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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.