Luc De Schepper — in Conversation With Elaine Lewis

Dr. Luc, you were the first to answer our invitation to discuss the “new methods in homeopathy”. You’re always so willing to share your knowledge!

This discussion is more than timely, Elaine! The homeopathic world seems to be inundated with new theories, often bordering on the esoteric, promising fast and easy solutions. The real student knows that there are no short cuts, only hard and steady work. True love for homeopathy and mankind will bring results.

For the last 6 years I have taught throughout the world. The major question I hear from students and practitioners alike is, “Why do we hear so many conflicting things that confuse us? Often these different theories are more confusing than enlightening!” If homeopaths are confused, you can only imagine how confused patients are when they receive treatments from different homeopaths that seem to contradict each other; but before I again get unjustly accused, let’s view each other’s comments as a healthy dialogue like the old masters conducted. Even an eminent physician like Kent was not exempt from criticism when he concocted some mixed remedies at his desk. Rather than a monologue (mono-logos) we should conduct a genuine dialogue devoid of personal attacks.

I assure you that this is what we at “Homeopathy for Everyone” are trying to have, an enlightened discussion. How would you like to begin?

I will begin by observing that the present homeopathic world seems to be focused on “finding the simillimum.”

I’m not even sure what that means! I had a 9 yr. old child whose mother said his chief complaint was sinusitis with a stopped-up nose that wouldn’t let him sleep because of trouble breathing. He kept the whole house awake at night with his snoring!  But, I, on the other hand, couldn’t help observing that this was an Asperger’s child–a math savant who couldn’t make eye contact; consequently, I suddenly lost interest in the boring sinusitis and concentrated my efforts on finding a remedy for the child’s constitution.

In the meantime, a less “brilliant” homeopath, the next door neighbor, gave the child Hydrastis 30C for the sinusitis, and it cleared right up!  The parents were deliriously happy, they were telling everyone how great homeopathy was!  Boy, did I feel like an idiot!  I had forgotten the most important lesson of Hering’s Law: “Healing takes place in reverse order!” 

Well indeed, this is what is called the need for an acute intercurrent according to Aphorism 75! See my book Achieving and Maintaining the Simillimum on how to take an acute case.

I also teach my students the von Boeninghausen method, excellent for acutes and chronic cases!

But assuming for the moment that we had completed the first step– “finding the simillimum”, most seminars and journals neglect the second step which is as important as the first, namely, the patient’s MANAGEMENT! Even Kent lamented, “Why do we lose so many patients from the second visit after a successful first intervention?” Let’s face it: the homeopath sometimes can get lucky finding the simillimum, but what to do next is outside the realm of guesswork.

You’re so right about that!

Personally, I think the homeopath who is the best MANAGER is to be preferred above the one that finds the simillimum, because when erring in finding the simillimum, the homeopath versed in management knows what to do and corrects his mistake immediately. He who is inadequate in management loses his patient from the second visit on, bringing discredit to homeopathy and himself.

That is so true; in fact, even my latest case is someone who came to me only because his previous practitioner, despite having found the right remedy, totally lost the case by giving the exact same potency over and over again as Hahnemann warned not to do in Aph. 247.  The patient now has no energy and no interest in life and figuring out how to move forward at this point is very difficult.  So, yes, what good did finding the simillimum do?

What is most amazing to me is the general lack of knowledge, world-wide, about Hahnemann’s Organon  and Chronic Diseases.

This is not the case with practitioners of other medical modalities. Allopathy and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) start from the same textbooks before the start of building new theories on the fundamentals of the science involved. TCM schools all start studying and applying the old books from the beginning on and not much has been added since 5000 years ago.

Most practitioners of homeopathy say that they studied the Organon in depth; yet, looking at their way of practicing one has to conclude that they do not believe anything Hahnemann wrote as often they neglect to follow what Hahnemann proposed. “Eminent” teachers go so far as to claim this Organon is “an old dusty bible,” and take the excuse that “Hahnemann would have liked us to progress beyond what he did.” Progress indeed is what Hahnemann and all of us would like to see, but progress is not building a speculative theory on drifting sand, neglecting all our ground principles.

