Minutus

While my opinion is that homeopathy must grow, and innovations such as
Dr Scholtens
and Sankarans classification work are at times very useful additions to
the art, the
fundamental principles are the touchstone. While there are many
shortcomings which
inhibit the reliability of homeopathy (not the least of which is the
lack of objective confirmatory methods);
success in helping others is surest when symptoms are correctly chosen
and analysed. Dr. Andre
Saine, while maybe a bit too critical of newer ideas which have yet to
properly mature and find their place, is nevertheless a great exponent
of adhering to sound principles. He is one of the greatest historians
of homeopathy, an objective investigator, and a superb and
indefatigable prescriber, which helps his words carry weight. Here is a
nice seminar review I found on the net. Hope it is interesting.
Seminar Review:
PURE WATER, PURE FOOD, PURE AIR
AND PURE HOMEOPATHY
Nicholas Nossaman MD, DHt

At the end of March I attended an extraordinary seminar featuring Andre
Saine, ND, sponsored by the Homeopathic Association of Naturopathic
Physicians. The setting, Breitenbush Hot Springs, was homesteaded in the

1920's, then resurrected by a community of ecology-minded individuals in
the
1970's. It was as peaceful a place as I have ever been. Extremely rustic
and
simple, in a heavily forested area on the slopes of the Cascade
Mountains,
the community has its own water-powered electrical system, serves
incredibly
tasty vegetarian fare and creates an atmosphere which fosters
relaxation,
focus and renewal. My mornings began with a dawn walk to the small
geothermal pool in the meadow to bask and muse and watch the first light
of
the sun illuminate the misty valley.

The course was entitled, "Resolving Difficult Cases," and was grounded
in
basic, original and undiluted homeopathic principles from the source,
Hahnemann, the way we first learned them. Friday evening was devoted to
discussion of reasons for failure in cases. Inadequate case-taking is
the
primary reason, and, on Sunday, walking his talk, Andre demonstrated a
complete casetaking in a live consultation with a woman with multiple
sclerosis. This process for him is conducted in a meticulous, detailed
and
thorough fashion, usually taking three or more hours, sometimes five
hours
or longer in complicated cases. In the consultation, he teases out the
details of the unique nature and modalities of each symptom. He
exhaustively
evaluates striking and peculiar, general and mental symptoms to clarify
and
confirm them as they are experienced by the patient.

Over the course of the next two days, Dr. Saine presented four cases:
The
first case was a child with agenesis of the corpus callosum, severe
chronic
diarrhea and mental retardation with many features of autism. The child,

nine and a half years old, was nearly blind, almost totally disconnected

from his environment and barely functional when first seen. After two
doses
of the original choice, the correct remedy, Aloe socotrina, was found,
by
use of reference to the original provings. Dramatic improvement resulted
and
the child experienced transformation to the point of complete
functionality,
suffering mainly from a delay in learning from the first nine "lost"
years
of his life. It is significant to note that, in this case, the boy had
begun
to respond initially to Calcarea carbonica, including disappearance of
some
physical symptoms, some clear improvements in his overall awareness and
connection with the world, which would have certainly led me to stay
with
that medicine longer. The fact that his diarrhea (severe and of nearly
two
years' duration) became worse after the Calcarea, rather than better,
led
Andre to conclude that there was a better remedy, even though he had
responded to it. This was because the diarrhea was a functional and more

recent symptom and should go away more quickly after the simillimum. He
acknowledged that the boy could have gone on to a better and more
functional
state if he had stayed with the Calcarea carbonica, but was looking for
complete resolution of the problem.

The second case was of a feeble five-year-old boy with primary
idiopathic
glomerulonephritis (IgA nephropathy) who had persistent gross hematuria
and
a prognosis for renal failure within 10 years. Again, a long and
tortuous
course of prescribing of 12 well-chosen remedies showed only marginal
success until an acute sinusitis and the awareness of the persistence of
the
symptom of his constant licking of his lips led to the remedy which
transformed his state of health. Numerous careful repetitions of the
medicine in ascending potencies over the next year were required in the
process. He is now a normally functioning and energetic child, with no
sign
of the autoimmune disease which threatened to end his life at a young
age.

