What's the best book you can recommend on Materia Medica? I've read Kents MM, part of Herings and Allen Encyclopedia, half book of Vithoulkas first volume on MM viva (and 5 other books), Pharmacoinamics of Huges, Vijnosky's MM, translated to spanish Hahneman MM pura, Sankarans soul of Remedies, and a lot from Hom School Argentina. I use strict single doses, only one time (usually), 30c- 200c potencies.
Thanks for your help.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Can you recommend a MM book?
-
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:47 pm
Re: Can you recommend a MM book?
Sounds like you're clued in to some of the greats.
a few others..
ANSHUTZ E. P., New Old and Forgotten Remedies
CLARKE J. H., Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica
DUNHAM C., Lectures on Materia Medica
GRIMMER A. H., The Collected Work
HUGHES R. and DAKE J. P., A Cyclopaedia of Drug Pathogenesy
JULIAN O. A., Materia Medica of New Homeopathic Remedies
JULIAN O. A., Materia Medica of Nosodes with Repertory
PATERSON J., The Bowel Nosodes
David Hartley www.holistiq.com
San Francisco EastBay (510)776-5914
---------------------
a few others..
ANSHUTZ E. P., New Old and Forgotten Remedies
CLARKE J. H., Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica
DUNHAM C., Lectures on Materia Medica
GRIMMER A. H., The Collected Work
HUGHES R. and DAKE J. P., A Cyclopaedia of Drug Pathogenesy
JULIAN O. A., Materia Medica of New Homeopathic Remedies
JULIAN O. A., Materia Medica of Nosodes with Repertory
PATERSON J., The Bowel Nosodes
David Hartley www.holistiq.com
San Francisco EastBay (510)776-5914
---------------------
Re: Can you recommend a MM book?
Hi, David:
I almost get all your recommended books.
But now I found out Boenninhausen, Cirus Boger, et al.
Perhaps what I was taught is not so "WOW" like I thought; that the mentals, being important, should also be correlated with the other symptoms; and they should not be based more than in the tests, (reason why the clinical symptoms are not as reliable as the experimental ones -provings).
That would explain because most of the homoeopaths fail. We simply don't use the method that Hahnemann creates.
Kind regards:
Miguel F
I almost get all your recommended books.
But now I found out Boenninhausen, Cirus Boger, et al.
Perhaps what I was taught is not so "WOW" like I thought; that the mentals, being important, should also be correlated with the other symptoms; and they should not be based more than in the tests, (reason why the clinical symptoms are not as reliable as the experimental ones -provings).
That would explain because most of the homoeopaths fail. We simply don't use the method that Hahnemann creates.
Kind regards:
Miguel F