Which are…..

Our Laws; like Individuality, one remedy at a time, the minimum dose, the laws of dissimilar and similar diseases and repetition of the remedy. I am amazed how Hahnemann’s words are misquoted and how various teachers claim that Hahnemann made mistakes too and did not follow always what he wrote in The Organon. They seem to forget that Hahnemann continuously experimented but that his experiments were always based on our basic laws. For instance, I invite those who claim that Hahnemann only used LM potencies in six cases in his Paris years to read carefully the microfiches available (written in French) to back up those claims. I doubt of course such a statement when it is made by someone who cannot speak French!

Here are some other statements by “famous” teachers. I want to remind teachers that they have a great duty to spread truthful information in light of the influence they have on students. I defer naming names as I only want to discuss their message, not the character of the person.

“I do not know anything about miasms but I don’t believe in this theory.” This sounds much like the allopathic doctor who says that he does not know anything about homeopathy but does not believe in it.  What happened to Hering’s dictum, “…not to reject anything without studying and trying it?”  Of course you can’t try a theory without studying it.

The same teacher claims that “…one constitutional remedy alone will cure any disease the patient might have during his life time.”  And then he produces a case that seems to follow that reasoning, but what about the other 99 that don’t? I remind such a person of the aphorisms of dissimilar diseases (from Aphorisms 36-40) and especially 38 where Hahnemann states that “a stronger dissimilar disease (acute or chronic) will suspend the old chronic disease, not cure it.”

A severe acute disease will suspend the old chronic one. If one continues the chronic remedy where an acute is indicated, one is basically treating with a dissimilar remedy and as a result, you will add accessory symptoms (unhomeopathic to the case of course), creating a more complex medicinal disease. When a moderate to severe acute disease occurs, an acute intercurrent is needed, NOT the continuation of the chronic remedy! This is according to the Law of Similars!

Can you explain the difference between “suppression” and “suspension”?

Big difference! Suppression does not achieve a cure, on the contrary, the direction of cure is wrong leading to a deeper more complex disease state, even leading to incurability! Suspension: the old disease is postponed or suspended (NOT cured) while the Vital Force must pay attention to the new dissimilar stronger disease. Once the latter is taken care off, the old chronic disease returns in the SAME (not worse) condition as before. Has everyone not seen this in the practice?

Could you give an example?

For instance: The patient was on Aurum for a chronic depression when he now suffers from a severe Arsenicum flu. This flu will suspend the Aurum depression and Arsenicum in acute doses/potency has to be used as an intercurrent. After the flu, as if by “miracle” the depression which apparently was alleviated, if not gone, returns with the same force as before! Constant allopathic and yes, homeopathic suppression, besides new physical and emotional incidents, produce new layers needing a new remedy (has such person never heard of the Law of Similars and the occurrence of dissimilar diseases?). This unfortunate message seems to reverberate with certain homeopaths who claim that “they never need an acute nor chronic (nosode) intercurrent.”

I am baffled by such bold statements and would, in light of the above aphorisms, like to receive their explanation. When we talk about the need for an acute intercurrent, I refer the reader to Aphorism 73, which defines where this intercurrent is needed. I would like to hear why, in the case of a severe Gelsemium flu, the homeopath should continue the previous, let’s say grief remedy, Pulsatilla? How is it possible to treat with dissimilar remedies?

What I truly would like to see in schools is that the teacher takes a live case, new to him and students, and sees this patient back on subsequent visits in front of the class. This is what I do, not only for the honesty but also to teach the student the all important case-management; no paper cases prepared before (and knowing the outcome) nor seeing a live case and never seeing that patient back nor supplying a true follow up. Only then can the student learn and be encouraged as to what truly happens in the practice!

Could you talk more about the importance of proper case management? 

