Tag Archives: Therapeutic pocket book

Why Hahnemann?

For most people practising homoeopathy, the influence on their case taking and analysis is Kentian. If like me, back in the 80s,a yearly review of my patients showed less than a 45% cure rate which motivated me to return to the writings of Hahnemann and evaluate where I was going wrong.

What I learned-Kent was not a Hahnemannian.


I then spent the next two years ‘unlearning Kent and re-establishing the correct case taking and evaluation techniques as defined by Hahnemann. My clinical cure rate went up to 80% as I applied Hahnemann’s methodology. Persons who attend the 4-day training for inclusion on the IHM Register also have high rates of success with utilising Hahnemann’s methodology and using the Therapeutic Pocket Book in daily practice.

Homoeopathy is a very forgiving therapy. A remedy that produces similar symptoms to the patient, will generally kick a curative response. However, when a patient requires a remedy to tackle the central disease state, aphorism 153 is the answer.

§ 153 Sixth Edition
In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms1 of the case of the 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.

For a homoeopath, it is vital that they understand the meaning of the aphorism above. It is the cornerstone of finding the KEY symptoms for prescribing and matching with a correct remedy.

Kent, ignoring Hahnemann, emphasised the mental symptoms as the key. Nowhere does Hahnemann express the thought that the mind is the primary consideration, EXCEPT in mental diseases. Aph 210-220. He did say an altered disposition is always considered………..but it would have to be in line with aphorism 153 to be useful.

We teach how to isolate the prescribing symptoms to find the expression disease as per all the instruction and clues given by Hahnemann and Boenninghausen.

Once a practitioner is on the right track, everyone benefits.


Is there room for us?

I’m sat on the IHM boat in Hemel Hemsted, currently with either battery or inverter issues…. either way is a fistful of money to fix. Things happen.

Watching the events of the last few months, and how the countries are pushing towards vaccines as the answer, and how the populace are either worried to distraction or are against the lockdowns ………. I’m seeing how homoeopathy is being denigrated and indeed being removed by the fact-checkers on google and Facebook and other sites. We seem to be sidelined in favour of ‘proper treatment’.

Well, I worked out a prophylactic remedy a few months ago, and of the 600 plus people  that I and other members of the IMH have given in 4 countries…. not a single case…

Guillermo Zamora and I have treated individuals with COVID sx to a good resolution………but who is listening…………?

The world is changing. Nothing will ever be the same. WE need to accept and be prepared to change how we do things and still be homoeopaths in mind and action. We need to make the room for us.

We at the IHM do not make claims to ‘cure’ COVID or offer alternative vaccines. We treat each case individually as per our Hahnemann protocols and will give the prophylactic to be taken once a week or every two weeks. Some give daily, my experience with taking more than once a week was a massive proving and difficulties until it wore off…So I advocate once a week simply because, in truth, I don’t know how long the protection lasts……. I know that weekly or even 2 weekly seems to hold.

We have to stand firm on the principles and be sure we know what we are prescribing for, the essential symptoms that need treating…… not just the remedy with the most symptoms covered.

The IHM uses the TPB of Boenninghausen simply because it follows the Hahnemannian protocols, and will work in 98% of cases both acute and chronic. We do not discount the use of other well-proved remedies and advocate a thorough knowledge of them before prescribing. The essence of using the TPB is a well-taken case and extracting the symptoms according to aphorism 153.

Every disease has a centre. The disease symptoms are known, and the patient exhibits symptoms ‘peculiar’ to the patient its either intensity or prominence. These all may have other symptoms not noted as pertaining to the disease state.

WE have to find these symptoms out of the collection of altered sensations that the patient feels. We have to remember that many symptoms are the result of the causative condition and therefore NOT prescribing symptoms per se.

