Dr. Francisco Xavier Eizayaga is an Argentine homeopath whose contributions to homeopathy rapidly achieved international recognition. He was born on January 23, 1923, in the province of Santa Fe, Argentina.
Francisco Eizayaga studied medicine at the Medical University of Buenos Aires. He worked as an urologist with Professor A. Astraldi in the Hospital de Clinicas, in the Hospital Ramos Mejia and in the Urology Department of the Hospital Municipal de Vicente Lopez, province of Buenos Aires.
From 1949 to 1950 he studied homeopathy at the Asociacion Medica Homeopatica Argentina (AMHA). There he became an associate professor in 1954, and a full professor in 1964. He was the president of the Asociacion Medica Homeopatica Argentina for 14 years.
Dr.Francisco Eizayaga worked as a classical homeopath in his practice since 1952.
In 1988 he established the Instituto Superior de Homeopatia Clinica de la Fundacion HOMEOS in Buenos Aires. Its aim was teaching and investigating homeopathy, as well as its expanding it to support medical care through homeopathy clinics, and training courses for physicians.
From 1951 he regularly taught clinical homeopathy in Argentina, primarily at the AMHA, and since 1989 at the Instituto Superior de Homeopatia Clinica de la Fundacion HOMEOS, Buenos Aires. He also lectured on homeopathy worldwide, including Brazil, USA, Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay, Venezuela, Chile, UK, Spain and Canada. He taught the first complete homeopathy course in San Pablo, Brazil, from 1976-1977, and gave more than 350 seminars.
Francisco Eizayaga was married to Berta Amalia Klein, and they had eight children and nineteen grandchildren. Three of his children also became homeopathic physicians. The family was united by a strong affection and they lived by the highest principles. His son Dr. Jose Enrique Eizayaga is a well known homeopath who also graduated as a homeopathic physician at the Asociacion Medica Homeopatica Argentina (AMHA) and lectures at the Universidad Maimonides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Francisco Eizayaga passed away on June 25, 2001, in Olivos, province of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Dr. Francisco Xavier Eizayaga held the following positions during his life:
- For 14 years he was the president of the Argentine Medical Homoeopathic Association (AMHA)
- Director and Honorary professor of the School for Graduates of the AMHA
- Editor of the journal Homeopatia of the AMHA
- Honorary member of the Instituto Hahnemanniano do Brasil, Asociacao Paulista de Homeopatia, and Academia Homeopatica Barcelona
- Co-founded the Organizacion Medica Homeopatica Internacional (OMHI), Geneva, and was its president until 1996
- Vice-President of the Liga Medica Homoeopathica Internationalis for Argentina
- Deputy of the French Boiron Institute (Lyon) in Argentina
- Established the Instituto Superior de Homeopatia Clinica de la Fundacion HOMEOS, Buenos Aires, in 1988
He has published numerous articles on homeopathy and the following books:
- Tratado De Medicina HomeopÃ¡tica (Treatise on Homeopathic Medicine)
- El Moderno Repertorio De Kent (Kent’s Modern Repertory)
- Clinical Homeopathic Algorithms (Edited by Lynn Amara)
- Enfermedades agudas febriles (Acute febrile diseases)
His books, Treatise on Homeopathic Medicine and Kent’s Modern Repertory are included in the curriculum in almost every Spanish Homeopathy School in the world.
Dr.Francisco Xavier Eizayaga is considered internationally as one of the great masters of homeopathy and known as a homeopathic physician with absolute moral integrity and an exceptional dedication to teaching. He conveyed optimism and confidence about homeopathy, based on his results in clinical practice. He passed on his knowledge unconditionally to new generations of young disciples and inspired many homeopaths on their path to learning. One of them is Dr. Eugenio Candegabe, another famous Argentine homeopath. Francisco put him in contact with homeopathy for the first time when they were working at the External Consultation Services of the Department of Urology at the Hospital de Vicente Lopez. Eugenio Candegabe appreciated Francisco Eizayaga as a physician with a passion for his profession, and secure in his knowledge of prescribing. Among Eizayaga’s great contributions to homeopathy, Dr. Candegabe points to his enormous capacity for teaching, his special skills as a practitioner, and his book, Kent’s Modern Repertory, which was the first translation of Kent’s book into the Spanish language. Many other homeopaths report having the good fortune to meet Francisco Eizayaga and called him a “Master Par Excellence”.