I often wonder about the claim that everyone reads The Organon.  When I pose the following question to my audiences worldwide: “What are your instructions to your patient when he needs to take an acute intercurrent?”  I have nowhere heard the right answer, yet Hahnemann tells us exactly how to do this in Aphorism 157 and 158.

Actually, don’t 157 and 158 say that it’s not unusual for an acute remedy to cause a brief aggravation but it’s not really an aggravation, it’s really a remedy proving? Did you pick the right aphorisms?

I DID take the right aphorisms. In Aphorism 157 Hahnemann tells us that in acutes is the ONLY time we are allowed to create a similar aggravation (see text) “…an aggravation of his own complaints” is called a similar aggravation, NOT proving. A proving could cause any of the remedy’s symptoms, not necessarily belonging to the patient’s malady!

If we can’t agree about something as simple as how and when to give an acute intercurrent, how can we agree on more complicated issues like treating chronic disease?

Dr. Luc, when you have asked audiences, “What are your instructions to your patient when he needs to take an acute intercurrent,” what answers have you gotten?

Most of the time: “Repeat if there’s no improvement after 15 minutes.” (This is totally wrong, as you’d be giving the remedy DURING the similar aggravation making the aggravation worse.) Then there’s the more BIZARRE answers like, “The patient has to come to my house to ask me if it is OK to take another dose!” Most answers relate to too much and too early repeating making management hopeless!

Could you expand on why you can’t repeat the acute remedy if there’s no improvement after 15 minutes? (Not that I know why you’d be repeating a remedy every 15 minutes anyway, unless you had a heart attack, or something.)

Indeed when we talk about a life threathening situation then indeed we repeat even every 15 minutes if need be; but, in Aphorism 157 it says that a homeopathic aggravation can be expected within the hour of the first dose. And if that happens–Aphorism 158–there is a high probability that the disease will be cured by this first dose. So you can imagine, that if the patient would repeat during the aggravation time, let’s say every 15 minutes in the first hour when the similar aggravation occurs, the similar aggravation will be more outspoken, confusing the patient and homeopath alike!

So, wait, to be clear, are you saying that people said that if you are worse after the first dose, you can repeat the remedy?

You would be surprised how many homeopaths around the world did say exactly that, to repeat the remedy after 15 minutes if the situation gets worse. (I always give the example of a diarrhea attack I had in India for which I took China–it lasted for one full hour with at least ten bowel movements in that period of time and yet after one hour it was gone and I never needed another dose!)

Then there are the statements supported by the sacred sentence, “It is my experience that…,” as if that justifies anything and is the last word to be accepted without real dialogue.

I also hear, “The dose of the remedy is not as important as finding the right remedy.”

It’s funny you should mention that.  I hear that all the time.  In fact, people often tell me that they’ve taken this remedy and that remedy, and I always have to stop them and say, “What potency, what was your dosing schedule, did you take dry pellets or liquid, how many succussions before each dose, how many days or weeks did you take it and what was the result?”

This is exactly right, the definition of the Simillimum is not choosing the right remedy, but it is choosing the right remedy, potency, dose and repetition!  Regarding the dose (how much?), homeopaths would do well to read Aphorism 275 and 276 which I will quote for you:

“The correctness of a medicine for a given case of disease depends not only on its accurate homeopathic selection but also on the correct size (or rather smallness) of the dose. A medicine given in too large a dose though COMPLETELY HOMEOPATHIC TO THE CASE (my emphasis), will still HARM the patient by the quantity and unnecessarily strong action on the vital force…”

And

“In STRONG DOSES, the more homeopathic the medicine and the higher in potency, the MORE HARM it does; indeed it is FAR MORE HARMFUL than equally large doses of unhomeopathic medicine…Excessively large doses of an ACCURATELY SELECTED HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE, especially if frequently repeated, are, as a rule, VERY DESTRUCTIVE. Not infrequently they endanger the patient’s life or make his disease INCURABLE.” (Capitals my emphasis).

Looking at these aphorisms how can any serious homeopath state that the DOSE doesn’t matter?