Since 2016We have conducted a 4-day intensive seminar for application to become a member of the IHM. The students are all long time homoeopaths who increased their knowledge base by learning the Boenninghausen method and tidying up the loose ends that were muddied by Kent and others.  The original venue was at our clinic in Seville Spain and has now relocated to The London area on our IHM Widebeam vessel.

We will offer a free bedroom aboard the vessel for individual applicants, and will just ask for a contribution toward food. The fee for the 4 days intensive will remain at the same cost as from 2016. It will be Sterling £900.

We will be fitting out boat for teaching in the next weeks, and be ready for the new year……..to get going government permitting. We already (with the help of members Abdul Malik and Imran Khan) are putting together a clinic for when we are ready to start…

The IHM has a 4 day training opportunity, starting in 2021. We dont claim to have all the answers, but we do feel we can teach the Hahnemanninan methodology in case taking.

What we teach:

  • The rationale of homoeopathic medicine and the use of the Therapeutic Pocket Book in everyday casework.
  • The examination of the patient according to defined parameters of eliciting prescribing symptoms without the filter of all the variants of non-Hahnemann practices as taught by teachers today.
  • An in depth look at the Miasm theory in the light of infection and infectious disease models that are the accepted protocols in modern medicine.
  • Patient management utilising Hahnemannian directives for medicine administration and potency choice, frequency of dose, withdrawal of repetition of medicine on well-indicated grounds, observation of medicinal action and when to change the medicine.
  • Use of LM or Q potencies.
  • Chronic and acute prescribing and when to finish prescribing.
  • In depth explanation and use of the Therapeutic Pocket Book. The T.P.B. was devised by Boenninghausen as a synthetic approach approximating Hahnemanns thoughts on case analysis so as to find a close similimum by extracting the correct proving symptoms that match the disease state.
  • How to understand the meaning of rubrics via the patient’s symptoms.
  • Lots of case examples and analysis by Gary Weaver.
  • Help in re-examining some of the students’ intractable cases.

Starting September 2015

The Therapeutic Pocket Book part 2/2.

So, why the Therapeutic Pocket Book as opposed to any other repertory?

Gary Weaver:

“………30 some years in homeopathic practice and case analysis, with 10 of those in serious research of Hahnemanns writings and casetaking, led me to the conclusion that most modern repertories have serious flaws both in content and methodology of use. Starting with Kents Repertory, it becomes apparent that it is a compilation of 5 other repertories, and consequently suffers from the inclusion of cross over rubrics, merged rubrics, different authors experience with remedies therefore different value judgements on numerical attribution of evaluation, and just plain wrong inclusion of remedies. As most modern repertories are based on Kent, it soon becomes very apparent that the whole foundation of the clinical indications for prescribing can be a 50/50 chance of getting to the right medicine.

This is not good enough. Can a person use Kent and get to a good prescription? yes.. but only if they know which rubrics to use and why use them as opposed to others. I discovered this by accident over 20 years ago whilst searching for a method in repertorisation to tighten up on my prescribing. What I did was just use the GENERAL rubrics instead of specifics. (Later I would find that the GENERAL rubrics were actually culled from Boenninghausens T.P.B. !)

In reading through original documents and english translations of Hahnemann, I came to the understanding that modern homoeopathy is but a bastardized version of Hahnemanns findings. So much so that Kent, through his perhaps well meaning but ultimately destructive input of religious Swedenborgian overlay of thinking, changed the whole methodology and comprehension of disease and treatment thereof into a spiritual exercise rather than a medical practice along sound and rational lines. The direction Kent gave for taking a case, are diametrically opposed to Hahnemanns instructions in his manual, the Organon.

Hahnemann realised at some point that a memory aid would be useful to allow a quick guide to the Materia Medica to shortcut the tedious work of looking through remedy after remedy for the right symptom, but his attempts to do so were not successful.

Boenninghausen entered into Hahnemanns life, and became a good student of the methodology. Boenninghausen listened and read and communicated with Hahnemann, and learned the discipline well. Hahnemann emphasised that knowledge of the Materia Medica was all important, and continually demonstrated the method of collecting symptoms from the patient so as to form a picture of the individual disease state, and then find the corresponding essential symptoms in the Materia Medica.

