Potencies - Interview of Dr. Luc De Schepper

[Sheri Nakken]

"Dr. Luc: It is not correct that I treated patients exclusively with LM
potencies but I certainly was one of the first in this country to treat
patients with LM potencies in the correct way. However the discovery of the
5th edition split method, to which I came later, was a huge improvement in
treating patients. LMs are very penetrating and fast working and patients
with their allopathic mindset often abused it in a mechanical way (even
homeopaths do it). This always leads to unnecessary similar aggravations
(removed from the 6th edition as not being necessary!) and the formation of
more complex diseases. Now I would treat at least 70% of the chronic
patient cases with the 5th edition split method and 100% of the acutes with
this split method. Results are astonishing and if applied worldwide, would
change the face of practice of homeopathy. My only hope is that the 90% of
the homeopaths stuck in the 4th edition, will take advantage of these
advanced methods of Hahnemann and see the remarkable, speedy and gentle
cures as promised in A2 of the Organon. It is Kent who steered all the next
generations of homeopaths on the wrong path, as he never bothered to use
the 5th edition split method (which he could have-1833!) and with his
belief that the "dose (or amount of pellets) was of no importance". This
goes into the face of everything Hahnemann said and what every observing
practitioner has seen. Although in his Lesser Writings , Kent stated that
"no similar aggravation" is what we need to strive for, he was known to
have caused countless severe aggravations. Unfortunately, even well known
homeopaths today, think that they need to cause a "similar aggravation" in
order to know they applied the simillimum, something Hahnemann had removed
from his teachings in the 6th edition of the Organon (A161). Kent and
therefore most homeopaths under his influence, never even applied watery
doses and never dared to repeat a dose "while the patient was improving,
A246." Regarding the "myth" that Hahnemann was suffering from senility in
his later years, it is a cheap excuse for those who claim so to abandon
Hahnemann's teachings and apply their own frivolities. One only has to
study the microfiches of his Paris years and read statements from those
that were present in those years (Dr Croserio, read Lesser Writings of von
Boenninghausen) to observe that until the last days of his life he remained
a staunch intellectual, industrious 'till the end to provide us with his
last legacy, the LM potency. For more about this split method and
Hahnemann’s later years, I refer the reader to my book, " Achieving and
Maintaining the Simillimum."
"

"Dr. Luc: There is only one attitude I like to encourage: be faithful first
to Hahnemann’s teachings and always build on his principles. Second: in
order to become a good practitioner (which you OWE to the patient), you
will have to study countless hours of homeopathy. If you want to become a
master in anything, studiousness, perseverance, honesty and love for that
profession are indispensable!"

http://www.minimum.com/interviews/drlucpt1-rev.htm

Lesson 26, Part 2 - Interview of Dr. Luc De Schepper
by Greg Cooper - October, 2004.
© 2004 Minimum Price Books

If book sales are any indication, Dr. Luc De Schepper is one of the most
influential homeopathic doctors of our time. He has authored 12 books on
homeopathy, acupuncture and holistic health care, including his latest,
Achieving and Maintaining the Simillimum, which teaches the most difficult
aspect of homeopathy - how to stay on the right course in the arduous road
to curing a chronic patient.
Dr. Luc De Schepper

Dr. Luc has medical licenses in Belgium and the United States; an
Acupuncture license in Holland and California; and a Ph.D. in Acupuncture
from the International Society of Acupuncture in Paris. Dr. Luc has
received the Diploma of the British Institute of Homeopathy (D.I. Hom.) as
well as the Certificate of the Hahnemann Academy of North America. He is
fluent in four languages and is a renowned lecturer in the fields of
acupuncture and homeopathy.

Dr. Luc is the founder of the Renaissance Institute of Classical Homeopathy
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He has seen over 200,000 patients in 29 years
of practice, and in recent years has treated them exclusively with
homeopathic remedies in LM potencies.

I first contacted Dr. Luc in May, 1994, when I bought some of his first
homeopathic book on Musculoskeletal Healing. Now, after selling loads of
his books each year, I contacted him by email with several questions (in
black) and he supplied the answers (in brown):

GC: Dr. Luc, before we talk about your most recent books and activities,
tell me how it is that a medical doctor, trained in Belgium, breaks out of
conventional medicine first to Acupuncture, then to homeopathy, and now
uses exclusively homeopathy with the lesser known LM potencies? What is the
nature of the energy that has driven you from the beginning and led you
through these stages to your present situation?

