Tag Archives: Potency

The Single Dose. William Yingling

 

After properly “taking the case”, and the selection of the simillimum, the true Hahnemannian, holds in importance the exhibition of the remedy. Shall the remedy be given, in a single dose or, without reason, in a multitude of repetitions ? That is a most important consideration whether the potency be low or high, as either the high or low potency will cure, or do great injury when improperly administered. Its determination will materially influence the curative action of the remedy- From this reason the question of dose should occupy a higher plane in the minds of all prescribers, and be determined with care and reason.

There is a misapprehension on the part of many regarding the exhibition of single dose. Some suppose it to mean that each individual patient is to receive one, and only dose of the given remedy, and no more. This is erroneous. The single dose does not apply to the case alone, but directly to the prescription. Each prescription is to be of a single dose, unless there are very strong reasons for a repetition arising out of the nature of the acute case, or the similarity of the remedy, which will be but seldom with careful prescribers, and then only until the drug shows an action. If a well selected drug does not show an action within a reasonable time, reason tells us to repeat it. But under such a circumstance the reasoning would be the same as a new prescription, and the repetition upon reason would be the same as a single dose with each prescription. To repeat without reason would be guessing, and hence censurable if not criminal. With but very few patients can the repetition be submitted to their judgements. If you say. Repeat till better, then stop, the patient will reason that if one dose does good, another will do more good, and hence will continue to repeat to the detriment of the case. It is seldom that more than one dose is needed in a single prescription, occasionally two or even three doses may be required to effect the vital force, and make a change in the case. Following this, the next dose may be of an entirely different remedy. To give a remedy when another is indicated may do harm and complicate matters to such an extent that great trouble, even danger to the patient’s life may arise. The only safe plan is to follow the directions of the Master.

This plan is not incompatible with a large practice, as our remedies act for hours and days in acute diseases and for weeks and months in chronic cases. A very critical case necessarily must be seen frequently, and in such a case it would be the height of folly to submit the all-important question of repetition to the judgement and decision of the panic-stricken friends or to the incompetency of the nurse. To return in six or twelve hours would be wiser and safer than to repeat on a guess without reason. In emergency cases, like haemorrhage, convulsions, etc.. the physician is expected to remain till the remedy shows an ameliorative action, and then to see or to hear from the case within a reasonable time.

In chronic cases there is no danger in writing on a single dose, and it frequently requires days, or even weeks before a change may be noticed ; but when undisturbed, always followed by a happy action of the true remedy. In chronic cases the skill of the physician is gauged to a very large extent by his ability to intelligently wait on the action of the remedy. He must know the nature of the disease and the indications of the favorable action of his remedy. If the disease goes from within outward, from above downward, from the more important to the less important organs, he may rest assured that his remedy is favorably acting and that a repetition of the dose is not called for.

There are persons so constituted as to be uninfluenced by a single dose of remedy, but I feel free to say that the vast majority of such uninfluenced cases arise from a wrong selection of the remedy. It is plain to be seen that a similar remedy will require more repetition than the simillimum. There may be several similar remedies to a given case, but there can be but one simillimum. The similar will lack something, thus not striking the vital force properly and requiring a repetition and more time to effect a cure.

The simillimum exactly fits the case, its action goes right to the centre of the mark, and the cure is the most speedy, pleasant and effective. The simillimum seldom needs repetition ; the similar most always needs it, and the farther it is from the one simillimum the more need there will be for the repetition. Either may cure ; only the simillimum is sure of a cure in all curable cases. I believe that if a simillimum to the entire state of the patient is found, one dose of a high potency is sufficient, either in chronic or acute cases’, but when the medicine does not fully correspond as may often happen through the deficiencies of even our large Materia Medica, the dose may have to be repeated, the want of a complete similarity hindering the curative action of the drug, and in these cases the more acute the disease the more frequent must be the repetition, because the action of the drug then becomes more speedily exhausted, unless it is sufficiently homoeopathic to subdue the disease at once. This view is in accordance with the teaching of Hahnemann. One thing is certain, that when the curative effect has set in we should let the medicine act undisturbed till its effect has entirely ceased.