As a lawyer and professional Botanist, Boenninghausens abilities for accurate collation of details were suited for the tedious task of making a collection of rubrics to indicate which medicines had the symptom contained. However, as the books grew in size almost rivaling the Materia Medica he was trying to abbreviate, he realised an individual symptom naming procedure was not going to be useful in practical terms.

After thinking about it for a couple of years, Boenninghausen decided that  he would take symptoms and split them into component parts and assign them individually to the new style memory aid he was creating. The intent was that if a patient had a symptom that was observed, and the parts of the symptom were recombined, it would indicate the correct remedy or remedies for consideration. In trialling this method it worked very well. He also observed that sometimes a remedy would be indicated that did NOT have the particular symptoms contained in its provings but……..it cured the patient. He noted that the remedy did have the NATURE of the symptoms, but perhaps the location of the symptom was not the same as where the suffering patient expressed their disorder.

In this way, The TPB became able to synthesise the information gathered from the patient, and be matched with a medicine that produced a similar effect, but extracted from the sensation and the modalities and associated symptoms that had not been considered before in treating a particular condition. In this way, Boenninghausen, through the repertorial work, managed to demonstrate practically the aphorism:

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

 Dr. von Bonninghausen, by the publication of the characteristic symptoms of homoeopathic medicines and his repertory has rendered a great service to homoeopathy as well as Dr. J.H.G. Jahr in his handbook of principal symptoms.

This aphorism is discussed fully in the I.H.M. seminars as it is a keystone to making a correct prescription in every case.

This repertorial system was the mainstay of homoeopathic work until Kent produced his own repertory. Kent wrote that he could not use the Therapeutic Pocket Book. I have given consideration to this statement, and have concluded that he could not use the book simply because he could NOT follow Hahnemanns directions in case taking as it differed from his own religiously overlaid comprehension of man sickness and spirit.

 It did not stop him from using the contents of the Therapeutic Pocket Book within his own repertory. Sadly, the combination of several repertorial works, lost any useable methodology. What was created was a complete mix of several authors work, and a not too reliable inclusion of over 600 remedies for symptoms. Kents repertory lost cohesion and flow which was apparent in the individual authors repertories, but disappeared in this work.

If a foundation is weak or unstable, then the product built on that surface will always be suspect. In this modern age we have many ‘new repertorial works’ but sadly ALL based on Kent. In reading them, all I see is symptom after symptom plus extra remedies (many unproven) added with NO checking done with the Materia Medica to see if the symptom is accurate.

Homoeopathy is not about constant additions. It is about find a medicine that is similar to the symptoms produced in sickness in an individual. The T.P.B. has 125 medicines only. Many cry out that it is not enough!. I would say that those complaining do not KNOW what those 125 medicines can do because they simply do not know the scope or the breadth of action of each one of those medicines because they have NOT READ THE MATERICA MEDICA to see! What we have in the T.P.B. is the most accurate indication for usage of medicines in a given set of symptoms every time. I prefer that for my patients.

Vladimir and myself, did not spend the time and research on the Therapeutic Pocket with the idea for commercialising it. We did it for us. As we became convinced of the efficacy of its contents, we included it in the OpenRep SYNOPSIS program as the most useful repertory for patient management ever. Our team, comprising of Drs, Guillermo Zamora, Marco Colla, Vera Resnick, Vladimir Polony, Isidre Lara and Gary Weaver have translated from the original German into English, Hebrew, Italian and Spanish. We are working on Marathi and other languages.”

Hahnemanns rationale for viewing disease (Background thoughts to the Mallorca Seminar)

m-114-finca_gr16The human organism is a combination based on thought ability living matter. It is complex in its constitution and diverse in its manifestations which is the result of the mutually interacting forces—chemico-physical, vital and mental working in and through the organism.