Hahnemann never said anything in his Organon without testing it for a long time.  When the homeopath pays attention he should see that this is true in the practice.  I have seen cases where three DROPS of the medicine was too much causing a similar aggravation, one drop did not do anything, but two drops was the required dose.

Then there are those homeopaths who claim to “cure” by repeating the indicated remedy daily in a dry dose for months or one dose dry, let’s say 1M, every month for 12 months. Have they read Chronic Diseases (p156) in which Hahnemann states,

“It is important to observe that our vital principle cannot bear well that the same UNCHANGED dose of the medicine be given even TWICE in succession, MUCH LESS MORE FREQUENTLY to a patient. For by this the good effect of the former dose of medicine is either neutralized in part, or new symptoms proper to the medicine (accessory symptoms) which have never been present in the disease, appear, impeding the cure. The even WELL-SELECTED remedy produces ill effects…”

How can such homeopath state that he “cured” the case when repeating dry doses unchanged for days or months?  And yet those homeopaths all claim they are “classical” homeopaths. Classical according to what, is the question.

A corollary to this would be the “protocols”, the “dosing schedules” for all patients, that are to be followed irrespective of the patient’s response: It could be 200C the first week, 1M the second week, 10M the third week…and variations thereof, usually because someone mentioned it at a case conference and it gets passed on.

I’ve heard many other things, like giving three unchanged doses the same day, or on three consecutive days; or 30C the first day, 200C the next and 1M the next day, all in dry doses. You might get away with this in acute diseases but not in chronic diseases with strong pathology, with sensitive patients and skin diseases. Horrible homeopathic aggravations will be the result!

I’ve seen them, yes!

I could go on and on with what I have seen as a cavalier disregard of our science and art.  I have cited the above examples because I feel they are even more important to discuss than the present discussion on “new methods”.

I am sure you are right. I think you’re saying that many practitioners, regardless of the method chosen, are not able to keep the case moving.  In fact, Dr. Luc, watching the hpathy discussion board for years, I’ve seen and heard just about everything, but, there’s a post on our discussion board now from someone who is bipolar who, for months, has been on a 6C remedy, dry, every other day because the one dose of 200C she had taken caused her to be hospitalized!  Well, now the 6C is no longer holding, so, the homeopath states that she doesn’t know what to do; yes, she actually does not know what to do!  She claims to be “willing”, out of desperation (!?) to try a 10M!  I replied to the post saying this was the most insane rationale for potency selection I’ve ever heard!  Clearly the next step is to go to the 7 or 9C.

Indeed, worldwide I have seen this as the biggest threat to homeopathy’s survival. First, there’s not knowing how to give the right interpretation to the action of the first dose; then, there’s the vast amount of time the patient is left alone between dry doses.  

I don’t call it “management” when the homeopath states, “I repeated the dry dose after 4 weeks because the case was stalled, and after 6 months the patient was cured.” This is not what happens in actual practice. In real life, acutes happen requiring an acute intercurrent; patients make mistakes in spite of good explanation, thinking that taking more of the remedy will make the cure go faster; they use over-the-counter drugs; they take acute remedies available everywhere when no acute remedy is needed; family members interfere because THEY don’t like (understand) the changes in the patient.  In other words, it is rare that there is a smooth ride when you don’t guide the patient–hold the patient’s hand.  After all, every driver of a car needs a map and a co-pilot and that’s us, the homeopath, on the journey towards health.

A proposal for a new discussion in your magazine might be, “Do you follow the fifth and sixth edition of the Organon in your practice and if not, why not?”

I think we would be met with blank stares.

Keep in mind that 90% of the world still practices according to the 4th edition dry dose method.

1. The 4th edition prescriber WANTS a similar aggravation, an aggravation of the patient’s symptoms, since it tells him he has the right remedy (which does not mean OUR wanted simillimum, which is the right remedy, right dose and right potency). The 5th and 6th edition prescriber wants to minimize and even totally avoid this similar aggravation!  You can only imagine what that does to the patient. Let’s say you have an eczema case responding to Mezereum: the picture of such eczema is an extreme violent itching at night, “as if thousands of ants crawling under the skin.”  

