Tag Archives: Homeopathy

Homoeopathy is about understanding the case.

So what does understanding the case mean in real terms?

shutterstock_791110975Firstly, if a person is to take a case, they will have to follow the directions for doing so PRECISELY from Hahnemann’s writings. For those that have skipped learning from the ORGANON and Chronic DISEASES, I’m afraid you will have to take the time to investigate and understand the applied methodology. No modern teaching replaces the methodology required to ascertain what is required to cure the patient.

There are 3 areas of investigation. Aphorism 5, Aphorism 6 and aph 153.

  1. A word about health. First, there is the constitutional makeup of a person. The genetic predisposition of family traits, disease inheritance and weaknesses. These things are the bedrock of an individual’s life soil upon which sickness can take hold. It is the background for the term susceptibility, in the main not forgetting life events which can weaken and predispose a person to illness. This is covered in aphorism 5.
  2.  Aphorism 6 contains the instructions on how to note the symptoms of a presenting case of illness, be it acute or chronic. How to examine all the presenting symptoms of the patient including symptoms that arose that are NOT symptoms of the named disease, but arose during this bout of illness.
  3. Once all these bits and pieces of information have been collated and itemised by location, sensation and modalities, the case can then be synthesised through the filter of aphorism 153, to find the closest remedy to the chosen symptoms.

It is at this point in the case analysis, that the medical evaluation of the patient’s illness is diagnosed. Please note, I said the patient’s illness, NOT the named pathological disease. The symptoms of the named disease are examined carefully to see what is common to the illness, and what symptoms are prominent in the patient.

Aph 153 is the key to making a prescription.

§ 153 Sixth Edition

“In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.”

This observation by Dr Samuel Hahnemann is one of the most misunderstood, misquoted and mistaught aphorisms in the whole Organon. I have seen false teachers of homoeopathy, spend hours if not days, lecturing on finding the hidden personal psychiatric symptoms of a mind that “represents” the inner disease which bears no relationship to the suffering experienced by the patient.

A competent student of homoeopathy, having diligently applied him or herself, to the writings of Samuel Hahnemann, will have no trouble in comprehending the true meaning of this aphorism in relationship to, studying the disease state of the patient, and in finding the similarity to a  Medicinal agent that has the power to cause similar symptoms.

The word “Peculiar”  is one of those words, which has been taken out of context and lost its true meaning within the range of the aphorism and the subjects being discussed.

“….Belonging distinctively or primarily to one person, group, or kind; special or unique:  Example: “a species peculiar to this area.”

We, therefore, see, simply by reading the aphorism, that Hahnemann is directing our attention to signs and symptoms of both the disease state AND  and a proven substance that can reproduce accurately the same distinctive, or peculiar, collection of symptoms that is expressed through the patient’s observable symptoms.

All symptoms of disease, singularly, may be common, vague,  non-distinct,  and representative of 1000 different ailments, until, they are linked together and form a pattern and a discernible representation of a pathological expression of one known disease. In the same way, a collection of symptoms noted by a homoeopathic physician,  that represents the entirety of the internal disorder or disease, will find its correlation in few medicines,  simply because of the “peculiarity” of the combined symptoms, that is to say, the “strangeness and the rareness” of these symptoms being found together and expressed by the patient in its expression. Strange and rare do not imply the symptoms are strange or rare, it implies the characteristics of their combination are rarely found except in a few medicines.

This combination then becomes the CHARACTERISTIC or peculiarity of both the medicine and the disease.

We are not looking for anything else, other than accurately observed symptoms of the disorder in the patient, that by its individual expression, for example, the modalities, the aggravations and ameliorations of times and circumstances, or by the combination of particular symptoms,  that individualise this particular case of disease, which is matched in its singularity (by the combination of symptoms or type of onset, or periodicity) by a proven medicine to individualise it.


Patient: 10 symptoms. Each symptom individually is covered by 125 medicines. (Common)

Three modalities of the patient’s disease are represented in only 5 medicines in COMBINATION.

Three Modalities and one location is covered by only ONE Medicine in the expression of the disease.

Please please go through the several cases posted on this website, https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.org/ and using this information see how we look for the more defined symptoms in the case of disease that may or may not be representative of a known pathological named disease, but are present in the patient and therefore cannot be ignored.

By using this knowledge, and also following the recommendation in § 6 Sixth Edition:

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

it should be possible now, without speculation, or metaphysical thinking, to apply Hannemann’s directions in every case of disease and try to elicit the true guiding symptoms that are characteristic of the disease and are matched as near as possible to a medicine that is capable of producing the same symptom picture, and therefore elicit a curative action.

The most common mistakes outlined in casetaking.

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

Hahnemann stated clearly:

1200px-Portrait_of_Samuel_Hahnemann._Wellcome_L0015074§ 6 Sixth Edition
The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

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

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

§ 153 Sixth Edition
In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of thesamuel-hahnemann-1 natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms1 of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.

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

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

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

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

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


IHM clinic progress

Im sat here on the IHM clinic boat in the middle of a beautiful place in Watford…….. waiting on a part and someone to fit it. Its a voltage controller. Seems the one that is fitted is the wrong one, and once the solar reduced charging in autumn, it became obvious the engine was not charging the batteries…………..

£334 for the part and whatever it will cost for the services to fit it. It has to be done and hopefully fixes the problem.

Fuel boat will be next Wednesday……. Fuel and wood for the fire…….at least 150 litres of diesel. Should last few months.

Then a slow trek to London and hopefully get there before any lockdown on the canals………..

We will then fit the boat out internally with seats and sofas and desks……. Along with putting cables in for computers for students and practitioners.

We will fit out the office with a bed for when an overseas student comes for IHM training……. IKEA here we come for wardrobes and cupboards, unless some our London based practitioners point us in a cheaper but good direction.

We made the decision to take a 3 month winter mooring in Southall. This will give us chance to work on the boat and fit it out within range of shops for accessories we will need… and also to be in a fixed position for London clients if restrictions permit. We are near a water point and also a garbage disposal point……… I ordered a composting toilet yesterday which will obviate the need for cassette waste disposal. The mooring doesnt have an Elsan point for emptying. The compost waste can go in a dumpster.

Nothing is as easy as you think it is when you go off grid. We are solving the issues one by one.

I talked with my friend and colleague Antonio in Seville Spain yesterday. Seems the members of the Boenninghausen group are now the steering committee for the Andalucia Homoeopathic Association and will concentrate on good training instead of the politics. I’m proud of them.

Covid restrictions will make it difficult to have many patients or student on board initially, however we are setting up a poweful internet system to take the IHM online if we have to.

so we are doing our bit.


The future in the U.K. for I.H.M. homoeopathy

We purchased a wide beam canal boat for clinic and teaching. We can at present only accommodate 4 for teaching, government rules, (2 staff) but when we can have more, room for  10 students onboard.

Currently working on refurbishing the lounge/teaching room. We hope to be ready by the end of the year.

We will be based initially between Reading and London to the Limehouse Basin area. Then as the laws pertaining to COVID alter, we will travel up to just short of Birmingham, Oxford and over to the Bristol area.

We will operate below the purple line

The IHM will have a clinic onboard…… (we are working to convert the room). For overseas students taking the four-day membership course,  we offer free accommodation on board with a small contribution asked toward the food. This will definitely help with lessening the costs of staying in the UK. We have a full domestic kitchen with water chiller and constant hot water for beverages.

This is the staff bedroom.

Bathroom with shower and washing machine… twin sinks.

‘currently setting out a timetable and short seminar syllabus.


When things change, we change…

These are the latest developments in our plans.



The principles of homoeopathy part 1. What we need to understand.

Before we can discuss Principles, it is vital that the practitioner understands the rationale behind the approach of a homoeopath towards a sick patient.

Homoeopathy is a science and is focused on patient management of Disease. The process of analytics in managing a disease is based on a holistic overview of patient reaction to a disease influence. What is evident today in the poor training a homoeopath receives, is the harmful influence of the Swedenborg School of thinking (KENT) which is contradictory to the scientific mode of application as defined by Hahnemann and expanded on by Boenninghausen and others.

Hering and Kent and the influence of the American school of Homoeopathy did not influence the medical practice in the positive way the therapy displays it to be.

Kent And Hahneman

  1. S. Hehr, M.B.B.S., D.P.M.

(Originally Published in British Hom. Journal as “Was Kent a Hahnemannian?”, Vol. 73, No. 2, Re- edited by Dr R.S.Mann after consultations with Dr. G. S. Hehr)

Kent has been hailed as a true disciple of Hahnemann.There should be a reassessment in light of the following contrast between the view of Kent and Hahnemann:

On “authority” and “experience”


“We must begin by having respect for law … Let us acknowledge the authority.”2

“… and medicine today, outside of homoeopathy, is a medicine of experience…It is necessary that the exact and proper position of experience should be realized  … Experience has … only a confirmatory place. It can only confirmed that which has been discovered by principle…Experience leads to no discoveries … One who has no doctrines…imagines he discoveries by his experience”.3

HAHNEMANN: “Medicine is the science of experience…”4

“The true healing art is in its nature a pure science of experience …”5

“…the complete true healing art can never be the work of self-satisfied ratiocination…, but that the requisite for this … are only to be discovered  but due attention to nature by means of our senses, by careful honest observations and by experiments conducted with all possible purity and in no other way6

“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 fact and nothing else. Experience alone declares it, and I believe more in experience than in my own intelligence.”7

“But what and how much …can be determined by no speculative reason or unreason, but experience alone must determine…and in the domain of facts there is no appeal from experience…”8

On the relation of skin symptoms to internal malady

KENT: “But this very scientific ignorant doctor has made a failure: he has driven what was upon the surface and harmless into the innermost precincts of the economy and the patient is going to die as a result of scientific ignorance.”9

HAHNEMANN: “The diseases … springing from such one-sided destruction of the chief skin symptom (eruption and itching) which acts vicariously and assuages the internal psora (which destruction is erroneously called ‘Driving the itch into the body’)…”10

“All miasmatic maladies … are always present as internal maladies … before they show their local (skin) symptoms.”11

“… when the development of the (internal) venereal disease has been completed, only then diseased nature endeavours to mitigate the internal evil and to soothe it,  by producing a local symptom…”12

“…some wretched casuists have considered as resulting from driving back of the poison out of the chancre into the interior body…”13

On Psora

KENT“Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness. Had psora never been established as a miasm on the human race, the other two chronic diseases would have been impossible. All the diseases of man are built upon … it (psora) goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race … that is the spiritual sickness from which … the race progressed into … the true susceptibility to psora…”14

HAHNEMANN: “…the ailments and infirmities of body and soul … (if they do not belong to the two venereal diseases, syphilis and sycosis) are … manifestations of (psora).”15

“In Europe and also in other continents … only three chronic miasms are known…”16

“….and indeed so many that at least seven-eights of all chronic maladies spring from it (psora) … while the remaining eighth spring from syphilis and sycosis, or from a complication of two of these three … chronic diseases, or (which is very rare) from a complication of all the three of them….”17

On Vitalism

KENT: “Hahnemann could perceive this immaterial vital principle. It was something he arrived at himself, from his own process of thinking (but all historians mention that it was Joseph Barthez, b.1734, d.1806, who introduced the term “vital principle”18).

There was a paucity of individual ideas at that time… but Hahnemann thought much, and by thinking he arrived at the ideas contained in this (i.e. the 9th paragraph of the 5th edition of the Organon), which only appeared in the last (i.e. 5th.edition of 1833).”19

(Allusion to “vital force” appeared in the Chronic Diseases20 published in 1828, and in the fourth edition of the Organon that we shall refer shortly, Kent substitutes “simple substance for “immaterial vital principle” in the paragraphs subsequent to the one sited above – vide reference 19. This new expression appears to be Kent’s own coinage. Imputation of “much thought” to Hahnemann appears to be Kent’s projection of his own thinking, the result of which was the new expression. Hahnemann’s views on reasoning and speculation are clear in reference 8).

KENT: “…simple substance is endowed with formative intelligence…”21

HAHNEMANN: “… the instinctive, irrational, unreasoning vital force (instinktarige, verstandlose. keiner Uberlegung Fahige .. Lebnskraft — this could also be translated: instinctive, unable to reason/understand, without the capacity for reflection) 22 (the contrast between Kent and Hahnemann over the attributes of vital force is obvious from these words)…

“…unreasoning, merely animal vital force (die verstandlose, bloss aminal ische Lebenskraft).”23

On Bacteriology

KENT: “Hahnemann did not adopt any such theory as bacteriology”.

HAHNEMANN: “… the cholera miasm … grows into an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible creatures …”24 (How else could one have described bacteria at that time!)

