The Organon of Medicine

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by timokay, Sep 5, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. timokay Registered Senior Member


    Hahnemann places much emphasis on these idiosyncratic symptoms. Although they appear only in very few patients (at random), they are important manifestations of the medicine.

    He concludes this to be the case because these very symptoms are found to always match the symptom pattern of the patients being treated with that medicine. During the treatment, where the dose of medicine is made to aggravate all symptoms initially, Hahnemann reports always seeing these idiosyncratic symptoms manifesting in the PATIENT, though in the large majority of PROVERS they don't appear at they DO belong to the medicine....and important because if they were not included, this correct and therefore homeopathic medicine very likely would not have been located.

    He even made the unprecedented statement for him that the idiosyncratic symptoms of the medicine actually DO manifest in ALL provers but to a degree that is not reported by the prover (though he provides no evidence for this).

    I will extract all references to this important matter and let you judge for yourself. Must find a way round idiosyncratic symptoms.

    Last edited: Sep 12, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    You are so wrong.

    You cannot patent homeopathic medicines because they are all substances readily available but simply prepared in a very unique way.

    As such, homeopathy is a pariah to the allopathic pharmaceutical companies.

    When homeopathy takes its proper place as the only system of drug therapy allowed in diseases, the allopathic pharmaceutical companies will be kaput.

    Why do you think that all of these guys are so opposed to homeopathy anyway?

    They are all shysters without the slightest bit of integrity or interest in curing, and of course they all have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of zero cures but big bucks for the practice of total quackery.

    And they are teachers, research scientists and allopaths.

    All shysters.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. timokay Registered Senior Member


    Thinking more on what you posted:

    There are no chance happenings. At the daily consultation between prover and doctor, it is v. unlikely for anything unclear/suspicious/vague to ever be accepted. And the many repetitions of the experiment by many provers soon would confirm any suspicious symptom as being valid. You need to clarify the phase "might be chance happenings". Nothing like that is likely to have got thru' the door in the proper Hahnemannian provings.

    Look at it this way. The "CHANGES TO SYMPTOMS" rule still applies with iosyncracies. The idiosyncratic symptoms appearing during the proving will be included as being associated with the medicine, just like any other new symptom.

    But, the distinction is between an idiosyncratic symptom which the prover experiences all the time (therefore not to do with the medicine) and an idiosyncratic symptom which is NOT experienced all the time, but has been noticed "a considerable time before".
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    I hate people operating from TOTAL ignorance about homeopathy and discussing it like it is identical to allopathic medicine when we have said 1001 times that it is NOT allopathy!

    There are no controls possible, Francine!

    The person who will produce an important symptom cannot be predicted.

    Their previous symptoms are recorded.

    The provers are homeopathic physicians; they know what their own symptoms are and aren't.

    They don't make stuff up.

    Why the hell would anybody make up a symptom anyway?

    These are people engaged in discovering the curative powers of drugs, so why would they distort their own record?

    That is a ridiculous statement.

    The person who will produce an important symptom cannot be predicted, so there is no control for this.

    What is so difficult to understand about this?

    And why are you people asking questions that demonstrate you still have not engaged in a single high-potency self-proving?

    So many of these questions are totally assinine and reflective of laziness.

    Read the instructions in the ORGANON, test homeopathy and then ask your questions.

    We have suffered this type of thinking from the very beginning.

    Such people want to "sift" the materia medica of useless symptoms.

    Who the hell are you to say what is and is not a useless symptom?

    We have repeatedly verified that symptoms sitting fallow, unverified by cures for over 100 years have then proven themselves to be the critical symptom deciding on a prescription by an astute physician.

    Had this symptom been kept out of the materia medica or extrated (sifted) from it by people like you, those people would have died, so please be quiet.
  8. timokay Registered Senior Member

    Retrograde Analysis?

    Consider a very complicated system (and a "black box" because we can never get inside and see what is happening in there) displaying a large number of specific and complicated effects. Supposing these effects are all the consequence of a failure somewhere in that system. None of them occur normally.

    Now imagine the system back to normal again, not presenting any effects at all. Supposing some random action that we took produces exactly the same effects on this complicated system as in the situation above. (Many actions tried until the effects were identical.)

    Could we conclude that whatever we did to produce these identical effects was closely related to whatever caused them in the first place? If there are very many effects, and they are matched exactly, it seems the more complicated the system becomes, the more accurately we are targeting, or learning about a "specific part of the mechanism".

    This method is effectively probing the mechanism of the "black-box". Call it Retro-Analysis? Do you agree with the logic of the conclusion?
    Can you think of other deductions or ways to learn more about the mechanism?
  9. timokay Registered Senior Member

    Following on from the above post.

    Supposing Homeopathic medicines are just small molecules (e.g., stable water/ethanol clusters) that mimic the action of transmitters (e.g., polypeptide chains) used by a control system which manages/generates disease symptoms in the body.


    In this example, the symptoms experienced by the patient are persisting, not because there is a disease agent persisting in the body (the normal reason for these symptoms), but because there has been a failure of communication somewhere in this control system which manages disease symptoms.

    This system uses many specific transmitters to communicate between its many components. One of these transmitters is failing for some reason, and the system cannot restore the body back to the healthy symptom-free setting, although the disease agent has been eradicated.

    The transmitter failure has therefore resulted in the persistence of symptoms, a hanging system, and the actual pattern of symptoms depends on which particular transmitter of the system is failing.

    Administration of the right Homeopathic "transmitter-mimic" fulfils the role of that transmitter, the system resumes from where it was hanging to completion, with complete resolution of symptoms.

    But how do you find the right transmitter? The right transmitter is identified by its ability to stimulate symptoms exactly the same as those in the patient.
    But, the transmitter-mimic must also increase all presenting symptoms to a level greater than at present in the patient, to bring about resolution.