The child is usually in a restraint so as not to scratch himself but usually the patient presents with a face that is one bloody mess, infecting easily…Imagine aggravating such a child (4th edition): imagine the agony of this child and the parents alike! Does the homeopath think he can keep this patient after the first aggravating dose? Too many patients have been lost forever to homeopathy. Imagine, as I also had, the violent ADHD child that wants to kill his father and sister so he can marry his mother. You aggravate him and he may well kill them!

2. The 4th edition prescriber MUST wait after his first dry dose till he is sure that no more improvement of the remedy can be expected, as is dictated in the 4th edition Organon. The 5th and 6th edition prescriber can redose the patient WHILE having improvement (Aphorism 246), speeding therefore the cure to half or less of the time. This dosing is more in line with allopathy except for one difference: we always will do a TEST dose (first dose) and check with the patient one day later to determine the interval in which the remedy will be given. As you can see, this is very different from individual to individual which is a must!

Some practitioners boast that they use the watery methods but let the patient take a dose every day until the bottle is empty without checking on their patient!  This mechanical repetition has NO place in a good homeopathic practice. So the 4th edition loses much time trying to achieve a cure leading again to a loss of patients which he could have kept had he followed Hahnemann’s last methods.

3. The 4th edition prescriber is deadly afraid of many events/substances canceling his one time given remedy (first dose) while waiting till the effect has ceased. Therefore he puts many restrictions on his patient regarding diet and allopathic medications, even other modalities like TCM (Acupuncture). Even in the case of cancelation of the remedy during the treatment, the 5th and 6th practitioner repeats the remedy at determined intervals therefore suffers little from these cancellations as each next dose will pick up the action on the Vital Force again..

4. In case of similar aggravation, the advanced prescriber easily adjusts the second dose which can already be given on the third day, not three weeks later as the 4th edition prescriber does. He has many possibilities adjusting the dose (the amount, succussions or potency, 2nd cup, giving drops from the bottle and cup while the only remedy the 4th edition prescriber has is either cancelling the remedy or trying to give a lower potency to slow down the aggravation. Either way is losing time again which is a concern for the patient and the possibility of losing him.

5. The management of homeopathy which is difficult is made much more difficult for the 4th edition prescriber since he has fewer options available for correction.

6. The watery methods are more appropriate for longtime suppressed cases (through allopathic meds and even homeopathy) and for cases on the border of curability.

No matter what the name of the disease, the 5th and 6th edition prescriber is much more equipped to give the patient what Hahnemann promised in Aphorism 2: a speedy, permanent and gentle cure.

Maybe some of the other homeopaths can tell me why then they still practice according to the 4th edition? Who is stubborn and dogmatic here? There is not one reason except that there is less work for the homeopath but that is a rather selfish reason.

Dr. Luc, it’s because it’s what “real” doctors do!  You see your patient today, and he comes back in a month to have his prescription re-evaluated or renewed.  I have said many times that we appear to be modeling ourselves after medical doctors, not Hahnemann and The Organon.  

Plus the fact that I don’t think anyone knows about this distinction you’re describing between the various editions of The Organon; everyone is giving one dose and waiting a month as per the 4th edition, and fearing antidoting factors such as mint, coffee and dental work because they have little expectation of ever repeating this one-time dose, and they are also afraid of acutes because they don’t want to treat them for fear this one-time dose will be antidoted by an acute remedy, so the patient must therefore suffer, or take Tylenol, to protect this 4th edition one-time dose!  

(Then there are the dosing “methods” that bear no relation to any edition of the Organon at all, arbitrary dosing ideas like 200C three times a day for a week, like the way doctors prescribe antibiotics!)

RIGHT ON dear Elaine! Now you understand it perfectly!  Yes, is this not a shame that 90% of the world, including most of our eminent teachers, do not adhere to 5th and 6th Organon prescribing?