Why was Kent so often wobbling off the pivot? Perhaps it was not for nothing that Jouanny wrote:

“The second trap is to do what certain absent-minded homoeopathic doctors do, namely to consider only the symptoms of the patient in his reaction to his disease, and in particular his psychic signs. This was the attitude of Kent and his spiritualistic school which went so far as to say that the pathognomonic signs of the disease have no importance in the selection of the homoeopathic drug.”

“This is a philosophical attitude which makes homoeopathy into theology, and considers man to be made only of the soul. There is a great danger here…”

“This attitude has practically destroyed homoeopathy in America where it was at one time a flourishing discipline. It is now practised by a few esoteric doctors.”

“One can say that this attitude is not in conformity with the methods set out and defined by Hahnemann, because generally the ‘psychic symptoms’ taken into consideration by the followers of Kent, are not experimental changes in the mental behaviour of a patient, but the psychological characteristics of susceptible types of individuals. This is the result of the subjective interpretation of the experimenter and the patient. These doctors select the homoeopathic drugs on the basis of psychic symptoms … such a practice can be justifiably criticized …”25

Kent’s homoeopathy is not necessarily always Hahnemannian. As Campbell recently put it : “Nevertheless, it does not take a very detailed study of the history of homoeopathy to show that modern practice actually differs in quite significant ways from Hahnemann’s own practice. In both England as well as America, for example, the influence of J.T.Kent, who imported certain ideas derived from Swedenborg, has been paramount since shortly after the turn of the century”.26

Hahnemann’s distinction between the responses of the animate and the inanimate; his view about adaptive responses of the organisms”, 28 his stress on the value of signals in biology;29 his almost foreshadowing of “the law of initial value” of Joseph Wilder,30 his near modern views on nutrition31 and his suggestions for psychological exercise32 are all missing from Kent’s writings. One feels constrained to ponder how far the words of Inglis (on the relation of Galen to Hippocrates) would apply also to the relation of Kent to Hahnemann.

“Ostensibly by the Hippocratic School, he was to subvert its teachings. Hippocrates, Galen admitted, had led the way … ‘He opened the road, I have made it possible’ … Galen was able to impose his views on how the road should be followed; and as a prolific writer, he saw to it that they were published.33 


  1. Kent was a Swedenborgian, and he can be accused of including the fundamental concept of a mystical correspondence between the spirit world and humans to Homoeopathy. Which distract the Homoeopathic philosophy from Hahnemann’s “Rationality” to Kent’s “Metaphysical”.
  2. This shift from the basic nature of reality of the human system compelled Kent to start unrealistic and unbalanced emphasis on “Mind” or “Mental Symptoms” or “Mental Origin” of every disease. Hahnemann is realistic and balanced in his approach in an individual case of sickness, he searched for the totality where is actually lies but Kent arranged the “Mind” always on the beginning of a case. Kent pushed the basic methodology of Homoeopathy towards “Irrationalism”.
  3. On Miasm, Hahnemann is certain about three different basic causes of diseases, Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis but for Kent, Psora is the only basic cause of all the diseases, including two other miasms too.
  4. Hahnemann always talks about the “gentle restoration” of the sick with only mild aggravations, but Kent admitted his was to cure with severe and long homoeopathic aggravations.
  5. Kent underlined the return of all the past symptoms, eliminations and exteriorization (developing skin lesions etc.)  in a case is a good indication and path towards a cure, whereas Hahnemann marked them as organism’s defence or reaction against wrong prescriptions and excess of doses.
  6.    Dr Kent may have a good, efficient and ardent homoeopath but his concepts and theories vary from Dr Hahnemann on most of the basic understandings of Homoeopathy which make differences in approach, the methodology for the treatment of a patient.
    7.  So accepting Kent as a true disciple of Hahnemann, as Kent himself claims, undermines the value of Hahnemannian theory and concepts of Homoeopathy. We must read and practice Homoeopathy as Hahnemannian methods and Kentian Methods, with their respective theories, concepts and differences from each other.

One method generally leads to a low success rate, If not outright failure.

In taking a case. A correct diagnosis would have been of equal importance
to the therapeutist and to the surgeon if each disease had a distinct cause, as characteristic of itself, as the disease is distinct from all others, however, this is not the case.

The same disease may arise from different causes in different cases, hence to the
therapeutist the diagnosis is of subordinate importance as a basis of treatment. It can be shown that constitutional peculiarities of a patient manifest themselves through certain concomitant symptoms which make a difference in the aggregate
of symptoms in each case. In each case of diseases bearing the same name, we find that the patient exhibits not only the symptoms of the named disease but also concomitant symptoms peculiar to the diseased patient and different from other diseased patients with the same disease name. Hahnemann realised that this combination of expressions of sympathetic disorders in other parts of the body now had become ‘Constitutional’ in its affection, and thus stopped being a local symptom, and the expression of the diseased patient has become an all-encompassing state.

These concomitant symptoms, along with other knowledge, force the homoeopath to relinquish the belief that the malady along with its local expressions is the sole object of treatment. The homoeopath is now forced to view the patient from a ‘causality’ view and look at the pattern of progression of development from all symptoms present, not just the local disease and in effect come to see that the sum of the symptoms is greater than just this new affection.

A clinical history, the basis for disease development in every individual, will necessitate the remedy having or corresponding to the sequence of physiological effects matching the patient’s disease in development. This disease ‘constitution’ in the medicine will be required to enable the patient to receive help from the similar. However, the homoeopath will take the FULL history and other episodes of dis-ease into account as well as the current issue.

Rational reasoning indicates that the development of diseases (with the same name) owes the difference in symptom exhibition simply because of the constitutional differences of each patient. To a therapeutist, the symptoms appearing in its evolutionary sequence represent the cause or a combination of causes of a particular disease condition.

So long as the disease is viewed as a local or anatomical problem, the question of determining the basis or indications of treatment, cannot be answered. A study of the clinical history of each case supplies the key to the solution of this problem.

This is one of the major differences in approach to treatment from allopathic therapeutics.


Kanjilal et al – An Appeal to the Homoeopaths of India to Save Homoeopathy. Hahnemannian Gleanings 1979,XLVI,471

Kent J.T. – Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy. P.19,Chicago : Ehrhart & Karl,  1954.

Ibid – P.43.

Dudgeon R.E. – Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. P.439, New Delhi: Swaran (reprint of New York; Willian Radde, 1852 edition)

Hahnemann  S. – Organon der Heilkunst, P.7, Dresden: Arnold, 1819.

Ibid – P.15 -16.

Dudley P ed. – The Chronic Diseases by Samuel Hahnemann, P.124, f.n. New Delhi, Jain Reprint

Ibid –P.325

Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.27

10 Dudley P. – The Chronic Diseases, P.17.

11 Ibid – P.32.

12 Ibid – P.36.

13 Ibid – P.36 f.n.

14 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P146.

15 Dudley P. – The Chronic Diseases, P.8.

16 Ibid – P.9.

17 Ibid – P.14.

18  Castiglioni A. – A History of Medicine, P.586, New York: Alfred Knoff, 1958.

19 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.76-77.

20 Haehl R. – Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and Work. P.136, New Delhi, B.Jain Reprint.

21 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.79.

22 Hahnemann  S. – Organon der Heilkunst, P.IV, Dresden and Leipzig, Arnold, 1829.

23 Ibid – P.146.

24 Hehr G.S. – Bacteriology and Homoeopathy.Br.Hom.J. 1982, 71,62,64-5.

25 Jouanny J. – Essentials of Homoeopathic Therapeutics, P.39, Laboratories Boiron, 1980.

26  Campbell A.C.H. – Editorial, Br. Hom. J., 1980, 69, 3.

27 Hahnemann  S. – Organon der rationallen Heilkunde, P.5-8, Anm.  Dresden, Arnold, 1810.

28 Dudgeon  R.E. – Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. P.62, Para 289-290.

29 Hahnemann S. – Fingerzeige auf den homoopathischen Gabrauch der Arzneien in der bisherigen praxis. Neues Journal der practischen Arzneikunde von Hufeland 1807, 43.

30  Dudgeon R.E. – Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. P.34.

31 Hehr G.S. – Hahnemann and Nutrition. Br. Hom. J. 1981,70,208-12.

32 Hehr G.S. – Self awareness and Homoeopathy, Br. Hom. J. 1983, 72, 90-5.

33 Inglis B. – Natural Medicine, 0.18. London, Collins, 1979.


The Homoeopath (Thoughts from the desk)

First, there are many cases of patient suffering, in which, despite investigations of all kinds, a clear diagnosis can not be established, although patients have symptoms and signs. These symptoms are sometimes categorized as psychosomatic, or as nonspecific disorders (eg diarrhoea before any examination, or any major event) and may be the cause of a decrease in quality of life. These can become homoeopathic cases, precisely because there is no disease diagnosis.

Secondly, a patient may experience recurrences, repeat disturbances of either viral (e.g., the common cold) or reaction-type (diarrhoea and bloating at certain foods: milk, fruit, meat, etc.) .). These recurrences may be due to immune deficiencies or are simply peculiarities of the patient’s physiology. Although they can be treated allopathically, they are homoeopathic cases when it comes to treating predispositions or preventing these conditions.

Thirdly, during ill-defined diseases as a diagnosis, patients exhibit different symptoms  (against defined disease standards), particular, even strange, difficult to explain and difficult to fit in the “typical” picture of the disease. These symptoms are generally considered peripheral and are ignored during allopathic treatment. Sometimes the remission of the diagnosed disease, these symptoms disappear, but sometimes not. Although allopathy considers the disease healed, the patient still suffers from the same problems or always faces the same symptomatic configuration. Is he healed?

The answer in allopathy is an approximate but not as consistent with what the patient feels. He suffers – contiguous or recurrent – but is considered “healed” though he is still not well, he feels ill. In children especially, this situation is very common. The child is “cured” by tonsillitis, bronchitis, etc., but continues to be sensitive, always becoming ill.

To cure, usage of multiple antibiotics, other medicines, but nobody takes into account that the baby, for example, is sensitive to wet weather, fog, rain.

A careful general practitioner will notice this particular sensitivity, but it does not have the conceptual framework to value it, or, in other words, it can not treat it. The allergist will shrug (moisture is not an allergen), the pneumologist, the ENT will treat tonsillitis, but the sensitivity to moisture. As the patient continues to “heal”, but not to be cured and again and again to produce the same tonsillitis (bronchitis, asthma, etc.) until the tonsils are extirpated or to have a suppressive cortisone treatment, often useless and immunodepressed.

The only person who can take this particular sensitivity into account, as well as other sensitivities and peculiarities, physical, mental or reactive, and for which it has a significance is the Homeopath. He (she) is the only one who can value such apparently peripheral disease symptoms that do not relate to the proper diagnosis but to the individual interpretation of suffering. There are particular, strange, uncompromising symptoms in the diagnosis of illness, which relate to the individuality of the patient, but which directly affects him, having a safe recurrence under the same conditions.

The keywords to characterize a homoeopathic case is the individualization of suffering . If we were to describe the characteristics of “homoeopathic cases” these would be:

–         Very individualized, particular symptoms, strange in association or not with certain diseases. Localizations, modalities, sensations and unusual symptoms of some symptoms.

–         Unusual association of illnesses and symptoms, interesting and unexpected configurations of symptoms, signs, illnesses.

–         Recurrence of disorders , whether or not related to certain events or conditions, whether external (eg climatic or food) or in-house (emotions, fears, anxieties, etc.).

–         Changes in the immune system either in excess (allergies, autoimmune diseases) or in deficiency (recurrence, sensitivity).

–         Resistance to allopathic treatment, even better as indicated in the diagnosis

–         residual symptoms after treatment allopathic

– Diseases or symptoms after emotional trauma, professional stress or any other kind. These are afflictions with a strong causality, after which the patient did not feel well (“never well since …”)

When you can’t find a proving (or can’t find it in English)…

Why view remedies through the P&W repertory?

I have written on the importance of source material, especially of provings, in working to principle. As Hahnemann specified in Aphorism 3, in order to do homoeopathy we need to know what’s wrong with the patient, what the remedies can do and how to match a remedy to a complaint – with the proviso regarding appropriate potency and dosing.

How do we know what remedies can do? Through provings, first and foremost – the symptoms can a substance cause in a healthy person.

