1/. I see this all the time. Sadly it is the Kentian spiritual teaching regarding mental emotional and Constitutional symptoms being the correct and essential prescribing criteria which has created this situation. It is false.
Hahnemann stated clearly:
§ 6 Sixth Edition
The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.
When analysis is applied to this directive, it becomes clear that there is no emphasis on the mind or desires or indeed, to personality, (another misleading emphasis in understanding remedies).
2/. In case taking, both the symptoms of the disease, and the individual reaction to the disease are to be noted. If we know the nature of a named disease, its progression and pathology, we can note clearly which aspects of its reach is affecting the patient, and how the patient processes the infection in an individual way.
§ 153 Sixth Edition
In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the
natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms1 of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.
Many years ago, in my studies to find out how to take a case, I went out on a limb and noted only the chief characteristics of a patients presentation, one two or three symptoms which ‘peculiarised’ and personalised the case before me. As I refined this technique, I learned to see the disease through the patients expressions of symptoms, not all the symptoms were of the pathology of the named disease, yet were intrinsically part of that infection though not noted as part of that disease. the patient presented symptoms which were expressed reactively and individually and as such needed individual treatment.
Each living organism comes from a line of genetic encoding and also the line of disease and weakness in the family. One family will be tubercular inclined and another from the results of say, a syphilitic background which has been well diluted but expressed through acute diseases not immediately associated with syphilis.
Because of the unknown backgrounds, we can ONLY prescribe on the symptoms presented. So for example, a patient presenting ringworm, we have a few remedies that deal with that infection readily. Occasionally, the patient does not resolve despite careful noting of the symptoms and a few doses of the requisite remedy. Compton-Burnett noted that ringworm ONLY appeared on susceptible people of a tubercular diathesis, and studied Bacillinum carefully, and then gave to the non resolving patients. Without exception, they all were relieved of Ringworm.
The practice of homoeopathy is solely effective based on the similarity of the remedy to the disease. However, it is ESSENTIAL to have the correct symptoms of the ‘disease’ to be effective.
The ‘disease’, is the individual presentation of the change in the patient and how that is expressed, not the symptoms of the named pathology. It is not merely the collection of symptoms collectively, it is the drilling down to the strangeness (to be discussed in seminars) the rarity of some symptoms (to be discussed in Seminars) and the characteristics (to be discussed in seminars) of both the disease and a considered remedy.
comprehensive collection of files available in due course that will benefit practitioners who wish to practice according to the way of Hahnemann. We will cover aphorisms in-depth as well as explaining the 8 or 9 protocols involved in finding a similimum that comply with Hahnemanns instructions.
Hahnemann developed a very precise and penetrating case analysis mode for ascertaining the precise sx of the disease state. Modern ‘homoeopathic’ approaches do not utilise ANY of the founders instructions and therefore success in clinical terms is not high on the list. I often hear, “but the patient feels better”… yes, but they still have the problem they came to you with….
admin
Vera Resnick
The Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine 
How we can help your clinic to grow with our online seminars.
The rationale for success in Homoeopathy.
After 10 years in homoeopathic practice, I realised (and accepted) that my ability to help the majority of patients using homoeopathy was impaired. In facing this truth, accompanied by clinic statistics, I looked for where the problem lay. My choices were:
I stopped practice for a while and conducted intense research through the pages of Hahnemann, Kent, Boenninghausen, and a lot of other contemporary writers of the time.
What became obvious was that The Swedenborg school (Kent et al) did not practice according to Hahnemann’s directions. Given that the Swedenborg approach has taken over the teaching curriculums of Homoeopathic Institutions, (and was the approach I used,) it became imperative to ascertain the differences from Hahnemann and see if this was the problem.
Kent places emphasis on the spiritual and mental symptoms a patient expresses. My research has shown there is a general but accurate approach to case taking, which is not limited to any single aspect of a patient. I will briefly explain this here. We will teach the full methodology in our online seminars.
Now after 36 years in practice, I have 26 years of practice in the Hahnemannian tradition with an average of 72% first prescription accuracy, and 81% cure rate.
Firstly, the following is a breakdown of what a practitioner needs to know.
Visual signs
Seeing a visual expression of the disease symptom in question, the evidence of the expression is right in front of us. We must remember that one symptom must be in harmony with and be related by the existence of other signs and symptoms to produce a coherent whole to individualise a remedy choice.
There are at least 10 examples of ‘relationships’ Here are three.
How do we find a ‘totality’? Its an evaluation of each symptom involving visual signs.
Another 7 carefully researched pointers will be taught in our online practitioner course.
I asked myself how does one remedy express itself in different diseases?
Clinical observation presents us only indicators, signs that point to some remedies. Rubrics help to narrow the field of possible medicines, however, the truly effective and definitive method is the collective appearance of signs that are connected by grouping, time and in the disease state under scrutiny.
Case example: (Gheorghe Jurj)
The elements associated with this configuration are:
Case To show grouping of Symptoms to use with repertory.
Patient consults with severe congestive heart failure; is in very poor general state, with dyspnea and very irritable. He had spent the last three weeks hospitalized, but there was no improvement; on auscultation he presented signs of chronic pulmonary edema and he also had ulcers in the legs.
Clinical picture was composed of characteristic signs of the disease (cyanosis, peripheral edema) as well as of signs of this individual-in-disease: deep blue discoloration of the distal extreme of the lower limbs with congestion in the proximal one and ulcers. His face presented similar signs : overall congestion and infiltration, deep-blue cyanosis (lips, nose, ears) and venectasis on the cheeks.
However, a closer look on the lips showed, in fact, an alternation between congestive and cyanotic areas, the same pattern as in the lower limbs.
Venectasis also on the back, which is an extremely rare localization for this phenomenon, therefore, a peculiar sign.
It is important to be the best practitioner you can be. The IHM does not claim to be anything else than followers of Hahnemann and adherents of his methodology. We do have a good track record of successful prescribing. We also can direct you on the right path to find success following Hahnemanns protocols.
We will welcome you to study with us either in the residential clinic or on line.
1 Comment
Posted in Admin Comment, case-taking, Students, Teaching
Tagged case-taking, homeopathy. Hahnemann