It always surprises me to realize that, in fact, no one actually reads The Organon, or Chronic Diseases and as a result, insane prescribing errors are committed, like starting chronic cases off with the highest potencies, and even worse, repeating them several times a day, and then not knowing how to undo the aggravations they cause!!!!  Grr!!!!  (Excuse me while I breathe into this paper bag!) Let me ask you about the Periodic Table.

OK, good.  I wrote a book called Homeopathy and the Periodic Table to show that we don’t have to speculate at all using this method but can use it based on the provings only. Filling in the blank gaps (not even Mendelejeff did this) and then presenting a “case” that was “cured” with that chosen remedy is not something I feel comfortable with.  Why not prove these remedies in the same fashion as the old homeopaths did?  We must be aware of what Hering (in Analytical Repertory of the Symptoms of the Mind, introduction) and Hahnemann (in Chronic Diseases, under Alumina, footnote) warned us about following such a road:

“There are two kinds of symptoms: those produced (provings) and those cured, are essentially different…The marking of such different origins should always be done with the utmost care in the monograph of the Materia Medica. It should be considered as a matter of the highest importance, never to mix INDISCRIMINATELY symptoms reported as cured (not having been observed on the healthy), with the symptoms produced by the drug…Perplexity instead of lucidness would be developed through the combination of the differential and degree marks…The choice of the remedy should be GOVERNED BY THE SYMPTOMS COMING FROM THE PROVINGS.” (Capitals by author)

What about remedy families?

I can’t see how this makes it easier for the student to find the simillimum.  You must still learn a lot of characteristics of each family by heart. There is a danger for those students adhering to families and the Periodic Table methods only: I have seen enough times that the student/or the seminar participant “wants” to see a remedy according to these methods, even when the remedy shows a clear polychrest not belonging to these methods or the remedy can be found much easier by a method derived from the “value of symptoms.” Some more disturbing things occur.  

Another eminent homeopath treated one of my students for severe depression and since she was a vet and loved horses, gave her Lac Equininum!  If I would show something like this to my allopathic colleagues they would laugh us out the door!  The case was resolved by Sulphur followed by Calc-c!  Can such a homeopath not recognize Sulphur?

It would be funny if such teachings would not have catastrophical consequences.

Why do you use such a strong word as “catastrophical”?

In Europe, Canada and the US, enrollment of homeopathic schools is down and schools close.  What is worse, many who went through a three year school stop practicing homeopathy after one or two years because they are discouraged.  Would you think that anyone who had results would stop practicing? How will this advance homeopathy?

I hope you don’t mind my asking, but, are you sure that schools are closing in Europe, Canada and the US in remarkable numbers, and are you sure that the reason for such closing is that people aren’t getting results in their practice?

Yes I am very sure.  I have several friends who are representatives for homeopathic software. They come to every seminar and see what really is happening. In Belgium there used to be five great schools in homeopathy. This year not one of them has a new student I was told.  In Holland half of the medical doctors doing homeopathy stopped doing it.  In my own school I see students coming from Canada, for instance.  When I ask them how many of their friends are practicing out of ten who graduated, ONE!  Why would people stop practicing after one to two years out of school?  Because they have great results?  Certainly the opposite is more logical.  If one has great success in their practice, there is no reason to stop practicing. This will not lead to advancing homeopathy!

This is quite shocking news about the schools!  But do continue.  What can you say about “the core delusion”?

Core delusion and core sensation: Should we really be limiting our simillimum choice to one such trait? Repeatedly asking, “What is your sensation,” does not come over well with everyone.  We should all study the four functions of consciousness of Jung so that we understand that following such approach would offend many of our patients.  We all have a dominant function of consciousness, but the successful homeopath is he who can speak to the patient in the patient’s dominant function, not his own!

Could you give an example of what you mean by “speaking in the patient’s dominant function?”

