Successful Use of Homeopathy in Modern Disease Situations
"The Evolution of the Treatment of Chronic Diseases with Complexes"
By Luc Chaltin, N.D., D.I., Hom
President of Newton Laboratories and Founder of The American Academy of Clinical Homeopathy
When Hahneman established the rules of the similimum, meaning the single remedy to prescribe for all the symptoms of the patient, it was at a time where the diseases were acute, such as fevers, so that they appeared in a strongly reacting patient that was fighting an infection such as typhus, or a viral infection such as the common cold.
The patients that he saw at that time were peasants of the land in the Germany of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, who lived simple lives and ate simple diets. They were mostly healthy and strong and rarely became sick. When they became sick they were affected by acute diseases such as fever or eczema, or a cold, and presented clear symptoms that were relatively easy to diagnose.
He encountered some other patients as well and they presented some chronic diseases that were not easy to diagnose and did not react well to homeopathy, or, if they improved, the disease reappeared after a while and the doctor had to start all over again. This frustrated Hahnemann to the point that he wrote a book about chronic diseases, stating that chronic diseases were incurable and that they were caused by an inherited misfunctioning of the metabolism that he called a miasm.
When much later he married a French noble woman and moved to Paris, he started treating members of the French noble population of Paris whose diseases were completely different from the simple peasants of Germany. These people were rich, and ate a rich diet, high in protein, and drank lots of wine , which caused their liver to be overloaded, or worse, sick with cirrhosis, a chronic liver disease that causes multiple problems with the metabolism. Hahnemann, being the trained observer as he was, recognised the difference in the diseases and rapidly changed his approach in prescribing for these kinds of patients. He reasoned that these patients were toxic and needed a detoxifying, or drainer remedy. For that purpose, Hahnemann chose Sulfur, because, he reasoned, this is the great remover of toxins introduced by the first miasm, or psora, as explained in his book about the chronic diseases. He also discovered that these types of patients did not react well to the single remedy and that he had to prescribe two or more remedies, given weekly or even daily, because they had multiple symptoms that could not be covered with the one remedy of the similimum rule.
He encountered some other patients as well and they presented some chronic diseases that were not easy to diagnose and did not react well to homeopathy, or, if they improved, the disease reappeared after a while and the doctor had to start all over again. This frustrated Hahnemann to the point that he wrote a book about chronic diseases, stating that chronic diseases were incurable and that they were caused by an inherited misfunctioning of the metabolism that he called a miasm.
When much later he married a French noble woman and moved to Paris, he started treating members of the French noble population of Paris whose diseases were completely different from the simple peasants of Germany. These people were rich, and ate a rich diet, high in protein, and drank lots of wine , which caused their liver to be overloaded, or worse, sick with cirrhosis, a chronic liver disease that causes multiple problems with the metabolism. Hahnemann, being the trained observer as he was, recognised the difference in the diseases and rapidly changed his approach in prescribing for these kinds of patients. He reasoned that these patients were toxic and needed a detoxifying, or drainer remedy. For that purpose, Hahnemann chose Sulfur, because, he reasoned, this is the great remover of toxins introduced by the first miasm, or psora, as explained in his book about the chronic diseases. He also discovered that these types of patients did not react well to the single remedy and that he had to prescribe two or more remedies, given weekly or even daily, because they had multiple symptoms that could not be covered with the one remedy of the similimum rule.
He worked with this approach for several years before he died in Paris, but he never published any book or wrote otherwise about it.
The only proof of his change about the approach to the cure of chronic diseases is to find in his patient’s reports that still exist. It is because of the efforts of Riley, in her excellent book about Hahnemann, A Homeopathic Love Story, that we know about these facts.
When I came in contact with the French school of homeopathy in 1965, I found out after some time that there was a remarkable difference in approach between different French homeopathic doctors. It took me quite some time to discover that there were two groups of homeopaths. One group had followed up on the change in prescribing for chronic diseases that Hahnemann had used during his life in Paris. The other group of French docters were the followers of Kentism, the classical homeopaths. If you think about it, it is ironic that the Kentist claimed to be the real followers of Hahnemann, even when they ignored that Hahnemann had changed his mind about chronic diseases. If we see today that we have to deal with chronic diseases all of the time because they far outnumber the acute diseases, it is a pity that the knowledge of Hahnemann’s approach was lost to the classical homeopaths.