  10. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    I’ve decided that a practical example of a case report or case study should squelch all of this nonsense you’re having Tim address.

    This is from 1890.

    Tell me which of these symptoms of Lycopodium you would have extracted.

    “Pathologically Considered

    “Frank Kraft, M.D.

    “[The Cincinnati] MEDICAL ADVANCE, 1890

    “On Saturday, May 31, 1880, I was telegraphed to visit Holland, Ohio, where a little child, a member of one of my former families was laying critically ill with a throat trouble. On reaching there, I learned that a week before the little girl, aged eighteen months, had seemed to grow ill, refused to nurse, cried a great deal, very little sleep, bowels ‘caustive,’ great quantities of wind both ways, always eager to take breast but a few mouthfuls seemed to gag it. Somebody’s Little Liver pellets were given, and the bowels changed a little; then there was so much colic; for this Castoria internally, turpentine externally gave a little relief. The nearest doctor, an old-school gentleman, was called in, who diagnosed laryngeal trouble, cold on the lungs and incipient meningitis. Swabs, gargles and lotions became the order of the day. No improvement following these, a second old-school physician was summoned, and he having learned what his confrere had found, promptly diagnosed the same, only worse, doubted the child could recover. This alarmed the mother, who then insisted on telegraphing for their former family physician – myself.

    “I found a puny, white-faced little girl; eyes sunken, dull, lusterless; hungry but unable to nurse. Bowels confined, yielding a little to a glycerine enemata; handling the child extorted cries that were pitiful to hear. I touched the throat, found no tenderness, no swelling, no fetor oris, nothing, in fact, except the statement of the mother that the child could not swallow. I took the child on my lap, and while fresh water and spoon were brought to me, I examined the diaper; found unmistakable uric acid deposit – the usual rust stain. Pressure over the region of the kidneys caused flinching; lying on the abdomen was not resisted. When the water was brought, I gave the child a teaspoonful, rather gingerly, fearing suffocating spell, but instead it smacked its lips and wanted more. No obstruction to the swallowing anywhere. The mother, who was watching evidently caught my intent, saying: ‘But she can’t nurse; I will show you, Doctor.’ She bared her left breast, put the child on the right side, and gave it the nipple. Sure enough, the little one took two or three draws, then let go and cried. ‘Try it on the other breast,’ I said. ‘She won’t take that breast at all.’ But she did [emphasis], and, what was more, she held on, got her ‘dinner,’ and keeled over asleep.

    “‘Now,’ I said, ‘lay her on her left side gently.’ This was done and the child continued asleep for twenty minutes. Then it began to fret and moan, and worry, kick its little feet, give little screams and bit its gums. ‘That’s the way she always does, Doctor, just before she wets her didy.’

    “Now is it necessary for me to give any more Lycopodium ‘chestnuts’ to the reader? I think not. I put one powder high on her tongue, left two more of a lower number, and a half dozen blanks. Child went to sleep as if under an opiate. I waited one hour, then went home, leaving directions to give the Lycopodium powders directly after the two next succeeding if painful urinations. But if the urinations were not painful, then instead use the other powders [placebos]. During the night apply a hot compress to the back. ‘What shall we do about its throat?’ ‘Let it alone, please; there is nothing the matter with the throat; your baby has trouble with the right kidney. If we can quiet that, it will be all right again in a few days.’

    “On my return the next afternoon, it was very evident that the child was better; the mother had used nothing but the S.L. [Sacrum lactis, i.e., mild sugar] powders, the occasion not calling for anything else.

    “I am not a pathological prescriber [i.e., not a low-potency pseudo-homeopath or allopathic homeopath]; I confess my ignorance of much that goes for science now-a-days in our school; perhaps if I had been versed in this highly interesting branch of medicine, I might have done equally as well. But this I knew; I knew the moment I had the mother’s story, and examined my baby and found the red sand on the diaper, that I had a Lycopodium case – I mean by that, a case that Lycopodium, properly administered, would cure. I went first on the symptoms; then to satisfy the parents and neighbors, I made the various tests which I have recounted. The old-school practitioners took a surface indication for the trouble, constructed pathological data, treated the patient pathologically, and in a few days would have placed the little one beyond reach, when all this while it was the right kidney, and not the throat at all, and a single dose of ‘baby powder’ cured it – for the child is well today.”

    Which symptom of Lycopodium would you have extracted from the materia medica and thereby killed this child?
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2003
  11. BTox Registered Senior Member

    Gee, still at it here, Hahnemanniac? Yes, now we are convinced. The writings of another quack following the previous quack Hahnemann's absurdities claims to have cured a child. That proves it all right.

    Show us one documented case of a modern cure (in the last 10 years) with sole use of homeopathy. Just one. We're waiting...
  12. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member


    I'm one of the people to whom to ask this question.

    It's not allopathy, which is divided into two opposite polarities of theory and practice called the Rationalist and Empiricist medical traditions otherwise called modern medicine and the alternative therapies, respectively.

    It's also not low-potency or high-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH & HPH), LPHs being allopaths using homeopathic medicines in allopathic ways and HPHs being actual homeopaths who make eight fundamental mistakes we don't.

    Real homeopathy is Hahnemannian or legitimate classical homeopathy, remembering that HPHs today in the Vithoulkas school of thought (GVs) fancy themselves classical homeopaths and HPHs over the last century called Kentians (ala James Tyler Kent's followers/students) fancied themselves Hahnemannians simply because they inherited the International Hahnemannian Association after all of the Hahnemannians died in the late 1890s.

    It's actually the Science of Medicine due to our discovery of and usage of the 10 natural Laws of Medicine, which are just as much natural laws as gravity, Boyle's Gas Laws or any other forming chemistry and physics into the other two pure sciences.