Hahnemann’s lesser writings include an essential article published in 1796, among his writings leading up to the Organon published in 1810. It is entitled “Essay on a New Principle for Ascertaining the Curative Powers of Drugs.” In this article, Hahnemann tackles existing methods one by one, and demonstrates their problematic nature. One after the other, with reasoned arguments and logical discussion, he knocks over chemistry as partial, nixes mixing unknown drugs with newly drawn blood, and more. He counsels against the doctrine of signatures, botanical affinity and families, stating categorically that the hints of the natural system “can only help to confirm and serve as a commentary to facts already known… or in the case of untried plants they may give rise to hypothetical conjectures which are, however, far from approaching even to probability.” He discusses experiments on the sick and how many discoveries were made by chance – and then laments “how humiliating for proud humanity did his very preservation depend on chance alone…”

Through step-by-step argument, Hahnemann comes to the conclusion that “nothing then remains but to test the medicines we wish to investigate on the human body itself,” which he states has so far been done “empirically and capriciously in diseases.” A standard human response to medicines, “some natural normal standard,” he states “can only be derived from the effects that a given medicinal substance has, by itself in this and that dose developed in the healthy human body.”

The body of provings which is easiest for us to access nowadays is in the Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. All the symptoms were carefully sifted through by Hahnemann, so if we see Hahnemann as a reliable source of information, that reliability extends to the provings he collated – and to his decisions to include some symptoms not taken from provings, rather from clinical work. We have less knowledge regarding the provings of other remedies noted in Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, although here again, if we see Boenninghausen as a reliable source, information about these remedies will be important in our work. There is information in Hughes Cyclopaedia, and many other materia medica refer to provings, but all too often provings information is intermixed with symptoms derived from therapeutic clinical work and poisonings, or separate as in Hughes, but not organized.

But we have another source of information for those remedies whose provings were not collated or overseen by Hahnemann – the Therapeutic Pocketbook itself. Boenninghausen examined and brought together all the remedies in use in his time. Some were proven by Hahnemann but not published by him. Some were proven by Hartlaub and Trinks and others. Furthermore, Boenninghausen was kind enough to give us a grading system, indicating where a symptom derives from a proving of a remedy with grades 1 and 2, and strengthening the relevance of that symptom for that remedy from his clinical work with grades 3 and 4.

This means that if we take a remedy through the Reversed Materia Medica in the P&W software, we can actually gain a picture of the proving through grades 1 and 2, together with reliable clinical expansion on that remedy through grades 3 and 4. This in itself is information from early and primary sources, with Boenninghausen and Hahnemann’s stamp of approval. Furthermore, thanks to P&W, this information is available in English, Spanish, and Hebrew in addition to the original German. And there are other languages on the way. This means that those who have difficulty accessing the Materia Medica Pura in their own languages and use the P&W reversed to shed more light on these primary sources.

How can we begin to analyze this mass of information? The TPB was developed to help repertorize, guide the practitioner towards remedies to read up on more intensively. But the computerized version has given us the ability to access the material in different ways, including using the Reversed Materia Medica as a “back door” into gaining reliable knowledge of remedies where the provings are not accessible.

For example, on a very basic level, we can see a remedy’s position in any rubric. We can see if it’s there because it’s in the proving, graded 1 or 2, or because Boenninghausen emphasized its clinical use with grades 3 and 4. A remedy may appear in a symptom with very few other remedies, giving it additional importance in that symptom regardless of its grade. A remedy may appear in a large rubric, with over a hundred remedies, and there we may want to see if it’s in a higher grade than other remedies, if that symptom is very strongly connected to the remedy we’re examining. The relationship between remedy grade and rubric size may have relevance in the case we’re working on. All this while keeping in mind that the appearance of a remedy in proving is the basis for prescribing, and Boenninghausen’s clinical use of that remedy is an added bonus.

For those interested in working to principle, which means using provings-based materia medica, the reversed MM offers a treasure trove of information about provings which are harder to access, which is definitely worth while exploring.

New I.H.M. Professional.

The Institute is pleased to announce the membership of the first graduate from the Mexican college under the tutorage of Dr Guillermo Zamora. Details below in Spanish and English.

A little bit about the I.H.M. From its conception in 1986, the aim has always been to research and disseminate Hahnemanns writings and methodology to enhance the practitioners ability to practice our therapy in an accurate way. More and more today, this methodology is being corrupted by modern teachings, and from this the efficacy of homoeopathy is being destroyed little by little.

Each student of the IHM is taught solely from the writings and clinical cases from Hahnemann and Boenninghausen and others associated with them. We have had the privilege of teaching hundreds of students and conducting many seminars.

You can contact us at : education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com

for information regarding our courses and locations and prices.


Name: Martin Ahumada

Clinic address: Balcarce 271.

San Miguel de Tucumán.

State: Tucumán- 4000

Phone: +54 381- 4221315 . +54 381- 155747722

Country: Argentina.


Médico, Graduado de la Universidad Nacional de Tucumán en el año 2005 e inmediatamente comencé el post grado en Homeopatía en la Academia de Homeopatía del Tucumán dirigida por el Dr José Stagnetto y el Dr. Mario Schliserman que son y fueron mis primeros maestros. Ellos lograron transmitir: por un lado las enseñanzas de Hahnemann a través  del Organon 6ta ed.y EC como los pilares fundamentales en la formación de un buen homeópata, y respecto a la toma de caso, si bien con cierta impronta Kentiana, ya no apuntando a la preeminencia de síntomas mentales sino a la totalidad del caso. Algo que para esta época sería una enseñanza diferente y de avanzada a todas las escuelas de homeopatia actuales de la Argentina

Mi encuentro con el Dr Guillermo Zamora (traductor al español/castellano del TPB) y el uso del P&W TherapeuticPocket Bookme permitió terminar de romper con la orientación Kentiana y me dio la tranquilidad de saber que las rubricas elegidas y sus síntomas, se encontraban respaldadas en la MMP, en la EC y en la propia experiencia de Boenninghausen y  no en la interpretación.

Sin duda en todo este tiempo, el camino fue el de desaprender y el de re incorporar nuevas técnicas que quizás por el avance de nuevas corrientes o por la impronta tan fuerte de Kent no permiten al alumno volver a la toma del caso como lo hacia el Dr. Hahnemann. Algo que sin duda el IHM rescato y trabaja arduamente en reposicionar.

Me queda solo agradecer en primer lugar a mis maestros originales y sobre todo al Dr. Guillermo Zamora, gran persona, profesional y docente que me animó en cada clase con su experiencia y paciencia en el camino de redescubrir al Dr.Hahnemann por medio del Dr.Boenninghousen.

Muchas gracias.


Martin Ahumada


Physician , graduated from the National University of Tucumán in 2005 and immediately began the postgraduate degree in Homeopathy at the Academy of Homeopathy of Tucumán led by Dr. José Stagnetto and Dr. Mario Schliserman who are and were my first teachers. They managed to convey: on the one hand the teachings of Hahnemann through Organon 6th ed. And EC as the fundamental pillars in the formation of a good homeopath, and regarding the taking of case, although with a certain Kentian imprint, no longer pointing to the preeminence of mental symptoms but to the whole of the case. Something that by this time would be a different and advanced teaching to all the current homeopathy schools of Argentina

My meeting with Dr. Guillermo Zamora (translator in Spanish / Spanish of TPB) and the use of the P & W Therapeutic Pocket Book allowed me to finish breaking the Kentian orientation and it gave me the assurance of mind that the chosen rubrics and their symptoms were Backed up in the MMP, in the EC and in Boenninghausen’s own experience and not in interpretation.

Undoubtedly in all this time, the path was to unlearn and to incorporate new techniques that perhaps by the advance of new currents or by the strong imprint of Kent do not allow the student to return to the taking of the case as he did the Dr. Hahnemann. Something that undoubtedly the IHM  rescues and works hard to reposition.

I just have to thank first of all my original teachers and especially Dr. Guillermo Zamora, a great person, professional and teacher who encouraged me in each class with his experience and patience in the way of rediscovering Dr. Hahnemann through Dr Boenninghausen.

The Principles of Homeopathy. Part 2/2 Peter Morrell

The IHM does not endorse all the views of Peter Morrell as stated in this article. However in respect and fairness we felt it necessary to publish his words as written. We are extremely grateful for Peters work regarding homoeopathy.

Health & Disease

Commencing any assessment of the principles of homeopathy one has to consider the notions of health and disease, not only because they are central to medicine in general, but also because the concepts of health and disease in homeopathy are different from these concepts as they exist in common usage in allopathic medicine. Therefore, it is quite an imperative task to explore and discuss at the outset the specific meanings of these concepts as they exist in homeopathy.

For the homeopath, the state we call health is that natural and dynamic attunement of the whole organism in a harmonious state of smoothly coordinated functioning and balance. Health is thus by definition the state of the whole organism, the whole person, mind, body and spirit, and is not simply the absence of sickness symptoms. By contrast, disease is depicted as any state of disharmony and imbalance in the person manifested by signs and symptoms of disorder, imbalance and malfunction, some coarse or gross and others fine and subtle, some physical, some mental. Sickness is again a state or condition of the whole person and should never be conceived of as being confined solely to certain localised symptoms or to a specific cluster of symptoms that have been given a specific name [so-called disease label] or which are conceived of as an invading entity [named disease] that can, for example, affect whole populations in much the same way. These are entirely allopathic notions, rejected by homeopaths. He dismisses as irrelevant “the name of the disease, sought after so blatantly by his contemporaries.” [Haehl, I, 299] He “despises every useless name of a disease.” [Haehl, I, 299]

Homeopathy eschews broad disease labels, but treats each individual as a unique case of sickness. It regards that there are as many diseases as there are patients. It therefore resists any temptation to clump together cases of a similar type or give them a name or treat them with the same drug, such as has become the standard practice in allopathic medicine.

One ineradicable problem with all taxonomic schemes is that to some degree it is “a system of idealised entities…fictions compounded out of observed uniformities…concepts and categories…conditioned by human aims.” [Berlin, 1997, 301] Because all such systems are “a set of formulas, of imaginary entities and mathematical relationships,” [Berlin, 1997, 302] so to the same degree it is always in part a false and abstract system imposed upon raw reality itself, an “artificial construction of our intellect,” [Berlin, 1997, 302] that is not so much found but made. In reality, “nature is not a perfect machine, nor an exquisite organism, nor a rational system,” [Berlin, 1997, 302] it is rather “a savage jungle: science is the art of dealing with it as best we can.” [Berlin, 1997, 302]

By overlooking “that the disease classification is man-made…they assume…that disease entities somehow have an independent existence,” [Wulff et al, 82] which of course they do not. They are human constructs with no more reality than pipe dreams. The “disease classification is still largely a mixture of disease entities defined in anatomical, physiological and microbiological terms,” [Wulff et al, 77] which is indeed “a man-made classification of individual patients.” [Wulff et al, 77] True and natural disease “classifications are not arbitrary but must be moulded on reality as it is.” [Wulff et al, 88] Thus far, these do not exist.

Sickness in homeopathy is always individualised and idiosyncratic and never a pooled entity based on averages of large numbers of people, a population, as is the regular practice in allopathic medicine. Likewise, in homeopathy there can only be one person with one disease and each person presents a unique combination of symptoms; they do not have several diseases residing in the same person. Everything wrong with one person comprises their ‘disease.’ In homeopathy, there are no ‘diseases’ as such, but just ‘sick persons’ as individuals. In homeopathy, it is not valid to consider disease as external to the patient, or driven by external events, but as resident within the individual and driven mostly by internal processes. This might seem a hairs-splitting difference, but it proves to be both a subtle and also a pivotally insightful distinction between homeopathy and allopathy. It is clear from this why Hahnemann dismissed the very idea of classifying broad categories of so-called ‘diseases,’ and the disease entity model, as ridiculous, unnatural and arbitrarily fabricated human constructs, deriving from a fundamentally false perception of the human organism in health and in sickness.

The body is a dynamic structure constantly being made and being demolished; it is in constant motion just to stand still. It never stops creating and destroying itself at the same time. This means it has a balance of construction activity and destruction activity going on all at the same time. Cells are dying and new cells are being made all the time. Catabolism and anabolism balance each other but are in constant motion. This also gives an insight into the incredible complexity of the organism but also the smoothly coordinated operation of its processes.

Single Drugs

The single drug was really the first emerging axiom of homeopathy. In many respects, Hahnemann’s conviction in the use of single drugs sprang independently and with deeper and more impassioned conviction as compared with all other axioms of homeopathy. He strove even from a very early stage in his medical career to simplify the complex medicine of his day, and was inspired always to obtain simplicity in his treatment of the sick.