Francisco Eizayaga’s Layer Approach
Eizayaga opines that the different evolutionary states of the disease and their degrees of seriousness require different clinical and therapeutic criteria. Treating different kinds of similitude’s requires knowledge of the pathological process and the evolutionary stage, as well as an exact clinical and pathological diagnosis of the disease, and distinguishing between the symptoms of the patient and the symptoms of the disease.
He points out that whereas allopathy only focuses on the lesional disease, and has no answer for the preceding stages, the therapeutic possibilities of homeopathy also include the preceding stages, as well as severe infectious, lesional, and tumorous diseases.
Francisco Eizayaga’s model is based on the following assumptions:
- Disease is an expression of the disturbed vital force. It always progresses from functional disturbances in the individual’s psyche and the general functions, to structural changes in local parts, and from slight to deep pathological manifestations. This is expressed in the following sequence:
a) Illness in its first stage is only emotional-affective and easy to cure by returning the lost equilibrium. Within this stage ailments of the emotional and affective sphere, sensorium, coenesthetic sensations, and central nervous system occur.
b) In the second stage the illness also involves the general state of being. General symptoms which refer to the totality of the organism, indicate the involvement of the whole economy and the homeostatic alteration.
c) In the third stage local symptoms appear, due to the affection of organs and organ systems. Organic manifestations in acute as well as chronic diseases appear according to the known sequence of pathological stages: irritation, inflammation and dysfunction, followed by reversible and irreversible organic or tissue lesions, indicating a growing severity in the vital imbalance. The illness may have emotional-affective, general, local, only general, or only local manifestations.
2. Based on the different evolutionary stages of the disease progress, Eizayaga distinguished between different “layers”:
a) Morbid trends and predispositions of the constitution, no pathology
b) Morbid trends expressed in the miasmatic terrain, no pathology
c) The Fundamental disease with psychosomatic and general symptoms. This relates to the first and second stage of the disease.
d) The Lesional disease with local pathology or clinical entity, which is seen as the “disease” itself. This relates to the third stage of the disease.
3. Eizayaga classified diseases from the clinical, anatomo-pathological viewpoint as follows:
- Functional disturbances: These comprise the first and second stage of the disease, i.e. the fundamental disease.
- Lesional diseases: The third stage of the disease.
4. He clearly differentiated between the treatment of the patient and the treatment of the disease, based on distinguishing between “the patient’s symptoms which precede the disease from the symptoms of the disease itself”. The treatment of the constitution and the fundamental disease comprises the treatment of the patient. The treatment of the lesional disease constitutes the treatment of the actual disease.
5. Based on this concept he suggested treating the patient in “layers” according to their state: Treatment of the constitution, the miasmatic terrain, the fundamental disease, and the lesional disease. Treatment has to begin with the outmost layer, progressing deeper inwards with each prescription. It has to proceed in the following sequence:
- Lesional disease: Treatment of the disease with the lesional, similar remedy.
- Fundamental disease: Treatment of the patient with the fundamental remedy, the simillimum, to restore the psychosomatic balance.
- Morbid terrain: Miasmatic treatment with the corresponding nosode(s) to eliminate morbid trends.
- Constitution: Constitutional treatment with the constitutional remedy to prevent further diseases.
Eizayaga distinguished between the genotypical constitutional and phenotypical constitutional diagnosis. The genotypical constitution refers to the “way of being” of a person and their normal individual features. We are born with hereditary genetic and constitutional characteristics and certain organic structures and functions of the organs, which depend on the genotype. These may move and oscillate within a certain range, but are considered to be normal and not pathological.