Again, in certain cases a frequent repetition may be needed to effect a cure. This applies to those cases where several doses have been given of the same remedy ; the symptoms remaining the same ; each dose has had a favorable result, but with a lessening effect. Then a lower potency should be given in water and frequently repeated till a very decided result has been obtained. Or as Dr. Ad. Lippe remarks, “If a dose administered has acted for a long time, in acute diseases, for days in chronic diseases for weeks or months, we may reasonably judge that it would be best to again administer one more single dose ; but if the action of the dose lasted only a comparatively short time, has been rapidly exhausted, especially in acute diseases, and a repetition appears still advisable, then it would almost always be better to dissolve a single dose of the remedy now to be repeated in some few ounces of water and continue its administration in broken doses till it becomes evident that the action of the dose in this manner administered has fully set in, and the symptoms for which it was given are yielding to it, becoming lessened in every respect. The greatest care should be taken never to repeat the dose, or administer another remedy till the effects of the dose last taken have been exhausted.”

The rule should be to carefully “take the case”, by comparison select the remedy, covering the totality of the symptoms, the simillimum, and then exhibit it in a single dose of some potency whether high or low, according to the faith and practice of the prescriber.

The single dose is no new doctrine, but one as old as the school of Homoeopathy. This may be seen from a careful study of the Organon and other writing of Hahnemann. He says in article 158 of the Organon : “This slight homoeopathic aggravation during the first hours, is quite in order and in case of an acute diseases, generally serves as an excellent indication that it will yield to the very first dose. “Also in his remarks upon article 246 he elaborately elucidates this subject. Among other things he says, “In the former edition of the Organon. I have recommended that a single dose of a well selected Homoeopathic remedy should be allowed to terminate its operation before the same or a new remedy is repeated, a doctrine derived from the same certain experience that the greatest amount of good can scarcely ever be accomplished, particularly in chronic diseases, by a large dose of medicine (a retrogressive measure recently proposed) however well selected, or what amounts to the same thing, by several small doses administered in rapid succession, because a procedure of this kind, will not permit the vital force to undergo imperceptibly the change from the natural disease to the similar drug disease.

On the contrary, it is usually excited to violent repulsive action by one large dose, or by the quick succession of a several smaller doses, so that the reaction of the vital force, in most cases, is anything but beneficial, doing more harm than good. Therefore, while it was impossible to discover a more salutary method than the one proposed by me, it was necessary to obey the philanthropic rule of precaution : “Sinon juvat modo se noceat” in accordance with which maxim, the homoeopathic physician considering human welfare to be his highest aim, was to administer but one most minute dose at a time, of a carefully selected medicine in a case of disease to allow this dose to act upon the patient and to terminate its action. I say most minute, since it holds good, and will continue to hold good as an incontrovertible homoeopathic rule of cure that the best dose of correctly selected medicine will always be the smallest in one of the high potencies for chronic as well as for acute diseases.

“A quick number of small doses, repeated for the same purpose in quick succession will accumulate in the organism till they constitute as it were, one large dose, and will produce the same evil result, except in some rare instances. The vital force, unable to recover during the interval even between small doses, is over tasked and overpowered, incapacitated to begin curative reaction and compelled to continue passively the predominant drug disease forced upon it. This process is similar to that produced by the large and accumulating allopathic doses of the drug, resulting in protracted injury to the patient, an event we are called upon daily to witness.”

The following letter from Hahnemann to a patient is to be the point. This letter is in the possession of Dr. J. C. Burnett :

“My dear Post Master, … You have done well to inquire of me whether, in case of obvious (striking) amelioration of your salivary fistula, you should nevertheless take a new medicament ? I answer No. Continue so long entirely without medicine, living regularly, until the gland has been again getting worse for seven days. Then only begin with the new medicine.

“It is impossible in the various constitutions of the body to determine how long a given anti-psoric drug may continue to act. This much, however, is certain, that its action lasts as long as it does good, and the disease does not again continuously increase”

Now that you may plainly see that Hahnemann and his coadjutors relied on the single dose, I have every hope that you wilt also put to test Hahnemann’s golden rules and enjoy the best results !

The Danger of Self-Medication

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

.
Indeed, a problem not only in the side effects inherent in allopathic medicine, but also in the development of chronic diseases as specified in paragraph 74 Hahnemann’s Organon 6th edition:
” Among chronic diseases we must still, alas!, reckon those so commonly met with, artificially produced in allopathic treatment by the prolonged use of violent heroic medicines in large and increasing doses…”

In countries like ours, (Mexico) where most of drugs are sold without a medical prescription, it is common to see self-medicated patients due to ignorance or lack of economic resources for getting medical attention. In Mexico, anyone can get medications from simple anti-inflammatory to glucocorticoids (dexamethasone, betamethasone), and even stronger drugs like hormonal and bronchodilators and more.