The third case, of severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, was a
22-year-old
man who was initially treated by mainstream psychiatrists for psychosis,

ultimately with Zyprexa. With partial subsidence of his previous
psychotic
symptoms, he developed severe obsessive-compulsive symptoms, such as
requiring three to four hours to pass a stool, and being unable to bathe

because of the hours of ritualistic behavior required to accomplish it.
These symptoms, along with his continuing thought disorder, rendered him

barely functional and unable to participate in school. Following the
early
prescriptions by Dr. Saine, his OCD symptoms worsened, and he became
violent
and suicidal.

Again, Saine's persistence prevailed over a nine-month period, until
study
of Baryta carbonica in Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases revealed the exact
symptom experienced by the boy. The symptom in the case was that the
patient
was always extremely excited to go somewhere (to a wedding, for
example),
but when it was time to leave, he refused to go. Dr. Gross, one of
Hahnemann's associates, proved Baryta acetica, the symptoms of which are

included in Hahnemann's materia medica for Baryta carbonica
(distinguished
by an identifying mark) and which included the exact symptom of this
patient.

Finally and dramatically, the case began to yield, with aggravations
after
each successive dose of the medicine, followed by incremental and
ultimately
remarkable improvement to the point of virtual total subsidence of his
OCD
symptoms, and his discontinuation of the antipsychotic drug.

The fourth case was of a 22-year-old woman, the daughter of an
immunologist
who later turned to allergy and ultimately to homeopathy, who suffered
with
attention deficit disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, severe
environmental
allergies and depression. A strong and peculiar symptom of hers was her
tremendous fear of and resistance to change, watching the same movie or
reading the same book over and over and having strong resistance to all
changes in her life, including moving. Curiously, her simillimum turned
out
to be Aloe socotrina, the same medicine finally required for the first
case,
this time chosen as the first prescription. A series of ascending
potencies
over the next year and three-quarters helped her resolve the emotional,
energetic, allergic and mental functioning aspects of her pathology.

The cases and their management were impressive in many respects:
1. All of them had severe pathology, and most of them did not show
dramatic
signs of yielding to the first, or even third or seventh prescription,
but
Andre persisted. I found remarkable the manner in which he "keeps his
eye on
the prize," knowing the correct medicine is there and trusting the vital

force to reveal it so that he can perceive it through continuing
diligent
study and observation.

2. The cases were not solved with emphasis on mental or emotional or
"essence" features, though they weren't disregarded, but on matching the

striking individual symptoms of the patient (often particular symptoms
or
modalities) with those of the medicine, mostly from the original
provings as
recorded by Hahnemann, and sometimes those in Hering.

3. Common symptoms were not totally disregarded, but were usually only
confirmatory of the correct prescription, at most. The striking and
peculiar
symptoms, a phrase we've heard and read hundreds of times, were the ones

which led to the correct medicine, though the totality of symptoms is
always
considered. The peculiar symptoms are the ones which have no connection
whatsoever with the recognized pathology of the disease the patient is
experiencing. For example, grinding of teeth at night, a good and solid
symptom used by many of us when we find it, was de-emphasized in the
first
case because it is common in autism and mental retardation. The
persistent
licking of the lips noted in the second case above was subtle but
crucial in
leading to the correct medicine. The implication here, of course, is
that
the prescriber must first know the common symptoms of the disease the
patient has, necessitating an awareness of pathology and
disease-presentations, a substantial task in itself.

Also we must use our common sense and experience in determining whether
a
symptom really is striking and peculiar, when it seems to be so. For
example, the symptom "excitement during thunderstorms" seems striking
and
peculiar, however it is relatively common, as is the symptom, "unable to

urinate if someone is nearby in the bathroom." These are both only
relatively uncommon (a straw vote among those attending the course
showed
that 50% had the former symptom, for example).

4. Dr. Saine's case-taking is the most thorough and detailed I have ever

seen. He literally leaves no stone unturned and persists in gathering
information until he has chosen the medicine on the spot, while the
patient
is still in the consulting room. He makes liberal use of computerized
repertorization.