Characterological features are not real symptoms, “but just psychic characteristics which pre-exist in the individual before any pathogenesis and must not be considered abnormal either, even though they are taken into consideration for the prescription“. Certain characteristics and symptoms help us in prescribing the constitutional remedy because they are the differentiating, individualizing factor between patients. Even if they are not pathological symptoms in themselves, they help us to individualize the patient and remedy. Eizayaga opines that, if characterological features are found in the materia medica and repertory, besides the really pathogenetic symptoms, “this is due to the proven fact that certain individuals who possess the same psychic characteristics of certain medicines are especially stimulated by them“.
The constitutional remedy is prescribed to prevent the development of diseases and future ailments that the patient may develop otherwise. It does not cure anything. It is to prescribe once the lesional and fundamental diseases have been cured and the morbid terrain has been cleared.
Eizayaga identified four normal genetic constitutions: Sulphur, Calcarea carbonica, Calcarea phosphorica, and Calcarea fluorica.
The phenotypical constitutional diagnosis relates to the fundamental disease.
Miasms constitute the morbid terrain and determine the diathetic pathological trends of all individuals. “All human constitutions have a morbid predisposition implicit in them or, in other words, they are inclined to certain illnesses, depending to a great extent on their diathesis or active miasm.”
Morbid tendencies develop slowly and according to a chronology which practically repeats itself in the majority of cases. Francisco Eizayaga identified five miasms: Psora, Sycosis, Syphilis, Tubercular and the Cancer Miasm.
When writing on What must be cured in diseases Eizayaga clearly suggests that miasmatic treatment requires prescribing the diathetic or miasmatic nosode or nosodes to eliminate the individual’s morbid trend. Nosodes must be customarily administered in high potencies.
In another chapter of his book Eizayaga does not limit miasmatic treatment to the application of nosodes, but points out the anti-miasmatic properties of other remedies and their indications: The morbid process which arises due to the active miasm may prevent the indicated remedy from acting efficaciously, and requires application of the remedy or the nosode that corresponds to this miasm. Each miasm has its typical remedies like Sulphur and Psorinum for Psora, Thuja, Medorrhinum and Nitricum acidum for Sycosis, and Mercurius, Aurum and Syphilinum for Syphilis . Regarding miasmatic treatment he states:
“Ever since homeopathy has existed, right from Hahnemann up to today including the most traditional authors like Kent, miasmatic treatment has been achieved by employing the Law of Similitude through the Materia Medica and the repertory.”
He also admits that acute exacerbations of the chronic miasm are effectively prevented with constitutional and fundamental treatment.
The phenotypical constitutional diagnosis relates to the fundamental disease and emerges from the pathological sufferings. It comprises the psychophysical constitution and is not measured by the patient’s skeleton, nor by the circulating humors or the predominant metabolic type. It is “measured by the dynamic dysequilibrium of a subject expressed in psychical, general and local symptoms liberated by traumatic circumstances in a predisposed, susceptible person“. This constitutes the fundamental disease.
The functional disturbances occurring within this fundamental layer, may manifest on the psychic and sensitive, general or local organic level. As there is no cell destruction, but only a temporary transformation of cell structure, the pathological stages are limited to irritation, inflammation and dysfunction, with the possibility of “restitutio ad integrum”.
The psychosomatic symptoms are considered to be the symptoms of the patient and precede the symptoms of the disease itself. “They are revealing a pathological alteration of the phenotypical constitution which must be treated with the so-called fundamental remedy or simillimum with which we shall not only cause the disturbed individual to recover but also we will prevent the future evolution and organic localization of the progressing disease“.
The prescription of the fundamental remedy, which is called the simillimum, is based on the patient’s characteristic, psychic modalities, general and local symptoms. “In chronic patients, not only symptoms of the current illness should be taken into account, but rather, and most principally, the chronic and pathobiographic symptoms of the patient, in order to find the profound temperamental and constitutional motivations that have lead to his present state.“ “The top hierarchical symptoms to base the prescription on are always those extracted from the pathobiographical history, i.e., the phenotypical constitutional symptoms, those which express the individual psychophysical temperament of the patient when faced with his personal, familial and social reality.”