For instance, the homeopath often has a dominant THINKING function (Sulphur, Lach, Lyc, etc.) and his patient may be a Feeling-intuitive type like Phosphorus.  It would be wrong for this homeopath to address his patient in his “thinking function”.

You mean by lecturing, theorizing…?

Yes, by launching into a tedious explanation of one thing and another, explaining vibrational medicine, etc. when the feeling type is more interested in his or her emotions, that is how he/she approaches everyday problems!  When I talk in my works about the core delusion (CD), it is very different than what is commonly proposed: it is defined according to Carl Jung’s works, which I introduced in homeopathy as follows:

“The Core Delusion (CD) is the dominant, ruling emotion that has its origin in what Jung called, “a high feeling-toned complex” or our “ailments from.”

Could you expand on that?

A high feeling toned complex refers to a long ago painful event that was not resolved and therefore has evolved often to a fixed idea.  In other words, this complex is linked to our NWS.  For instance: the painful event was a betrayal.  As you can see this is equal to our NWS betrayal.  It is a fixed idea leading to many compensations or defense mechanisms and even secondary delusions because of inadequate therapy received. The core delusion (CD) is the driving force behind the person’s actions, thoughts and plans. The CD is the central point, the beginning of the patient’s story, and an important finding not only in formulating and understanding the crux of the patient’s suffering, but also in finding the similar remedy that will free him from this fixed idea.  And the correct interpretation of the CD must MATCH the compensations based upon the real provings of the chosen remedy, the standard we apply in homeopathy to separate truth from fiction.

Can you give an example of the Core Delusion matching the compensations?  Are you saying the remedy has to be found both in the delusion rubric and in the rubric that describes how he compensates?  Rajan Sankaran has been known to say, “Don’t get so caught up in the patient’s story, it’s more about how he reacts to the story.”  Do you go along with that?

How he reacts to the story is called compensation. Compensations are defense mechanisms that the patient uses to reinforce his CD (if it is good for him, then, “I am an important person”) or to flee from his CD if it is bad (Delusion, I am ugly). Giving an example would be giving the story of a whole remedy which is beyond the scope of this article; could be done later in a separate article.  And indeed the remedy is found both in NWS, CD and his compensations: they do make ONE story!

Homeopathy will never be extinguished. The threat to homeopathy remains the same as it was in the past: not allopathy, but pseudo-homeopathy!  Rather than reducing homeopathy to speculation through speculative innovative methods, cases should be presented in every seminar and journal based on the philosophy of The Organon (which is not, by the way, an “old bible”).  Tell me what aphorism is wrong and tell me what novelty has been invented so far that could be the basis for the seventh edition.  I am waiting for the response.  Some say that they need these “advanced” theories to resolve their more complicated cases.  I invite anyone to send me one such case that I could not resolve with what Hahnemann has taught.

I feel that studying Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and psychology rather than speculative novel methods are far more useful in homeopathic practice.  Both follow our homeopathic language and will benefit the homeopath knowing his patient better. For instance, dream analysis, totally unknown in homeopathy, would help us in selecting and confirming our chosen simillimum.  When the homeopath knowing that a “recurring dream” is important, is confronted with such a dream, my question is: “So what do you do with the contents of such dream?”  So far I have not found any takers to answer me.

Are you saying that looking for the dream in the Dream chapter or the Delusions section is not sufficient?

No. Can you tell me what you do with that?  A dream is an INDIVIDUAL expression of the person’s unconscious. The same dream has a totally DIFFERENT meaning for both of us.  So the section in Kent about dreams has very little meaning at all since it does not help us most of the time to bring additional information for the simillimum.  But dream analysis has at least 13 uses in homeopathy (part of my new book) and understanding dreams can give us for instance the message that we have chosen the right remedy (should be added to Aphorism 255-dreams are often the FIRST sign of the simillimum) or can point to the simillimum. There is so much more to say about this!

Dr. Luc, a while back you said giving Lac Equinum to a patient who loves horses would be laughable. It brings me to the question, what is a symptom?  Is it ever acceptable to use “Loves Horses” or “Loves Animals” or “tea” or anything else?