The French doctors that followed the Hahnemannian approach, although a minority in their country, further developed the treatment of chronic diseases where Hahnemann had been stopped when he died. Soon, these homeopaths discovered that a better kind of drainer to eliminate toxins consisted of liver remedies such as Chelidonium, Solidago, Taraxacum, and Berberis or even polychrests such as Bryonia and Nux vomica. By the beginning of this century, a group of doctors, lead by the then famous Doctor Leon Vannier, had evolved so far in curing chronic diseases that they routinely cured tuberculosis with homeopathy as early as 1912. The book of Vannier Les Tuberculiniques explains his successful method to treat tuberculosis, a method that is applicable to all chronic diseases. In his book he states that: "In order to treat a chronic disease successfully, the homeopath needs to address all the symptoms, including the underlaying, hidden symptoms, to be successful." This means that, in the case of a chronic disease, there is no such remedy as the similimum any more, a fact that Hahnemann had already established when he practiced in Paris. The hidden, underlaying symptoms cannot be diagnosed by looking up the symptoms of the similimum, but are deducted from clinical observations of all the affected organs and the remedies that are connected to these organs. Vannier gave about 23 examples of remedies connected in clinical ways to chronic diseases of organs. I discovered many more by continuing to study this approach for more than 30 years, since 1965.
When I came in contact with the French school of homeopathy in 1965, I found out after some time that there was a remarkable difference in approach between different French homeopathic doctors. It took me quite some time to discover that there were two groups of homeopaths. One group had followed up on the change in prescribing for chronic diseases that Hahnemann had used during his life in Paris. The other group of French docters were the followers of Kentism, the classical homeopaths. If you think about it, it is ironic that the Kentist claimed to be the real followers of Hahnemann, even when they ignored that Hahnemann had changed his mind about chronic diseases. If we see today that we have to deal with chronic diseases all of the time because they far outnumber the acute diseases, it is a pity that the knowledge of Hahnemann’s approach was lost to the classical homeopaths.
The French doctors that followed the Hahnemannian approach, although a minority in their country, further developed the treatment of chronic diseases where Hahnemann had been stopped when he died. Soon, these homeopaths discovered that a better kind of drainer to eliminate toxins consisted of liver remedies such as Chelidonium, Solidago, Taraxacum, and Berberis or even polychrests such as Bryonia and Nux vomica. By the beginning of this century, a group of doctors, lead by the then famous Doctor Leon Vannier, had evolved so far in curing chronic diseases that they routinely cured tuberculosis with homeopathy as early as 1912. The book of Vannier Les Tuberculiniques explains his successful method to treat tuberculosis, a method that is applicable to all chronic diseases. In his book he states that: "In order to treat a chronic disease successfully, the homeopath needs to address all the symptoms, including the underlaying, hidden symptoms, to be successful." This means that, in the case of a chronic disease, there is no such remedy as the similimum any more, a fact that Hahnemann had already established when he practiced in Paris. The hidden, underlaying symptoms cannot be diagnosed by looking up the symptoms of the similimum, but are deducted from clinical observations of all the affected organs and the remedies that are connected to these organs. Vannier gave about 23 examples of remedies connected in clinical ways to chronic diseases of organs. I discovered many more by continuing to study this approach for more than 30 years, since 1965.
Because of the multiple remedies that had to be prescribed in this method, the patients needed to take several remedies during the day, every day.
This was found to be difficult to follow when they needed to take for instance one remedy before beakfast, and another before dinner, one more in the afternoon, and again one before lunch or before retiring. Often patients forgot to take the remedies, which had to be taken to work and might be forgotten at home, etc. Due to this concern, some pragmatic French doctors started prescribing all the remedies in one multiple formula, called a magistral prescription. It turned out that this system was not only more practical, but in many cases it worked even better, because of a synergetic action of the different remedies in the body.
The next step was to prescribe two complexes: a drainer or detoxifier complex to excrete the toxins and a magistral complex adapted to the disease of the patient, which brought the number of remedies to take back to two: one before retiring at night, and one before breakfast in the morning.
Where does this leave the health supplement retailer who desires to increase the efficasy and sales of homeopathy in his store? Clearly, when dealing with the vast majority of your customers, it would be wise to recommend homeopathic formulations that take into account not only the major symptoms, but also the underlying disease process that brought about that same myriad of symptoms present in any chronic affliction. In the less frequent situation where a true acute situation arises, such as an injury, a single remedy such as Arnica should be sufficient, much as the same way it has been used for nearly 200 years.
NEXT ARTICLE
The next step was to prescribe two complexes: a drainer or detoxifier complex to excrete the toxins and a magistral complex adapted to the disease of the patient, which brought the number of remedies to take back to two: one before retiring at night, and one before breakfast in the morning.
Where does this leave the health supplement retailer who desires to increase the efficasy and sales of homeopathy in his store? Clearly, when dealing with the vast majority of your customers, it would be wise to recommend homeopathic formulations that take into account not only the major symptoms, but also the underlying disease process that brought about that same myriad of symptoms present in any chronic affliction. In the less frequent situation where a true acute situation arises, such as an injury, a single remedy such as Arnica should be sufficient, much as the same way it has been used for nearly 200 years.
NEXT ARTICLE