He spoke of many other things during the course of the weekend, and I'd
like
to include some of them:

Andre emphasizes the significance of acute illnesses in leading to the
cure
of chronic illnesses. For example, chronic cases which are defective or
one-sided can be started toward resolution by precise prescribing in the

case of emergence of an acute illness in the patient, when it finally
occurs, and he asserted that half the time the simillimum for the
individual
can be found through careful analysis of the symptoms of the acute.

He asserted also that the correct remedy for the back pain symptoms of
the
patient is the correct remedy for the whole patient, 80% of the time.

Sometimes patients can have idiosyncratic responses in that they respond

better and longer to a certain potency of the correct remedy during a
long
course of treatment with the same remedy and this will happen each time
this
potency is started anew, even if it is given years later. Dr. Saine
suggests
giving the same medicine in the same potency two or three times in a
24-hour
period if the patient hasn't responded to a single dose, and if one is
convinced it's the correct one. Also, one can give two or three doses of
the
medicine if the patient is responding less to a series of single doses
with
the same potency, including in times of more stress. In addition, his
observation has told him that patients will often respond better to the
50M
potency than to any other when the medicine has a high degree of
similarity,
and that the response will be the same when it is given again years
later.
Also, if the choice of medicine is correct, the second dose repeated
after a
relapse should elicit a stronger and longer lasting response. If it
doesn't,
it is likely to be the wrong choice.

He emphasizes that homeopathy is based on laws of nature and can promote

cure in situations when nature can reverse the pathology. Functional
symptoms (such as rashes, local inflammatory processes) should respond
quickly to the correct remedy, more structural problems (ulcerations,
biochemical abnormalities, neoplastic changes) will be slower to change,
and
scarring will change little or not at all, for example in long-term
cases of
multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, fibrosis and scarring of joints

from rheumatoid arthritis, etc. Dr. Saine uses a form of electrotherapy,

developed in France and utilized by his father in his many decades of
chiropractic practice, to reverse CNS scarring in multiple sclerosis
patients. He has apparently had substantial success with this, following

completion of the extent of the cure able to be effected by nature and
homeopathy.

In accord with Hahnemann's teachings, he avoids intentional palliative
measures, such as herbs, salves, analgesics, etc. which serve to blunt
the
full expression of the vital force and thereby to obscure the clear
emergence of prescribing symptoms.

He doubts the medicine is correct if it doesn't elicit an aggravation
within
a few days, although the aggravation can be subtle and/or brief.

He says that our weakness makes us unable to practice homeopathy
correctly
and thoroughly, and encourages us to "let homeopathy make us strong" by
practicing it correctly, through pure observation and prescribing using
the
pathogenesis of the original provings and reliable confirmed cured
symptoms.

In reading this, we see utilization of basic homeopathic principles,
nothing
fancy. What makes Andre Saine's work and teaching different? Why does he
aid
in the cure of more serious pathology than most other homeopathic
prescribers? The single most important answer is unswerving dedication
to
the original principles and utilization of the original proving data, as

elucidated by Hahnemann and his followers. Secondly, he is singularly
focused on the goal of helping the patient heal, by way of pure and
complete
discovery of the symptoms of the patient, scrupulous study of the
striking
and peculiar symptoms of their case and meticulous matching of those
symptoms with the reliable materia medica. Third, he is relentless in
his
pursuit of the simillimum, while acknowledging that he doesn't always
find
it. He is undaunted by palliative or absent responses to medicines he
has
chosen, and continues to comprehensively reassess the symptoms of the
patient until he finally understands what the vital force of the patient
is
trying to tell him. He is passionate, and seems to subordinate his ego
to
the task at hand: to help the patient in their healing. This was
abundantly
clear in his live case-taking. He is extremely focused and directed, and
he
sets a blistering pace in his pursuit of the practice of pure
homeopathy.

As I've said, Andre emphasizes pure observation and sound conclusions
from
scientifically valid data (reliable materia medica), and, in following
his
logic and decision-making process through the weekend, I'm convinced
that an
additional element of intuition and inspiration plays a role in his
work.
This is not difficult for me to assimilate, because good science is
almost
always accompanied by an intangible measure of art, as I see it.