That example was a prescription from an “eminent” homeopath to one of my students entirely based on the fact that she was a vet and loved horses.  Her main complaint was severe depression. This wrong prescription led to a greater depression until I had to rescue her with Sulphur and Calcarea carbonica which cured the depression.  Lac equinum could hardly be called the totality of the symptoms and was more than a speculative choice and unworthy of our homeopathic practice.

That does not mean that “loves animals” could not be a symptom, if it is, as per Aphorism 153: strange, rare, peculiar, etc.  In other words, many people deal with their grief by concentrating on animals, rescuing them, loving animals more than humans, etc.  Carcinosin and Nat-m are just two of these.  If the “loving” is unusually strong, exaggerated and even sometimes guiding a patient’s life, it is “out of the norm” and can be taken into account to find the simillimum.

Very good answer, that makes a lot of sense.

I’m participating here today in the spirit of a real dialogue, an invitation to honest conversation so that homeopathy may prosper.  I am all for progress in homeopathy but homeopaths should build new ideas on what Hahnemann taught us and should never forget the roots upon which our science was built in the first place.

This may seem like a naive question but, why is it important to adhere to Hahnemann?  Is there anything among the “innovations”, new ideas, that has caught your eye and caused you to say, “Brilliant!”

Precisely because I never had to say, “Brilliant!” do I adhere to Hahnemann’s teachings.  Can anyone tell me what aphorism is wrong and why?  And no, so far NO ONE has ever produced new principles or views that can be added to the Organon or create a 7th edition.  What I see is that people think they are doing something new and it was already done by Hahnemann and often discarded.

The real problem, as I stated: People don’t read or understand The Organon, and management of the patient is poor worldwide!

How can we immediately improve our case management skills?

STOP the dry doses of the 4th edition, and learn the water potencies of 5th and 6th Organon!  Adhere to Aphorism 246 of the 6th edition and repeat WHILE the patient is improving!  This is not the same as MECHANICALLY repeating the dose until the bottle is empty.  First always do a test dose which will determine how often you have to repeat with that patient’s case, following the law of individuality!

Here’s what I always tell my clients: Stop the dosing if you experience a striking improvement OR an aggravation!

Let me ask you about miasms: the fact that a person reacts a certain way to stress, can’t that be indicative of his dominant miasm?

Yes of course!  We must again look at the totality of his compensations (which you refer to).  A person will react according to what Carl Jung called, a predetermined hereditary MANDATORY response pattern, in our language, the predominant miasmatic state.  So a syphilitic person, confronted with any situation in life, cannot choose to react in a psoric way and if he does it will come over as awkward and false.  It is here that I disagree with the eminent psychiatrist Victor Frankl, whose works I admire, that a person does NOT have the ultimate freedom to choose when being in a certain situation.  

I refer here to the time when Dr. Frankl was in the concentration camps, and people chose death throwing themselves in the electrical barb wire around the camps or chose to share the little crumbs of bread with others. He calls it a freedom of choice; I call it a mandatory miasmatic response.  Killing yourself to escape your fate is syphilitic.  Sharing is psoric!

Very well-stated!  And I want to put a plug in for your book, Hahnemann Revisited.  It’s a textbook in homeopathy; it is so comprehensive and so easy to read, everyone who has taken my advice and bought it has had nothing but the most positive response!  I’m hoping everyone here will take my advice and read it, it will answer so many of your questions about prescribing, potency, repetition, miasms, even cancer treatment, everything is explained conversationally in ordinary language; it’s a Must-Have, Must-Read.  Thank you for being here and sharing your knowledge with us today, Dr. Luc!

You are very welcome!

 

____________________________________________

Luc De Schepper, MD, PhD, DI Hom., CHom., Lic.Ac. Visit his website at www.DrLuc.com

Elaine Lewis, DHom, CHom. Elaine takes online cases. Visit her website at elaineLewis.hpathy.com