“What innumerable unknown forces and their laws may there be in operation in the functions of the living organs of which we can form no conception and for ascertaining which we should require many more senses than we have, and these endowed with infinite delicacy”!—asserts Hahnemann.

The human organism presents two aspects—inward and outward. The former is invisible or imperceptible whereas the latter is visible or perceptible to our senses. Though the invisible morbid alteration in the interior and the alter­ation in the health perceptible to our senses (totality of symp­toms) together constitute what we term disease, the totality of symptoms is the only side of the disease turned towards us, this alone is it that is perceptible to us, and is the chief thing that we can know respecting the disease and that we need to know to cure the disease.

Thus the totality of symptoms signify much more to Hahnemann than what they appear to the ortho­dox school of medicine. The symptom totality cognizable to our senses thus constitutes the outwardly reflected picture or image of the internal essence of the disease. These symp­toms are either expressed by the patient himself or observed by the outsiders as sensational, functional and structural changes of the human organism.

In so far as our observations are accurate and complete, our mental associations of symp­toms of diverse kinds and grades strictly logical, our mental representation of the disease picture is the closest approxi­mation to the factual reality. Thus empirical truth is also a truth of certain order and this truth can claim as much reality as any other scientific truth if it is based on correct observation, proper experimentation and complete veri­fication through deductive and inductive methods of logical reasoning.

hahnemann111Hahnemann takes his stand on this point of view. He built up a science of semiology which would not admit any speculative hypotheses, wrong inferences or assump­tions of half-truths. Facts, to him, constitute the whole truth and not the theories which attempt to explain, interpret or correlate fact-sections which supply the bricks for cons­tructing the different sciences of physiology, pathology, anatomy etc. Thus symptoms are the language and the only language of diseases; and symptoms are the language and the only language of drug-actions on the human organism. So Hahnemann did not attempt to unravel the mysteries of drug-actions or unfold the physiological effects that each drug might be construed to have upon the human system. He saw only the symptoms and to him these were all that were necessary for a thorough study of the drug-pathogenesis.

Hahnemann’s concept of Illness. (Background thinking for the Mallorca Seminar)

palma roomHahnemann’s concept of Illness

(Click here for details of the Mallorca Seminar)

Hahnemann believed that the signs and symptoms of a case of illness represented an attempt by the body to heal itself. According to this view, the signs and symptoms do not represent the illness, but rather the reaction of the person to his illness. The illness and the reaction to illness are separate. Therefore Hahnemann reasoned that physician should administer that medicine to the patient which produced in the healthy signs and symptoms similar to those of the patient. In this manner the natural attempt of the body to heal itself would be re­inforced, rather than neutralised or interfered with. Hahne­mann called this treatment of illness with medicines which produced in the healthy symptoms similar to those of the ill>Homoeopathy (Homois: Similar; Pathos: suffering).

Nature of Cure in illness

If an ill person receives no treatment, he either dies, remains chronically ill or recovers. If he recovers, his pattern of re­covery is like that of all sick persons and separate from his particular disease. As people become ill, old symptoms of previous illness often reappear. The symptoms move from non-vital organs, like the nose and throat, to more vital organs, like the kidneys and lungs. Then there is a period of crisis. Following this crisis, one by one and in reverse order of their appearance, the symptoms move from vital to less vital organs until the patient is well again. This natural response is called auto therapy.

Under homoeopathic treatment an identical response usually follows, rather than the abrupt disappearance of symptoms or the introduction of new symptoms which often follows other types of treatment.

