Theorie
different Homeopaths
Sankaran: The vital sensation is the
underlying sensation or feeling that is found within a person and that
expresses itself in everything the person says, does and feels.
Sankaran (2006) describes it as a deep
disturbance which expresses itself through mental, emotional and physical
patterns.
Mangialavori, 2010: 35:
Looking at an oak tree, we can describe it as: A large piece of wood
reaching toward the sky
A mixture of acorns and strange leaves with large indentations around
the edges attached to heavy branches
A gigantic and immobile creature which is noisy on windy days. A future
winter without heating problems.
All these symptoms are somewhat useless and confusing if one does not
understand the basic concept of a tree. Once this is known it is relatively
easy to accommodate more detail.
So too with homoeopathic medicine. If
described out of context, the symptom appears like a lost fragment; it is meaningless.
On the other hand, if contextualised and anchored to a larger
conceptual framework (i.e. a tree),
it becomes meaningful and can be understood
Homoeopathy is founded on the principle that “like cures like” and its practice
is based on matching the symptoms of a sick patient to the symptoms that are
elicited in a healthy person
when given a particular homoeopathic remedy. These symptoms are translated
into what homoeopaths call rubrics and they are investigated via two
homoeopathic tools: the repertory and the materia medica. Many homoeopaths see patients as a composite of symptoms
or rubrics. However, there are certain aspects of a person that cannot be
translated into a rubric and hence cannot be repertorised.
Makewell (2006): By looking only at
symptoms, one fails to notice the subtle nuances and patterns that are the
essence of an individual and the expression of one’s vital force and a too
heavy reliance
on the repertory is comparable to trying to talk by simply stringing words
from a dictionary together.
Mangialavori (2010: 81) writes that “more and
more information has been accumulated, but this can obfuscate as much as it
illuminates”. Therefore, to gain a deeper understanding of and insight into
remedies, homoeopaths need a reliable method that can be followed time and again.
In an attempt to do this, Mangialavori, Sankaran and Scholten have developed
the group analysis approach. In this approach, remedies are grouped according
to the natural classification of their sources. For example, remedies derived
from snakes form a family and share symptoms, sensations and pathological tendencies
that are common to all the remedies within that group.
When a patient presents with many symptoms that suggest a snake remedy and
he/she does not respond to Lachesis muta, a well-documented and often used snake remedy, then a
homoeopath should investigate using other remedies from the snake family.
Fundamental differences of Vannier, Kent, Schüsler, Eisayaga, Poitevin, Vithoulkas, Sanchez,
Escalante, Roberts, Ghatak with the homeopathy of
Hahnemann.
[Dr. Guillermo Zamora, MD]
Leon Vannier (1880-1963): The first difference
that I would like to quote is about the laws, while Hahnemann used only the similar´s law, Vannier used both
as a similar law as contraries, often simultaneously. Vannier
took into account the human function, temperament and constitution to select
the remedy, while Hahnemann only considered the totality of symptoms.
Regarding the classification of diseases, Hahnemann divided into acute
and chronic miasmas: Psora, syphilis, and sycosis, while Vannier based on
the morphology of sensory, functional and lesional
disorders, with acute or chronic genesis which in addition to Hahnemann´s miasmas, he added tuberculosis (Hering) and cancer. From the standpoint of disease´s causal agent, Hahnemann refers to morbific agent while Vannier a toxinic complex .
Regarding the dynamics of the consultation, Vannier
referred that interrogation must be conducted by the physician at once this has
been done, then patient must be explored with the same technique
that orthodox medicine. In addition, he added iridology as one more
technical exploration. Hahnemann established that the questioning must be done
through the free tribune and mere observation of
the patient and questions must not be directed to a negative or positive
response.
Vannier divided the study of the drug in
Analytical (characteristic signs, objective signs, subjective secondary signs,
procedures), Synthetics (subjective and objective symptoms ), homeopathic
antidotes and incompatibilities. Hahnemann did the most complete study about
remedies’ concordances
About the dosage, Hahnemann did little emphasis on the exact dosage of
the drug (although he recommended and experienced the minimal dose), but rather
the response towards the remedy, while,
it seems to be, Vannier studied the dosage and
administration interval.
Treatment Technique:
Hahnemann used a similar single drug at a time, while Vannier used a combination of homeopathic medicines at
once. Beside, Vannier used methods such as drainage,
Organic and toxinic regulation
and he also used therapeutic series and families of remedies.
James Tyler Kent (1849-1916)
James T. Kent, graduated from Eclectic Medical Institute in the year
1871.
Kent received his diploma as homeopath from homeopathic school in
Missouri in 1889.
His teachers include Dr. Samuel Hahnemann and Emanuel Swedenborg.
Dean of the Post-graduate school of homeopathy "in Philadelphia.