Dr. Luc: It took me only two months out of medical school to realize that
"conventional" allopathic medicine was not going to be my cup of tea. As
was the custom for every practitioner, I replaced a physician on vacation
for 14 days. I saw the same patients on Mondays, another set on Tuesdays,
the next set on Wednesdays, etc. While I appreciated the closeness with
people during these house calls, I realized I was just prescribing their
usual meds, taking their blood pressure and for the rest I was a welcome
social diversion. Doomed with the prospect of falling into mental inertia,
I went to a book store in Belgium, looked up alternative modalities, and
was on my way the next month to Holland to the Dutch Doctor’s Acupuncture
Society, a three year course in Amsterdam. Since I was equally close to
Paris, my tubercular nature drove me to Paris at the same time to follow
the French school. The rest is history. Already exposed to homeopathy at
that time, I have never stopped studying even up till today.

GC: What is the biggest challenge you have had to overcome?
Dr. Luc: It certainly was not my doubts or the eagerness of my patients to
have found an alternative. As usual it is the human Ego that creates
jealousy and envy: "Why can he do something that I can’t do?" My increasing
success in practice early on, raised loud dissenting voices of my
colleagues who went so far as to threaten their patients to refuse to see
them if they continued consulting me. It did not help: by the time I left
Belgium in 1981 (getting married to an American citizen-that’s what women
can do), I had one of the biggest practices in Belgium. At that point and
now, my colleagues who used to call me a "quack" were pursuing studying
alternative modalities themselves.

GC: I noticed in the July/August 1998 issue of Homeopathy Today, it was
reported that you gave a benefit-seminar and raised over $14,000 for the
National Center for Homeopathy. As well, you frequently travel, on your
own, to help relieve the suffering of poor people in third world countries.
At first glance, these activities seem to be costing you a lot of time and
money, but how would you describe their effect on your life and on the
community?
making a difference for the poor in third world counties. Marriage and
children postponed these desires but the moment I arrived at a point in my
life that my children were taken care of, I could finally turn to what I
cherish the most: offering help to those that never receive help. Besides
donating money to the NCH, I organized another afternoon of introduction to
homeopathy to my patients, raised another $15,000 and donated the money to
build a clinic in a poor rural area in India. With just this amount of
money, a clinic was build and operated for a whole year just on this
budget. It stimulated me to get involved even more personally and I have
made trips to South Africa and Kenya where I was teaching in several places
and treating the poor in villages. Maybe it is little what I can achieve as
an individual, but don’t say that to those whose grateful eyes will be
forever in my heart. There is much to do, I have little money, but I tell
my children, "I am deducting it from your inheritance!" After all, they are
taken care of. I know that for the rest of my life, I want to dedicate my
efforts to introduce homeopathy to third world countries, especially those
that pharmaceutical companies have no interest in because the people are
dirt poor! Fertile ground to introduce effective and cheap homeopathy!

GC: Over the years, would you care to share with us any experiences you
have had with homeopathy and your personal health?

Dr. Luc: If I tell you that I can’t remember (and I have a great memory)
when I took an allopathic drug even so much as an aspirin, then you know
that my homeopathic kit is always at my side! For the most part, I needed
it for my sport injuries since I play soccer, tennis, swim and practice
yoga. But I certainly was challenged more seriously, when in 1992, I had a
sudden bleeding in my right eye, making me instantly blind in that eye.
After a wrong diagnosis (with the promise I was going to be blind) and then
an exact diagnosis of retinal bleeding, cause unknown, the good university
professor told me to take 80 mgs daily of cortisone and see him back in one
month’s time. I can assure you that it takes conviction not to give in to
such allopathic suppression when your eye sight is at stake. But I chose
the homeopathic simillimum above cortisone and restored my sight within one
week. Upon consult with the famous professor, he did another retinogram (to
view my vessels), he exclaimed,"It is a miracle," and never asked me if I
took the cortisone or what I did. But I am sure he is using my case now to
convince his medical students that his protocol "works!" If anything this
convinced me that homeopathy as my true calling was and always will be the
right choice!

GC: Can you recall for us your most memorable case, perhaps a case that
will ingrain the value of homeopathy in our minds? Why did it move you so?
Dr. Luc: Among those 200,000 and plus cases, I could cite numerous cases
that overjoyed me, moved me and earned me the respect and love of my
patients. I loved seeing children, knowing how much their lives would be
changed for the better. Don’t you think mothers were grateful when after 35
rounds of antibiotics in 5 years for ear infections, I managed in a couple
of months to stop that recurrence forever? Just that would be enough for me
to compensate me for all the hard labor in my life. Obviously there is the
whole slew of ADD, ADHD, ODD, and "incorrectible dangerous" children that
turned out to be normal after correction with the simillimum. One case that
still sticks to my memory was the case of a 33 year old lady, who at age 19
had a head trauma, which lead to a series of serious delusions. They came
to me after having seen 44 different doctors. I managed to cure her in
about one year’s time. And what about those innumerable depressed cases,
where I could give quality of life back? But most of all, in my thirty
years of practice, I have met with my own number of failures, which made a
far deeper impression on me than my successes. These failures were
priceless experiences because they forced me to explore other views and
modify my approach to find the simillimum for my patients. What I could not
resolve five years ago, I can now. What I cannot resolve today, I hope to
be able to unriddle tomorrow. The solution: continued study and dedication
to mankind.