Homoeopathy, from its inception has been based on an inclusive, descriptive attitude towards the patient and the medicine and the response of the patient is equally inclusive in relation to the natural course his illness would have taken without treatment. After he has made his initial, descriptive inclusive analysis of the patient and the medicine, the homoeopathic physician may then indulge in analytic specula­tion. Throughout the 19th century until the present time the majority of scientists have been analytically oriented after accepting as relevant only the information which fits within their particular scheme. In contrast to this Hahnemannian approach to science was pre-Newtonian. It was the same, non-mechanical, descriptive manner in which Cuvier described the botanical kingdom or Dana, the mineralogical world. Or at the other end of the time-scale the same manner in which the present-day physicists are following up Anderson’s discovery in 1938 of sub-nuclear particles and of the fourth great revolution in physics of the world of sub-nuclear energies.

An ultra-mechanistic view-point is characterised by the usual mechanistic concepts, and in addition, it also includes at least the acceptance of a causal, unpredictable, unstable phenomena whose wholes are greater than the sum of their parts. The observer must attempt to be completely inclusive and unbiased in his approach to a field of interest. He must accept the totality of the relationships that make it up. This total approach is called “Holism”. As a result of a total or holistic view of all the phenomena in a field, certain data may be found to co-exist with each other. Jung calls the temporal co-existence “synchronicity”.

Let us now consider the application of this ultra-mechanistic view point in the field of modern physics:

The skeleton of the physical universe in the 19th century was considered to consist of six unrelated functions, viz., 1. Space; 2. Time; 3. Matter; 4. Energy; 5. Gravity; 6. Inertia.

Over a period of 50 years Einstein gradually related each of these functions with each other by means of ingeniously derived formula e.g.,

 (a)      Integration of space and time in his conception of fourth dimension.

 (b)      Matter and Energy are interchangeable as evident by the equation: Energy =mass x velocity of light squared (by application of Planck’s Quantum Theory to the transmission of light).

(c)   In Einstein’s special Theory of Relativity he showed that space-time-energy and Matter are interchangeable, e.g., Mass of a body is a function of its motion. At the speed of light a body would have no weight at all. .

[d] In his gravitational field physics theory Einstein showed that all matter is surrounded by a gravitational field and that inertia is a function of this field. From this it follows that the space is curved, since matter travels in response to this curved field pattern.

(e) Shortly before his death Einstein announced his unified field theory in which he attempted to unite all six com­ponents of our universe in one continuum.

The new physics is concerned with specific, discontinuous energies which are basically uncertain and within certain relative areas are woven together in an acausal, unpredictable manner throughout a space-time-matter-energy-gravity-intertia continuum. It views the universe in an ultra-mechanistic, holistic, descriptive manner.

Homoeopathy is also concerned with the specific, discon­tinuous action of dynamized sub-atomic energies whose action is uncertain and statistical rather than analytic.

The homoeopathic approach to the patient and medicine is descriptively inclusive and holistic.

In future, homoeopathy may take its place as a pioneer approach in medicine toward a therapeutic psycho-somatic synthesis.


Aphorism 153. The Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann.

sh§ 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 similarity to a  Medicinal  agent that has the power to cause similar symptoms.

The the word “Peculiar”  is one of those words, which has been taken out of context and lost the 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 patients 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 symptom 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 does not imply the symptoms are strange or rare, it implies the characteristics of their combination are rarely found except in few medicines.

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

We 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, or 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 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 patients disease is 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, 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  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.


A case of infection

Young female patient presented with left index finger very swollen, with localised redness and most of the swelling at side of finger. Examination showed entry wound and lodgement of a piece of wood from a few days earlier.

There was sponginess of the tissue surrounding the site with pus of a whitish cloudy, slightly thick nature with an unpleasant smell.

It was too painful to work on without anaesthetic, so I decided to give a medicine and wait a short while.

Causation was skin entry via splinter.

The skin was heavily inflamed

discharge was thick, white and odorous


As you can see from the Repertorisation, Silica fitted the presenting symptoms completely. I gave 0/1 repeated every 10 mins for 3 doses.