“A single simple remedy is always calculated to produce the most beneficial effects without any additional means…it is never requisite to mix two of them together.” [Hahnemann, 1805, 469] “An equally important reason for prescribing only the single remedy was that all the provings were of single substances – not of mixtures.” [Coulter, II, 391] “…we must only give one single simple substance at a time.” [Hahnemann, 1805, 469] “Hahnemann insisted that only one remedy be given at a time and continually belaboured his allopathic colleagues for their multiingredient prescriptions…” [Coulter, II, 390] “Then let us…agree to give but one single, simple remedy at a time, for every single disease…” [Hahnemann, 1797, 320]

One key aspect of this impulse is his simple, possibly naive, notion that the drugs in use in his day were far too complex mixtures for them to bring any predictable benefit to the sick patient. He maintained that no true knowledge of the effects of drugs existed, that it was all based on hearsay, on tradition and speculation. Therefore, it followed from the critical approach he adopted that he decided that any true understanding of the nature and action of drugs should be based upon single drugs first and that the data so generated must be obtained PRIOR to their use on sick persons, rather than the reverse situation, which had pertained for centuries in a completely corrupt and unquestioned tradition. Drugs were simply used in mixtures and in a somewhat entrenched rote manner as based upon unquestioned and centuries-old formulas. This approach he detested, and rejected passionately, as a major obstacle to medical advance.

He rebelled most forcefully and at the earliest stage in his career against the apothecaries and their wonderful mixtures, which Hahnemann declared to be a bogus profession peddling dangerous mixtures that nobody knew the true therapeutic actions of. He was outraged by and rebelled against the whole tradition and privileges of the apothecaries, who he accused of being fools and of enjoying a wholly corrupt and cosy, parasitic relationship with the equally foolish physicians. He never lost his passionate opposition towards apothecaries and what he saw as their vile and murderous trade. He gave them no quarter and was unrelenting in the venom and bile he unleashed on them even to the end of his long life.

Therefore, in this manner, the first aspect of homeopathy to be truly enunciated was that of single drugs, because it was the first and most powerful conviction that Hahnemann had formulated from his very unhappy engagement with Galenic medicine: “homeopathy is more closely related to the medicine of Hippocrates and of Paracelsus than to that of Galen…and [thus] has much in common with two ideographic periods.” [Guttentag, 1178] “Galen’s dogmatisation of the doctrines of Hippocrates had been a sacrosanct, unassailable property of humanity,” [Gumpert, 14]

He became deeply and intuitively convinced that mixed drugs were fundamentally wrong and that single drugs alone spelled the true path for a sane and rational medicine. He condemned the allopathic use of unrecognisable mixtures of drugs by the “commingling of several such unknown substances in one prescription.” [Organon, xxviii] the therapeutic effects of which were inevitably unknown. He “was a most passionate opponent of mixed doses that contained a large number of ingredients.” [Gumpert, 96] Hahnemann “was the first to raise his voice against the compounding of prescriptions, holding that the effects of compounds on disease could never be known precisely.” [Coulter, II, 335] Then “let us…agree to give but one single, simple remedy at a time, for every single disease.” [Hahnemann, 1797, Lesser Writings, 320] He condemned the “employment of the many-mixed, this pell-mell administration of several substances at once…these hotchpotch doses.” [Lesser Writings, 1808, 498] He was very “outspoken in his contempt for every mixture of medicines,” [Haehl, I, 308] revealing his “rejection of compound medicines.” [Haehl, I, 308] On this point he never deviated during his long life and was disposed on only the slightest provocation to pour tremendous scorn on the pharmacy of his day.

How true this is even in our day too! But the simple apothecary is now replaced by huge pharmaceutical enterprises, a billion dollar affair and an immense political, media and social influence. So, in principle here is a serious problem Hahnemann put for the first time…WHO is managing health, the doctor or the big-pharma business?

One later reason for single drug use was also his theory about the vital force. The homeopathic remedy doesn’t act directly but by intermediary action and reaction of Vital Force of the patient. As diseases are viewed as “dynamic derangements,” so a single drug at once is to restore in a unique and coherent way the action and direction of the Vital Force. More than one remedy would create confusion, like an army conducted by more than one commander, which, at the same time tries to act on more than one front spreading and so diluting its forces. However, we have to mention that, for a short period of his life H was attracted by Aegidi to the idea of two simultaneous remedies, but he abandoned the idea because he was convinced by Boeninnghausen and others that accepting two drugs at a time could re-open the Pandora’s box of polypharmacy, which was not a suitable option.

On the other hand, the “single drug” principle doesn’t mean that he did not sometimes use remedies in alternation or in short succession. The change in the aspect of Vital Force—the image of the sickness—demands a change of remedy. On the other hand, as he stated in the 4th Organon, the remedy must be left for enough time to act.


Similars and single drugs really emerged together in Hahnemann’s scathing analysis of allopathy. It is hard to separate them even for convenience. The law of similars was first formulated by Hahnemann through a prolonged literature search which then inspired trial and error, and experiments, gradually revealing to him, and convincing him of, the superiority of similars as a medical maxim over contraries, which was the central axiom of Galenic medicine in which he had formally been trained.

“One should apply in the disease to be healed…that remedy which is able to stimulate another artificially produced disease, as similar as possible; and the former will be healed—similia similibus—likes with likes.” [Haehl, I, 66] “The primary characteristic of homeopathic medicine was the law of similia…” [Rothstein, 165-6] “Hahnemann called the ‘law of similars’ a ‘law of nature’ discovered ‘by the observation of nature and my own experience.” [Defence of the Organon, 1896, USA, 76, in Coulter, II, 362] “Then came the hypothesis—drugs cure disease by causing lesser diseases which the organism can effectively overcome—which is to say, ‘similia similibus curantur’ or ‘like cures like’.” [Cameron, 29] There occurred to him an “association of ideas that led him to suppose that he could cure fever with fever, instead of by the brutal current method of the evacuation of ‘pernicious juices.” [Gumpert, 68] When he published his Essay on a New Principle in 1796, “this work was the successful attempt of a man buried alive to force his way out into the open air.” [Gumpert, 86] Similars was indeed “the doctrine which was to redeem him from the medical nihilism of despair.” [Gumpert, 104]

“Hahnemann considered the production of his ‘mercurial fever’ necessary for the cure of syphilis;” [Ameke, 103] “a kind of artificial fever must be produced by Ipecacuanha, in order to cure certain forms of intermittent fever.” [Ameke, 104] He held “the view that in insidious fevers from unknown causes in which the vital force is sluggish, a new, strengthening and efficaciousfever must be excited.” [Ameke, 104] He “remarks that the mercurial disease resembled that of syphilis.” [Ameke, 104] “By choosing a remedy for a given natural disease that is capable of producing a very similar artificial disease, we shall be able to cure the most severe diseases.” [Ameke, 107]

Because Hahnemann was in a state of profound dissatisfaction with Galenic medicine, so he had in effect been rendered deeply sceptical of the therapeutic legitimacy of its core maxims, viz: mixed drugs in strong dose based on contraries, and its main therapeutic method: bleed and purge. This fact must naturally and inevitably have inclined him sympathetically towards consideration of the potential usefulness of the opposite maxims to Galenism: small doses of single drugs, employed through the more Hippocratic notion of similars.

Hahnemann instinctively detested the use of strong doses of mixed drugs so much in vogue at that time: “the prolonged use of violent, heroic drugs in strong, increasing doses, the abuse of calomel, corrosive sublimate, mercurial ointment, nitrate of silver, iodine and its ointments, opium, valerian, cinchona bark and quinine, foxglove, Prussic acid, sulphur and sulphuric acid, perennial purgatives, bloodletting in torrents, leeches, fontanels, setons, etc.” [Hahnemann, Organon, v.74] It is interesting, if not ironic, that many of these drugs whose over-use he condemns were the first to be proved and incorporated into the homeopathic materia medica!

Therefore, as he set out on his quest for medical enlightenment, it is fair to say that he was already naturally predisposed against the Galenic maxims and leaning more towards those which duly became the core maxims of homeopathy. This was the situation he naturally found himself in even before he set out on his search. Yet, even in spite of this statement of the situation, we must dismiss immediately any notion that he had a predetermined vision of what homeopathy was, before he independently validated each separate axiom of it, and which simply unfolded for him quickly under its own momentum.

This is an incorrect view of the facts. In reality, he still took a very long time to independently verify, through observation and careful experiments, each separate strand of what eventually became homeopathy. He chose to very thoroughly test and validate each axiom over a period from roughly around 1783 to 1801, starting with similars and single drugs and ending with small doses. Such a slow process of unfoldment clearly does not support the notion that he merely followed a simple, predetermined plan, and such a notion must therefore be dismissed out of hand at the start.

Hahnemann had noticed, “a drug imposes its own disease on the patient and wipes out the natural disease.” [Wheeler, 1944, 170] He observed that “the symptoms of Mercury poisoning were very like those of secondary syphilis. That was noticed by John Hunter long before Hahnemann.” [Wheeler, 1944, 170] A similar notion flows from the observation that “the children who did best on tartar emetic in pneumonia were those who had as well gastro-enteritis, i.e. presented more symptoms similar to those of the remedy.” [Wheeler, 1944, 170] Homeopathy then “is exclusively the science and art of the investigation and application of the similia similibus curentur phenomenon.” [Guttentag, 1176]

Similars should also be profound not superficial. This means that the similarities between drug and patient must be deeper and more extensive than just a few broad symptoms. It is also clear from this account that Hahnemann did not construct a theory of medicine first and then find facts to support it, as has been claimed in some less informed quarters [e.g. “Hahnemann had cast homeopathy in substantially the same eighteenth century mold that had given shape to the systems of Cullen, Brown and Rush.” Warner, 1986, 52-3] On the contrary, he distilled each axiom separately and directly from an extensive body of medical literature, from cases, from observation and experience, and thus from considerable reflection upon a large corpus of evidence. Such an approach is certainly an inductive approach a la Bacon, but it was based initially upon a deep dissatisfaction with the medicine of his day, which inspired his search, rather than upon a pure devotion to the methods of experimental science per se as defined by Bacon and Galileo, for example.

Similars must cover specifics and generals, modalities and rare or peculiar symptoms as well as the ideas presented above. This is what Hahnemann discovered. It is not simply a similarity confined to a few symptoms here and there. In other words, some broad and general similarity between patient and drug does not at all form a sufficient basis for a prescription. A much deeper, more detailed, individualised, specific and idiosyncratic level of similarity is required for a “true fit” to be seen to exist between patient and drug. Partial similarity will improve or palliate temporarily, but not cure. The best and most detailed similarity is always correct and curative.

There is a however another corollary of similars that needs some amplification. Similars necessarily embraces case totality both in the drug picture and in the patient. This means that there must exist a deep similarity or resonance between the case in total, as a whole, and the drug picture of the most suitable remedy. Similars does not therefore simply mean the similarity that might exist between a few specific symptoms here and there or based upon some arbitrarily defined named disease entity.

All these points illustrate quite well the interconnectedness of homeopathic ideas as forming a general continuum or whole system of tightly cohesive ideas and notions, which blend neatly into each other. It is a coherent and holistic system and it is thus difficult to separate any one aspect of it and isolate it from all the rest to which it is intimately related and connected.

Provings, Poisonings and Signatures

Having decided that only single drugs were to be employed in a sane and rational medicine, the next task Hahnemann encountered was how to decide what healing properties any drug actually contains hidden within it, and how this information might be obtained. Dismissing at the outset such ideas as the doctrine of signatures, the answer to this problem came to him from consideration of the effects of poisons, in which he had had a long interest and fascination.

In turn, the law of similars springs first from Hahnemann’s studies of poisonings and second from his proving experiments. Another stream of ideas flowed from his deep interest in poisons, which reveal the effects of drugs upon the healthy. For example, his publications: On Arsenical Poisoning, 1786; The Complete Mode of Preparing The Soluble Mercury, 1790; On The Best Method of Preventing Salivation and The Destructive Effects of Mercury, 1791; What Are Poisons? What are Medicines? 1806. There seems little doubt that these studies formed an important prelude to his provings, which are afterall merely mild forms of self-poisoning for experimental purposes. He therefore decided that the only way to accurately determine the detailed ‘sphere of action’ of any single drug was to take some yourself in small doses and accurately explore and record how it can temporarily derange one’s own health.