GC: Who is your favorite modern homeopath? Why?
Dr. Luc: There are few. Vithoulkas for his dedication and the suffering and
personal attacks he had to go through. David Little for his studiousness
and practicing true classical homeopathy for the poor in India for so many
years. And Andre Saine for being a homeopath who also bases his practice on
the application of our Laws and Principles and is not afraid to back it up
with facts.

GC: Favorite 'old' homeopath? Why?
Dr. Luc: I have admiration for a lot more of the old masters. Hahnemann
above all for obvious reasons; Hering for his dedication and unbiased
observation which changed the face of homeopathy; von Boenninghausen for
giving us a great analytical method, so little known among modern
homeopaths; Adolph Lippe for being a staunch supporter of true homeopathic
medicine; I love Elizabeth Hubbard, Margaret Tyler and Dorothy Shepherd,
three female homeopaths, who always were practicing at the forefront of
homeopathy. But Dr. Pierre Schmidt of Switzerland has a special place in my
heart for his intelligence, his wide approach to other modalities and the
numerous successes in his practice. He was first in his medical school, a
proof that often homeopathy is mostly understandable to the most
intelligent and flexible physicians. "Aude sapere," "Dare to know," is a
credo every physician should follow! Pierre Schmidt was a star among the
homeopaths!

GC: Do you have a favorite non-homeopathic book?
Dr. Luc: I can’t remember when I read my last novel; that must be ages ago.
I truly love biographies, true adventures, battles of WWII, the battle
between the Boers and the English and books about true suffering in this
world. And all the books of Carl Jung! They brought me immense joy and
education in introspection of the human shadow side, as well as my own.
Suffering is an everyday fact of life for 90% of the people. Reading about
it moves me and directs my life aspirations to bring the little I can do to
relieve the suffering of people.

GC: What changes have you seen in the homeopathic community since you first
began practicing, and how do you feel about the way it is going? Has
anything happened in the homeopathic community that has upset you?
Dr. Luc: The "changes" I have seen in homeopathy are in fact nothing new.
The great masters I mentioned before had to struggle with the same issues
as we do today: the bastardizing of true homeopathy, the infecting of pure
homeopathy with speculations and nonsense. The main reason for that is that
most practitioners look for easy ways to practice homeopathy, based on the
allopathic model with its "protocols," which requires little thinking.
Let’s face it: There is nothing easy about homeopathy! It requires
dedication, hard work, little financial rewards but enormous personal ones!
Of all the modalities I studied, internal medicine, neurology, and
acupuncture, homeopathy is by far the most challenging! What makes me
upset? Those new aged self appointed gurus who call Hahnemann an old senile
and the Organon, "an old dusty bible." Those homeopaths who try to convince
us that they found a new improved method, experimenting on patients, but
only show their lack of profound study of the Organon and Chronic Diseases
as Hahnemann already did what they exclaim to be "new." Worse, it was
rejected by Hahnemann, but nevertheless, these modern gurus will say, "But
Hahnemann did it too!" And those homeopaths that teach "protocols" in
cancer cases to an audience that is not familiar with the true laws of
homeopathy and is therefore seduced to apply these dangerous techniques on
unsuspected patients. I do not expect that anything will change in the near
future. Human nature is lazy by nature, and using those brain cells to its
maximum capacity is given to few. In spite of all this, true homeopathy
will always survive while the speculative methods will only be a foot note
in the history of homeopathy, if that at all!

While practitioners have their own responsibilities, the pharmaceutical
industry will do anything to suppress homeopathy. In my opinion, homeopathy
truly has a chance only in countries where pharmaceutical industries have
no interest because there is no money at all. This is fortunately or
unfortunately still the case for millions of people.

GC: Do you have a favorite homeopathic pharmacy, or, what do you see as the
relative merits of the different ones?
Dr. Luc: I am only familiar with pharmacies I worked with and apologize in
advance for leaving others out. I like the Natural Health Supply in Santa
Fe, NM, and Hahnemann Laboratories in California. They produce excellent
often hand succussed remedies for the profession.

Serious disease-

GC: Some health care providers see homeopathy as 'soft' medicine -
something that might have benefit for minor ailments and animals - but when
it comes to serious illnesses like cancer, the big guns of conventional
medicine are needed. Even among alternative practitioners, only a small
proportion count homeopathy as their first line of treatment. A patient
will likely receive a different prescription (diet, vitamins, enzymes,
herbs, exercise, nutraceuticals etc) depending on which natural health care
provider he visits.