    Due to these natural Laws of Medicine, it is actually eternal, stable, cumulative and always extremely futuristic.

    For example, compared to modern medicine, Hahnemannian homeopathy is arguably about 500 years more advanced than it given that Hahnemann was about 700 years ahead of his time 200 years ago.

    Mind you also that medicine is the ONLY science (in the generic sense of the word) that did not undergo any changes as a consequence of the rediscovery of the sciences during the Italian Renaissance; indeed, it was stalwart in maintaining bloodletting clear till 1914!

    Anyway, due to these 10 natural laws, homeopathy is thus arguably the way Providence provided for us to cure unnecessary human suffering.

    It's seen historically as Hermetic medicine in ancient Egypt, which appears to have transited into the Spagyric medicine of Europe from about the 5th through 17th centuries as a consequence of the Church destroying Hermetic medicine along with Egyptian Civilization starting with the sacking of Alexandria in AD 393 and then their destruction of the Medicina Spagyrica in the persecutions of alchemy during the Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist Inquisitions; and it's seen in the ancient Rama Empire of India, which academics are calling the Harappan Culture of the Indus Valley, as an unknown system of medicine but nonetheless recognizable within the BHAGWAT PURANA (multi-volumes of Sanskrit literature, part of which are famous) from the Nagas otherwise known as the Naacal Writings.

    The first of the two most important things differentiating homeopathy from all things allopathic is that we use ultramolecular, subAvogadrean drugs.

    That's a mouthful and some for most people.

    The other is that allopathic therapies require a disease diagnosis (to "thoroughly know" something) as a primary decision since their therapeutics are created by the consensus of opinion about what constitutes the standard treatment for something.

    They are very backward and warped here.

    In essence, pharmaceutical companies control allopathic medicine by providing them the tools they use.

    The way I say the problem here is that doctors are just stupid, but pharmaceutical companies are actively evil because their trillions of dollars annually ceases coming in as profit for them when homeopathy takes its rightful place as the singular drug therapy in diseases.

    The problem here is a deep seated one too, for disease diagnoses are merely statistical abstractions in that they’re made up of only the symptoms that people have in common within diagnostic categories, hence being COMMON symptoms, whereas everyone curable also has UNCOMMON symptoms.

    Allopaths totally ignore UNCOMMON symptoms, but that is a mistake impossible to forgive since it is solely via these that an unambiguous remedy diagnosis or prescription is arrived at.

    Of course, allopathy does not require absolute individualization of cases, for they have very routine therapies for every diagnosis called the standard treatment.

    But homeopathy does require these unambiguous prescriptions (i.e., no medicine competes with the one most homeopathic medicine for a person) per the Law of Similars.

    The way it works is that a careful anamesis [sic] or case report is taken so that we know the totality of symptoms.

    Then the doctor engages in a case analysis to initially decide which are the uncommon symptoms.

    There are ideally three or more UNCOMMON symptoms, for a cross referencing of those symptoms in a symptom index called the repertory to the homeopathic materia medica (“materials of medicine”) then produces a very small list of drugs that have produced in the healthy and cured in the sick those few UNCOMMON symptoms.

    Assuming this went correctly, which is extremely difficult to do, those few drugs are then read in the materia medica for as close to a verbatim match of symptoms as is possible, including the COMMON symptoms since we do indeed take into account the totality of symptoms via the doctrine of case individualization.

    That just scratches the surface of what homeopathy is.
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2003
  13. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    Everybody knows how evil and stupid you are, fool, so you should shut up, asshole.
  14. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Re: Re: Re: The Organon of Medicine

    Nice of you to say I'm wrong yet not even attempt to back it up.
  15. BTox Registered Senior Member

    Ah, the quack is back. We should expect the death wishes any moment from this fake, phony and fraud.
  16. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    BToxic made still another demand rather than looking for case studies himself, thereby again proving that he's just plain lazy since he's been told where to look, as though it hasn't already been proven nearly 100 times here and at another site.

    That also demonstrated his clear vested interest as a biochemist to suppress homeopathy and keep people subject to nothing but allopathic quackery ("therapeutic incompetence") since his job's essentially kaput unless he does act as evil against homeopathy given that he oversteps his subject and thrusts allopathy into it as a direct aid to allopathic quacks:

    Okay, ole buddy, ole pal, ole gumbo, here's one I happen to have transcribed:

    Homoeopathy and Herniated Lumbar Disks

    Klaus-Henning Gypser, M.D.

    CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY QUARTERLY (CHQ, English translation of the ZKH of Karl F. Haug Verlag/Publishers, Heidelberg)

    Vol. 4 (1991), No. 1


    Two cases of herniated intervertebral disk diagnosed by means of computer topography (CAT scan) demonstrate the value of homoeopathic treatment even for this type of pathology. Both patients received Kali iodatum and Sepia. Aside from describing the process of repertorization in search of the simile, the author alludes briefly to the problem of the repetition of remedies.


    Herniated disk – Kali iodatum – Sepia – repetition of remedy

    The practitioner often encounters herniated lumbar disks under the guise of sciatic- nerve pathology. Regular therapy usually prescribes heat treatment initially,* bed rest on a hard surface (with traction if indicated) and analgesic drugs as well as mild tranquilizers. After improvement sets in, massage, whirlpool and exercises designed for the spine are applied. Frequent recurrences or cauda-equina syndrome are considered indications for surgery.

    The following case histories shall demonstrate that, contrary to the regular approach based on the methodology of the natural sciences bent on dealing with the causal connections [which can help us prevent such cases but have nothing to do with therapeutics], homoeopathy offers alternative treatment possibilities through the careful attention it pays to the patient's immediate disease phenomena [i.e., his/her symptoms,] which alone determine the remedy selection.