In functional disturbances as occurring within the fundamental layer, medium, high or very high potencies can be prescribed.
Within this stage the patient develops lesional pathology due to structural and microchemical changes in the cell. The localization of the pathological process provides us with local symptoms, i.e. particular symptoms localized in organs or systems, which are common or pathognomonic. The case is curable if superficial organs are affected, even if some superficial lesion may persist. The affection of a vital organ transforms the disease into an incurable case.
Lesional diseases are classified as:
- 1. Lesional reversible diseases
- 2. Lesional irreversible diseases
- In lesional reversible diseases the structural alterations that occur on account of functional or organic disturbances, can be cured with “restitutio ad integrum” and complete functional recovery. They are localized when comprising a localized area, or diffuse, when comprising a whole organ or system. They may manifest as lesional reversible mental, general or local disease.
- In lesional irreversible diseases, cellular changes cannot be restored ad integrum, because cells have reached a no-return point in the pathological process. One can distinguish between focal and diffuse irreversible lesions. They are localized or focal when comprising a localized area, or diffuse, when comprising a whole organ or system.
Francisco Eizayaga differentiates irreversible diseases according to their curability and gives the following explanation: “Focal irreversible lesions may be cured clinically by means of scarring, but they cannot be cured histologically because there is no “restitutio ad integrum”. Irreversible diffuse lesions, instead, comprise the whole organ and are really incurable, as the scarring of the whole lesion would mean the total annulment of the organ and, therefore, of its function“.
That is, lesional diseases can be grouped according to their curability into:
a) Reversible and curable diseases.
b) Irreversible but semi-curable diseases. This occurs in focal lesions that cannot be cured histologically but only clinically, always provided function can be restored or compensated.
c) Irreversible and really incurable diseases. If the irreversible lesion comprises a whole vital organ only palliation will be possible. If however it comprises a non-vital organ, it will be without general repercussion.
In all these cases homeopathy offers an excellent option for treatment.
Local lesions are chronologically the last to appear and are called the “actual disease” of the individual. “The morbid localizations indicate “the illness the patient has” “, and from thence the treatment must begin. In lesional diseases in which there is a clinical entity, treatment must be directed first at this organic aspect of the disease, “because it is the most serious and the one which must be aided by us first. The prescription must be based on modalized local symptoms, placing the strictly pathological or organic symptoms in a pre-eminent position “.
“It is true that when a clinical disease level and a constitutional or miasmatic fundamental condition coexist, in said case the disease must be treated first and then the patient.”
F.Eizayaga, Treatise on Homoeopathic Medicine, p.292
To choose the remedy only the actual symptoms with their characteristic modalities have to be considered, leading to the prescription of the “similar” remedy. That is, the remedy must cover the pathological symptomatology, yet it must be individualized and modalities considered. Eizayaga emphasized that the common symptoms do not interest us as such, but that the modified symptoms with concomitants and alternating and subjective symptoms, and the rare or peculiar, characteristic symptoms are important for the homeopath. Only these give the strictly individual symptoms. He advised us to make use of all symptoms of the local disease including its modalities and concomitants, and those psychiatric symptoms that “appeared or were exacerbated right from the beginning of the disease and that are not chronic symptoms of the patient which preceded this disease“.
Eizayaga also suggests investigating the fundamental remedy: “The chronic patient, who is to be found in the background of the “actual illness“, presents mental and general symptoms with their corresponding modalities of aggravation and amelioration and his desires and aversions for food. In these symptoms may be found the image of a “patient who suffers the illness“, reinforced and completed by the image that the personal history gives.”
The therapeutic ideal is when the fundamental remedy (simillimum) also covers the symptoms of the clinical entity, i.e. agrees with the lesional remedy (similar), as this gives more certainty regarding success. In this case the simillimum is to be prescribed.
Eizayaga’s comments on how to proceed when the lesional and fundamental remedy do not agree, are somewhat contradictory.