We have experienced that even those who use homeopathy for years are not
immune to serious health problems. On page 246 of Achieving and Maintaining
the Simillimum, you suggest that, when people develop life-threatening
diseases while under homeopathic care, it is either the fault of the
patient or the doctor, and that homeopathy would prevent these diseases, if
it were done properly.

In general terms, what can you say to help a person facing serious disease,
so that he can prioritize the vast array of treatment options that he has,
and choose the path which will give him the best shot at life, with the
confidence that he has made the best possible choice?
Dr. Luc: The issue of treating serious diseases should not be an issue,
especially when we can promise a true cure. But most practitioners and
alternative doctors will turn to vitamins, injections, etc. I know all
about this as earlier in my career I practiced this and studied it. However
it is done for the reasons I have discussed before: it is much easier to
apply (protocols!) and there is a lot of money to be earned in it (none of
these two interested me so I abandoned it). And the layperson and patient
thinks that homeopathy is only good for everyday occurrences, like a fall,
a bruise, an insect bite, etc. Nothing is further from the truth. We have a
200 year history to prove it. Homeopathy truly can cure asthma, eczema,
shingles, heart disease, strokes, etc., all conditions that allopathy
"controls," not cures. And a true cure is only achieved when that condition
does not recur after treatment. I only have to point to the 25 million
prescriptions a year of antibiotics for ear infections in children. Ask
those same physicians if they can give something so these ear infections
won’t come back? They can’t! Homeopathy can. While allopathy still has to
cure the first patient with genetic therapy (a billion dollar research),
homeopathy has already achieved it since 1828 when Hahnemann introduced his
miasmatic theory. Many diseases these days are the results of a jungle of
factors: iatrogenic or doctor’s induced diseases (more people die from
allopathic drugs every year than from car accidents); life style and
hygiene: this should put a stop to the introduction of vaccinations to
Third World countries while spending the same money to improve hygiene and
hunger, the first cause of epidemics; and then there are the true chronic
diseases, which we need to address according to their causality, genetic
factors and symptoms. While I admire anyone studying homeopathy, too few
have the time, ambition and perseverance to make it their sole goal. Yet it
is necessary, like in any profession, to just do that to become a master in
homeopathy. "A patient destined to die will die," so says a Chinese
proverb. Even here, homeopathy is the king among the healing modalities to
alleviate the suffering of the dying patient! One word of caution: curing a
chronic disease takes time! That’s what the nature of "chronic" is. Turn
away from homeopaths who promise you a fast cure and turn away those
patients "who give you one month to cure their 25 year illness!" Do you
think they ask the same from their allopathic physician?

To finish these questions with a thought. There are many masters we can
learn from. One of the people I most admire is Carl Jung, the famous
psychiatrist. He practiced as an unconscious homeopath, applying the same
principles and guidelines! I wished he had our tools, the homeopathic
remedies. But I am grateful to him for his dedication and great insight in
the human psyche. For me, he is another true genius like Hahnemann!

End of part 1 of the interview.

Interview of Dr. Luc De Schepper - Part 2 (Back to Part 1 )

Questions were emailed to Dr. Luc by Greg Cooper; Dr. Luc's answers follow
(in brown); November, 2004.
© 2004 Minimum Price Books

Prescribing

GC: Within the last few years, you and a handful of serious homeopathic
teachers have rekindled interest in the prescribing techniques of von
Boenninghausen. With several more modern repertories available, which have
thousands of additional remedies and rubrics, why is it that you choose the
Boger-von Boenninghausen Repertory for so many of your students? What is
the essence and uniqueness of Boenninghausen's teaching?

Dr. Luc: Very often, I hear in seminars that we can't possibly find the
simillimum for our patient "because we have not proved that specific remedy
yet." It always reminds me of Hahnemann and then von Boenninghausen how
they had so much success with 100 to 125 remedies at their disposition. Von
Boenninghausen has never disappointed me whenever I applied his method.
Drawing on his vast experience, von Boenninghausen concluded that "the
conditions of aggravation and amelioration are not confined to this or that
particular symptom but they apply to ALL of the symptoms of the case." So
the conditions of aggravations and ameliorations have a far more
significant relation to the totality of the symptoms and become the most
important factor to determine the simillimum. The NWS or etiology is the
number one modality (if known), then come all the other modalities; the
concomitant symptoms (called "unreasonable attendants") are second most
important. Then sensation, location, pathology and last only,
mental/emotional changes are taken into account for the patient's case. Why
is this so effective? It follows A95 of the Organon, which explains that
patients become accustomed to their prolonged suffering and don't really
know anymore what real health is. But concomitant symptoms and modalities
have often remained unchanged during this time and are easier to determine
than the evaluation of the psyche of the patient, which can be subjected to
different interpretations. But on the question, "Is your shoulder pain
worse or better by lying on it," most patients can give you a clear answer.
I like the method for acute as well as chronic cases, as it shows often the
layer remedy, the true constitution of the patient and the acute remedy all
at the same time. It is also by far the easiest method to teach and
understand, and can be taught in one weekend! And yet it is so little known
worldwide!

