Dear Drleela, dear other members

I fully understand the questions arising from this tread. Only there is not a quick and easy answer to it. At exactly this point, my apprentices started out almost two years ago and now start seeing what homeopathy is.

It is not done with a few cosmetical changes to incorporate something like a ‘’Boenninghausen method’’ or repertory into our current understanding derived from post Kentian views. What it needs is a leaving behind of all preconceived ideas and ways and to take a complete fresh take of what homeopathy is, its principles, its rules and its application accordingly. Using the tools of those masters without the skill necessary in a rather experimental way will not bring any better results than previously achieved by the means of the latest synthesised works. Even the use of sorting methods like: only print small remedies will not bring the desired result, as this is a theoretical exercise. The patient did not present the symptom: ‘’Needs small remedy’’

Speaking of which—I fail to understand how Boenninghausen’s rubrics being based on a valuation-scale 1-5 can be incorporated in a already existing work which rests on a scale 1-3, and of which it is unknown what these three grades already mean. Likewise, the whole of the Therapeutic pocketbook has found its way into kent’s repertory already, so why incorporate it again?

Here is a point on Will Taylors article:
He runs down the symptoms exactly according to Kent’s approach, giving the mental sphere the leading position. So—its just an exchange of one repertory to another, but by no means reflects the basic understanding of Hahnemannian homeopathy.

Here is the case:
>>Child with asthma attack, which is worse at 11 P.M, worse if the winter window is open, has to sit up in bed to breath, is restless with anxiety and fear, fearful of being alone, wanting both parents right at the bed with him.<<

First step: look for par.: 153 symptoms:
There are no unusual symptoms in this case.

Second: Find remedies which would bring on this symptom-combination.
The points to be incorporated are:
< Winter, < Night, > sitting up, CC anxiety. Suffocative attack.

In my first analysis, I took into account all remedies from the Winter< rubric in grade 4/5, as these grades are freely combinable to other grades.

Acon: -4, 5, 3, 4, 4,
Amm: 4, 3, 2, 2, 0,
Ars.: 4, 5, 2, 5, 4,
Arn.: 5, 4, 2, 4, 3,
Bry : 4, 4, 5, 4, 4,
Camph: 4, 4, 3, 0, 0,
Caust: 4, 4, 2, 3, 2,
Dulc: 4, 5, 0, 0, 0,
Hell: 4, 4, 3, 0, 3,
Hep: 4, 5, 2, 2, 5,
Kali: 4, 4, 2, 2, 0,
Mosch: 4, 3, 2, 0, 2,
Nux-m: 4, 3, 3, 0, 2,
Nux-vom: 5, 2, 5, 4, 4,
Petr: 4, 2, 3, 3, 2,
Puls: 4, 4, 2, 5, 0,
Rhus: 5, 4, 2, 4, 2,
Sabad: 4, 4, 2, 2, 2,
Sep: 4, 3, 0, 4, 2,
Stro: 4, 5, 0, 2, 0,
Verat: 4, 3, 2, 4, 4,

Next step: Materia medica comparison:

Result –done with Jahr’s:
Aconite, Arsenicum, Bryonia, Nux-v, Rhus-t, Verat,

All of those remedies are suitable to deal with this situation, as they are similar to the symptom-complex.

Overall result:
If no more information can be elicted __maybe there is non--, then any of those remedies can deal homoeopathically with this situation.

IMO: In reality, there is a case-history and other things to be observed alongside this attack, which then give more weight to the one or the other remedy.

It seems to me, that this information was chosen vaguely, so that any remedy arrived by any system of analysis could be similar, but the author fell foul of this,
Moschus does not have the Night<, even though, he claims that Moschus acted nicely-whatever this means in precise follow-up information, I don’t know.

And as Will says in another tread—he is only a historian and does hardly treat .

The whole article reflects contemporary approaches using a compilation of Boenninghausen’s repertories, but does not reflect homeopathy as thought and practised by Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, or Jahr.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath