mechanism of action of the remedies through physicochemical ideas (Poitevin) in biology. (Electromagnetic fields)
4.-Defense mechanism and dynamic and vital force are the same.
5.-Patient first must get sick of Psora to get syphilis and sycosis. (Kent)
6.-He accepts that acupuncture, allopathy, and magnetism can also achieve cure by touching the dynamic plane.
7.-He states that there are plenty of miasmas and not just three.
8.-Accepts treat one miasma every time, in layers of predisposition (layer by layer).
9.-Accepts nosodes as therapy. (Based on Isopathic terms)
10.-The miasma is a diathesis (predisposition) and not disease.
11.-He reports that remedies must be experienced in healthy subjects but who are familiar to the Materia Medica, with an average of ages, between 18 and 45 years old.

Proceso Sanchez Ortega
1.-Dr. Sanchez accepted the therapy in a bi-miasmatic or tri-miasmatic, this (therapy) should be focused towards the prevailing miasma, and then proceed to the next that is most prevalent and so on.
2.-He compares Miasmatic diseases with colors, even; he compares the character and temperament with colors either.
3.-He makes a numerical classification of the miasmas (according to personalities) with combination´s codes that must fit between persons in order of getting a better interpersonal and social communication.
4.-He considers to the miasma as diathesis (predisposition) or a genetic disease.
5.-He made his own miasmatic classification of the remedies.

Escalante Tarsicio Plancarte
1.-He calls to homeopaths as simil therapists, vitalistic (simil) and materialistic (Therapists) respectively.
2.-He based the action of remedies based on their pharmacodynamy.
3.-Dr. Escalante refers that Homeopathic medicine is chosen by the principle of similar but it heals by contraries law.
4.-He supports experiments in animals and other living beings.
5.-He says that homeopathic medicines act in different systems depending on the dose (potency), which invert their action while they are more diluted.
6.-He notes that remedies which exceed the 9c in the practice or the Avogadro limit (12 CH) are useless for healing.
7.-He accepts the Alternatism and complexism. (For alternating or giving several bottles)
8.-He says that the miasma must be attached to the germ theory because Hahnemann did not know abut it.
10.-He supports Isopathy, even he considers it as a Law.

Hebert A. Roberts
I think that Roberts did a descriptive analysis of Hahnemann more than to establish a philosophy, He differs in the following:
1.-Roberts tries to explain the high dilutions of Hahnemann from the point of view of the atoms referring that these acquire radioactive attributes and therefore act at the level of vital energy which moves away from Hahnemannian dynamic concept.
2.-He refers that temperament must be considered for medical history, I.e. to prescribe pulsatilla: Women with blonde hair and blue eyes, or Nux vomica: Woman thin and brown skin.
3.-He called stigma instead of miasmas to syphilis and sycosis, due to the effect almost indelible injury in cells which has been left by these two miasmas.
4.-The author mixes symptoms of developed Psora such as mental and some other items in the stigma of syphilis and sycosis.

N. Ghatac
He is from India. Born in 1918
1.-The only way to activate Hering´s Law is through high Potencies.
2.-Ghatak takes to all diseases as one disease (Psora), Psora includes also the other two miasmas: Syphilis and sycosis
3.-The concept of symptomatic totality is different in acute and chronic cases, the prescription is based on the miasma acting, and it is not in the acute form.
4.-Dr. Ghatak believes that all remedies are tri-miasmatic.
5.-The disease only exists in the mind.
6.-The real action is only effective through homeopathic highly dilutions. All chronic case must be tried with 200c or higher.
7.-Although he considered that low potencies act only in the body, in any case is rarely a good response to 30c.
8.-He does not consider the totality of symptoms only the dominant miasma.

Bibliography
1.-Organon de la Medicina, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, tercera edición, Editorial Porrua.
2.-Las Enfermedades Crónicas y Su Peculiar Naturaleza y su Curación Homeopática, Del Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, Traducido por el Dr. José Antonio Ugartechea G.
3.-Enfermedades Crónicas, su causa y su curación, N. Gathak.
4.-Filosofía de la homeopatía, James Tyler Kent.
5.-Apuntes sobre los miasmas, Proceso Sanchez Ortega, 1ra edición 1977, México
6.-las Leyes y Principios de la Homeopatía en su Aplicación Práctica, G. Vithoulkas, español lanzado en 1997.
7.-Los principios y el Arte de curar por medio de la Homeopatía, Dr. Hebert A. Roberts.
8.-LA PRACTICA DE LA HOMEOPATIA de VANNIER, LEON EDITORIAL PORRUA, S.A.
9.-La terapéutica por el semejante, Dr. Tarsicio Escalante Plancarte.
10.-Introducción a la Homeopatía, bases experimentales y cientificas, Bernard Poitevin.
11.-Biblioteca de homeopatía de Guadalajara A.C.

The Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.

In 1810, Hahnemann presented his groundbreaking new medicine and therapy via the book the Organon of the Medical Art. He presented his method in carefully structured detail. He compiled a database of medical substance proving’s which were listed in the Fragmenta, the Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. Hahnemann taught his methods to many students and colleagues, but only put his trust in a small number of practitioners, of whom Clemens Maria Franz (Friedrich) Freiherr (Baron) von Bönninghausen was perhaps the most prominent.

Bönninghausen’s projects of reportorial works culminating in the Therapeutic Pocket Book, was approved by Hahnemann as being an accurate representation of the proving’s database and clinical experience. (The T.P.B. actually is an amazing synthetic approach of how Hahnemann’s mind worked in case analysis.)