 

Although in August 2010 a new regulation was issued regarding the sale of  antibiotics, nothing has changed and antibiotics continue to be sold over the counter in  pharmacies. This violation of the law, comes from the excess of graduates of the universities. The proliferation of newly qualified medical doctors and pharmacists in urgent need of employment and the greed of the Pharmacies putting profit before anything else compounds the issue.

Thus, people can get an antibiotic, whatever it is, and in large quantities, which will be justified from a pre-signed prescription by a doctor even if it does not have a strictly medical indication for its administration. To speak about usurpers who practice the medical profession without a license or through a false entitlement would be a separated issue.

I recall the case of a mother who gave a 8mg vial of dexamethasone to her 3 year old daughter every time she got a cough because the mother noticed that the “cure” came in a few minutes, however, the cough came back every 7 or 14 days, so that was the interval in which it was given such a drug, only God knows since how long. One could see on the little girl her overweight, prone to infections (immunosuppression produced by steroids), full moon face.

Thereby, it is not uncommon to see patients with multiple side effects as in this case of Cushing syndrome, but also by other medications: hemolytic-uremic syndrome by antibiotics, alterations of liver, intestinal bleeding (especially with anti-inflammatory), bowel ulcers, hypertension, diabetes secondary,  aplastic anemia, disulfiram effect, coagulation problems, etc. Not forgetting that many of adverse reactions are on an irreversible character, which means, that are permanent.

I wonder where WHO and health authorities are in countries where this problem occurs.

Please, feel free to write your comment on this page. All are welcome.

Interview

By Priscilla Rowbottom, FHom, DHom, XHom, PQRS (Dip) (Lic), HomQuack

As part of my mission to educate and inform, I tried to reach Dr Gary Weaver for interview.

He was very genial when first approached, and agreed to do the interview.  However, when we began, and I asked him “what message would you like to give our listeners?”, his terse response was “go away”.

“Is that me, or your message to the listeners?”

Dr Weaver, erudite as always, muttered “just a bunch of pillocks, all of yer…”, and hung up.

After doing some research, I was extremely impressed to discover that the rumours were true.  Dr Weaver is currently translating Boeninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book into ancient Scandinavian slang – and was wittily testing the waters, as it were, by use of the word relating to the section on male genitalia…

Although Dr Weaver is a known recluse, I persisted in my attempts to interview him.  After all, I felt, the public should know.   In the light of subsequent events, perhaps I should have concluded that the public would be better served by the old adage, so frequently borne out these days, that “ignorance is bliss”.

Several restraining orders later, I achieved my goal.  Dr Gary Weaver was waiting to be interviewed.  I knew he would not hang up this time.  This perhaps was because of the two thugs I had hired, disguised as two old ladies, who were holding him down.

“So Dr Weaver,” I asked, “can you tell us something about your background?”

“No,” he replied, succinct as ever.  Dr Weaver always believed in the importance of brevity as the art of wit, together with a firm understanding of the value of the diluted and potentized remark.  A truly impressive icon in modern-day homoeopathy.

“And,” I moved on swiftly, “what do you think of homeopaths today?”

At this point, Dr Weaver truly amazed me with his learning and erudition.  I was not aware that he had such knowledge.  For about 10 minutes he regaled us with his in depth knowledge of the Therapeutic Pocket Book sections and rubrics relating to Female Genitalia, Male Genitalia, and Rectum, Stool.  In several languages too.  He also discussed his belief in the importance of teaching surgery through experiental means, as he repeated how crucial it was to “cut them a new one”.

I was overjoyed at Dr Weaver’s responsiveness, at his willingness to share his deepest beliefs and extensive knowledge with our listeners.  I also was informed that my thugs were currently sitting on him, which probably accounted for the somewhat muffled quality of the call.   So I asked the following question – which in retrospect I realize I should have thought through in more depth.

“Dr Weaver,” I began, “we all know that homoeopathy as taught by Hahnemann had its limits.”  At this point I heard strange growlings over the microphone, but tragically assumed it was the dog.  “As I was saying,” I continued, “I’m sure you recognize the tremendous improvements modern homoeopaths have instituted which go far beyond Hahnemann, in their use of sensation methods, periodic tables, advanced transmission methods such as name on paper and hair transmission…”

At this point, I could no longer continue.  The sound was completely broken up with strange yelps, inhuman screeching, and the very human shrieks of my two thugs, who apparently were being tossed bodily into a shallow swimming pool, together with the microphone, which at that point went dead.

Since I was recording this interview at a safe distance (two continents away), I am happy to reassure our readers that I was not harmed.  But I did have to wait until the news networks took over.