Saturday night Dr. Saine presented a slide show of the professional life
of
Adolph Lippe, who -- like Andre Saine himself -- was unbending in the
application of the basic principles of homeopathy as illuminated by
Hahnemann, and eminently successful in his application of the art and
science. His record of successes in devastating infectious disease
epidemics, for example, was astounding. Arguing against the proposed
opening
of the American Institute of Homeopathy to all applicants, Lippe said,
"There is no freedom when it comes to following a law of nature." As
Lippe
was leaving what proved to be the last meeting of the International
Hahnemannian Association he would attend before his death, he was asked
by
the chairman of the meeting if he had any words before he departed to
catch
his train to Pennsylvania. He replied that he felt great comfort that
homeopathy was now in good hands and would continue to flourish.

Andre Saine challenges us to use the principles which we already know
from
the Organon, in a complete and comprehensive fashion, to solve our cases

much like Sherlock Holmes, using sound conclusions based on pure
observation. In that way, this unique and wonderful art and science will

indeed flourish. The words he said which seized my attention most of all

were, "Let nature guide you".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANDRE SAINE AT BREITENBUSH: "NATURE IS GENEROUS"
Peter Wright ND, DHANP

Andre Saine presented a brilliant seminar on solving difficult cases at
Brietenbush Hot Springs, March 31 through April 2. The weather was
sunny,
despite patches of snow on the ground, the setting in the Cascade range
of
central Oregon was sublime, and those in attendance were attentive. I
would
like to share a number of points here from his lively and passionate
presentation, focusing mostly on his more general remarks.

Dr. Saine opened his talk with the comment that "Nature is generous:"
while
we always strive to find the simillimum, we are often able to help and
even
cure our patients with similes, imperfectly matched but close enough to
their state to evoke a healing response.

Causes of failed cases
The causes of failure in homeopathic treatment, according to Andre, are
related to deficiencies on the part of the prescriber about 70 percent
of
the time.

Fully 40 percent of treatment failures are due to inadequate casetaking.
Dr.
Saine stated flatly that if the case was taken in less than two hours,
the
information from the intake visit is probably insufficient. He spends an

average of three hours on the initial visit, including physical
examination.
He will persist in gathering symptoms and sorting through possibilities
until he is satisfied that he has arrived at the correct prescription,
even
if six or seven hours are required to do so. The right remedy is not so
hard
to find if enough information has been elicited. Pierre Schmidt used to
routinely spend an entire day with each new patient!

Defective case analysis is responsible for about 15 percent of failed
cases.
Most commonly, Dr. Saine finds that symptoms common to a disease are
emphasized by the prescriber. With a background of treating more than
200
patients with multiple sclerosis, for example, he noted that nearly all
of
his MS patients who had previously seen other homeopaths had been given
Causticum, Phosphorus, Alumina, or Argentum nitricum, as was commonly
taught
20 years ago or so. These four remedies, with many symptoms similar to
the
common symptoms of the condition, are listed in many books as the major
medicines required by people with MS. Symptoms common to a disease,
however,
are unlikely to be useful in identifying the required remedy.

10 percent of the time, the case has been taken adequately, but the
wrong
remedy is chosen.

Five percent of cases are spoiled when the correct remedy has been
given,
but on follow-up, the prescriber fails to note, or misinterprets, a
positive
response to the medicine.

Defective tools are responsible for failures in about 10 percent of
unsuccessful cases. The tools potentially at fault include problems with

intake forms, poor notetaking (especially a lack of emphasis to guide
prioritization of symptoms), and unreliable or inadequate materia medica
and
repertory data. Most of our books of materia medica have been compiled
from
successive previous compilations, with many mistakes and unverified
symptoms
added into the data base along the way. To avoid this obstacle, Andre
emphasized returning as much as possible to the original sources. The
greatest prescribers in the history of the art, such as Boenninghausen
and
Lippe, used only the original proving data as the basis of their work.
On
the other hand, he noted, although some homeopaths today remain attached
to
Kent's 1912 repertory, it is an artifact of his era, outdated by
progress
since that time. Contemporary prescribers should use up-to-date tools,
while
remaining wary of possible inaccuracies in the updated versions.