    Case 1

    The 38-year-old female patient, I.T., has been suffering from right-sided sciatica for the past five months. Periods of tolerable pain alternate with times of considerable suffering. There has been no indication of noticeable improvement, and the patient came to consult on 4 August 1986 during an episode of renewed exacerbation.

    Her condition had been carefully diagnosed by a number of allopathic colleagues. The following results from computer tomography were available: segment L5/S1 showed evidence of a medio-lateral protrusion to the right with slight-to-moderate caudal compression. The therapeutic recommendations ranged from injections of analgesic drugs to three weeks of bed rest with traction and eventual surgical intervention. The patient, however, rejected these well-intentioned recommendations. She still remembered very well the extraordinary relief obtained for a number of chronic complaints when she was under the care of a skilled homoeopathic physician. This doctor is practicing at a great distance from her current residence. Her condition not permitting her to travel very far, she was nevertheless willing to give homoeopathy another chance by consulting closer to home.

    The following symptoms had originally appeared after she slipped on the ice and fell:

    Pain, extending from the lumbo-sacral area (where it is relatively mild), across the right buttock down to the right hollow of the knee and the region of the right inguinal region.
    The pain is particularly severe at night, awakening the patient and forcing her to rise and walk about to get some relief.
    In addition, the symptoms are aggravated by sneezing, sitting and lying.

    Repeated solicitations to get her to relate any further complaints that might have occurred at the beginning or that might be present during the current attack brought forth no other symptoms.

    The selection of the simile thus had to be made entirely on the spontaneous report. In the absence of any striking symptoms that might have weighed more heavily and could have been considered as leading symptoms, Kent's Repertory was consulted to determine what remedies corresponded to the greatest number of revealed symptoms. This procedure is warranted by a remark by Hahnemann, who stated that the appropriate remedy is the one that "covers the greatest number of the complaints at hand.”1)


    Pain, lower limbs, sciatica, right (K1067): carb s., chel., chin s., coloc., dios., lach., lyc., phyt., plan., sep., tell.
    Sciatica, < [worse or aggravated at] night (K 1067): arg n., ars., bell., cham., coff., coloc., ferr., ferr-ar., gels., gnaph., hyper., indg., iris, kali bi., kali i., led., merc., mez., nux v. pall., phyt., plb., puls., thus t, sep., staph., syph., tell., verat., zinc.
    Sciatica, < lying (K 1068): coloc., fort., gnaph., kali-i., meny., nat m., ruts, sep., tell., valer.
    Sciatica < sitting (K 1068): am m., berb., bry., coloc., dios., ferr., indg., iris, kali bi., kali i., lach., lyc., lyss., meny., merc., ruta., sep., staph., valer.
    Sciatica < sneezing (K 1068): sep., tell.
    Sciatica > [better or ameliorated by or while] walking (K 1069): agar., am m., caps., coc c., ferr., indg., kali-bi., kall i., kali p., lyc., ph-ac., rhus t., ruta, sep., syph., valer.

    The most frequently represented remedies are: Colocynthis (4x), Ferrum (4x), Kali iodatum (4x), Sepia (6x) and Tellurium (4x).

    Materia-medica Comparison

    The work that has been most helpful to me when doing materia-medica comparisons for patients with sciatica is Hering’s Guiding Symptoms (Chapters "Neck and back" and "Lower limbs") in which the concept of “sciatica” stemming from clinical experience is frequently mentioned.


    "Violent…pains, from sacrum along course of sciatic nerve, behind great trochanter of r. leg, down as far as knee, can neither lie, sit nor walk…Ischias." (GS IV, p. 382)
    “Pain passing down outside of I. leg...paroxysms < at nigh....Sciatica." (ibid.)
    "Continuous drawing pains in r., also in l. hip; lying, sitting, standing and walking are all painful; she can find no comfortable position, especially at night and in bed; walking difficult.…Ischias." (ibid., p. 380)


    "Remitting pains; < in continued motion and walking about, pain gradually becomes milder….Sciatica" (GS V., p. 285)
    “...tearing pains with violent stitching from the hip joint down as far as to the tibia and sole of foot...during the day, the pain does not allow him to step on it, but walking ameliorates it. It is worst in the evening after lying down, he must get up and walk about in order to alleviate the pain..." (RA II, p. 134, No. 209)

    Kalium iodatum

    “Pain > by walking and flexing leg; < from standing, sitting or lying in bed. Sciatica." (GS VI, p. 436)
    “Tearing in r. thigh and knee, awakens him at night, < lying on affected side or back. Sciatica." (ibid.)
    “Awakened at night at eleven, extremely painful tearing in the right thigh down to the knee, subsiding after lying on the good side; however, lying on the painful side and on the back was intolerable." (HT III, p. 49, No. 243)
    “...pains in r. thigh and leg; a darting from [the] point where sciatic nerve leaves; motion at first painful, is after a moment more bearable... < at night, not able to remain in bed; pain in thigh, leg and knee joint, excruciating when lying down, eliciting screams..." (GS VI, p. 435 436)


    "Severe tearing pains in l. thigh; along course of sciatic nerve, pain extending to calf of leg and toes, pain 3 to 5 am...she cannot remain in bed, gets up and walks about room sobbing.…Sciatica." (GS IX, p. 336)
    "Severe tearing from the hip joint to the foot, at night, hindering sleep." (EN VIII, p. 643, No. 1717)
    "Pains in hips and thighs, extending to near the knees." (ibid., p. 644, No. 1731)
    "While sitting, the posterior thigh muscles are very painful." (CK V., p. 221, No. 1254)


    "Pain in sacrum passing into r. thigh.…Sciatica." (GS X, p. 271)
    "Sciatica of r. side; < when lying on affected side." (ibid.)

    Selection of Remedy

    Even though Colocynthis has several similar symptoms, it lacks the amelioration while walking. Contrary to the patient's complaints, the Colocynthis symptoms are aggravated from walking, as can be seen in the above-mentioned texts, but also in the following: "Pains in the lower extremities increase until noon, so as to be frequently troublesome in walking" (EN III, p. 498, No. 894). "Severe pain in r. leg, compelling him to lie quietly in one place; slightest attempt at motion causes great pain..." (GS IV, p. 382). "The right thigh is painful only on walking" (CK III, p. 172, No. 212). On the basis of these findings, Colocynthis was excluded from the selection.

    Ferrum was also excluded, because it has only the aggravation at night and on lying down – which does not necessarily mean "while lying" – and the amelioration from walking. Tellurium, for which no references except those for right-sided sciatica and the aggravation while lying could be found, was also eliminated from the group under consideration. The stipulation "< when lying on affected side" furthermore speaks against the prescription of Tellurium.
    Without the knowledge that Sepia had alleviated the patient’s complaints on previous occasions, the choice would have fallen on Kali iodatum. However [not knowing this], I let myself be swayed and gave one pellet of Sepia (Schmidt-Nagel).

    Course of Treatment

    As the course of treatment shows, the pain at night was somewhat relieved but, in general, no marked amelioration could be noted. On the contrary: eight days later, the patient reported the sensation as if the affected parts were inflamed, and lying on the affected right side had now also become painful.
    Since Kali iodatum also covers this latest, newly occurring symptom, Kali-i. M, one pellet (Schmidt Nagel) was now administered and the mistake thus corrected. From that day on, the patient improved continuously, and within a few days she was able to tend to her daily chores. In the past approximately 4½ years, she has not had any recurrence of her problems.


    It is interesting to note in this that case the remedy covering all the symptoms used for the repertorization (Sepia) turned out not to be the simile. Thus, to rely exclusively on a purely numerical correspondence and to circumvent the materia-medica comparison can easily lead to failure.

    It was furthermore noted that entries in Kent’s Repertory are frequently missing in our standard works such as Allen's Encyclopedia and Hering’s Guiding Symptoms. This naturally raises the question as to whether the above-mentioned sources are incomplete in this respect, or whether Kent’s Repertory contains mistakes made by him or one of the numerous precursors whose publications he incorporated in his work. It illustrates once more how important it is for the practitioner to consult a reliable materia medica, one that is based on the primary sources.

    Case 2

    The 32-year-old male patient, J.S., initially consulted in June 1988. He was suffering from a recurrence of the sciatica first experienced in 1982. The diagnosis of protrusion of disks L4/5 [is that accurate?] and L5/S1 with medio-lateral herniation had been established by a number of colleagues in private practice, as well as by CAT scan carried out by the orthopedic department in one of our university hospitals. Anti inflammatory and analgesic drugs had been prescribed and fango [mud packs and baths], massage and therapeutic exercise were applied, all to no avail. The complaints got continuously worse and surgical intervention was being contemplated. Having repeatedly heard unfavorable reports about such operations, the patient wished to avoid these drastic measures.

    He presented the following symptoms:

    Boring pains in the lumbo-sacral region, extending through the right leg into the heel;
    < stooping;
    < coughing;
    < sneezing;
    < in the morning after rising, > 1 1½ hours later;
    < pressing at stool;
    the modalities are especially pronounced here;
    < sitting;
    < lying, especially at night;
    < walking [actually, that’s > walking; the published case report has a typographical error here shown by the repertorization saying so and instead listing the medicines found at > walking or better/amelioriated by walking rather than < walking, so we have corrected it as well as that mistaken page number there to 1066 rather than 1069];
    awakens at night with stitching pain in lumbar region when turning in bed;
    night sweats about neck and chest since the beginning of this recurrence.
    Aside from an allergy to the sun and inflammation of the eyes in the spring, the patient appeared to have no further symptoms.


    The repertorization was based on the clear modalities that characterized the situation and not on [rather than on] the "explainable" [or common, expected] aggravations from stooping, coughing, sneezing and pressing at stool that frequently accompany herniated-disk pathologies.

    Sciatica > walking (K 1069, actually K 1066): agar., am m., coc c., ferr., indg., kali-bi., kali-i., kali p., lyc., ph-ac., rhus t., ruta, sep., syph., valer.
    Sciatica < sitting (K 1068): Am-m. ferr., indg., kali bi., kali i., lyc., ruta., sep., valer., etc.
    Sciatica < lying (K 1068): Ferr., kali-i., ruta, sep., valer., etc.

    Materia-medica Comparison


    "Remitting pains; < in continued motion and walking about, pain gradually becomes milder.…Sciatica." (GS V, p. 285)
    “…tearing pains with violent stitching from the hip joint down as far as to the tibia and sole of foot…during the day, the pain does not allow him to step on it, but walking ameliorates it. It is worst in the evening after lying down, he must get up and walk about in order to alleviate the pain..." (RA II, p. 134, No. 209)

    Kali iodatum

    "At night violent pain in the small of the back so that she could not lie quietly anywhere." (HT III, p. 48, No. 213)
    "Violent pain In reply to: the small of the back all night long, like bruised, so that she did not know in what position to lie." (ibid., No. 215)
    "Continuous pain in the small of the back, almost like bruised, especially while sitting in a stooped position." (ibid., No. 214)
    "Frequent sharp stitching in the small of the back while sitting." (ibid., No. 217)
    "Awakened at night at eleven, extremely painful tearing in the right thigh down to the knee, subsiding by lying on the good side; however, lying on the painful side and on the back was intolerable." (ibid., p. 49, No. 243)
    “…pains in r. thigh and leg; a darting from point where sciatic nerve leaves; motion at first painful, is after a moment more bearable... < at night, not able to remain in bed; pain in thigh, leg and knee joint, excruciating when lying down, eliciting screams..." (GS VI, p. 435 436)
    "Pain > walking… < from...sitting or lying in bed. Sciatica.” (ibid., p. 436)
    "Tearing in r. thigh and knee, awakens him at night, < lying on affected side or back. Sciatica." (ibid., p. 436)