“Strange lights appear over building in Florida” the news program anchor announced.  “As a crowd formed in the streets outside, smoke was seen issuing from the one storey building.  People gazed, hoping for a sighting of a UFO coming down, but were treated to the sight of Dr Gary Weaver, DO, Sir, notorious homeopath and erstwhile unlicensed surgeon of proctology, going up.  In a jet of flame, smoke billowing all around him, accompanied by some odd celestial music distinctly reminiscent of 10CC’s classic “Dreadlock Holiday”, Dr Gary Weaver is the first human being to launch, independently, into outer space.  The Pentagon is working on ways to point him at Iran.”

I was strangely moved by this report.  My first thought and emotion was sadness at how, if he was unable to jet back, entire sections of repertory and materia medica relating to female and male genitalia, together with rectum, stool, would be lost to homoeopathy forever.  My second thought, however, was that since there is no need any more to repertorize due to diligent homoeopaths who have developed meditative, dream, sensation, elemental, and agoraphobic methods for determining prescriptions – it would be no great loss.

At that point, however, realization dawned.  If he ever returned, Dr. Weaver, in his self-launch demonstrating his personal willingness for self-sacrifice in the cause of homoeopathy,  was offering homoeopaths the greatest gift since the first coming of Samuel Hahnemann – a proving of Ballistichomeopath (BallsH) 1000000000M.  Since this remedy, although as yet unproven, is in tremendous demand these days, Dr Weaver (or his ashes) is to be highly commended for his services to homoeopathy.  Until his whereabouts are known, we invite all participants to join us in a memorial service via hair transmission.

IN SEARCH OF CERTAINTY AND SIMPLICITY

Jacqualine Dimitriadis*

D.Nutr., Gr.D.Hom(syd), GHISyd

Of recent times homœopathic teaching and practice worldwide have become increasingly devoid of logic in approach and therefore certainty in outcome. The resulting wide-spread lack of confidence prevalent in our chosen field is reflected in the lack of students undertaking the study of Homœopathy, a decline in new graduates commencing homœopathic practice, and in a reduced number of patients seeking treatment. A world-wide crisis is looming and unless a change comes Homœopathy is headed on a path of self destruction.

To think that as long ago as in 1797 Hahnemann wrote an essay titled Are the Obstacles to Certainty and Simplicity in Practical Medicine Insurmountable? where in he expressed his discontent with the situation at that time. [1]

I myself felt external hindrances to our art more than I could have wished; they continually beset my sphere of action; and I, too, long considered them insurmountable, and almost made up my mind to despair, and to esteem my profession as but the sport of inevitable accident and insuperable obstacles, when the thought arose in me, ‘are not we physicians partly to blame for the complexity and the uncertainty of our art?’

Hahnemann resolved this unpredictability and lack of certainty by constructing a system which enables us to successfully treat any possible combination of disease symptoms with confidence and surety. Now, two hundred years on, the so called guru’s of progress and advancement in thinking have reduced his simple and straight forward approach to an unrecognisable complexity of ideas and theories (yet presented as fact), which in no way make our task of prescribing any simpler or more accurate. Such theorising was repeatedly warned against by Hahnemann and by others before and since. For example the following quotation comes from Thomas Sydenham (Pechey, 1734), yet is so equally applicable to the current situation! [2]

For it can Scarce be imagined how many errors have been occasioned by an hypothesis, when writers, … have assigned such phænomena for diseases as are nowhere to be found but in their own brains…. So that the Art which is now excercised, contrived by men given to quaint words, is rather the art of talking than of Healing.

Hahnemann warns us against attributing healing properties to substances based on their physical properties and appearance alone. In 1817 he writes: [3]

I shall spare the ordinary medical school the humiliation of reminding it of the folly of those ancient physicians who, determining the medicinal power of crude drugs from their signature, that is, from their colour and form, gave the testicle-shaped Orchitis-root in order to restore manly vigour; the phallus impudicus,  to strengthen weak erections; ascribed to the yellow tumeric the power of curing jaundice, and considered hypericum perforatum, whose yellow flowers on being crushed yield a red juice (St John’s blood) useful in hæmorrhages and wounds, &c.; but I shall refrain from taunting the physicians of the present day with these absurdities, although traces of them are to be met with in the most modern treatises on materia medica.

