Dear Members

There seems to be a misapprehension about Homeopathy that crops up every so often:
It is the belief, that homeopathy treats the person as a whole, taking each and everything into account for the selection of the ‘’constitutional simillimum’’ which then is numerically the best match to the symptom and sign conglomeration elicited by interrogation.

C.M. Boger wrote 1909:
It is the nature of every human being to be extremely sensitive to the constitutional simillimum, and although it may not always be easy to detect the signs which call for it; when once found, a single dose of a very high potency will act over a long period of time. Because they do not know how to manage reaction and are not thoroughly conversant with the materia medica, some prescribers avoid such prescriptions. With a little more knowledge of the Organon and care in handling the complementaries, particularly, particularly the nosodes, they will be able to accomplish much more than they do now. [ C.M. Boger: Collected writings page: 121]

Boger expresses some of the dilemma himself – instead of actually giving indications for this elusive constitutional simillimum, he tells us, that it is only due to our own ignorance of what is written in the Organon, that we cannot see these things.

So—lets study the Organon.
Much to our surprise, Hahnemann always refers to disease as what is curable and not the entire person—according the Organon, it is the disease by its symptoms which calls for its remedial measures,--. Even though it might be a longstanding disease,-- it still is a condition different to the previous healthy state.
Also in having a closer look into the more chronic conditions, Hahnemann states, that it’s rarely by one single remedy alone a chronic ailment is eradicated. [org.:171, 221} Particularly if the present situation is based on 2-3 miasms, the treatment has to be geared against one of those at the time, which means inevitably, that there is the need for different remedies at different times to further the recovery.
This in return makes it very clear, that the indications for the NOW useful remedy can only lie in the PRESENT condition. If the condition has changed and the remedy previously prescribed does not suit anymore, a new one, has to be selected.
The predicament of ,,constitutional prescribers'', in this situation arises, that the constitutional remedy which is supposed to cure the entire disease is a different one, than the ONE now indicated by the symptoms. Which remedy to give in this situation?
Further more, if the previously determined remedy is the true constitutional simillimum, how comes, that it has not cured these symptoms?

There are two answers:
1) The constitutional simillimum was not the right ONE [try again]
2) There is no such thing as a true constitutional simillimum.

Now, where does that leave us when Kent and Boger proclaimed the existence of such a constitutional simillimum, and even tell us, they know how to select it, but showed in their casework, that they repeatedly changed the remedies going along with a chronic case --??

IMO: The former does not go together with the latter – But what were the reasons for such a mystery?
I found, that it’s rooted in the religious believes of the time, the turn of the century New school, which was, placed on a fairly moralistic foundation, a mixture of mysticism and Christianity.

One of their fundamental beliefs was, that all human suffering is based on sin, which equals constitution in the heads of the contemporaries. If this sin is not eradicated, there is no hope for salvation. The result of the sin is chronic disease – if people would have got writ of sin by themselves, then they would not suffer the effects of sin in the form of chronic disease.
But despite of best behaviour, they still suffer these diseases.
So the early American homeopaths deducted:

>>It is not given to humans to writ themselves from sin by themselves – the only way to do this is through homeopathy. And as the sinful pattern that causes all the misery is static, it expresses itself in the constitution. Therefore, then there has to be that ONE constitutional remedy, which will eradicate the pattern. Once this pattern is gone, all chronic disease disappears and all sin is gone, as there is no more reason for sin and these so cleansed individuals will go to heaven.<<

This send the homeopaths on a mission – the mission to conquer sin and suffering with Constitutional treatment. And they have a great advantage to other missionaries – the remedy will do all the change necessary for salvation no other effort necessary.
If they would have read Hahnemann, or would have evaluated their results unbiased, they would have realised soon enough:

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath