Hahnemann said that we should prescribe on the totality of symptoms and that we treat people and NOT 'disease processes'. If you give a remedy on the totality of symptoms, the organs ARE drained. Hahnemann also said that when the symptoms change, you change the remedy. he did not call it 'layers', but the same principle applies. Eyzegaya applies hahnemann's laws and no 'classical homoeopath' will deny its correctness. So the 'classical' homoeopath does not suffer from short-sightedness or narrow-mindedness, but understands that the patient is the focus of attention and not the fancy name of the disease or the treatment. Thus a patient who 'does not have the energy to present a constitutional picture' has a constitution which is very weak. That in itself is one of the symptoms only and not the sole criterion for treatment.
By sticking to Hahnemann's laws and principles, the classical homoeopath does exactly what you describe, while much 'new-fangled' terminology is preoccupied with allopathic terminology and methods, in focusing not on the patient as the center of investigation. That is what the 'classicals' rail against - wrong methods based on wrong focus. Kent, who had no rpoblems with any heavy pathology as I understand from him, used to say:

“Anything that looks away from exactitude is unscientific. The physician must be classical; everything must be methodical. Science ceases to be scientific when disorderly application of the law is made.”
(Lesser Writings pg. 645)

Homoeopathy is a science and not a fashion which changes according to the fancy of the prescriber.

“Therefore disease, considered as a thing separate from the living whole, from the or-ganism and its animating vital force and hidden in the interior, be it of ever so subtle a character, is an absurdity that could only be imagined by minds of the materialistic stamp.”
(Organon # 13)

It is clear that 'drainage' and 'organ therapy' belong in this class as 'disease considered as a thing separate from the whole.' It is not the organ which is sick, but the person and his symptoms MAY BE concentrated in a particular organ. However, Hahnemann says that for the organ to be sick, the whole man must be riddled with disease first, before any local symptom can manifest itself.

And further:

“The natural disease is never to be considered as a noxious material situated somewhere in the exterior or interior.”
(Organon # 148)

Thus it is not ever focused on any particular organ that needs to be drained. It is also not a toxin, either from drugs or so-called disease producers, like viruses, bacteria or microbes.

“Most doctors have gone crazy over the ‘vicious microbe’ as being the cause of disease and think the little fellows exceedingly dangerous,”

says Kent. He continues:

“As a matter of fact, the microbes are scavengers. I wonder if scientists reflect when they make statements about bacteria. Naturally they would say that the more bacteria the more danger, but this is not so. It is well known that shortly after death a prick from the scalpel is a serious matter. This is due to the ptomaines of the corpse; but when the cadaver has become green and filled with bacteria it is comparatively harmless. The microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be carried away by these idle allopathic dreams and vain imaginations, but should correct the vital force. The bacterium is an innocent feller and if he carries disease, he carries the simple substance, which causes disease, just as an elephant would.”
(Kent. Lesser Writings, pg. 663)

Sufficient adulation of the substitute – i.e. the virus and the bacteria and other microorganisms, the disease or the organ as the focus of attention – has become the aim of the researcher. Ignoring the existence of the real thing and even its possibility, is as effective for practical purposes as if it were not there. The following story is illustrative of this mentality.
In Khartoum there was a statue of General Gordon, mounted on a camel. A little boy used to visit the statue with his nanny almost every day. One day the boy and his family were going to move to Cairo to live. So the nanny took the boy to say goodbye to General Gordon. The boy said: “I’m not going to see you for a long time General. I’m going to move.” Then he turned to the nanny and said: “And what do I say to that guy on General Gordon’s back?” Similarly, 'new-fangled homoeopaths' assume things about knowledge of medicine, without ever considering that their view may be inconsistent with real circumstances. Thus it could be said that the 'new-fangled terminology' is a sign of narrow-mindedness in its focus on the organ, or the toxin as the so-called seat of disease. Therefore:

“… diseases are nothing more than alterations in the state of health of the *individual*, which express themselves by morbid signs.”
(Organon # 19)

The individual is thus at all times the focus of attention and 'drainage', 'detoxification' and other fanciful schemes are not homoeopathy, but 'idle allopathic dreams.'

Please do not understand me wrong - anything that increases my understanding of the treatment of the person I and with me all classical homoeopaths, accept. Anything that leads us astray from the patient as the focus of attention we must condemn as not homoeopathic. As for tautopathy, or isopathy, Hahnemann was the inventor: Plumbum for lead workers, Sepia for artists, Graphites for pencil makers, and so on and so forth. The nosodes, like Psorinum , Tuberculinum, Medorhinum etc., are accepted by all homoeopaths and those that do not accept them, do not deserve to bear the name.


[This message has been edited by Ben Rozendal (edited 06 August 1999).]