Hahnemann was speaking of the doctrine of signatures, a method popular for choosing a medicine at the time. He would be truly shocked to discover that many renowned ‘teachers’ of Homœopathy, today, are still basing their whole method of remedy choice on these out-dated ideas. We hear of patients being prescribed mouse because they appear and act as timidly as a mouse, or eagle because they dream of soaring high in the sky, or dog’s milk because they happen to say that they ‘feel like a bitch,’ or lobster because they go bright red in the sun.

Other recent new school approaches involve grouping medicines and patients into categories in an attempt to make the job of remedy selection an easier one, once again making assumptions for example that all metallic substances or all plant medicines (so called kingdom prescribing) have a similar sphere of action, which can be relied upon as a basis for prescribing. About this Hahnemann also has something to say: [4]

Perhaps, however, the botanical affinity may allow us to infer a similarity of action? This is far from being the case, as there are many examples of opposite, or at least very different powers, in one and the same family of plants, and that in most of them. We shall take as our basis the most perfect natural system, that of Murray.

In the family of the coniferæ, the inner bark of the fir-tree (pinus sylvestris) gives to the inhabitants of the northern regions a kind of bread, whereas the bark of the yew tree (taxus baccifera) gives-death …

Hahnemann in this essay gives two pages of examples of plants grouped in the same botanical family due to outward appearance though having contrasting actions when consumed. He goes on to sum up the fallacy of this approach by saying: [5]

I am far from denying, however, the many important hints the natural system may afford to the philosophical student of the material medica and to him who feels it his duty to discover new medicinal agents; but these hints can only help to confirm and serve as commentary to facts already known, or in case of untried plants they may give rise to hypothetical conjectures, which are, however, far from approaching even to probability.

But how can a perfect similarity of action be expected amongst groups of plants, which are only arranged in the so called natural system, on account of often slight external similarity, when even plants that are much more nearly connected, plants of one and the same genus, are sometimes so different in their medicinal effects.

… be the number of genera ever so many whose species resemble each other very much in their effects, the lesser number of very differently acting species should make us distrustful of this mode of drawing inferences, since we have not here to do with mechanical experiments, but that most important and difficult concern of mankind – health …

Nothing remains but to experiment on the human body.

We so often hear from these modern day ‘masters’ that Hahnemann’s methods are outdated, yet, we can see that the approach that many of them are taking actually pre-date those of Hahnemann. In an attempt to be clever and original they are actually going backward in time and experimenting with ideas which have failed long ago. If they were to read Hahnemann they would discover he himself warned against these practices. [6]

This improved healing art, i.e., the homœopathic, draws not its knowledge from those impure sources of the materia medica hitherto in use, pursues not that antiquated, dreamy, false path we have just pointed out, but follows the way consonant with nature. It administers no medicine to combat the diseases of mankind before testing their pure effects; that is, observing what changes they can produce in the health of a healthy man-this is pure materia medica.

Hahnemann also warned against making speculations on medicinal action based purely on the chemistry of a substance. Yet today we see teachers instructing materia medica study based on a metals position on the periodic table, and the subsequent assumed relationships held with those in close proximity.  Hahnemann writes: [7]

Chemistry, also, has taken upon itself to disclose a source as which the general therapeutic properties of drugs are to be ascertained…

Attempts were made a century ago by Geoffrey, but still more frequent have such attempts been made since medicine became an art, to discover, by means of chemistry, the properties of remedies which could not be known in any other way.

I shall say nothing about the merely theoretical fallacies of Baume, Steffens, and Burdach, whereby the medicinal properties of medicines were arbitrarily declared to reside in their gaseous and certain other chemical constituents alone, and at the same time it was assumed without the slightest grounds, on mere conjecture, that these hypothetical elementary constituents possessed certain medicinal powers; so that it was really amusing to see the facility and rapidity with which these gentlemen could create the medicinal properties of every remedy out of nothing.

Further to the above, I must specifically mention the currently popular teachings confusing the proper provings of medicines (knowledge of medicinal action) with the known composition and qualities of the metals and their relationships to each other, on the periodic table of the elements. The paragraph below from an unknown author on wikipedia summarises the work of Jan Scholten on this subject:

Scholten’s first book, Homœopathy and Minerals, was published in 1993, and has been translated into 10 languages. In this book, Scholten describes the use of minerals in homeopathy, especially unknown remedies, and introduced a new method of analysis he called group analysis. This, Scholten claimed, makes it possible to predict the “homeopathic pictures” of unknown remedies, and to handle the huge amount of information in homeopathy; as the “essential characteristics of a group of remedies” with the same element are being extracted.

The above summary has four direct inconsistencies to real knowledge of material medica.