GC: I understand that Scholten successfully uses the location of each
chemical element in the periodic table to predict medicinal uses for the
homeopathic form of that element. You have written an entire book on
Homeopathy and the Periodic Table in which you say "I am afraid that
Scholten's work, as it stands, will never be integrated into the definitive
homeopathic materia medica." Can you give us an idea about the similarities
and differences between your use of the periodic table and Scholten's ?

Dr. Luc: I was initially fascinated with the analysis of the Periodic Table
and homeopathy. First of all, many homeopaths (H. Roberts and Farrington to
name a few) had already discussed possible family relationships in these
elements. Obviously Scholten took it a step further by now filling in the
blanks and making new combinations of remedies, derived solely from their
neighborhood to known elements. However I did not like this vast
speculation, only supported by few clinical cases (and what about all those
cases with the same remedy that did not give a result?). In his
introduction in Analytical Repertory of the Symptoms of the Mind, C. Hering
states, "There are two different kinds of symptoms, those produced and
those cured, and they are essentially different … The marking of such
different origin should always be done with the utmost care in the
monograph of the Materia Medica; it should then be 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 (Provings). Hahnemann was right, when he advised us not to be ruled by
former cures, but always by the symptoms produced."

Hahnemann warns us not to "infect" our Materia Medica with proven cases,
but the only parameter is the proving of the substance. Therefore I
investigated by only using the elements of the Periodic Table that were
proven, if I could not only expand my knowledge of well known polychrests,
but at the same time use this method to facilitate the finding of the
simillimum. It turned out to be the case so I am grateful to Scholten for
at least bringing new interest to the Period Table and Homeopathy. However,
I proved that we do not have to "speculate" about unknown elements and
experiment with these "new" unproven remedies on our patients. If we want
to do experimentation, let' s follow Hahnemann's lead: let's conduct
provings on ourselves and family members!

GC: Some homeopaths are concerned about the difference between the way Kent
practiced homeopathy, that is, using single doses of high potencies, and
the way Hahnemann describes the fifty millesimal potency method in the 6th
edition of the Organon. On your website it says you treat people
exclusively with LM potencies. I have heard it said that Hahnemann may have
had a touch of senility when he wrote the sixth edition. From your
experience and study, how do you compare the value of Kent's method vs the
LM method?
Dr. Luc: It is not correct that I treated patients exclusively with LM
potencies but I certainly was one of the first in this country to treat
patients with LM potencies in the correct way. However the discovery of the
5th edition split method, to which I came later, was a huge improvement in
treating patients. LMs are very penetrating and fast working and patients
with their allopathic mindset often abused it in a mechanical way (even
homeopaths do it). This always leads to unnecessary similar aggravations
(removed from the 6th edition as not being necessary!) and the formation of
more complex diseases. Now I would treat at least 70% of the chronic
patient cases with the 5th edition split method and 100% of the acutes with
this split method. Results are astonishing and if applied worldwide, would
change the face of practice of homeopathy. My only hope is that the 90% of
the homeopaths stuck in the 4th edition, will take advantage of these
advanced methods of Hahnemann and see the remarkable, speedy and gentle
cures as promised in A2 of the Organon. It is Kent who steered all the next
generations of homeopaths on the wrong path, as he never bothered to use
the 5th edition split method (which he could have-1833!) and with his
belief that the "dose (or amount of pellets) was of no importance". This
goes into the face of everything Hahnemann said and what every observing
practitioner has seen. Although in his Lesser Writings , Kent stated that
"no similar aggravation" is what we need to strive for, he was known to
have caused countless severe aggravations. Unfortunately, even well known
homeopaths today, think that they need to cause a "similar aggravation" in
order to know they applied the simillimum, something Hahnemann had removed
from his teachings in the 6th edition of the Organon (A161). Kent and
therefore most homeopaths under his influence, never even applied watery
doses and never dared to repeat a dose "while the patient was improving,
A246." Regarding the "myth" that Hahnemann was suffering from senility in
his later years, it is a cheap excuse for those who claim so to abandon
Hahnemann's teachings and apply their own frivolities. One only has to
study the microfiches of his Paris years and read statements from those
that were present in those years (Dr Croserio, read Lesser Writings of von
Boenninghausen) to observe that until the last days of his life he remained
a staunch intellectual, industrious 'till the end to provide us with his
last legacy, the LM potency. For more about this split method and
Hahnemann’s later years, I refer the reader to my book, " Achieving and
Maintaining the Simillimum."