    "Severe pressure in small of back... < by moving about..." (GS IX, p. 144)
    "Stitches in small of back when sitting, stooping..." (ibid.)
    "Sciatica; pain... < sitting or lying down." (ibid., p. 145)
    "A digging [pain or sensation] the lumbar region, just above the small of the back, while sitting...[and] on walking, it continues for some time, gradually disappearing; it returns while standing still and while sitting." (EN VIII, p. 438, No. 244)


    "Back pain only while sitting, even when sitting only briefly." (CK V, p. 216, No. 1117)
    "On stooping, suddenly severe pain in back..." (ibid., No. 1122)
    "While sitting, the muscles in back of the thigh are very painful." (ibid., p.221, No. 7254)
    "In small of back pain…by > by walking." GS IX, p. 334)
    "Stitches in back when coughing." (ibid.)
    "Throbbing in small of back...sitting...on turning in bed...a pain catches her there as if something were going to break." (ibid., p. 335)
    "Pains in small of back...cannot lie on l. side or upon back..." (ibid.)
    "Severe tearing pains in l. thigh; along course of sciatic nerve, pain extending to calf of leg and toes, pain 3 to 5 a.m.... she cannot remain in bed, gets up and walks about room sobbing.…Sciatica." (GS IX, p. 336)
    "At night, cold sweat on chest, back and thighs." (CK V, p. 238, No. 1645)


    “Violent drawing, darting, jerking pains in limbs... < sitting; > from motion; strained feeling in lumbar region; lumbago." (GS X, p. 388)
    "Sciatica of r. side..." (ibid., p. 389)
    "Intense pain in the left lumbar region above the hip...worse when standing, and especially when sitting, than when walking." (EN X, p. 66, No. 253)

    Remedy Selection

    Although Ferrum has the aggravation at night and while lying – but it lists it as "after lying down" – and the amelioration from walking, no other similarities to the patient's symptoms are recorded that would speak for it.
    Valeriana must also be eliminated, since other than the modalities > walking and < sitting, it has no symptoms corresponding to the patient's complaints.

    Ruta, however, can be looked at more closely: in addition to the amelioration from walking about, the aggravation while sitting and lying (although the original states "lying down"), it includes the aggravation of the pain in the small of the back on stooping. However, these correspondences cannot compete with those of
    Kali iodatum and Sepia.

    Kali iodatum and Sepia both have > walking, < lying, < sitting. In addition, Sepia is characterized by pains in the small of the back on coughing, on turning around in bed and by night sweats on the chest. Contrary to Ruta (and Sepia), Kali iodatum has sciatica on the right side, which appeared to me to be more important than the more trivial aggravation from stooping.

    The choice thus had to fall either on Kali iodatum or Sepia. Although Sepia seemed to be clearly indicated, I nevertheless had some doubts, since the Sepia back pains from coughing certainly are not unusual in patients with herniated disks and since the nightly sweats on the chest had been recorded by the prover as cold sweats and had also occurred on the back and thighs.

    Although it did not completely cover the picture, Kali iodatum M, one pellet (Schmidt Nagel) was administered. If this prescription can be excused at all, it is because all the above factors had to be examined in great haste dictated by the lack of time on this particularly busy day in my practice.

    Course of Treatment

    The patient felt considerable relief in the days following the administration of the remedy, especially at night while lying. There was no longer any pain on pressing at stool. When the symptoms recurred without any noticeable modification two weeks later, Kali iodatum XM, one pellet (Schmidt Nagel) was given, but it produced no positive results.

    Five days later, the condition had returned to that observed at the beginning of treatment and now, Sepia LM, one pellet (Schmidt Nagel) was prescribed. On the following day, the patient had a dramatic aggravation – to the point where he wept from the pains. It was not possible to evaluate the situation clearly since, against my recommendations, he had performed some labor that required stooping. Was this a case of primary aggravation, or had the disk pathology been exacerbated by the recent overexertion of the back?

    In order to not neglect [correction of or to precipitate] any possible further damage, the patient was admitted to the neurological unit of a hospital where he was given the same analgesic drug he had received before starting homoeopathic treatment and which at that time had brought him minimal relief. However, at present it produced not the slightest relief within the expected time of action. On the basis of the previously diagnosed findings and the urgency of the situation, surgical intervention was scheduled for the following day; but the patient was by then completely free of pain! Greatly astounded and not quite believing in the belated effect of their drugs that had formerly brought the patient little relief and none on the previous day, the physicians encouraged him to “provoke” his pain by the appropriate motions so that the operation could take place as scheduled. [Medical ethics were called into question there.] However, the pain refused to return and the patient left the hospital unscathed and returned to work. To this day, he has remained free of pain despite the sometimes vigorous strain put on his back, which the remodeling of his home requires.


    It could be argued that this cure following an initial, primary aggravation was not a "pure" effect of Sepia. But the fact that the analgesic drug had been administered previously without satisfactory results speaks against this argument. After all, why should this medication have had a more favorable result at a time when the situation was considerably worse than on the previous occasions, and why would it have had such a beneficial effect after such an unusual lapse of time and of such permanent duration? Furthermore, analgesic drugs are at best capable of alleviating pain for short periods of time, but they are not known to be able to bring about a curative effect.