  1. Firstly, unknown remedies cannot be described as homœopathic until properly proved.
  2. Group analysis is unacceptable due to its suggestive and non-scientific nature.
  3. There is no such thing as a homœopathic picture, but only proving/disease symptoms.
  4. Grouping medicines and searching for essential characteristics of a group of medicines is of no assistance and is moreover misleading. The true aim should be to find the individualising and unique characteristic of each medicine.

Scholten continues with his theorising attributing each row of the periodic table with a so called “theme of life.” These include unborn, individuality, family and relations, work, creativity, leadership/autonomy retirement and intuition. According to Scholten, an open spiral of chemical elements shows the development of “self awareness.”

Any provings which may have been carried out at all on these “unknown remedies” have been done so with an already strongly held bias and expectation based on the preconceived theories. The “theme of life” groupings are nothing but philosophical speculation which bears no relationship to real homœopathic prescribing. Comparisons between various remedies should only be made after the thorough proving of each substance has been completed.

Theorising on medicinal capabilities, creating complex imaginary systems and relationships between substances and then going even further into fantastical realms and manufacturing deep psychological analyses have no place in science, and therefore not in Homœopathy.   Nothing certain or helpful, for the true homœopathic prescriber, can be gained from this approach. Only confusion and failure will result for the naive and poorly educated beginner who tries to replicate these teachings.

The concept of Constitutional types in Homœopathy, along with an over emphasis on mental and emotional characteristics have caused unending confusion amongst students and teachers alike. The constitution of a person is a complex combination of inherited characteristics and environmental exposures and experiences over a person’s lifetime. The combination of all these factors leads to an endless number of possible outcomes that will never fit neatly and cleanly into the provings of any one medicine.  Secondly, many of the ideas regarding the constitutional type (physical build, preferences in pastimes, colours, imaginations, etc. etc) have never been, and can never be, proved by a medicine. The argument put forward here being that certain physical or emotional types are more likely to require a particular medicine. Sometimes we find truth in this but it can also lead us off the correct path by making quick assumptions on first seeing the patient, even before firstly carefully taking down their actual symptoms. To think this way will lead in many cases to failure to prescribe the correct medicine for the patient’s disease; after all it is the patient’s disease we are there to treat and not their physique or personality. To reiterate what Hahnemann has to say on this subject. [8]

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 and represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

James Tyler Kent, one of the first propagators of this type of approach, himself warns against adopting this method alone in the preface to his Lectures on Materia Medica in the preface to the book. He stresses this should only be used to assist the memory in learning, to more easily identify the medicine. [9]

The continuous study of the Materia Medica by the aid of a full repertory for comparison is the only means of continuing in a good working knowledge… To learn the Materia Medica, one must master Hahnemann’s Organon, after Organon, the symptomatology, and a full repertory must be the constant reference books, if careful homœopathic prescribing is to be attained and maintained.

We currently live in an age of distraction and we are all looking for a quick and easy and entertaining approach to solving our day-to-day problems. We need to remind ourselves constantly that when it comes to our patient’s health there should be no shortcuts. If we expect Homœopathy to work, we have to abide by the definition and guidelines set down for us by its founder. Homœopathy is about studying the provings of our medicines, without the addition of any theories or speculations, matching them to the disease symptoms of our patients in each and every case – similia similibus curantur. This is all that is necessary in order to find certainty and simplicity in prescribing. [10]

“I do not believe that it is the smallness of our knowledge, but only the faulty application of it, that hinders us from approaching, in medical science, nearer to certainty and simplicity.”

 


* Hahnemann Institute Sydney, www.hahnemanninstitute.com


[1] Hahnemann, S.: Lesser Writings, p.308, Are the Obstacles to Certainty and Simplicity in Practical Medicine Insurmountable?

[2] Pechey, John (Tr. of Latin originals):  The Whole works of Thomas Sydenham, Preface to Practice of Physick, 1734.

[3] Hahnemann, op.cit., Examination of the Sources of our Common Materia Medica, p.670

[4] Ibid., Essay on a New Principle for Ascertaining the Curative Power of Drugs, p.255

[5] Ibid., p.257-258

[6] Ibid., Examination of the Sources of our Common Materia Medica, p.694

[7] Ibid., p.673-674

[8] Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine, 6th edition,  Ahp. 6

[9] Kent, James Tyler: Lectures on Materia Medica, Preface to 1st edition

[10] Hahnemann, Lesser Writings, op.cit., Are the Obstacles to Certainty … p.317