Books

GC: We have listed several of your books - could you give a one-line
explanation of each, to indicate how/when it might best be used:

Human Condition Critical – Dr. Luc: A thorough introduction to the public
as how the homeopath and the patient should approach disease and treatment
in a homeopathic way.

The People's Repertory – Dr. Luc: The family handbook as how to match the
symptoms experienced to the indicated homeopathic remedy with dosage and
description of those remedies.

Hahnemann Revisited – Dr. Luc: THE textbook for every practitioner,
beginning student or advanced practitioner. Is the textbook in many schools
worldwide.

Homeopathy and the Periodic Table – Dr. Luc: For the advanced student in
homeopathy, to discover yet another method to find the Simillimum. With
invaluable insight in the application of Dreams in homeopathy.

Achieving and Maintaining the Simillimum – Dr. Luc: The long awaited
companion book to Hahnemann Revisited. Unique in its nature as it is the
first book in homeopathic history fully dedicated to the management of the
homeopathic patient, the most difficult part of treatment. A must in every
practice!

Renaissance Institute

GC: Is there a particular attitude or feeling that you like to encourage
among the students at RI?

Dr. Luc: There is only one attitude I like to encourage: be faithful first
to Hahnemann’s teachings and always build on his principles. Second: in
order to become a good practitioner (which you OWE to the patient), you
will have to study countless hours of homeopathy. If you want to become a
master in anything, studiousness, perseverance, honesty and love for that
profession are indispensable!

GC: What might students find at the RI that they wouldn't find at other
homeopathic schools?

Dr. Luc: I have been in schools worldwide and was present on many seminars.
I was always astonished to see first that hardly a method was taught to
find the simillimum, and second, worst of all, hardly any management was
ever instructed, depriving the student of the most important aspect of the
methodology. How often have I heard, "I gave the patient this remedy and
five months later he was all better." Is this what we see in the practice?
Of course not! You are lucky if the patient does not phone you the next day
with questions and reactions. My books are all based on my teachings and I
teach five different methods to find the simillimum in my schools.

GC: When and what was your initial vision of the Renaissance Institute, and
how has it grown and changed until today? With regards to the course
content, in what ways do you feel it is still evolving, and in what ways
has it reached a steady state?

Dr. Luc: I was disappointed initially with what I could receive in other
schools. This encouraged me to follow my own path and study the old masters
(in Ann Harbor, MI), reviewing thousands of pages of the old journals. This
was my real education. In 1993 I founded my own school, RICH. Regarding
homeopathic education in the US, homeopathy has to struggle against much
misconception and the usual allopathic suppression. As long as homeopathy
is not a "recognized profession," homeopathy is obstructed in its progress.
Homeopathy must follow the lead of the acupuncture schools, but even they
had to fight for a long time and are not considered a threat to the
pharmaceutical companies as homeopathy is. I am afraid that the struggle
will remain and that the idea of creating a 4 year homeopathic school in
this country that is part of the Medical Board of Assurance will remain a
pipe dream. It has been tried many times before, but for many different
reasons always remained unsuccessful. Such schools can only be created in
poor countries like India and South Africa, or in future countries where
there is a large segment of dirt poor people.

GC: How do the Renaissance Institute students learn conventional medical
sciences - anatomy, physiology, biochemistry?

Dr. Luc: Most of my students are licensed in their own profession and have
been exposed more or less to the conventional medical sciences. I always
have encouraged the lay people in my school, to enroll in community
colleges to follow these courses, even more, I encouraged them to become a
nurse, acupuncturist, psychotherapist, etc and many have followed my
advice. Again, only when we are able to create a school like the
acupuncture schools, can this become part of our homeopathic school program.

GC: At what stage does RI encourage the use of homeopathic software for
research, repertorization and case analysis: beginner, intermediate or
advanced?

Dr. Luc: I strongly object to the use of software in the first year of
education. Too many times have I seen on seminars that students were
expecting all the answers of the computer, simply because they were never
taught to determine the value of symptoms (A153). Doing the hard work first
in books will facilitate the use of these software programs. If I would
encourage buying one program, it would be Boger's Von Boenninghausen (BG2)
program, as long as you have been taught how to use it as this information
sadly does not come with the computer program.

GC: Do you encourage students to get involved in cases with serious
pathology ? Have you or your school ever documented significant improvement
in such cases?

Dr. Luc: A well-trained homeopath is inevitably drawn in his practice to
serious pathology. I have experienced this myself in my whole career. Is it
not so that the homeopath is often the last to be consulted by desperate
patients, once they have been given up by allopathy and other modalities?
While we would prefer differently, we still can do much good. And for us,
there are only patients with a disease, not diseases. The knowledge of the
miasmatic theory is certainly a must in treating and understanding severe
pathological cases. Regarding documentation: I had nothing but the
opportunity to do so during my practice and several of my excellent
students are able to do this now too. Of course, because it is not in a
double blind study, these wonderful, successful cases will be called
"anecdotal." I am pleased to have had so many anecdotal cures in my career
and time permitting, I will involve myself more in serious studies with
homeopathic treatment regarding specific diseases, which would be more
acceptable to the allopathic world.

GC: What would your say to prospective students who are considering trying
to learn homeopathy by reading books , rather than taking a course of study?

Dr. Luc: First of all, I wished that my own books that I wrote were
available when I started as a homeopathic student. It would have saved me
much trouble and failure; I had to do it the hard way, not the high way! As
mentioned before, I have much to thank from sticking my nose in all those
old homeopathic journals. Taking a course of study versus a school program?
I wrote a nine page article (will appear in AJHM this winter) about how to
motivate the student to commitment of homeopathic studies through
"innovative" methods. Like any stool to sit on, we need at least three
legs: first a capable teacher, second a dedicated smart student and third a
method to be taught. Anything less will not do. But what is the point if
the school offers clinical supervision and the supervisor is inadequate in
management? Is this a case of the blind leading the blind? Homeopathy's
greatest threat, like before, is inadequate teaching and indoctrination in
theories that are deviating from our basic laws. And not many find the
time, perseverance and opportunity to study on their own for years at the
time, 8 hours a day, seven days a week. Personally I like the camaraderie
and new friendships created in our classes and the support each student
provides the other.

GC: What is the educational background of most of the people who attend RI?
Is there a common attitude found among most students of RI, which may not
be so common in other schools? What homeopathic certification exam does
graduation from RI prepare one for? Is more study necessary for the
certification exam? Are there any state licensing exams that can be written
after graduation? What clinical experience does the RI provide?

Dr. Luc: Most people attending my schools are professionals in some health
branch and as I mentioned before, those that are not, I encourage strongly
becoming a health practitioner. Not only because some allopathic knowledge
will make it easier to practice, but also because the homeopath will have
more influence in his community. I used to do school tests on regular basis
but have found it to be counterproductive. Some students are intimidated by
written exams; above all, it took too much time away from my teachings. And
the best always survive. I do every weekend live, clinical cases and these
cases are followed up for their management each subsequent month, year
after year if possible. The students (in small groups) work on the live
case first before I provide my assessment. It gives me the opportunity to
go around and see who and where he student is struggling. That is more
productive than what I did in the past. As I said before, the motivation of
the student, if he wants just to dabble a little in homeopathy or become a
good practitioner, is not determined with some exams. He needs to examine
his own character daily and put his best foot forward. There are no state
licensing examinations in this country no matter what they want you to
believe. The CHC exam is an attempt to test people but coming from all
kinds of different programs, and put together by practitioners themselves
who are stuck in the 4th edition, I put little importance on it as it does
not allow you to be "licensed" in homeopathy and in my opinion does not
reflect if you are a good practitioner.

GC: What is the most important thing for a student to be aware of, in order
to establish a successful practice of homeopathy?

Dr. Luc: I was never in any phone book during my years of practice and my
biggest problem was to handle the mass of patients. Good work does its
public relations by itself. I never hesitated to be a mouth piece for
homeopathy through speeches, lectures, work shops and of course writing.
Anyone of us can do this (there is always Arg-n for those who tremble at
the thought) and it is more productive than paying much money for
advertising. Treat what you think you can, and above all treat yourself
first by looking at what Jung called, your "shadow side." You would be
surprised that you can find your simillimum there! !

GC: Can you name some graduates who have gone on to establish successful,
full time practices? Who have written books, or contributed at seminars or
with provings?

Dr. Luc: There are several students of mine that have a successful
practice. None of them have written books but they are often locally
involved in spreading the word of homeopathy through lecturing. I guess
they leave the writing of books to me.

GC: Where do you hold classes, and how do people get more information?

Dr. Luc: For the moment, I am holding regular classes in NJ, CO and NV (Las
Vegas), as well as everywhere else in the world upon invitation. However,
things can change rapidly in my world and I wish I could tell you where I
will be next year. But for more information, one can always write to
drluc@cybermesa.com or visit my web site www.drluc.com

End of part 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[arista000]

Dear Sherri and All,

Potencies - and most especially the LM range - being one of my pet
subjects, I am of course glad to read any discussion about them.

I have a question for all those who are - unlike myself - familiar
with all the details of the Paris notebooks.

Some time ago I read a refutation of the LM range by Andre Saine (at
least I *think* it was him). He said that he had read every single
case treated with LM (in the Paris notebooks) and then stated that
'one really cannot be satisfied by their success' - or something to
that effect. In other words, the LM potencies failed to impress Saine,
and he added that 'many homeopaths have used them, only to go back to
the centesimal range'. (Please, note the quotation signs - I am not
quoting verbatim, but from memory.)