Heuristically, he found that yes indeed, all drugs are ‘poisons’ that can more or less derange health and induce artificial illness states. The provings were partly inspired by accounts of accidental poisonings—thereby opening up an entirely new pathway to therapeutic knowledge. This meant that many previously “highly poisonous substances,” [Ameke, 131] could now be safely brought into use as harmless healing agents. They could indeed be “converted into…powerful remedial agents in the hands of a skilful physician.” [Ameke, 131] Hahnemann felt that “medicines become poisons simply by imperfect use; in themselves no medicines are poisonous.” [Haehl, I, 75] “He zealously occupied himself…with the collection of cases of poisoning.” [Ameke, 101] His view was that “those substances which we term medicines are unnatural irritants…[that] disturb the health of our body…and excite disagreeable sensations.” [Ameke, 101] “Within the infant rind of this small flower Poison hath residence and medicine power.” [Shakespeare] “Day after day, he tested medicines on himself and others. He collected histories of cases of poisoning. His purpose was to establish a physiological doctrine of medical remedies, free from all suppositions, and based solely on experiments.” [Gumpert, 92] “Hahnemann very carefully argues the question of the new law; he adduces many results of poisonings by drugs, gives his experiences in the uses of medicines…and records the symptoms that certain medicines produced on himself and others.” [Bradford, 58]

The proving was just the start. “Hahnemann having, by his simple and rational experiment with Cinchona bark in 1790, conclusively established the great therapeutic law, that to cure diseases medicines must be used which possess the power of exciting similar diseases, at once perceived that the whole edifice of the old Materia Medica must be rebuilt from the very foundation, as that Materia Medica furnished nothing positive regarding the [true] pathogenetic actions of drugs.” [Dudgeon, 176] Clearly also, “Hahnemann’s dose reduction made possible the systematic use of poisons in medicine. While this had been recommended by von Stoerck and others, it could not be practised as long as large doses were considered necessary…the homeopathic pharmacopoeia later used dozens of the most powerful poisons: Belladonna, Aconite, Arsenic, Strychnine, Rattlesnake.” [Coulter, II, 403-4]

Provings and poisonings reveal Hahnemann’s abiding interest in drugs and their actions and his Pharmaceutical Lexicon was in many respects the forerunner of his Materia Medica Pura, and it is this deep interest in drugs and their effects that reveals and explains the basis of his enormous respect for Albrecht van Haller. What Hahnemann did with this interest was to explore the primary and secondary effects of drugs and poisons—that is where it took him—and from there he went on to observe and distil great principles about the actions of single drugs on healthy people and in turn on the sick. These can all be found in great detail in the Organon.

Homeopathy uses provings of single drugs to determine their precise sphere of action; these provings have been conducted upon healthy human volunteers, and do not employ animal experiments, for example: “his great endeavour was to found a physiological materia medica.” [Ameke, 101] Hahnemann “neatly and conscientiously assembled and numbered his observations of the symptoms excited in himself and his children by the most varied of medicines.” [Gumpert, 114] There followed “a period of twenty years during which Hahnemann worked prodigiously to accumulate data in support of his ‘law of similar’ as it came to be called. An immense Materia Medica was compiled, and he conducted continuous experiments on himself, his friends and those of his colleagues who were curious and willing.” [Cameron, 29]

The proving can be said to arise at the point of convergence of Hahnemann’s detailed knowledge of sickness, poisons and drugs and his uncompromising desire to ground medicine solely in empiricism, that is, observation and experiment. He reserved his greatest respect for “a science of pure experience…knowledge of the disease to be treated and the actions of drugs.” [Ameke, 134] These, he insists can only be deduced “from pure experience and observation.” [Ameke, 134] The proving idea mirrors exactly the incredible information Hahnemann had unearthed in the literature of cases of poisonings, but in provings this is expressed in a muted and more subtle form.

By ingesting a small dose of a substance over a few days one can begin to gain great insights into the nature of a drug, because what is revealed in the proving is the drug’s sphere of action within the body, what organs and systems it affects [resonates with] most strongly and what subtle impacts it has on likes and dislikes, modalities, sleep, dreams and mental states. When compiled together, this information translates into the drug picture [therapeutic image] of the drug in question as recorded in the materia medica. In many respects, this image represents the inner essence of that substance. And it is here perhaps that we can see a subtle connection between the proving and poisoning with the more ancient doctrine of signatures. “According to the doctrine of signatures, widely believed in many cultures, features in the appearance of a plant indicate its utility,” [Steiner, 26] Hahnemann “definitely rejected [the law of signatures]…in his Materia Medica Pura we read under Chelidonium…’the ancients imagined that the yellow colour of the juice of this plant was an indication (signature) of its utility in bilious diseases…the importance of human health does not admit of any such uncertain directions for the of medicines. It would be criminal frivolity to rest contented with such guesswork at the bedside of the sick.’’ [Hahnemann quoted in Hobhouse, 1933, 137-8]

“Paracelsus was also a firm believer in the doctrine of signatures, and in illustration of it explained every single part of St. John’s Wort [Hypericum perforatum] in terms of this belief “…the holes in the leaves mean that this herb helps all inner and outer orifices of the skin…the blooms rot in the form of blood, a sign that it is good for wounds and should be used where flesh has to be treated.” [Griggs, 50]

Arguably, it shows an underlying essence of the substance common to both and which might also be intuitively realised from observation and deep reflection as well as from actual provings. This also connects homeopathy with the various Flower Essence remedies now in quite widespread use.

We can also say that Hahnemann was a pioneer of the “medicine based on fact” or “evidence based medicine.” Hahnemann’s primary aim or ambition was to base medicine solely on solid ground, on facts and therefore he had toxicology and provings as pillars to build a solid data-base of all actions of substances on man.

Toxicology and the so called “side-effects” of drugs represent the involuntary, accidental, uncontrolled side of this topic, and reveal the gross and lesional aspect of the effects a substance can induce. Provings are the voluntary, controlled, conscious and experimental side, and so to say, the more subtle physiological and psychological side of the same phenomenon. Another point that came from provings is the idea of some specific reactions of individual nature, coming from susceptibility and sensitivity of individuals. From these arise the later notion of “sensible typologies,” which denote a complex description of the most reactive individuals to some remedies.

Not only in the case of the provings of drugs, but also with regard to the detailed study of medical similars, there has probably never been in the entire history of the world a single person who has studied the effects of drugs on the human subject more thoroughly than Samuel Hahnemann. In provings and in poisonings, Hahnemann’s pioneering work noted—dissected in detail—both the primary and secondary effects of drugs, and in studying the cures of the past he was able to show that the secondary effects usually mirror the primary and are often curative responses initiated by the vital force, opposite in their nature to the primary effect of the drug on the human system. Nowhere else in the medical literature, outside of his writings, has this information been studied and tabulated in such detail. Nor anywhere else has this data been slowly distilled to engender core therapeutic principles of such awesome predictive power.

Case Totality

This can be seen to derive in part from having no concept of a disease entity acting as the cause of a sickness. It comes from having no disease label and it also springs naturally from the provings, from observation in clinical practice and is thus primarily an empirical idea. It also derives from the conceptual meeting point of his translation work and the provings. It is important to understand why.

While working on translations, Hahnemann found and collected numerous references to specific drugs for specific symptoms, ailments or specific disease labels, and to examples of the effects of poisonings. What exactly did this material mean to him and how did it affect his thinking? Once he came to prove a drug [e.g. Cinchona in 1790], he then saw its effects really comprised a case totality rather than a specific for a named disease or group of symptoms. In other words, in proving a drug he found its action was not to create specific symptom clusters, but to impact more broadly on all mental and physical aspects of organism functioning, and thus creating an image of totality rather than merely being confined to a narrow range of specific actions. Therefore, there was a certain disparity between the references he found to the use of drugs, as found in the literature, which tended to be specific, and their actual effects in the provings. This disparity must have changed his views, probably radically.

His findings therefore meant that in similia such proved drugs were suitable to be employed not for quite narrow specific groups of symptoms [= named diseases], but only for a broader case totality. Then in using these proven drugs in clinical practice, via similia, he accidentally encountered the incredible sensitivity a patient manifests towards their specific similimum. Therefore, he also saw that any new ‘medicine of specifics,’ could not conceivably be a medicine of a specific drug fro a specific disease label, as he had probably imagined, but for a specific drug profile delicately matched and appropriate for a specific individual patient, as a holistic entity. The distinction between these two categories might seem subtle and thunderously hair-splitting, but in reality it is a crucially significant difference, that was to cast asunder the allopathic from the homeopathic systems. This distinction in fact creates a wide gulf between the two both at the conceptual level and at the practical level. Hahnemann saw that there would henceforth be no possibility, no option ever to treat a small group of localised symptoms with homeopathy; it would be case totality or nothing.

Basically, what Hahnemann showed is that all cases of what we term ‘disease’ are ‘totalities’ of symptoms or totalities of health disorder and NOT named diseases as conceived in allopathic practice. He could see the wider picture of each individual case rather than the narrowly fragmented view that naturally follows from the named diseases approach to the sick person. They are different ways of seeing the sick person and hence quite different ways of looking at the very nature of sickness. One is fragmentary and concerned with parts, and the other is holistic and concerned with wholes.

Hahnemann took the view “that physicians assess not only the cause of the illness, but all aspects of the patient,” [Porter, 172] As with Hegel’s philosophy, the “central thought is, then, that only the whole is real; the partial fact is only an abstraction, which needs to be brought into connection with the whole in order to gain validity. ‘The bud disappears in the bursting forth of the blossom, and it may be said that the one is contradicted by the other; by the fruit, again, the blossom is declared to be a false existence in the plant, and the fruit is judged to be its truth in the place of the flower…” [Rogers; 409] He believed that “the disease is reflected in the totality of the symptoms,” [Haehl, I, 292] Hahnemann “was very conscious of the danger,” [Guttentag, 1187] of focusing too narrowly on “one symptom rather than of the whole symptom complex.” [Guttentag, 1187] “not only a single symptom or a single chain of symptoms must be removed,” [Guttentag, 1187] one must remove “the totality of symptoms.” [Guttentag, 1187] For “the whole clinical picture guides the homeopath toward the proper drug…[one that can] produce a similar sum total of signs and symptoms,” [Guttentag, 1187] this is the similimum. Homeopathy “prefers to explore rather than to explain. It emphasises exhaustiveness in observation and stresses the significance of phenomena in terms of the organism as a whole,” [Guttentag, 1176-7] rather than a fragmented view of its parts. It seeks to describe rather than explain. It “considers the single patient as indivisible and unique…as not accessible to the method of measuring,” [Guttentag, 1177] so beloved of the allopaths.

Case totality principle (“Inbegriff des Symptome“) comes also as a direct consequence of the ‘totality of actions’ of remedies as revealed from provings. The differential diagnosis in homeopathy is not based on theoretical nosologic “standards” but on real symptoms, sometime not in a direct connection with the basic affection, that reflects the individual and specific reactional patterns. Because these patterns are external, observable symptoms that reflect in their turn the subtle and unobservable mis-attunement (Unstimmung) of the vital principle. Such semiological notions as modalities, localities, sensations, etc, have all to be carefully observed because they are the expression of the individual vital force reactions. One remarkable point in Hahnemann’s perspective that comes from this is the principle of coherence: disease is not a mere mix of symptoms, but a coherent reaction of the vital force as a consequence of its inner perturbation, of its ‘functional turbulence’ that we call sickness.

Homeopathy looks for the totality of the case because it has significance from the therapeutic point of view. In allopathy, to collect all the symptoms has no real therapeutic meaning; it collects symptoms to eliminate them afterwards because the only symptoms it considers are the common ones, the “disease symptoms.” On the contrary, in homeopathy even the most minor and peculiar symptoms are potentially of greatest importance; they reveal the individuality with its peculiar determination.

Idiosyncrasy individualise

In his work with single drugs Hahnemann soon discovered that the process of matching a drug and a patient requires much greater subtlety and skill than is imagined. In particular this includes the idiosyncratic element of individuality and the rare and peculiar symptoms. Idiosyncrasies reflect also the fact that, from a reactional point of view, humans are not a tabula rasa, they come with inherited traits, they acquire others during the events of life in such a way that every individual is highly personalized and unique. This view stands in the starkest contrast to allopathic view of health and sickness viewed as they are solely through the filter of averages. Propria and communia, what is idiosyncratic and unique to an individual case, and what is common to all cases of a ‘disease;’ this connects with concomitants and ancillary drugs used in the medieval approach.