Professor of medical materia in the
"Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital”, in Chicago, and “Hering Medical College “, Chicago.
Kent thinks that Psora is the origin of all
diseases, believing that was the original sin over which rests all human
pathology (Swedenborgian influence). He says the Psora is found in the body from birth and refers that the
other two chronic miasmas (sycosis and syphilis)
could not exist if Psora had not established on
mankind. Dr. Hahnemann considers that patients may present any disease without
necessarily existed Psora.
Regarding the dose, for Kent had no difference in quantity, for
Hahnemann each pill remedy had a certain amount of medicinal energy. For Kent
quantity was just a static factor while the potency is a dynamic factor. (Swedenborgian influence)
Vital Force: Kent believed that the energy came from a single substance,
to him, there was no such thing as a pure energy, while Hahnemann considered
that there is pure energy without a physical or even a simple substance, he
(Hahnemann) thought that it comes from a force Electromagnetic.
Although the germ theory is not a difference, it could be, let me
explain it. Kent did not believe that microorganisms play an active role in disease´s processes. He said: "Most of the doctors are
going crazy about the bug and they have been made a vice to say that these
(bugs) are the cause of the disease and they think that these" young
friends "are extremely dangerous." Also says: "The bacteria are
innocent colleagues and if they carry diseases they only carry the simple
substance that causes the disease like an elephant would do it. It seems to be
that Hahnemann wrote the first comprehensive study on the effects of
microorganisms in the human. Although expressing the importance of
susceptibility and constitution of the patient.
Hahnemann used the term infection in a very wide sense, to him; anyone
can be infected by any external stimulus which produces a reaction of the body.
Acording to George Dimitriadis;
this reaction is explained by Hahnemann within the conceptual, supra sensual or
virtual level, it means, No chemical nor mechanical, then dynamic. There might
be positive (healthy) and negative reactions for the body, it depends on the
objective, subjective and functional sides. Thus, Hahnemann can consider
external stimulus (infectious agents) to factors coming from the enviroment (i,e light sun) until
the medicines themselves as they can get a reaction from the body, and in
personal opinion, why not, even microorganisms (I mean, any factor able to get
a reaction from the body). Therefore, a miasma is a disease (reaction) which is
developed, after an infection with an external stimulus (Infectious agent).
Even when in Hahnemann´s times there were not
the microscopes, Hahnemann explains the various phases of an acute disease as
if were a microbial disease.
Kent set the mind symptom on the top of his repertorization
symptom and he confuses it with personality. Hahnemann only takes the mind
symptom which has been concomitant to the disease and never take personality
into account for his repertorization method. (How
mood changes while disease).
Kent used his own repertory which is filled of errors and additions from
doubly sources, wrong translations and misunderstood techniques on the
collection and graduation of symptoms.
Hahnemann used the Boenninghausen´s Repertory
1846 under his Collection (complete symptom and its elements) and graduation
protocol.
Eilhelm Heinrich Schüsler
Born in Oldenburg, Germany.
He lived from 1821 to 1898.
1. He says that the lack of certain minerals in the cells (law of
minimum) produces illness.
2. These lacks of salts were gotten from ashes of cremated bodies.
3. According to Schüsler, one prepared can be
administered simultaneously with various salts and only will be absorbed the
needed salt, the others will be eliminated.
4. He accepts that these salts can be used prophylactically.
5. He does not take into account the totality of symptoms but the
relationship of the disease and salts lacks theory.
6. He believes that such salts are nutrients that are part of the body.
Salts are not drugs.
7. He did not classify the diseases.
Francisco Javier Eisayaga
He was married to Amalia Bertha Klein both
formed a united family with strong values of affection and good principles.
They had eight children, three of them are medical doctors currently.
He died on June 26, 2001 at 9:30 pm.
Prof. Dr. Francisco Xavier Eisayaga is
graduated from the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
He was Urologist at several hospitals in urology in Buenos Aires.
He studied homeopathy in 1949-50, in Argentina Homeopathic Medical
Association.
Lecturer and then as vice president of that association.
He has authored numerous articles and books among which are his Treatise
on Homeopathic Medicine and his “masterpiece" translation of The Modern
Repertory of Kent.
He was president of the International Homeopathic Medical League from
1988 to 1996
Differences:
1. Dr. Eisayaga agrees to make clinical
diagnostic pathology.
2. He agrees with experiments on sick people.
3. Dr. Eisayaga accepts the 2 additional
miasmas Dr. Leon Vannier (Tuberculinism
and Cancerinism).
4. He recognizes the achievements of the allopathic medicine.
5. He reports that Psora may be predisposing
for acute illnesses.
6. In the other hand, he accepts the use of more palliative homeopathic
substances.
Bernard Pointevin
1. Dr. Pointevin attaches importance to characterological traits and morphological typology for the
specificity of a patient with the medication.