Although Hahnemann revised the Organon six times before his death and constantly examined possible changes to the methodology, he never made changes to the central prescribing principle of like cures like, without which homoeopathy (the therapy) cannot exist as a separate modality. If the principle of “like cures like”, with its required database of provings, is abandoned, as has been the case with modern approaches and methods, the certainty offered by prescribing to principle is lost, the path obliterated.

At the IHM we look no further than Hahnemann’s circle of trust. We work with Hahnemann’s structure of method and database, Organon and proving’s. We explore the writings of those whom Hahnemann commended, and study and apply the work of Boenninghausen in great depth.

We do not do this slavishly. In order to validate the method, the works and writings of others claiming to be homoeopaths are examined for similarities and differences in approach to the therapy. Sadly, the decline in homoeopathic integrity began with one of its most able practitioners who was politically naïve.

On the political level, Carroll Dunham was a peacemaker. It was said of him that he had no enemies. His liberal and generous mind made it easier for him to accept compromise. Unfortunately, compromise on the search for the truth leads to error. In 1870 he made a notable presentation before the American Institute of Homœopathy (AIH) called ‘Freedom of Medical Opinion and Action: a Vital Necessity and a Great Responsibility’. He believed, contrary to his predecessors, that liberty of opinion and practice should prevail within the AIH. He said that he was sure that “perfect liberty will sooner bring knowledge of the truth and that purity of practice which we all desire.” His speech provided license to the pseudo-homoeopaths to practice as they wanted and be still identified as homoeopaths. Subsequent to his address knowledge of homoeopathy was removed in 1874 as a requirement for membership in the AIH. Dunham died in 1877 and did not witness the disastrous effect his noble but naïve vision eventually had on the course of homoeopathy in the U.S.A. as most of our institutions disappeared after its members had adopted practices at variance with the teachings of Hahnemann.

(Our Noble and Beloved Carroll Dunham by Dr André Saine, D.C., N.D., F.C.A.H.)

We work with great care and certainty because we value our integrity as homoeopathic practitioners, and we owe it to our patients to treat based on a tried and true principle, to avoid speculation, theorizing, and invented systems whether based on sensation, the periodic table, kabala, shamanism, kingdoms, families and the like.

Hahnemann’s homoeopathy is the modality which achieved tremendous successes in the cholera epidemic of the early 1830s, leading to its acceptance in medical faculties in Europe at the time as a discipline for study. The original works are filled with discussions and cases demonstrating the efficiency of the method across the spectrum of diseases afflicting mankind.

Today homoeopathy is either being outlawed or relegated to treatment of the most minor problems. Its vast ability as a medical modality is being lost. Poor training, poor understanding of the medical science behind its development and a search for novelty in case analysis all have contributed to its demise as a valid therapy and is thought of as an intuitive healing method rather than the effective treatment it really is.

The IHM puts all its efforts into teaching from original materials, working with practitioners to achieve greater certainty and effectiveness in prescribing through a full understanding of the central principle of homoeopathy and the best ways to apply it in homoeopathic practice.

We do not wish to add more novel ideas to the world of homoeopathy. We do see it as part of our professional duty, to keep the standards high and teach the real methodology to all who desire to practice proper medicine in the prescribed manner. We lay no claim to being ‘better’ prescribers. We do however concede that our results based on the instructions of Hahnemann give better resolution to medical problems than other interpretive methods of prescribing. There is great latitude in applying the therapy, however, deviating from its central core or adding a false overlay of psychological analysis and emphasizing or interpreting physical symptoms as delusional states are not the answer.

What has changed, or constitution? Aphorisms 5 and 6 revisited

By Vera Resnick

James Tyler Kent

So what should it be – Aphorism 5 or Aphorism 6? Let’s look at them… (text taken from 6th edition)

Aphorism 5:

Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration.

Aphorism 6:

The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

So – which one is it? If the information described in Aphorism 5 is what is needed to make an accurate homoeopathic prescription, we can understand the Kentian-style intake, lasting hours and sometimes even days. We can also understand how Kent – with a little push from Swedenborg, ok, a hefty shove – came to the concept of the constitutional remedy. A remedy which encompasses the patient’s entire soul and psyche, in this life and – depending on your beliefs – in all those that came before and will come after…

Since Kent’s time, homeopaths have worshipped at the altar of the Constitutional Remedy, the simple substance – a Swedenborgian, not Hahnemannian concept – and this is what most non-homoeopaths and homoeopaths alike believe Classical Homoeopathy to be.

But then what do we do about Aphorism 6? This Aphorism and its instructions have been swept under the constitutional carpets of so-called Classical Homoeopathy for so long that the simple clarity of focus and objective has been lost to many.

Hahnemann’s language in Aphorism 6 is very clear. “Take note of nothing but the changes in the health of the body and the mind”. How on earth is it possible to ignore that? But it is ignored.

The thing is – this is not an “either/or” situation. Both Aphorisms are essential, but they serve different purposes. We cannot take what has changed (Aphorism 6), if we don’t know what was before (Aphorism 5). We cannot assess those changes and prioritize them if we don’t know whether there is an exciting cause, a maintaining cause, a miasmatic origin (or something that is harming the patient’s health and can be removed – see Aphorism 4) – if we don’t do the work set out in Aphorism 5.

But the central focus, the torch that has to guide us through the often labyrinthine nature of a complex case has to be Aphorism 6. So many patients today are subjected to never-ending sessions where they are asked to disclose their most intimate thoughts, dreams and fantasies, their sexual urges, their emotional relationships past present and future, their failed expectations and unexpected successes. The process is usually emotionally draining, hugely time-consuming, potentially harmful in terms of the patient-practitioner relationship, and without the context set out in Aphorism 6, of no use whatsoever and potentially hinders us from finding the best homoeopathic prescription for the patient.