When I first encountered Homeopathy back in the sixties, I gained the impression that the primary purpose of repertorisation was to find a single remedy that most closely matched the TOTALITY of the patient's symptoms, the 'similimum'. Many years later, I discovered that in practice, Homeopaths most ordinarily ony included a relatively small number (7-8) of what they considered the most significant rubrics in their repertorisational analysis.

In the first prescription for cases of serious chronic disease, would it not be more appropriate and beneficial to the patient to do an exhaustive repertoriasational analysis which would include as many rubrics as were evident in the case?

Thank you,

__________________
DenisGibbon

best sadi in organon--read paragrpahs 83-104 -strat there and then dig in at paragraph 150 around there and up 154 155---that give strong claim --but man all u nneed know is in organon-as u catch the vibe--other avenues will open--other readings--but all in place wher u can handle--hahnemann writings where to start--as boeninninghausen--boger---herring all good----stay away from kent for now--good prescriber in his own write--but his words (whne not good old homoeopath foundation will blow u astray--not kent's intention --but he warn his students against taking his words over hard nose study of MM and organon---as fro other new schoolers--foget it --fairy tale land --pick and choose--and if dont know better will be freked the hellout--wrong turns---and such-----rep work is helpful--but Materia medica is better suited--gives a drift of what look for in cases---read up andthenm get back with what u think.

Introduction to the therapeutic pocket book

The repertory is not meant for use in those cases where there are clear indications for the simillimum. In these cases the additional symptoms that might be secured from the patient, under pressure of questioning, possibly would confuse a case that already stands out clearly, or if the repertory is used here, it might be used in the manner of a quick reference, to verify the leading indications for this remedy, or if some slight doubt were felt, to differentiate between those seemingly indicated. In clearly cut cases, even if the repertorisation verified the picture, for the student of MM this would have been a waste of time.

Murthy

yoh gav--paste in the rest --after that--were states "on the other hand......" because what u mention appies to those versed inmateria medica already---most arent --not even mod squad pratitoners---short cut--cummputer age---not many boenninghausen fans these days--i trust his rep over any others any day--but tf allens version need be added some things ommitted--and be careful of his additios to original---boger held truer --buthas left out some goodies from materia medica pura and chronic diseaes by hahnemann----

"In the first prescription for cases of serious chronic disease, would it not be more appropriate and beneficial to the patient to do an exhaustive repertoriasational analysis which would include as many rubrics as were evident in the case?"

*****



Hmm....serious chronic disease..... In such a case, you really do not want an essence remedy right off the bat. You ask the patient, "What is the worst thing for you right now?" Most likely such a patient is experiencing pain or other discomfort which is not a function of his constitution. The arthritis patient needs to have his arthritis case taken. Is it a rhus tox arthritis? A kali carb arthritis? Does the patient have heartburn because of his pain medicine? Or nausea and vomiting because of it? Then we need to take the case of that. Don't take the constitutional case of someone with serious chronic disease. Find out where the suffering is in the patient, then start with the worst thing. If you ever get down to the constitutional state, consider yourself lucky!

Snoopy

Thanks Snoopy.
I understand. You have answered my question.

__________________
DenisGibbon

Only a smallish number of Rx, classed as polycrests, have been extensively proved with the majority of their Sx known. If you Rep the whole lot you will restrict yourself to those polycrests. The Rx you require may well be a "small"Rx with not an awful lot of Sx written into the rep.Reputedly about 50% of known Sx have not been written into the rep, so Rep by* itself is not the 100% Rx finding system. It's essential to read up the MM of each likelyRx in as many books as possible. Put your greatest weighting on #211, the STATE of the disposition.#210 might help you too. All the best. Derek Briggs*(Retired Homeopathic Dinosaur)

That's a very good point! Because if you do repertorize "the whole entire case" as you indicated in the beginning, you will come up with a remedy like Phos, or Sulphur, or Calcarea carb--a polychrest, in other words--when in fact, the patient may need a remedy like symphytum for bone pains, or conium for vertigo while turning in bed. These remedies will never come up if you take a constitutional case; so, good observation, Derek.

Snoopy

Thanks Derek and Snoopy. I take your points very well.

I remember learning the repertorisation technique using Kent's Repertory as the reference. It seemed like a very mechanical process, but I later realized that the more important work really began at the conclusion of the repertorisation. I mean the study of the Materia Medica in relation to the probable remedies.

By the way, I was surprised when I looked at Clarke's choices of remedies and found that many of them were not even mentioned in Kent's repertory in places you would expect to find them.

So it seems to me that successful prescribing has more to do with a sound knowledge of Materia Medica than skillful repertorisation. This idea was already alluded to in Gavin's comment , but I see its significance more now, than I did before. It seems that the highly experienced Homeopath can very often manage without any need to refer to a repertory, but I would think that the on-going study of Materia Medica would be essential regardless of one's level of experience.

Are my conclusions correct?

__________________
DenisGibbon

Dear Denis,

It is true that there are a lot of remedies missing from repertory rubrics where they ought to be found. Remedies like Sulphur are over-represented in the repertory while a remedy like Hydrastis will never come to the top of a repertorization chart.

So, to begin with, we have to know what we are looking to solve in a case. Do we want a remedy for toothache? Then we don't need to do a constitutional case. We do, however, need the repertory very much here, because we might never guess in a million years that "Pressue of the Hand Amel." suggests that the remedy may be Rhus tox!

More often than not, a person comes to you because something specific is wrong. They have heartburn or chest pain or the flu. These are not constitutional cases. We have been led astray in the belief that every person needs his constitutional case taken. We look for "the simillimum" when the person before us has shoulder pain due to improper lifting or leg pain from having to stand too long at work. "What does the pain feel like?" we should ask. "What makes it better or worse? What was the cause? Is there a diagnosis? When did it start? Is it constant or does it come and go? How does it come and go, gradually? Suddenly? Is it in one location or does it move around or radiate?" Knowing what to ask is half the ballgame. Then we must consult our repertory as the remedy might surprise us.

However, even saying that, my last three cases of pain were very predictable: Arnica (sore sensation) and Bryonia (sharp pains, worse motion, not better on continued motion).

Snoopy