Failure can be attributed to defective patients in about 10 percent of
failed cases. Many people who come to us lack the verbal tools to
properly
convey the essential aspects of their symptoms and life experiences.
Others
are unable to share the information we need for accurate prescribing due
to
being out of touch with themselves. We may need to train some of our
patients to better observe and report their condition and inner state in

order to be able to help them.

Defective diseases, as described by Hahnemann, are the obstacle to
successful treatment in something less than five percent of treatment
failures. A disease which is not accompanied by perceptible symptoms,
and is
detected only by physical changes or abnormal laboratory values, may not
be
treatable with homeopathy. Some patients will reach a point where their
condition cannot be reversed by nature. These are definitely incurable,
since homeopathy can only work by stimulating a natural curative
response
from the organism. Homeopathy's range of action is limited to dynamic
disease. Anatomical defects which the organism cannot reverse on its own

remain outside of that range. (For instance, higher animals are
incapable of
regrowing amputated limbs.)

Certain neurotic conditions, provoked entirely by powerful thoughts or
ideas, likewise are in a sense not dynamic in their origin, and must be
therefore be treated by other thoughts or ideas, rather than with
medicines.
(See paragraphs 16-17 of the Organon.) An extreme example of such a
condition is seen in the well-documented phenomenon of voodoo death,
where
an individual's belief in a threat of magical assassination is enough to

cause his demise at the specified hour.

Homeopathy is dynamic medicine, and can cure dynamic disease. Not all
disease is dynamic; where it results from a persistent thought, a
nutritional deficiency, or a stressful or unhealthy situation, or other
causa occasionalis, it can only palliate, at best.

The question of curability
Dr. Saine described himself as "a homeopathic archeologist." He has
spent
countless hours digging through the homeopathic literature, in the
classic
books and in the stacks of old journals in special collections at the
libraries of previously homeopathic medical schools in Michigan, San
Francisco and elsewhere. (These excavations are actually his preferred
activity on vacations!) His quest there has been largely to determine
who
were the best prescribers, what were their methods, and which conditions
did
they find to be either curable by, or unresponsive to, homeopathic
treatment. When we are wondering about whether a particular disease may
respond to homeopathy, the case records and comments of master
prescribers
can offer helpful guidance.

Hahnemann's immediate successors, particularly Lippe and Boenninghausen,

"found the Promised Land" of effective homeopathic practice, right where
the
Founder pointed it out to them. This "Old Guard" of first-generation
homeopaths heeded his admonitions closely and tried to prevent
allopathic
encroachment on his teachings. The results which they obtained, despite
the
limited range of remedies available at the time, have not been surpassed
by
the generations of prescribers since that era.

P. P. Wells, Hering and Nash followed the master's words very closely,
and
were nearly as successful in their work. Jahr was an accurate observer,
and
his book, 40 Years in Practice, is a useful resource when we are
wondering
about the curability of an illness. Burnett, a maverick English
homeopath of
the early 20th century, pushed the limits of the art in successfully
treating cancer, which others, including Kent, had described as
incurable.

While the curability of a disease is important to assess, the prognosis
of
each case, like every other aspect of homeopathy, must be strictly
individualized. Diagnosis is crucial for proper case management, as well
as
for remedy choice and prognosis. The name of the disease is not so
important, but we must understand the nature of the process at work. Of
course, we have no basis for distinguishing the homeopathically useless
common symptoms of the illness from the valuable distinctive ones unless
we
know the nature of the patient's condition.

Dr. Saine uses laboratory testing frequently, nearly always when
decisive in
monitoring the course of the patient's condition. Subjective
improvement,
when it is accompanied by objective markers indicating a deterioration
of
the condition, is often a bad prognostic sign in terms of the degree of
similarity of the remedy.