    Considered in the light of the dogmas that have been established according to some remarks by Kent, the repetition of Kali iodatum after "only" two weeks might be considered an incorrect procedure. However, this whole contention collapses once we realize that what Kent has said about the duration of the effects of individual, one glass,** high-potency remedies of his scale was not meant to establish any laws but was based merely on observations he had made in his practice. His findings are to be understood as suggestions that never excluded exceptions. Let us not forget that Kent was making these pronouncements in his capacity as teacher of students at the Postgraduate School of Homoeopathics in Philadelphia, [i.e.,] that these students were already physicians who had become interested in homoeopathy. Consequently, they were beginners who needed such oversimplifications. According to Hahnemann and Kent, repetition must be guided solely by the patient’s condition.


    These two cases were singled out for several reasons. First, they demonstrate that it is well worth while to attempt homoeopathic treatment in cases where regular physicians often recommend surgery. In addition, both patients presented in many respects a similar symptomatology which, in the final analysis, nevertheless [nonetheless] required different remedies. Furthermore, Kali iodatum was prescribed in both cases, and this fact might serve as an incentive to study this rarely used remedy. It is also timely to stop exclusively reporting cures achieved without complications, for we all encounter those in our practice. Such reporting might give beginners the impression that healing should always proceed in a perfect manner.

    Some might have liked to see radiological confirmation of how (and if) the individual herniated disks had changed, since this would be cogent "proof" of the effectiveness of homoeopathy. However, even the regular physicians do not "prove" with X rays any healings herniated disks attained by conservative measures, but they are content with the mere clinical evidence of absence of complaints. From the standpoint of ethics, physicians are furthermore obligated to spare the patient any diagnostic procedures that would constitute additional physical or financial burdens.


    1) RA II, p. 37 cf. ORG VI, § 147


    Allen, T.F. The Encyclopedia of Pure Materia Medica. I X. Philadelphia 1875 79. [EN]
    Hahnemann, S. Die Chronischen Krankheiten, Bd. III. 2. Aufl. Dusseldorf 1837 (11828). [CK]
    Hahmemann, S. Reine Arzneimittellehre. Bd. II. Nachdr. Ulm 1955 (31833). [RA]
    Hartlaub, C.G.C. u. C.F. Tricks Reine Arzneimit- tellehre. Bd. III. Leipzig 1831.[HT]
    Hering, C. The Guiding Symptoms of Our Materia Medica. Vol. I X. Philadelphia 1879 91. [GS]
    Kent, J. T. Repertory of the Homoeopathic Mate ria Medica. 2nd Ind. Repr. Calcutta 1973 (11897 99). [K]

    Klaus Henning Gypser, M.D., Wassenacher Str. 23, 5471 Glees, Federal Republic of Germany

    (Translated from the German by Hela Michot Dietrich, Ph.D., D.Hom., State University of New York at Binghamton, USA)

    Editor’s Notes

    *I changed this passage because it didn’t make sense to me. It said, “Regular therapy usually prescribes initial heat treatment” but now says “…prescribes heat treatment initially.” It would have had to be hyphenated as “initial-heat treatment,” but I have no idea what that means. Dr. Gypser gave me permission to change this.

    **What he calls “individual, one-glass, high-potency remedies” must refer to potencies out of the same bottle. I recommend changing that to: “individual, same-lot, same-manufacturer, high-potency remedies.”
  17. BTox Registered Senior Member

    Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble but there is no need to suppress homeopathy for the simple reason that it doesn't work, never worked, never will, and 99.9% of the rational people on the planet know it's a fraud.

    Wow, you found two whole undocumented cases of homeopaths "curing" hypochondriacs - congratulations! This is one (and only) disease I agree homeopathy may be of some value in treating!
  18. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    Yeah, BToxic,

    It's a good thing you're too ignorant and stupid to seek out legitimate homeotherapeutics or know either where or how, for this planet no longer belongs to your kind, ole buddy, ole pal, ole gumbo.

    You've got your much-deserved destiny.

    I'm simply awaiting news that you've gone back to Hell, which can't happen too soo for the best good of all concerned.

    And be sure to be a very good and vain materialist fool and have your body embalmed so as to sustain its etheric pattern that you stay good and discarnate till the end of time, ole buddy, ole pal, ole gumbo.

    You need to lose your Soul since you won't miss it anyway.


    It ain't 99.9% of the people alive who don't know about homeopathy, but it's close.

    And you're certainly doing a really good job to keep them subject to mass murder, ole buddy, ole pal, ole gumbo.

    I'm sure the negative karma ("carryover") you're thereby accumulating will more than suffice to insure that you couldn't sustain incarnation anyway, even if you could reincarnate about 7000 years from now thanks to the ghoulish embalmers you idiots keep in business, for you've permanently exited this planet when you die, ole buddy, ole pal, ole gumbo.

    It's really tragic that evil people like you are permitted to remain alive to spout your evil lies, for you're thereby violating at least three of the 10 Laws of Karma -- all of which should be capitol offenses were these truly civilized societies -- none of which you know the slightest thing about anyway.

    So keep that big ignorant mouth of yours running wide open, you very ignorant fool, for you really need to accumulate so much negative karma that you permanently stay in Hell this time, ole buddy, ole pal, ole gumbo.

    We'll be not missing you or any other evil and misguided fools in positions to mislead others like really stupid fools, ole buddy, ole pal, ole gumbo.
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2003
  19. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    Okay, Persol, the first one:

    Let's exam the basic baseless assumption of the natural sciences that tell us that man does not simultaneously exist in four planes or "dimensions" (very stupid notion that) of existence, that animals don't occupy three of them and that plants and everything else do not occupy space in two planes that coalesce each other.