The pain increased on the 3rd dose. on examination, the swelling had increased around the entrance wound with the pressure internally of the skin showing whiter. I cleaned the area and applied light pressure. The pus exploded into the gauze giving instant relief to the patient, and exposed a piece of the splinter which was deep within. I was able to remove the splinter and clean the wound site. I left it open with sterile dressing.

Patient came the following day, after taking two more doses of Silica. The rapidly healing wound was cleaned and redressed. Patient was instructed to take one dose of Silica a day for 2 days. The next visit, after 5 days showed a 95% healed area and no infection or inflamation

The medicine that came to mind whilst examining the finger was hepar Sulph. Referencing the Materia Medica showed the symptoms produced in the disease state, were not produced in the provings. Only Silica matched the presentation.

How to take a case. General overview. part 2.

So, if you read part 1, the analysis continues. Specifically, the question arises pertaining to the known diagnosis of a named disease, and what place it holds in homoeopathic treatment.

We need to make a mental adjustment when thinking of disease. A ‘disease’ is not a unique entity. It does not exist outside of a living organism. It is a condition, a deviation from a healthy state. Once we comprehend that fact, it allows us to proceed with interpretation and assessment of the individual a lot more comprehensively.

As Stated previously elsewhere, there are known states of disorder which have been classified by symptom exhibition and pathological progression in a known order. These states have occurred, be it a contagion or epidemic, in individuals, albeit from a infecting agent which cause the progression of disorder in the known manner. The organism will exhibit the fundamental reality of altered response and functional changes which can be observed.

In homoeopathic diagnosis, this functional change, according to know pathological progression, according to location and altered responses, is ONE of the diagnosis tools used. Knowledge of progression of a type of disorder is useful to evaluate treatment and give a prognosis of the efficacy of the medicines prescribed. A physician utilising the true Hahnemannian application of therapeutics, will match the individual expression of disease, with an individually required medicine for individual curative purpose. Orthodox medicine will contain its treatment within the parameters of causation and location, ie treat the causative infection and the locale that is affected only. Given that the homoeopathic physician is looking to treat the person suffering under a disease state, it makes it totally imperative that he or she does not get trapped into the nosological form of diagnosis, to the detriment of treating the patient by individualising exhibited symptoms. If we keep the nosological diagnosis firmly in view, but attach a far WIDER significance to it, we can proceed cautiously further in our search for a curative medicine.

Diagnostic issues that face the homoeopath today, are far more complex than naming diseases, and knowledge of the anatomical areas of concern. A homoeopath will have to weigh up carefully and determine what value to place on aetiology and intervening events in the progression of the disorder that has the patient before them today. The physician will have to look past the causation and see what is to be treated RIGHT NOW Regardless of the causation if necessary. The homoeopath will have to take into consideration the reactions to all external stimuli IF there has been changes in reaction since an altered state of health ensued. This is a much widened viewpoint of disease acknowledgement that current medicine allows for.

We cannot ignore pathology. Pathology is a symptom and an observable symptom of part of the disease state. Hence;

  • Pathology indicates what is common to a known disease state.
  • Hence Pathology allows us to see the Patients individual or peculiar symptoms.
  • Pathology allows us to see new symptoms as a curative progression or a known progression of a disease state.
  • Pathology can determine what is treatable and what is not.
Given the last point, it may influence our decision to treat homoeopathically or refer to ancillary treatment protocols if the organism is damaged beyond repair.
It may seem that similar points have been reiterated from the first post in this series. It is the view of the author that this issue of pathology needed to be emphasised in a slightly different way for the benefit of those that didnt grasp it fully. Further articles will look at different subjects.

How to take a case. General overview. part 1.

There are a number of parameters to define prior to comprehending the issues presented in casetaking. Hopefully the notes below will be of some benefit.

What is a Diagnosis?

In orthodox medicine, it is implied that detection of the site and nature of the lesion, with reference to a defined anatomical region, ie location, (internal organs, external organs, tissue, blood etc) , that this is the sole purpose of the investigation to name the disease or disorder. From here on in, an existing treatment regime will be allocated dependent on the name.