In cases of defective disease, lacking in associated symptoms, two
strategies Andre relies on heavily are looking at clues from the
childhood
history, and using the symptoms which arise in acute conditions. In some

instances he must actually wait for such conditions to develop in order
to
find the curative remedy. He is encouraged when a cancer patient
develops
pneumonia, for example, since the characteristics of the untreated
pneumonia
may lead to the remedy needed to address the cancer. Pneumonia symptoms
will
call for the same remedy needed for the chronic disease in as many as 50

percent of the patients who contract it. Half of cancer cases are
defective
at present, although this number is greatly increased by palliative
interventions. Homeopathy is not very effective for patients who are
currently receiving radiation or chemotherapy; often effective for those
who
have had such treatment in the past, but discontinued it; and offers the

best results in patients who have avoided it altogether. The latter
category
is now the only one which Dr. Saine takes into his practice. Even coffee

enemas and high-dose nutritional supplements can interfere significantly

with the clarity of the picture. Basically, anything which changes
symptoms
without changing the causes (palliative) is not welcome.

For homeopaths who have not yet gained much clinical experience, insight

into treating an illness maybe gained by reading many cured cases with a

similar condition. Through this research, the perception of distinctive
symptoms which have led others to successful prescriptions will become
evident. Talking to other homeopaths with more experience treating
patients
with a similar illness can also be very helpful.

Simple remedy, complex disease
Complex disease, where patients may exhibit shifting complexes of
symptoms,
each constellation calling for a different medicine, represent another
kind
of difficult case. These cases are not necessarily incurable but call
for
skilled and attentive prescribing. The correct remedy for each state
must be
given as it appears, a process which Andre compared to patiently
untangling
a rope, undoing each knot in turn.

In the majority of cases, one remedy will cover most or all of the
chronic
symptoms which an individual develops over the course of a lifetime.
When
acute illnesses present, the correct remedy for the acute illness will
usually improve the patient's overall state. If the chronic illness
worsens
after acute treatment, the symptoms pointing to the right remedy are
usually
clarified by the response to well-indicated remedies.

How do we know when to stop waiting and give a remedy? This is a matter
of
discrimination, which must be learned through experience. When we see
clear
indications for prescribing, we must give the medicine. "Homeopathy is
simple; we make it complicated because we are complicated."

On provings
Much of the materia medica data which has been added since Hahnemann's
time
is questionable or dubious, according to Dr. Saine. "Many symptoms in
our
literature have been invented." Many remedies included in the books have
not
been proven at all, or have been inadequately proven at best. "If you
knew
the history of Carcinosin, you'd never prescribe it!" Proving symptoms
have
been elaborated, mistranslated and distorted over the years, and mixed
with
clinical symptoms of questionable accuracy.

Hahnemann sought and found sensitive individuals for his provings, and
instructed them carefully in order to elicit clear and reliable
symptoms.
Andre believes that provers should be given no more than three doses of
the
remedy, repeating only when the symptoms from the previous dose have
subsided. Symptoms added to the repertory on the basis of dubious
proving
techniques represent a real threat to the integrity of the art.

On posology
Andre noted that Hahnemann in fact often gave repeated doses of the same

potency. When symptoms relapse after a somewhat favorable response to a
remedy, Dr. Saine will usually repeat the same dose. If the second
response
is less marked than the first, he assesses the medicine as less than
optimally similar, and looks for a better prescription. When he is
confident
of a remedy choice, he may give a high potency in three doses over a
24-hour
period, cautioning the patient to repeat the dose only if no change has
been
noted following the previous one. While we must be careful about
too-frequent repetition, especially with higher potencies, many patients
do
very well and heal faster on more aggressive dosage schedules. Many
cases
recorded in the literature describe successful treatment, without
accidental
provings, in which the remedy was given daily in high potencies over
periods
of weeks or months. The key factor to assess is the individual's
sensitivity.

Certain patients seem to respond best to a remedy in a particular
potency.
He finds that the 50M potency produces marked and lasting benefits in
many
cases.

For extremely sensitive patients, an adequate dose may be administered
by
simply briefly opening and then immediately closing a vial of the remedy
in
a low potency, without bringing it into close proximity to the person.
Later
they may tolerate sniffing the open vial with one nostril, then with
both
nostrils.