He advises, that in “cases in which there is a clinical entity… what must draw our attention first is this organic aspect of the disease, because it is the most serious and the one which must be aided by us first.”  The prescribed remedy has to cover the active pathology by all means. Therefore, he concludes that when the investigation of the fundamental remedy reveals it does not agree with the lesional remedy, treatment should be started with the lesional remedy. Referring to the seriousness of pathology, he advises that the similar remedy for the disease should be prescribed in severe and organic cases, if this differs from the patient’s simillimum. He also advises, that in incurable cases it is “not adequate to use the simillimum remedy, but the one which covers the present sufferings“.
However, in another chapter of his book he writes that the patient’s individuality will always be present and that no strict rule can be given as to whether the lesional remedy is to be taken before the fundamental remedy, simultaneously with it or after it. Each case is to be solve individually.
Eizayaga emphasizes the therapeutic limitation of the similar remedy, which merely aims at curing the “present disease”. Only the simillimum treats the individual as a person, hence the lesional remedy is to be followed by the patient’s fundamental remedy, and then by miasmatic and genotypical constitutional treatment.
Therapeutic hints from Eizayaga
Francisco Eizayaga writes that although the patient is sensitive to any potency of the indicated remedy, there are degrees of efficacy of each potency. The similitude may correspond to low, medium and high potencies, according to the susceptibility of each patient. Certain cases however, may require a particular potency for cure, and there are special cases where the patient will only react to certain potencies. The homeopath will only tap homeopathy’s full therapeutic potential if low and high potencies are used.
Eizayaga writes that any curable disease can be treated with remedies at any potencies. These include functional disturbances, lesional reversible diseases, and semi-curable lesional irreversible diseases with compensative function. Also in the treatment of curable lesions, reversible or not, medium, high or very high potencies can be prescribed.
It is therapeutically important to consider that higher potencies, diluted beyond the Avogadro’s number, do not act on diffuse or incurable irreversible lesions. Therefore, incurable focal diseases with a non-compensatory function and incurable diffuse lesional diseases must be treated with remedies applied in mother tinctures or low potencies, as only these are appropriate to their lesional similarity.
Eizayaga distinguished lesional irreversible diseases according to their curability with dynamized medicines as follows:
– A focal lesion with compensatory function is curable with a dynamized medicine.
– A focal lesion with non-compensatory function is incurable with dynamized medicine.
– A diffuse lesion with destruction of a whole non-vital organ is incurable but without general repercussion.
– A diffuse lesion, comprising a whole vital organ is incurable with a dynamized medicine.
He mentions, that it is not always possible to determine the curability of a pathological process, so that the homeopath should try treatment with dynamized medicines and will often cure what was not considered to be curable.
Acute diseases are to be treated with the acute intercurrent remedy, considering first the “pathological symptoms as the ones of greatest repertorial value for the prescription“. Eizayaga states that the remedy has to cover the most serious organic pathology and recent ailments. Psychic and causative symptoms only have to be considered secondly.
The patient or the disease
Francisco Eizayaga’s ideas deviate in many respects from Hahnemann’s teachings. The most profound discrepancy arises from his viewpoint that the patient and the disease itself, which he views as the lesional pathology, have to be treated separately.
Hahnemann clearly points out in the Organon that it is always the whole being who is ill and that there are no local diseases.
“It is the morbidly affected vital force alone that produces disease. Therefore disease is not to be considered as an inwardly hidden wesen separate from the living whole, from the organism and its enliving dynamis, even if it is thought to be very subtle. Such a phantom can be conceived only by materialistic minds.”
§12 and §13 Organon
The disease constitutes the derangement of the dynamic vital force, which comprises the whole patient. Hence, there are no such things as “diseases” in the abstract to treat, only diseased person.
The indicated remedy, chosen according to the totality of symptoms, balances the vital force. Through this stimulus, a vital reaction is started and homeostasis reestablished. If signs and symptoms are removed, the totality of the disease with all its manifestations, is removed. Therefore, rebalancing the vital force means cure of the patient with their disease. The patient and their disease cannot be separated, but are one. This implies that there cannot be two different remedies indicated at the same time, one for the patient and the other for the disease.