The inability of scientific medicine to individualise induces a focus not upon “the common symptoms [communia]…” [Coulter, II, 249] those common to many people [the communia]—as in allopathic medicine—but a focus upon “the symptoms peculiar to the individual,” [Coulter, II, 250] case [the propria symptoms]. The latter are much “more reliable criteria…for distinguishing one patient from another,” [Coulter, II, 250] and in most cases “the patient’s habits and mode of life were the most important of the propria.” [Coulter, II, 250] In ancient medicine “they separated the propria from communia with the aim of coming as close as possible to the idiosyncrasy of the patient.” [Coulter, II, 250] It is “that which distinguishes him from all similar patients,” [Coulter, II, 251] and which distinguishes this “patient from all others of his class. Each sick person is unique in his sickness, and the sickness is unknowable in its essence.” [Coulter, II, 251] By relying on “propria over communia they incorporated into their method precisely the characteristics which distinguish the individual patient from all others like him.” [Coulter, II, 498] Allopathy is more properly rooted in an impulse “to note the number of similarities in the behaviour of objects and to construct propositions…” [Berlin, 1996, 21] By contrast, homeopathy is rooted in an opposite principle “to bring out what is specific, unique, in a given character or series of events…respects in which it differs from everything…[and] conveys the unique pattern of experience.” [Berlin, 1996, 22]

All homeopaths become cognisant of “the large amount of individualisation demanded by Hahnemann.” [Haehl, I, 92] Osler when he said that “it is much more important to know what sort of patient has a disease than what sort of disease a patient has.” [Maizes & Caspi] Therefore, we can say that Hahnemann makes a clear and wide deviation from all previous medical systems by insisting that disease is an individual phenomenon and that medicine must primarily base its rational and truly curative treatments upon the unique aspects of each case and not upon the aggregated ‘common symptoms.’ For clearly, what he is saying is that the true nature of any case of sickness lies primarily and fundamentally in its unique individuality and not in the symptoms common across many various cases of a similar type.

Idiosyncrasies form a common basis for the most peculiar symptoms coming from provings and those coming from sick persons. The same principle reveals a mirror-like situation: the most sensitive or susceptible individuals will reveal the most peculiar symptoms in provings, but the most peculiar symptoms in disease are signs that the individual is highly sensitive to a substance.

An interesting rapport between idiosyncrasy, individuality and wholeness is the main core of Hahnemann’s consideration: idiosyncrasy individualise, disrupt the uniformity of reactions, the persons, healthy (in provings) or ill (in therapeutics) are different. But as long as one consider the totality, individuality expresses itself as a wholeness, such that the person is never cut into pieces and all his/her parts remain integrated in a more comprehensive understanding, or fully rounded picture. This is a recuperation of the phenomenological view about humans and therefore homeopathy has less to do with the abstract notion of MAN, but with the more concrete individual man “as such.”

Allopathy, ever since the days of Sydenham, makes the exact opposite claim, and all its treatments are based solidly upon the notion of pooled data, averages, l’homme moyenne and what is common to each so-called “disease entity,” a concept Hahnemann derided as a ludicrous and quite arbitrary human construct, something unnatural, made and not found. Therefore, in this topic we begin to see one of the very strongest contrasts between the conceptual views of the allopaths and homeopaths.

Small Doses

The small doses of homeopathy were the last axiom and were entirely arrived at empirically through the desire to reduce [alleviate, and avoid] the impact that doses of the most similar remedy can have upon the patient. One of “homeopathy’s prime principles…in a nutshell…that drugs increase in potency with their dilution.”[Cameron, 30] Here we have to emphasise the high moral and deontological aspiration of homeopathy, which completely considers as valuable the Hippocratic principle of “primum non nocere“. This is part of the basis of the small dose: a small dose that can induce healing, does the least harm. Hahnemann found that the most similar drug had a uniquely powerful [often astonishing] ability to elicit strong reactions in the patient and for this reason could elicit aggravations of symptoms.

Hahnemann “advocated ever more definitely the administration of small doses.” [Gumpert, 96] “It is in his little work on Scarlet Fever, published in 1801, that we have the first forebodings of an unusual mode of preparing the medicines…the dose of Opium there recommended…is very small compared with the ordinary dose…the object of this dilution was to diminish the power of the medicine chiefly…for patients of very tranquil disposition.” [Dudgeon, 338] “Hahnemann…perplexed by the aggravations resulting from ordinary doses, seeking to find a dose so small that it would not endanger life and desiring to accurately measure his degree of dilution so that he might repeat or retrace his steps, invented or adopted the centesimal scale…” [Close, 218] “His discovery of the principle of potentisation came about gradually as he experimented in the reduction of his doses, in order to arrive at a point where severe aggravations would not occur. Gradually, by experience, he learned that the latent powers of drugs were released or developed by trituration, dilution and succussion.” [Close, 190] “Hahnemann’s final views and practice in regard to the dose were arrived at gradually, through long years of careful experiment and observation.” [Close, 189] “A hint of his growing conviction that remedies should be prescribed in high dilution was given in..(an article)..published in 1788.” [Cook, 51] “Hahnemann’s dose reduction made possible the systematic use of poisons in medicine. While this had been recommended by von Stoerck and others, it could not be practised as long as large doses were considered necessary…the homeopathic pharmacopoeia later used dozens of the most powerful poisons: Belladonna, Aconite, Arsenic, Strychnine, Rattlesnake.” [Coulter, II, 403-4] “In the Organon, however, he stated that trituration and succussion release the ‘spirit-like power’ of the medicine – which is compatible with his assumption that medicines act through their spiritual [geistlich] or dynamic impact upon the organism.” [Coulter, II, 403] “His discovery of the principle of potentisation came about gradually as he experimented in the reduction of his doses, in order to arrive at a point where severe aggravations would not occur. Gradually, by experience, he learned that the latent powers of drugs were released or developed by trituration, dilution and succussion.” [Close, 190]

He was alarmed and amazed to observe the great sensitivity a patient shows towards even small doses of the most homeopathic remedy for their case. Ever smaller doses were conceived by him for the pragmatic purpose of alleviating or avoiding these bad reactions evoked in patients by the most similar remedy. Already naturally inclined in the direction of adopting much smaller doses than his medical peers [e.g. Mercury], he was thus inspired to find ways of reducing dosage progressively and also in a mathematically precise way. This is how and why he first entered the field of dose reduction. The tiny doses of homeopathy can also be said to reveal a link to the more metaphysical ideas like vital force and miasms because they all partake of a subtle and non-molecular dynamic.

In his later views, the dose reduction is a problem of attunement between the subtlety of the target (vital force) and the subtlety of the means [the potentised drug]. Both vital force and potentised remedies are dynamic “spirit-like” entities and to use the second to correct the ailments of the first might be said to proceed as a natural consequence of his spiritualistic view. Actually, the diluted and potentised remedies of homeopathy are the greatest problem of its acceptance by the scientific world, because many of the remedies used are beyond the Avogadro number or, so to say, “ultra-molecular,” beyond the limit a molecular and materialistic paradigm can conceive. The fact that, however, they are therapeutically efficient opens a great problematic field about this paradigm itself, and creates a deep tension between homeopathy and conventional science.

The basis of these small doses was empirical, that is to say, they were arrived at through experience and trial and error; the doses were arrived at by Hahnemann in an attempt both to progressively reduce the toxic action of the drugs, but also to retain the therapeutic action; the result was smaller and smaller doses. “no poison, however strong or powerful, the billionth or decillionth of which would in the least degree affect a man or harm a fly,” [Simpson, 11]

In his ‘Essay On a New Principle’ of 1796, Hahnemann “does not yet talk about diminishing the dose, but insists on the necessity of administering but one medicine at a time…in all these discoveries Hahnemann was guided by experience, to which he trusted solely.” [Dudgeon, 49-50] The small drugs homeopathy employs are produced in a unique way by shaking and diluting in a serial manner in dilute ethanol; the chemical and physical basis of this method—in terms of modern scientific conception—remains a mystery, but was also arrived at empirically, by trial and error. This potentisation method somehow imprints the essence, or energy pattern, of the plant, mineral or animal drug upon the dilution medium, which can then be transferred to lactose pills. “We cannot fail to be struck by the sudden transition from the massive doses he prescribed in 1798 to the unheard of minuteness of his doses only one year later, and we can but guess the causes for this abrupt transition.” [Dudgeon, 395 6] “Hahnemann’s idea at first was simply to reduce the “strength” or material mass of his drug, but his passion for accuracy led him to adopt a scale, that he might always be sure of the degree of reduction and establish a standard for comparison.” [Close, 216] The “principle of the infinitesimal dose [is]…an outrage to human reason,” [Forbes, 17 and Nicholls, 121] and “the doctrines of potentiation and the infinitesimal dose has always been the central point of attack upon homeopathy by its enemies.” [Close, 215] “In the United States, regular physicians…found Hahnemann’s theories absurd and incredible. Reasoning that no one in his right mind could believe such arrant nonsense, they concluded that homeopaths must be either knaves or fools.” [Blake, 86] “His discovery of the principle of potentisation came about gradually as he experimented in the reduction of his doses, in order to arrive at a point where severe aggravations would not occur. Gradually, by experience, he learned that the latent powers of drugs were released or developed by trituration, dilution and succussion.” [Close, 190]


This crucial concept is mostly derived from empirical observation and experience with cases, especially when taking into account longitudinal case studies [through time] which show that suppressed foot sweats can lead to asthma, for example, or suppressed skin rashes, etc can lead to respiratory conditions [tonsil or sinus troubles]. Any set of symptoms removed by a crude drug can be regarded as a form of suppression.

As with chronic miasmata, the conceptual model of suppression probably first arose in Hahnemann’s mind from his extensive knowledge of venerology, where, for example, the suppressed chancre of syphilis leads to further secondary morbid manifestations or morbid alternations; likewise with the suppressed gleet of gonorrhoea. The main problem of this principle is a well balanced primary treatment of the acute diseases. As long as the primary conditions are treated in their natural extensor, as a condition that regards the whole organism itself, then treatment leads to cure. Suppression only arises when the disease is not treated in its whole extent, and instead of treating the complete condition, some local symptoms alone are treated. In this way, the named symptoms are excluded from their deeper context, the disease remains hidden in the interior and develops stronger and deeper forms. Hence, whenever the treatment is aimed at parts, mere symptoms, superficial physiological or pathological manifestation, it is suppressive. This doesn’t mean that homeopathy doesn’t treat acute or partial conditions, but its aim is to treat the integrity, the causes and the profound layers.

Hahnemann took the view that chemical drugs “suppress and hide the morbid symptoms by opposition [contraria contrariis] for a short time [palliatives].” [Organon, xxviii] Old school medicine considers disease as being “purely local and existing there independently, and vainly supposes that it has cured them when it has [merely] driven them away.” [Organon, xxviii] Allopathy turns one disease into another [metastasis] and makes a bad situation even worse by using “corrosive sublimate and other mercurial preparations in large doses,” [Organon, xxix] thereby “continually weakening and tormenting the debilitated patient.” [Organon, xxix] Hahnemann regarded this approach as indeed a “most senseless mode of treatment…[and a] mischievous so-called art.” [Organon, xxix] Homeopaths have always regarded drug-induced changes in cases as fundamentally uncurative acts: any “removal of the tangible products of disease…does not cure the disease, but does the patient a positive injury.” [Close, 73] As Close then adds, “the suppressed case always goes bad,” [Close, 75] to which Kent adds: “all prescriptions that change the image of a case cause suppression.” [Kent, 661] Suppression or palliation of disease “is the removal of the external symptoms of disease by external, mechanical, chemical or topical treatment; or by means of powerful drugs, given internally in massive doses, which have a direct physiological or toxic effect but no true therapeutic or curative action.” [Close, 75- 76] Kent exhorts: “The healthier the patient becomes the more likelihood there is for an eruption upon the skin. The vital energies must be sufficient for this. A cure progresses from within outward.” [Kent, Aphorism 442]

In the example of a skin disease being treated by lotions and creams externally applied, the symptoms are removed from the skin, and the condition alleviated or palliated, but the deeper internal cause of the malady is still present and its true focus is then moved inwards away from the skin. As Hahnemann discovered, and later homeopaths confirmed, the true cure of a skin disease, like any other, lies within, by correcting the deranged vital force, and cannot be cured with material doses of any drug. A view of disease as a “dynamic derangement of the life force,” [see Close, 37-8, 74]

Suppression “or palliation of disease, is the removal of the symptoms of disease by external, mechanical, chemical or topical treatment; or by means of powerful drugs, given internally in massive doses, which have a direct physiological or toxic effect but no true therapeutic or curative action. The suppressed case always goes bad… the abscess and fistula, act as if they were the vent or exhaust of the disease, affording temporary safety to vital organs. Close the exhaust and an explosion follows.” [Close, 74-5] However, “the mere removal of the tangible products of disease by mechanical means as in the case of tumors, or of the external visible signs of disease by topical applications as in the case of eruptions and discharges, not only does not cure the disease, but does the patient a positive injury and renders the case inveterate or more difficult to cure…to the death of the patient from metastasis and the complications which result from such treatments. Disease is only cured by the internally administered similar medicine…” [Close, 73] As an example, “some chronic disease of the liver, kidneys, spleen or lungs [can] be traced back to an initial attack of malarial fever checked by massive doses of quinine or arsenic. The patient has ‘never been well since’…” [Close, 120]

Once this pattern had first been seen and identified, and then became an expected pattern, so it was then found all over the place. Hahnemann soon realized that all changes brought to a case by crude drugs are in fact suppressions because they do not lead to true cure but only to temporary relief followed by relapse, or followed some months later by another disease of a more interior and more serious character or of a more intractable kind. Thus, the idea of suppression goes back to the beginning of homeopathy because it reveals a fundamental problem Hahnemann had identified with Galenic medicine that just removes symptoms [palliates] and then regards that as a cure, when in fact, as he showed, it is merely a suppression. Symptoms are removed or suppressed inwards, but the actual invisible cause of the disease [in the vital dynamism] is still present and dynamically active. It has by no means been cured, but has been forced inwards and upwards to a more sinister and intractable layer of organism functioning.