With each dose of the correct medicine, the aggravation phase should
become
shorter, followed by a lengthening phase of improvement. While some
patients
may be treated successfully without noticing any aggravation, it is
always
better to see some aggravation. Improvement without any aggravation is
often
associated with a prescription whose similarity to the patient's state
is
less than optimal. The ideal point in the cycle for repeating the dose
is
just prior to, or at the very first sign of, a relapse. In treating
acute
febrile illness, he often monitors the response to a dose by changes in
the
pulse, a more sensitive indicator than the body temperature.

Andre is critical of LM remedies, stating that Hahnemann only used them
from
1841 to 1843 over a period of about 18 months, at a time when he was not

seeing many patients, a phase too brief to provide definitive long-term
follow-up. His evaluation of those cases from Hahnemann's records has
convinced him that the master's last experiments with posology were not
particularly successful. The potency of LM medicines is not very high,
and
the fine-tuning of the dosage is too complicated to work out with
patients.
Since the publication of the sixth edition of the Organon, a number of
excellent 20th century prescribers, including Pierre Schmidt, Kunzli,
and P.
Sankaran (Rajan's father), have tried and rejected it. Giving doses in
water, however, is often a useful method and can be employed with any
potency.

Many patients are sensitive to the nosodes, and Andre feels the response

they elicit is "non-specific." The materia medica indications "invented"

from these clinical responses have entered the literature, and now lead
homeopaths to prescribe these remedies, still poorly-proven or unproven,

quite frequently. Swann's development of the nosodes was a cause of
considerable controversy in his era, raising objections from other
homeopaths, especially Lippe, Boger and Wells. Andre does not make much
use
of them, and doesn't miss them.

Lippe and the lessons of history
On Saturday evening, Dr. Saine showed slides and lectured on Dr.
Adolphus
Lippe. He asserted that Lippe was the most accomplished homeopathic
prescriber ever, and therefore quite probably the most successful
physician
in history. He had a practice which was known as one of the largest in
the
country, and he recorded incredible results, especially in treating the
epidemic diseases which ended so many lives in that period. His
published
cases are models of inductive reasoning. However, Lippe's writings are
poorly represented by his books currently in print, and he is not
well-known
among many modern students of homeopathy. Andre has collected more than
700
of his journal articles, and has been working since 1986 on editing a
book
of Lippe's writing, which he plans to publish this fall.

Homeopathy gained wide acceptance and recognition because the early
homeopaths relied strictly on Hahnemann's methods and the accurate
provings
he recorded, and demonstrated consistently excellent clinical outcomes.
It
was very nearly destroyed when these fundamentals were neglected:
physicians
often graduated from "homeopathic" medical schools without knowing of
the
Organon's existence! Routine methods, prescribing on pathology, and
dilution
of the materia medica with inaccurate data led to poor results. Poor
results
with a hybridized, semi-allopathic medicine miscalled "homeopathy" led
to a
loss of public respect for the art, and to its abandonment by many
nominally
homeopathic doctors.

In fact, Andre argued that it was only the vital transmission of true
homeopathic principles through the International Hahnemannian
Association
which has made its current rebirth possible. The IHA, which Lippe
cofounded
after Hering's death in 1880, carried the torch for genuine homeopathy,
in a
time when the much larger American Institute of Homeopathy had ceased to

stand for Hahnemann's art. The final meeting of the IHA took place in
1959.
One of its prominent members was J. T. Kent, who in turn taught Pierre
Schmidt, the Swiss physician who kept the Kentian flame burning into the
era
of George Vithoulkas and our contemporary teachers. Unfortunately the
pure
Hahnemannian homeopathy was no longer transmitted after the
disappearance of
the old guard.

The lessons of homeopathy's last period of decline may be ignored at our

peril. Andre was very persuasive regarding the critical importance of
sticking to the well-established procedures of homeopathic prescribing,
and
the most reliable information. He pointed to Hahnemann's and Lippe's
works
as the indispensable, core material for homeopaths to study: "It's all
right
there."