2. Vitalistic explanation differs from
Hahnemann, He said that the current interpretation should be based on
physical-chemical knowledge applied in contemporary biology.
3. He did not recognize as a "Law" to the similar´s
Law but as a therapeutic relationship of similarity.
4. He says the objective of the consultation is the therapy and
understanding of the physiological mechanism and lesion of the disease.
5. He says, it must do nosological and
functional diagnoses.
6. He mentions that drugs should be prescribed according to both
clinical syndrome and homeopathic diagnosis, to be complemented.
7. He agrees with the antibiotic therapy if the individual does not
react to homeopathic medicine or if there is lack of experience in homeopathy.
8. He experiments on animals.
9. He doubts remedies work at a major potency than 9 CH.
10. He calls empiricism to homeopathic practice.
11. He takes into consideration the active principle of a substance to
experiment its effects within a homeopathic remedy.
G. Vithoulkas
1. To Dr. Vithoulkas, the vital force is the
same that an electromagnetic field (the concept of resonance). Each substance
has a frequency that must resonate with the body so that there is healing.
2. Similar´s law relates to the above
(resonance).
3. He tries to explain the mechanism of action of the remedies through
physicochemical ideas (Poitevin) in biology.
(Electromagnetic fields)
4. Defense mechanism and dynamic and vital
force are the same.
5. Patient first must get sick of Psora to get
syphilis and sycosis. (Kent)
6. He accepts that acupuncture, allopathy, and
magnetism can also achieve cure by touching the dynamic plane.
7. He states that there are plenty of miasmas and not just three.
8. Accepts treat one miasma every time, in layers of predisposition
(layer by layer).
9. Accepts nosodes as therapy. (Based on Isopathic terms)
10. The miasma is a diathesis (predisposition) and not disease.
11. He reports that remedies must be experienced in healthy subjects but
who are familiar to the Materia Medica,
with an average of ages, between 18 and 45 years old.
Proceso Sanchez Ortega
1. Dr. Sanchez accepted the therapy in a bi-miasmatic
or tri-miasmatic, this (therapy) should be focused
towards the prevailing miasma, and then proceed to the next that is most
prevalent and so on.
2. He compares Miasmatic diseases with colors, even; he compares the character and temperament
with colors either.
3. He makes a numerical classification of the miasmas (according to
personalities) with combination codes that must fit between persons in order of
getting a better interpersonal and social communication.
4. He considers to the miasma as diathesis (predisposition) or a genetic
disease.
5. He made his own miasmatic classification of
the remedies.
Escalante Tarsicio Plancarte
1. He calls to homeopaths as simil therapists,
vitalistic (simil) and
materialistic (Therapists) respectively.
2. He based the action of remedies based on their pharmacodynamy.
3. Dr. Escalante refers that Homeopathic medicine is chosen by the
principle of similar but it heals by contraries law.
4. He supports experiments in animals and other living beings.
5. He says that homeopathic medicines act in different systems depending
on the dose (potency), which invert their action while they are more diluted.
6. He notes that remedies which exceed the 9c in the practice or the
Avogadro limit (12 CH) are useless for healing.
7. He accepts the Alternatism and complexism. (For alternating or giving several bottles)
8. He says that the miasma must be attached to the germ theory because
Hahnemann did not know abut it.
10. He supports Isopathy, even he considers it
as a Law.
Hebert A. Roberts
I think that Roberts did a descriptive analysis of Hahnemann more than
to establish a philosophy, He differs in the following:
1. Roberts tries to explain the high dilutions of Hahnemann from the
point of view of the atoms referring that these acquire radioactive attributes
and therefore act at the level of vital energy which moves away from Hahnemannian dynamic concept.
2. He refers that temperament must be considered for medical history,
I.e. to prescribe pulsatilla: Women with blonde hair
and blue eyes, or Nux vomica:
Woman thin and brown skin.
3. He called stigma instead of miasmas to syphilis and sycosis, due to the effect almost indelible injury in cells
which has been left by these two miasmas.
4. The author mixes symptoms of developed Psora
such as mental and some other items in the stigma of syphilis and sycosis.
N. Ghatac
He is from India. Born in 1918
1. The only way to activate Hering´s Law is
through high Potencies.
2. Ghatak takes to all diseases as one disease
(Psora), Psora includes
also the other two miasmas: Syphilis and sycosis
3. The concept of symptomatic totality is different in acute and chronic
cases, the prescription is based on the miasma acting, and it is not in the
acute form.
4. Dr. Ghatak believes that all remedies are
tri-miasmatic.
5. The disease only exists in the mind.
6. The real action is only effective through homeopathic highly
dilutions. All chronic case must be tried with 200c or higher.
7. Although he considered that low potencies act only in the body, in
any case is rarely a good response to 30c.
8. He does not consider the totality of symptoms only the dominant
miasma.
Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen Impressum