Hahnemann thus realised later in life that suppression is the very thing which he had instinctively disliked and rebelled against so ferociously in his early days, when he criticised the Galenic ‘purge and bleed’ methods as being both “fundamentally uncurative and harmful” to patients. He realised that his critique showed so-called allopathic cures as merely suppressions of symptoms that only engender first temporary relief, palliation, then relapse and ultimately no deep cure, but just new and more sinister ‘diseases’ breaking out in their train. That is a perfect description of what suppression means and it is precisely the same as the blistering critique of allopathy he launched with such passion at the start of his career.

Direction of Cure

This again is a largely empirical concept derived from close study of cases under homeopathic treatment. Such observations reveal that cures simply tend to move the site of disorder from the inside outwards and from above downwards, and from centre to the periphery. This is called the direction of cure or Hering’s Law. It is not really a law as such, but rather a vague principle that is often found to work out in practice. It also connects with the concept of suppression, of which it is the opposite. While suppression is uncurative and inward-moving, so direction of cure is curative and outward-moving.

Dr Constantine HERING (1800-1880)
C. Hering.

Often called Hering’s Law or direction of cure, “cure takes place in a definite orderly manner and direction…normal vital processes, cellular, organic and systemic, begin at the center and proceed outwardly…life is a centrifugal force, radiating, externalizing, …’from above downward’. In the same sense disease is a centripetal force, opposing, obstructing, penetrating toward the center and tending to disorganization… the progression of all chronic diseases is from the surface toward the center; from less important to more important organs – ‘from below upward’. Curative medicine reinforces the life force, reverses the morbid process and annihilates disease. Symptoms disappear from above downwards, from within outward and in the reverse order of their appearance. When a patient with an obscure rheumatic endocarditis, for example, begins to have signs and symptoms of acute arthritis soon after taking the homeopathic remedy and is relieved of his chest sufferings, we know that cure has commenced.” [Close, 132]

The idea of direction of cure probably became also more precise at the time Hahnemann studied chronic disease more closely, because he observed that chronic diseases are more liable to stem from suppressions and the restoration involves a reverse process. In acute eruptive febrile and infectious disease (such as scarlet fever, measles, rubella, etc.) it is a well known fact that the stronger the exanthema, the less are the consequences and the faster is the convalescence. In chronic diseases, as long as the morbid manifestations are inflammatory, the progression towards affecting the deeper layers, inner organs and the immune systems is less grave.

The direction of cure presumes a hierarchy or layers of different degrees of importance on what regards the inner organisation of man. The core, the most important are deeper, higher and central. Deeper are not only the physical inner organs but also the genetic and inherited aspects. In chronic diseases, deepest are the miasmatic layers, the inherited or acquired miasms that manifest as morbid pre-dispositions. Higher and central are considered not merely in a physical sense but in a hierarchical order of importance for the definition of the individuality. Hence, psyche, or the mental symptoms are higher and more central to the physical ones; a disease that evolves with an amelioration of psyche even with the aggravation of some physical manifestation is therefore regarded as following a good direction of restoration.

From the practical point of view, without understanding the basic idea of restoration (Lat. restauratio = to rebuild, to give back, to repair), the directions of cure applied literally can represent a trap. For example, a lower back pain developing as a sciatic neuralgia with progression down towards the toes (from upward downwards) seems superficially to conform to this principle but in fact is an aggravation of the condition. The progression toward periphery or downwards in this case is usually a consequence of the progression of the disease from a simple contracture to an affectation, inflammation or protrusion of the intervertebral discs: so, in spite the disease have progressed from upward–downward, centre-periphery, it is an aggravation because the disease progressed towards deeper layers of physical and physiological organisation: the muscles are less deep and less important then the skeleton.

In chronic diseases, the restoration (or direction of cure) principle regards the successive layer of affections. The proper cure makes a reverse order development of symptoms, the most recent suppressed symptom can eventually manifest first and the more profound ones come later. Hence, this hierarchical underground order of the human being does not manifest itself only in space terms but also diachronically, in time. Deeper, higher, more central, are also older, inherited or closer to the individual definition.

Vital Force

The vital force in homeopathy plays the same role as the vis medicatrix naturae [the innate self-healing powers] of ancient medicine or archeus, or animus of Stahl or archeus of Paracelsus and van Helmont. He actually he denies this, by saying that the vis medicatrix alone is not capable of accomplishing the aim of cure and no cure without homeopathy is possible. It is a metaphysical concept designed to explain numerous observations of how the organism functions both in health and in sickness. It is necessarily conceived as an abstract, unproven, intangible entity that coordinates the body processes and directs bodily events. It is an immaterial entity that stands behind and beneath the chemistry or the cells and directs their activity invisibly just like the conductor of an orchestra. In health, it smoothly coordinates all activities of the organism. In sickness, it ever strives to correct imbalances. Even “Galen recognised, in agreement with Hippocrates, a natural healing power inherent in the body.” [Haehl, I, 283-4] Ancient physicians generally always took the view of medicine as one of “supporting the patient and trusting the healing power of nature,” [Porter, 260] This “life-force dominated all corporeal processes…[and was] a health-defending property,” [Porter, 208] often termed the innate self-healing powers or “natural healing powers of the body,” [Gevitz, 1637]

Hahnemann starts, “with the conception of Life as a real or substantial entitative power or principle…the Dynamis and the Life Force. This is Hahnemann’s greatest discovery, and the absolute bedrock of his system.” [Close, 30-31] Even Sir John Forbes [1787-1861], consulting physician to Queen Victoria, 1841-61, “accepted the homeopathic cures as the result of the Vis medicatrix naturae…the less the physician does, the better chance the patient has of recovering.” [Rothstein, 243] Such innate self-healing powers, “the self-rectifying powers of the vis medicatrix;” [Simpson, 82] the “natural sanative powers of the constitution,” [Simpson, 81] “the curative powers of nature,” [Simpson, 88] and “the vital dynamism,” [Simpson, 23] are valid forces at work in every one of us and the enhancement of those powers is the primary task of all natural healing.

The organism not a static but a truly dynamic structure permeated by, ruled over and coordinated by the nurturing and sustentative vital power: “the organism is indeed the material instrument of life, but it is not conceivable without the animation imparted to it by the instinctively perceiving and regulating vital force.” [Organon, Aph. 15] Hahnemann believed in the innate “self-healing energy in the patient,” [van Haselen, 123] what he called the “self-regulating vital force, the vis medicatrix naturae.” [van Haselen, 123] And for example, even a modern allopath has stated, “only that nerve energy that runs through you and controls every function and autonomic process of your being every second of your life is capable of healing you. No drugs of doctors can do that. We can only facilitate it,” [Foley] then he clearly echoes the vitalist views of homeopathy and acupuncture.

Hahnemann had essentially the same views on the natural healing powers as an illustrious band of physicians before him. According to Haehl, these include Hippocrates, Galen, Sydenham, Stahl, and the Montpellier School [Haehl, I, 282-6]. Although he believed in the vital force and built homeopathy very much around that concept, he regarded allopathy as using it only in a “crude, unseeing, unintelligent, unreasoned,” [Haehl, I, 287] way, whose methods were not truly enhancing of the vital powers, but in fact depleted them. “Hahnemann’s theory and ideas about vital force and natural healing power…place him close to others, e.g. the striking agreement of his views with Sydenham about natural healing power, with the basic ideas of Stahl’s animism, and with the thought processes of Bordeu and Barthez in their vitalism.” [Haehl, I, 289] They were clinicians prominent in the Montpellier School of France.

Barthez – Montpellier.

Hippocrates conceived of the vital force as “an inborn power regulating…the functions of the organs and the correct relative mixture of the humours.” [Haehl, I, 283] By the same token, “illness is a disturbance of the healthy equilibrium.” [Haehl, I, 283] Galen “agreed with Hippocrates on a natural healing power inherent in the body,” [Haehl, I, 283-4] but made many confusing remarks as well. Stahl’s view was that the symptoms of “diseases were simply the efforts of the organism…to restore the equilibrium of health.” [Haehl, I, 284] Even in the Montpellier school, illness was seen as “an affection of the life power and is expressed by disturbances…[it is] a reaction of the life power.” [Haehl, I, 285] It is roughly in keeping with the views of Hippocrates, Stahl and the Montpellier school, but not with those of Brown or Galen, Boerhaave or Hoffmann, where the effects of the vital force are not always highly regarded or assisted or regarded as curative, or in which therapy tends to run against the natural efforts of the vital force by use of contraries.

The vital force is a “spiritual principle…that rules with unbounded sway.” [Organon, Aph 9] or what might also be called “a spiritual medicinal power,” [Simpson, 141]“Hahnemann minimises the healing power of nature,” [Guttentag, 1175] but “he describes its effects as nowhere to be imitated and as rarely sufficient.” [Guttentag, 1175] Post-Hahnemannian homeopathy “still holds the same respectful view of the healing power of nature as in 1836.” [Guttentag, 1175] Most homeopaths have reiterated the view that the healing power of nature is supreme.

Dr James Tyler KENT (1849-1916) & Dr Clara Louise TOBY KENT (1855-1943)
J. T. Kent.

Kent says that “there is no cell or tissue so small that it does not keep its soul and life force in it,” [Kent, 670] and he expresses the view that “the vital force dominates, rules and coordinates the human body.” [Kent, 677] Also, that the vital force “is again dominated by still another higher substance which is the Soul.” [Kent, 677] In his conception of the organism, “the vital force holds all in harmony, keeps everything in order when in health.” [Kent, 677] In this view, “that which we call disease is but a change in the vital force expressed by the totality of the symptoms.” [Kent, 661] Therefore, “the inner nature of the remedy corresponds with the inner nature of the disease.” [Kent, 685] Disease being a dynamic imbalance, so any “dynamic wrongs are corrected from the interior by dynamic agencies.” [Kent, 643] Thus, “Man cannot be cured or be made sick except by some substance as ethereal in quality as the vital force.” [Kent, 644] Kent wisely called the vital force the “vice-regent of the soul,” [Kent, 660] and it does seem to correspond to the concept of the unconscious or subconscious mind that regulates all the bodily processes through the involuntary nervous system, and the endocrine organs and keeps the breathing and blood going etc. Because of its immaterial nature, the vital force bonds with various other key concepts in homeopathy, such as the small doses and the miasms. Though it is an abstract and insubstantial entity, its reality and truth is confirmed through the powerful logic of its usefulness as a concept underpinning so many aspects of homeopathy.


The vital force stakes another primary claim for a unique status within the conceptual core of homeopathy in that the remedies of homeopathy do not directly impact upon or cure the alleged ‘disease,’ but impact primarily upon the vital force, the innate vital powers, the vital dynamism that controls the organism, and solely through whose dominion and sovereign powers sickness is either created or annulled. Therefore, sickness is removed indirectly rather than directly, not at the local level, but at the level of the whole organism. The sickness itself is conceived as under the control of the vital force, not of itself. It is conceived primarily as an internal matter, not an external one. Accesses to sickness is thus always indirect and only achieved via the holistic powers of the vital force itself, which pervades the entire organism.