In doing so, the orthodox Diagnostic definition leans heavily on predetermined criteria which in itself is subject to negative critical evaluation.

First: it is assumed that the only reality is the Organism itself, and thus all phenomena are functions or effects of altered structures of the body. Further, it is assumed that 3 causal factors are involved in making changes to the organism, bacteria/virus, pathological events and functional events.

Secondly: there is a mechanical viewpoint towards the organism/body/structure that allows for the repair of any structure, organ, lesion by localised treatment, independent of any other system or part of the body. This is the current prevailing view and the reason why specialists exist and confine their area of expertise to one location or system, independent of the rest of the organism.

To a homoeopath, the above criteria for treatment is of little use, save for knowledge of the disease process, rather than the name of the disease. Given that a homoeopath views the organism as an interdependent living singular entity, intertwined with each system, and reliant on the whole, it does not help too much in forming a diagnosis for the real illness the patient is suffering, albeit not one that has a clinical name or observed pathology.

So what is the basis for a homoeopathic investigation to make a diagnosis?

Primarily, it is an evaluation of symptoms present in this individual Organism, that reflect the internal disorder, and express the nature of the disease. This is the MOST important part of casetaking and the sole pointer towards a remedial treatment plan that will cure the patient. The nature of the diagnosis method is purely clinical. Evaluation of the symptoms that are present in the disease state, will lead to a match with a medicine that has been clinically tested and found to produce similar symptoms. Is a pathological diagnosis in homoeopathy necessary? Yes it is.

A pathological investigation is necessary to discover as much information as possible regarding what is actually occurring within the body. What processes are happening, what organs are involved and what damage has ensued. This information will inform as to supportive treatments, ie diet, surgery or replacement. It is the homoeopaths knowledge of single medicine action on particular organs or disease states, that may aid in the selection of remedies where interaction between the patient and physician is not available or if individualising pertinent symptoms cannot be elicited during case taking.

Homoeopathic evaluation, will where required, look at an aetological connection. Combined with clinical observations, the precipitating factor or type of onset will have relation or indicate a certain medicine for curative action. Hahnemann instructed that this information, where of observable clinical usefulness, be included in the Materia Medica. There is no time limit placed on the causation of the illness, observing the singular fact that causation may be responsible for the onset, although perhaps not of the presenting symptoms noted. The factor may be in the distant past, of genetic inheritance, infection, environmental, psychological, mechanical, occupational etc etc.

There is also attention paid to the constitution of the patient. People are individuals and as such will respond uniquely to a medicine that matches the symptoms presented. Homeopathic schools today, do not teach the correct understanding of constitution, and try and push medicine pictures of what a “typical”  XXX “personality is like. Medicines do not have personalities. They have symptoms produced by ingesting the substance and reacting to the drug. When a symptom is produced, it will have a state of dis-ease to the economy, an altered dis-ordered exhibition of temporary derangement which will wear off in time. A drug can produce a “state” of being which is different from the patients normal constitution, or is similar to a patients constitution whilst ill.

It is worth noting that the miasmatic theory of diseases, which is really a study in disease types, the origins, the enhanced infecting agent of various types, be it of recent or generations of familial strains, this peculiar and unique form of diagnosis and acceptance that chronic disorders or disease may be the inceptor for a present illness, although not apparently related to it in terms of modern medicine acknowledgement of such.

It is not for the faint hearted individual to be a homoeopath. Diagnosis is no light or easy task. In addition to the search for clues under­lying pathology which is the obligation of every physician he must also track down the curative similar remedy from every possible angle—causal factor, symptom-picture, constitutional or bio-genetic type and deep-seated toxicosis or miasmatic condition.


Recommended reading;

Dimitriadis, George. The Theory of Chronic Diseases. http://hahnemanninstitute.com/chronic_diseases.php $39.00