Any comments?
Kind regards,

A.

[Sheri Nakken]

At 06:36 PM 10/16/2006 -0000, you wrote:

I know Saine doesn't use them - I don't know how long he tried, who he
learned from, if he used them properly. You can't help but be impressed if
you use them properly.

And I haven't read the casebooks. Luc de Schepper has.
But I have used them myself as well as C scale, but almost always as water
potencies and love them
David Little also does
Luc de Schepper always does.

Everything is so simplified once you understand it. It isn't about using
them, only, but using them correctly.
I'm not saying it is simple, but much easier to use them

This book is phenomenal for teaching how to use the water potencies in C or
LM range
Luc De Schepper
pracititioner working with chronic cases

Also the recent conference call sponsored by Whole Health Now hopefully
will be archived at http://www.wholehealthnow.com
soon - helpful in understanding
Sheri
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[arista000]

Thank you very much, Sheri.

I am so interested in the LM precisely because I have been using them
basically from day one. And, as I said (I think) on a previous
occasion, I have found them to be very useful. But they can also be,
in my experience, even "trickier" to use than the other ranges. For
example, I found no perceptible reaction from a split water dose - one
grain of LM/1 - but there was a definitely observable effect from one
grain LM/1 taken dry.

Go figure...

Anyway, thanks.
And if anyone has read the Paris notebooks, I'd be glad to hear your
comments concerning the LM cases.
All the best,

A.

[Sheri Nakken]

At 07:16 PM 10/16/2006 -0000, you wrote:

I can't recommend Luc's books enough - the one I posted - Achieving and
Maintaining the Simillimum
It will transform how you look at and take a case and how you proceed.

Also his seminars
He has one coming up on Vegas first weekend in November
I will be there! Coming from UK for that!

Sheri
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[Penelope]

Dr Luc De Schepper writes as though every patient they see gets
cured. I used to be very classical but they I saw over 20 years some
patients just not responding to single remedies but then responding
to 'non classical homeopathy. I have also seen vice a versa. I dont
think that any system is best- it all depends. Some homeopaths are
good with Hahnemans method others are good with new methods. After
all Hahnemann did not use M,10M etc so therefore Kent is the biggest
non classical homeopath of them all.
In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Sheri Nakken
wrote:
them
be,
dose - one
from one
your
Achieving and
proceed.
-

[Sheri Nakken]

At 08:53 PM 10/16/2006 -0000, you wrote:

Did you use water potencies? Did you uses low C's and LM's in the proper way.
I find it intersting people write off what they haven't mastered and go
another way.
The key is mastery and he is a pretty incredible practitioner and teacher.

If you used just dry potencies or sometimes LM's but didn't use them
properly it doesn't count.
And yes lots of problems with Kent. No one said he was 'classical' or
Hahnemannian
Sheri
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[Hennie Duits]

I was raised with the teachings to go up - start with C30, or C200, or
whatever, and go up if the same remedy was indicated.

Severe migraine patient: Sang 200, 1 dose dissolved, very well for 5
months. Sang 200 dissolved: Well for 2 months. Sang 1 M dissolved: well
for 5 months (see, theory seems to work!) Sang 1 m dissolved: Well for
2,5 months (hm..) Sang 10 m dissolved - virtually no reaction (shit..).
So: it seems she's doing better on lower potencies - Sang 30 dissolved -
very well for more than 1,5 years. Presently she 's on her second dose
C30.

I feel there's no such thing as 'the only way'. Listen to all good
stories, and disregard the 'only way-'part.

Hennie

Sheri Nakken schreef:

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Arista,

I have one comment, re:
My family used to see a very well-trained (Vithoulkian, but very fourth
ed.) prescriber in a clinic group. They had (as a collective
experiment) done some work with LMs, but become very discouraged by the
large number of bad aggravations they were seeing from them--much worse
than from their usual single dose, high potency work. When I tried
following their instructions for my (then 3-year-old) son, I found out
why! They were dosing (what I now know to be) MUCH too
aggressively--way too-large doses, repeated daily as a routine, even in
spite of my son's literally instantaneous and severe aggravation
(nothing serious, just behavioral, gaaaaahhhh!!). David Little's
instructions pulled us out of the fire!

My guess is that Andre had talked to folks from that situation, who
were trying to follow an inappropriate method with LMs.

Best wishes,
Shannon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Arista,

Hahnemann did say that some few people do need to have a dry dose (and
from what I have heard, many people can tolerate them just fine, tho
possibly would respond fine to diluted doses too? I don't know, just
guessing). But there's such a lot of range for adjustment. I'm
curious what your dilution method was--was it single pellet to 4 oz
water, and tsp for a dose, or something different?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]