Homeopathy treats “the person and not the disease.” [Shaw, 6] It truly is the ‘innate healing power’. We should always “remember that it is our duty to help nature as far as possible do her job.” [Bodman, 225] Medicine involves an attempt “to restore health…an attempt to restore balance,” [Wheeler, 1947, 1] for true “health is simply the balanced life.” [Wheeler, 1947, 4] Homeopathy “is no religion, no sect, no fad, no humbug…remedies do not act directly on disease; they merely stimulate the vital reactions of the patient, and this causes him to cure himself.” [Weir, 200-201] Regarding the remedy, we need to remember, “that the reaction it sets up in the organism is a reaction which goes on working to the ultimate dispersion of the infirmity.” [Cooper, Jan 1893; 14] Reliance upon the “natural healing power leads to interpretation of symptoms as signs of the body’s struggle against disease,” [Coulter, II, 456] and thus symptoms are seen “as beneficial—being the signs of the struggle of the vital force against disease.” [Coulter, II, 487]

He also condemns any medical system that searches out and respects only “the mechanical origin of diseases…[and] which derives diseases from the original form of the parts.” [Ameke, 95] However, Hahnemann—like Bach, Paracelsus and Bailey—regarded sickness as due to “a morbid derangement of the internal dynamis,” [Hahnemann, 1810, Aph. 12] and an affection of the “morbidly deranged spirit-like dynamis.” [Hahnemann, 1810, Aph.15] He regarded “symptoms…[as] the expression of the vital force untuned.” [Handley, 66] He also states that “diseases obviously are not and cannot be mechanical or chemical changes in the material substance of the body…but are an exclusively dynamic, spirit like untunement of life.” [Hahnemann, 1810, Aph.31] Hahnemann expresses his own sentiments in the Organon [Aphorisms 11 [9, 10], 15 and 16]: “let it be granted now…that no disease…is caused by any material substance, but that every one is only and always a peculiar, virtual, dynamic derangement of the health.” [Hahnemann, Organon, Aphorisms 11 [9, 10], 15 and 16] Such is certainly a view of disease as a “dynamic derangement of the life force.” [Close, 37-8, 74]

Remedies “contain a non-material healing energy.” [van Haselen, 123] They mobilise the “self-healing vital force,” [van Haselen, 123] which is recognised as the source of all natural healing. Homeopathic “remedies do not act directly on disease; they merely stimulate the vital reactions of the patient, and this causes him to cure himself.” [Weir, 200-201] They lead to “stimulation of a person’s self-healing strengths.” [Franz, 32] Homeopaths thus conceive that “homeopathic remedies and Bach essences act as a catalyst,” [Franz, 32] to stimulate innate self-healing processes, using “natural healing substances.” [Richardson, 174] Paracelsus believed that “attenuation would release from the crude matter the inner ‘arcanum,’ the essential curative virtue.” [Richardson, 174] They further held that “the overall archeus or vital force and the archeus of each organ could be healed by a corresponding archeus of a medicinally prepared plant or mineral.” [Richardson, 174]

Dr Jean-Baptiste VAN HELMONT (1577-1644 )

Hahnemann “is in tune with Paracelsus’ and van Helmont’s concept of the archeus.” [Richardson, 176] According to them “the dynamis of the corresponding natural life form, medicinally activated by potentisation…restores the individual human dynamis to health…[and represents] the highest immaterial or spiritual extraction of medicines.” [Richardson, 176] Kent’s view that potentised remedies contain “purely energetic medicinal powers imprinted on the water/alcohol medium during preparation,” [Richardson, 176] is entirely consistent with the views of Hahnemann and Bach, and they would probably all further agree with him that such remedies resonate “profoundly with the soul, mind and will.” [Richardson, 176]

Again we see the strong connection to case totality [holism] and to the general inadequacy of the concept of a localised disease. In popular parlance, the remedy stimulates the vital force to cure the disease and the remedy merely stimulates the vital force, whose powers pervade the entire organism; it does not of itself cure ‘the disease’ directly, it stimulates the body to heal itself. The vital force can be seen to be a very cohesive and unifying principle that permeates the whole of homeopathy, linking together many otherwise disparate concepts. What we see then is a medicine “based more upon quality and not a quantity.” [Barnard, 301]


The miasm is a metaphysical concept to try and explain cumulative observations of case histories of sickness within families. As an idea it probably derives from Hahnemann’s studies of venereal diseases, most especially Syphilis, which does have this character of a miasm that is acquired, then goes dormant and then springs out later in various hideous forms as well as being passed on to children as predictable [patterned] inherited syndromes of sickness. When viewed more metaphysically the miasms are defects carried in the vital force that cause sickness by deviations from its perfect and harmonious control. Miasms might be termed ‘internalised relics’ or stains of big diseases that are left in the vital force and which steal its natural self-healing power.

From “frequent observations, Hahnemann had discovered that chronic maladies…had some connection with a previous outbreak of Psora.” [Haehl, I, 138] This ‘miasm theory’ stirred up great controversy among his followers, and seems to have instinctively elicited much more ridicule than it did praise. To Hahnemann, Psora was “a disease or disposition to disease, hereditary from generation to generation for thousands of years, and…the fostering soil for every possible diseased condition.” [Haehl, I, 144] The theory “did not receive unanimous support from his followers, even after Hahnemann’s death.” [Haehl, I, 150] The notion of Psora has many facets; for example, “seven-eighths of all the chronic maladies prevalent are ascribed by Hahnemann to Psora…” [Haehl, I, 142] He did not confine its meaning solely to Scabies; “Psora…was widely known in Hahnemann’s time, as the general term for a whole series of skin troubles of the most varied kinds…” [Haehl, I, 143]

Yet, the miasm theory undoubtedly is an attempt to reach into “the deeper fundamentals of disease.” [Haehl, I, 137] Many called psora, “this thousand-headed monster.” [Haehl, I, 145] Chronic symptoms are regarded by homeopaths as “symptoms of the underlying miasmatic malady.” [Haehl, I, 145] Hahnemann’s “idea of Psora coincides to a large extent with that of inherited predisposition to disease.” [Haehl, I, 151] The initial “starting point for the main ideas [of miasms]…was the observation that certain chronic diseases…could be alleviated by homeopathic remedies, but not completely cured.” [Haehl, I, 138] To Hahnemann, “psora is a disease or disposition, hereditary from generation to generation for thousands of years.” [Haehl, I, 144] It “can be observed in the most variable forms imaginable.” [Haehl, I, 145] Psora as a miasm, therefore, becomes “the fostering soil for every possible diseased condition.” [Haehl, I, 144] The miasm theory can be seen as the logical extension of the vital force concept, and as bringing the vital force to its ultimate point.


Wilhelm Ameke, History of Homoeopathy: Its Origins, its Conflicts, with a note on University Medicine, (translated by A. Drysdale, edited by R E Dudgeon), London: E Gould & Sons, 1885

Julian Barnard, Bach Flower Remedies, Form and Function, Hereford: Flower Remedy Programme, 2002

Isaiah Berlin, The Sense of Reality – Studies in Ideas and Their History, London: Pimlico, 1996

Isaiah Berlin, Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas, London: Pimlico, 1997

John B Blake, Homeopathy in American History, Trans. Stud. Coll. Phys., Philadelphia, Series 5, vol. 3, 1981, 83-92

Frank Bodman, Sir John Weir Obituary, Brit. Homeo. Jnl 60.1, 1971, 224-228

Thomas L Bradford, The Life and Letters of Hahnemann, Jain, 1895

Charles S Cameron, Homeopathy in Retrospect, Trans. Stud. Coll. Phys. Philadelphia., 27, 1959, 28-33

Johanna Brieger, Methodological Obstacles In Homeopathic Research, BHJ 50, 1961, 239-45

Stuart Close, The genius of Homeopathy: Lectures and Essays on Homeopathic Philosophy, Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1924

Trevor M Cook, Samuel Hahnemann, the Founder of Homeopathy, Wellingborough: Thorsons, 1981

Robert T Cooper, Calcarea carbonica – a Warning, Homeopathic World, 2 Jan 1893, 11-15

R T Cooper, One Dose – One Value, Homeopathic World, Feb 1 1893, 64-68

R T Cooper, Some Results of Single Doses, Homeopathic World, Sept 1 1894, 389-393

Harris L Coulter, Divided Legacy, A History of the Schism in Medical Thought, Washington: Wehawken Books, 1973, 3 volumes

Robert E Dudgeon, 1853, Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homeopathy, London, 1853, Jain reprint, India

Albert Einstein, Preface to Galileo’s Dialogue of the Two Principal World Systems, German edition, 1952

Lewis B Flinn, Homeopathic Influences in the Delaware Community A Retrospective Reassessment, Del. Med. Jnl., 48:7, July 1976, 418-428

John S Foley, Drugs never cured a thing, BMJ e-letter, 14 June 2003


Sir John Forbes, Homeopathy, Allopathy and Young Physic, London, 1846, Forbes was physician to Queen Victoria, 1840-61

Angelika Franz, Bach-Blüten und Homöopathie, Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung, 240-1, 1995, 28-34 [with English translation]

Roger French, Medicine before Science: the Business of Medicine from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003

Norman Gevitz, (Ed), Other Healers, Unorthodox Medicine in America, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1990

Norman Gevitz, Sectarian Medicine, Jnl Amer. Med. Assoc., 257, 1987, 1636-40

Barbara Griggs, Green Pharmacy A History of Herbal Medicine, London: Jill Norman & Hobhouse, 1981

Martin Gumpert, Hahnemann – The Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel, New York: L B Fischer Publ. Corp., translated from the German by Claude W Sykes, 1945

O E Guttentag, Trends toward Homeopathy Present and Past, Bull Hist Med, 8.8, 1940, 1172-1193

Richard Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann His Life and Works, 2 volumes, 1922, India: Jain

Samuel Hahnemann, The Medicine of Experience, in Lesser Writings, 1805

Samuel Hahnemann, 1805, Aesculapius in the Balance, 1805, in Lesser Writings,

p.421-2 [Hahnemann’s Lesser Writings, 1851, Edited by R E Dudgeon, London, Jain reprint]

Samuel Hahnemann, On the Value of the Speculative Systems of Medicine, 1808, in Lesser Writings, 489-90

Samuel Hahnemann, Observations On The Three Current Methods Of Treatment, From Hufeland’s Journal of Practical Medicine, vol. xi, pt. 4. 1809

Samuel Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine, 1810, translated and edited by W G Boericke & R E Dudgeon, Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1922

Samuel Hahnemann, Are the Obstacles to Certainty and Simplicity in Practical Medicine Insurmountable? 1797, in Lesser Writings, 320

Samuel Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases-their Peculiar Nature and their Homeopathic Cure. “Die chronischen Krankheit…” Die chronischen Krankheiten ihre eigenthümliche Natur und homöopathische Heilung; Dresden, Leipzig: Arnold, 1828

Rima Handley, In Search of the Later Hahnemann, Beaconsfield: Beaconsfield Books, 1997

James T Kent, New Remedies, Clinical Cases, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms and Precepts, Chicago: Ehrhart & Karl, 1925


Ian McLean, Logic Signs and Nature in the Renaissance: the Case of Learned Medicine, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002

V Maizes and O Caspi, The principles and challenges of integrative medicine, West J Med Sept 1999 171: 148-149


Phillip A Nicholls, Homeopathy and the Medical Profession, London: Croom Helm, 1988

William Osler, The Evolution of Modern Medicine, 1913


Herbert Pietschmann, Medicine – A Discipline between Art & Science, BHJ 72.3, July 1983, 155-61

Roy Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind A Medical History of Humanity, New York: Norton, 1998

Cornelia Richardson-Boedler, Doctrine of Signatures: a Historical, Philosophical and Scientific View [I], BHJ 88, 1999, 172-177

Cornelia Richardson-Boedler, Doctrine of Signatures: a Historical, Philosophical and Scientific View [II], BHJ 89, 2000, 26-28

Guenter B Risse, Kant, Schelling and the early search for a philosophical science of medicine in Germany, Jnl of the History of Medicine 27, 1972, 145-158

Arthur K Rogers, A Student’s History of Philosophy, New York: Macmillan, 1960

William G Rothstein, American Physicians in the 19th Century from Sects to Science, Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972

William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, act 2, scene 3

Non Shaw, Bach Flower Remedies a Step-by-Step Guide, Shaftsbury: Element Books, 1998

Sir James Young Simpson, Homeopathy: its Tenets and Tendencies, Theoretical, Theological, and Therapeutical, 3rd ed., Edinburgh: Sutherland and Knox; London: Simpkin, Marshall, 1853

R P Steiner, Folk Medicine, American Chemical Society, Washington, 1986

Owsei Temkin, An Essay on the Usefulness of Medical History for Medicine, Bull. Hist. Med. 19.1, 1946, 9-47

R A van Haselen, The Relationship Between homeopathy and the Dr Bach System of Flower Remedies: a Critical Appraisal, BHJ 88, 1999, 121-127

John Harley Warner, The Therapeutic Perspective Medical Practice, Knowledge and Identity in America 1820-1885, Harvard Univ. Press, USA, 1986

Sir John Weir, The Hahnemann Convalescent Home, Bournemouth, BHJ 20, 1931, 200-201

Charles E Wheeler, Reflections & Recollections, Brit. Homeo. Jnl, 33, 1944, 170-171

Charles E Wheeler Obituary, Brit. Homeo. Jnl 37.1, April 1947, 1-11

H. Wulff, A. Pedersen, R. Rosenberg, Philosophy of Medicine, an Introduction, London: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1986