E.A. Farrington - Clinical Materia Medica

Dear onxy

His other book: comparitive Materia Medica is even better.
Farrington created those books from reading other works. He died young. Nash's leaders are more concise --

One of the big advantage of " 'Plain talks on materia medica' is that its repertory correlate with the materia medica.I would say this is the only one.

you are right but most of the classical homeopath are against this practice.They do not like therapeutic hints.

Dr Farrington"s comparitive and Clinical materia medica  both are gems of literature and provide insight for their identification in various clinical situations......it is worth reading and even better to apply in practise..........

Treat  the patient ,not the disease.

And btw, Farrington's comparative MM is better than the other, because it gives examples how a syndrome may present itself in different people. Nash's "Leaders" is another comparative MM that shows this phenomenon.

In fact, alphabetic MM does not reflect homoeopathy proper. MM should be organised like Alphonse Teste did with his MM - remedies are grouped by symptom similarity. One is the head of a group and the others are like "satellites".

AW Woodward - although more allopath than homoeopath - also made a significant contribution to comparative MM in his groupings according to the different body systems, such as digestive, urinary, respiratory, etc.
His idea was that remedies show symptoms first in one of those systems and they should be grouped according to that similarity. While falling short of symptom similarity like Nash, Farrington or Teste, it still provides an interesting read on a method that seeks to classify according to similarities.

Kaviraj.