Clinical pearls
While I will not go into a full discussion of the cases in the seminar,
many
aspects of Dr. Saine's approach to them were instructive. In analyzing
the
cases, he made deft use of MacRepertory and Referenceworks, combining
many
incomplete rubrics into more inclusive "superrubrics," searching swiftly

through the library for symptoms, and graphing the analysis of dozens of

symptoms in the preliminary phases of the process, prior to narrowing
the
case down to a much smaller number of truly distinctive rubrics.

In one case, a picture which suggested Baryta carbonica included a
symptom,
making plans for a journey which is somehow never really carried out.
This
characteristic is listed in the materia medica as a Baryta carbonica
symptom. From his deep and thorough study of the materia medica, Andre
knew
that it was actually derived from a proving of Baryta acetica which was
later combined with the Baryta carbonica symptoms. Baryta acetica cured
the
case, in a striking example of the power of an inexhaustible appetite
for
detail.

The specific foods which produce symptoms are seldom useful in the
analysis
of cases of people who suffer from food allergies. Cold sores and back
pain,
however, are two conditions whose specific symptoms quite often point to
the
remedy needed by the patient, and the seemingly nondescript details of
the
live patient's back pain were important in arriving at a prescription
for
her.

I have never seen a live homeopathic case taken in front of a seminar
group
where more attention was paid to making the patient feel that nothing
else
mattered except finding the key to her healing process. Andre's
compassion
was abundantly evident in every word and expression. By the same token,
I
have never seen a homeopath pursue completeness and accuracy in
casetaking
so singlemindedly, never worried about appearing tedious or pushy in
gathering information, taking nothing for granted. He advised the
patient to
expect the return of the old symptoms which had been treated
allopathically,
and firmly instructed her to consult with her homeopath, and not to seek

additional treatment for them, when they resurfaced.

Two of the paper cases were cured with Aloe socotrina. This remedy is
well-known for its value in treating certain types of acute diarrhea,
but it
is generally overlooked as an important remedy for patients whose
gastrointestinal illness originated with a suppressive treatment, often
(though not necessarily) for a skin condition. While the diarrhea
symptoms
of Aloe are reasonably distinctive in many instances, two of the Aloe
patients Dr. Saine discussed shared the notable symptom of wanting to
eat
only one food at a time, every day for every meal, for extended periods
of
time. This tendency toward behavioral fixations is not evident from
provings
of the medicine, but has been repeatedly confirmed in Aloe patients, who

were freed from it after taking the remedy.

Many of the points I have touched upon in this review are covered in
greater
detail in the articles posted at the website of the Canadian Academy of
Homeopathy, www.homeopathy.ca.

Concluding remarks
In closing, Andre emphasized a few major concepts which bear repeating
here.

First and last, beware of palliation: if a disease is curable, the
homeopath
must avoid blunting the signals which can lead to a curative medicine.
If
the law of similars is indeed the fundamental law of healing, we do not
have
the freedom not to follow the law.

The doctrine of signatures is a concept which Hahnemann specifically
criticized in his essay "The Genius of the Homeopathic Art." The more we

indulge in speculation about our medicines, the farther we depart from
strict reliance on solid provings, the deeper we go into error. The
title of
a French book on the history of science phrases it perfectly: "I Think,
Therefore I Am Wrong."

Challenged on the previous point, with reference to allegedly effective
traditional healing systems based on the doctrine of signatures, Dr.
Saine
stated that his critical scrutiny of botanical medicine around the world
has
convinced him that none of it can compare favorably with homeopathy. It
is
all allopathic, using crude doses, and resulting at best in palliation
only.
When contagious infections raged around the world in the 19th century,
the
Eclectic physicians prescribing herbal medicines were no more effective
at
saving lives than their orthodox contemporaries, while homeopathic
physicians met with impressive success.

Homeopathic healing is a process which impacts everyone around it. Think
of
the scene with the angel in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life," where the

Jimmy Stewart character is shown how the fate of his little hometown
would
have been disastrously different, had he not been present, living his
humble
life, doing the right thing. The effects of correct prescribing move
outwards through the world in expanding circles, far beyond our ability
to
know the good we do.

Your weaknesses and strengths are inevitably reflected in how you
practice
homeopathy. If you follow Nature, and you attend to the lessons which
arise
from that effort, you will be changed.

Return to list