When Hahnemann was searching for the “specific” remedy he referred to the individual remedy indicated in a given case. Each patient suffers from his/her own “individual” disease, which never before appeared in the same manner. Hence no true cure can take place without strict individualization. In each case, we find besides the common and pathognomonic symptoms, some characteristics that give the case its individuality and cause it to differ from all other cases. By considering the individual reaction of each patient through strange, rare, peculiar and characteristic symptoms, we treat the patient with their disease.
To view local manifestations as the disease itself rather seems to adhere to the allopathic concept, which views all diseases as local and of the cells, and disease manifestations as self-contained entities. In homeopathy the disease manifestations in one part are considered in their relation to the whole man, and the only means of cure is to treat the whole patient. Homeopathy is primarily concerned with the primary, dynamic aspect of the disease, not its pathological manifestations, which are but the results of disease, and not in any sense the disease itself. In homeopathy the human is not only considered as an individual, but also as a complete unit in himself. Kent warned us, that:
“He who considers disease results to be the disease itself, and expects to do away with these as disease, is insane. Most of the conditions of the human economy that are called diseases in the books are not diseases, but the results of disease. All that we can possibly know of “Disease” is expressed in symptoms only.”
J.T.Kent, lectures on Homoeopathic philosophy
The fundamental and the lesional disease
In Eizayaga’s layer model the fundamental and lesional diseases are treated separately based on the assumption that the local pathology is a self contained entity.
Hahnemann elucidates the purpose of local manifestations in chronic diseases:
“It is evident that man’s vital force, when encumbered with a chronic disease which it is unable to overcome by its own powers instinctively, adopts the plan of developing a local malady on some external part, solely for this object, that by making and keeping in a diseased state this part which is not indispensable to human life, it may thereby silence the internal disease, which otherwise threatens to destroy the vital organs (and to deprive the patient of life), and that it may thereby, so to speak, transfer the internal disease to the vicarious local affection and, as it were, draw it thither. The presence of the local affection thus silences, for a time, the internal disease, though without being able either to cure it or to diminish it materially. The local affection, however, is never anything else than a part of the general disease, but a part of it increased all in one direction by the organic vital force, and transferred to a less dangerous (external) part of the body, in order to allay the internal ailment.”
Local manifestations in chronic diseases serve the purpose of alleviating the internal malady, yet they express and still belong to the same dynamic disease.
“The organs are not the man. The man is prior to the organs. From first to last is the order of sickness as well as the order of cure – from man to his organs and not from the organs to the man.”
J.T.Kent, Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy
Regarding their treatment, Eizayaga writes that local symptoms represent themselves by modalities of aggravation and amelioration, sensations, concomitants and alternating symptoms. As these do not always coincide with the modalities of the general symptoms, “it is possible that one single remedy is unable to cover the totality of mental, local, and general symptoms, where the “similar” of the local picture is one remedy, and that of the psychical and general symptoms is another“. 
If all manifestations belong to the same disease it is practically impossible to separate the symptom picture into different entities. By prescribing for isolated symptoms one misses the general review of the whole case as an entity. Hahnemann clearly stated that the patient’s symptoms should be taken as a totality and a remedy chosen that covers the whole.
“From this indubitable truth, that besides the totality of the symptoms with consideration of the accompanying circumstances nothing can by any means be discovered in disease wherewith they could express their need of aid, it follows undeniably that the sum of all the symptoms and conditions in each individual case of disease must be the sole indication, the sole guide to direct us in the choice of a remedy.”
“The physician should never lose sight of this great truth, that of all known remedies there is but one that merits a preference above all others, viz.: that whose symptoms bear the closest resemblance to the totality of those which characterize the malady.”
S. Hahnemann, Organon
Eizayaga’s rationale is that it usually occurs, in most cases, “that the symptoms of the patient do not correspond, in their characteristic’s, to the fundamental remedy. These symptoms may be local, general, and even mental, and are those that express the recent pathological activity of the patient. These symptoms correspond to a medicine proper to the actual state and take the name of similar medicine“.