    There are at least seven groups of natural phenomena that prove multiple planes of existence, but idiotic sophists in the natural sciences and allopathy ignore them all like good little ignoramuses who like keeping us in the tailend of the Dark Ages:

    1. Death;
    2. Sleep and unconsciousness in general;
    3. Modern physics' 20+ synonyms for and major manifestations of the Ether or Etheric Plane of existence, the two most prominent of which are virtual particles and the vacuum energy of empty space;
    4. Acupuncture points;
    5. Homeopathic potentization;
    6. Rollin R. Gregg's ILLUSTRATED REPERTORY; and
    7. Shiu Yin Lo's photos.

    So you're propogating half-truths and lies in all of your views.

    That's the first one, and all of them are like that.

    Plus you are representing allopathic medicine as well, which is abject quackery and the means of legalized mass murder.

    Yeah, you're really on solid ground over there, pal (facetious).

    The history of science is nothing but endless errors, half-truths and lies constantly written off to "scientific progress" and only changing about two generations later than discovery should make it so.

    Here's one of my favorite quotes on this wonderful status quo of the natural sciences as presently known, which you support even though it doesn't work, from one of its fearless leaders:

    "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised [sic] with the ideas from the beginning" (Max Planck, 1858-1947, SCIENTIFIC AUTOBIOGRAPHY, 1949).

    Hahnemann's generic vital force, which was a common construct in his time for the invisible forces and which Tim argues does not require it be higher planar, is unwittingly perceived and recognized by modern science as the etheric pattern in the details of item #3 above.

    It happens that my Hahnemannian colleagues do not generally uphold the notion of the vital force, although I don't know how they reconcile that with our drugs being ultramolecular and remembering that all previous Hahnemannians held as I do with Hahnemann.

    It's an enigma to me that they like you guys.

    I'm obviously the last Hahnemannian who should be holding discourse with you blokes, but I happen to have taken on the task.

    In fact, they seem to be amused with my efforts too, and I get the impression that they think I should have learned by now that there is no talking with your kind till you act like legitimate scientists.

    Tim is a perfect example of the quantum leap in consciousness required of your kind to progress to homeopathy, so you cannot imagine my amusement when you guys belittle him.

    He's about 50 years or more ahead of you guys.

    It's not as though I didn't know all of these things about you guys before entering into this, but Tim and I are NOT here seeking your kind out; you simply have big mouths.

    We're hear looking for legitimate scientists with something to contribute to the search for knowledge and understanding about life and the universe.

    There are some here, for I've been looking around.

    I'm wondering why nobody has the information we're looking for, because it must surely exist since that's the nature of scientific discovery; i.e., it's constantly found that somebody had already discovered something later recognized, only the original discovery got filed and lost.

    That's the way scientific discovery has gone for about 50 years or more due to mountains of findings.

    So there is hopefully lost information somewhere about polymerization or crystalization (more likely) of water or alcohol at room temperature within succussed high dilutions, or perhaps something important about clustering of solvents or solutes due to electromagnetism.

    I firmly believe there's likely to be misplaced findings relevant to Dr. Lo's discovery, which in turn only confirmed James H. Stephenson's hypothesis from the 1950s and '60s, which in turn was first proposed by Bernardt Fincke about 110 years ago and which all originates with Hahnemann's speculations about our mysterious pharmacology.

    Somebody must know something, and Tim and I are patiently awaiting their kind sharing their information with us and your kind hushing up so that they can.

    Okay dokey?
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2003
  20. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    Last edited: Sep 13, 2003
  21. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    Yah know, ole buddy, ole pal, ole gumbo, I really love it when you thoroughly prove that you're a stupid, ignorant piece of crap:

    Feel like the piece of shite you are yet, 'cause you've certainly got it all over your face!
  22. Francine Registered Senior Member

    Are you saying that in all the millions of back patients in all the world that none of them would ever follow this time course without the homeopathic remedies that were used in these cases?

    Here's an example sent to me during a discussion of back pain.

    "The patient was a 35yo female secretarial worker who suffered intermittent bouts of severe lower back pain and 'sciatica'. She had been unable to work for a period of 5 months because the bouts of pain were becoming too frequent to permit a consistent performance of her duties. She was passed by her primary care physician to the local neurological diagnostic unit and a CAT scan revealed a L5-6 disc protrusion. She had been poorly responsive to analgesics and surgery was arranged for two weeks later. On the morning of her scheduled surgery she found that the pain had considerably diminished and, reluctant to undergo a major surgical procedure, she requested that the hospital postpone the surgery. It was agreed that a further booking would be made 1 month later, however the pain lessened with each day following the initial postponement and the second booking was also canceled. A period of 5 years have now passed. This case illustrates the problems with predicting outcome for disc herniation and the potential for surgery to be performed on patients who can spontaneously recover. Fortunately for this patient, her recovery occurred just in time"

    The point is how can we tell this story of coincidence from your story where homeopathy was used? Is there a way to tell the difference?


  23. timokay Registered Senior Member



    I went off the point a little by focusing on idiosyncratic symptoms yesterday. Your issue was knowing what is a new symptom and what is an old one during th proving.

    Reminder of 138:

    You do realise that each prover does over fifteen experiments on this medicine? And that there are many other provers doing exactly the same experiment?

    And, about the doctor's role of ratifying all reported symptoms each day? And that the results from all provers are pooled and reviewed, before they could ever be accepted by a Materia Medica? This task is too important.

    If so, I fail to understand your concerns about 138.

    The prover has to report all changes to his/her symptoms.
    Recognition of what constitutes a change needs to be clarified, and Hahnemann does this by saying that any normal symptoms he has/had before the proving started are NOT NEW and should not be included. But he also wanted to clarify the term "before the proving started". It doesn't mean the prover should exclude all symptoms experienced during the proving that have happened to him in the last six months....only in the recent past. Anything older than that (has not occurred for a considerable time) is not considered to be part of the excluded symptoms for this prover.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page