HIPJan04/Over the Rainbow FINAL

22/3/04

2:41 pm

Page 2

FEATURE

Uh oh, Toto. I dont think

were in Kansas any more
Julian Winston takes a somewhat biased look at the science and art of homeopathy
today. He asks, What is homeopathy? and his conclusion is that its fast heading
over the rainbow into the Land of Oz. The author describes himself as rabidly
anti-PC. If youre sensitive, read this with your eyes closed and hands over your ears

Julian Winston, BID, was born in New York City and

graduated as a Bachelor of Industrial Design in 1963.
He is Director Emeritus at the National Center for
Homeopathy and editor of its journal, Homeopathy
Today. He is author of The Faces of Homeopathy and
the Heritage of Homeopathic Literature. In 1995 he
moved to New Zealand where he is Co-director of the
Wellington College of Homeopathy with his wife,
Gwyneth Evans, and editor and owner of Homeopathy
NewZ. He has another life as a musician, notably
as a banjo player and author of two instruction books
for the pedal steel guitar! He is known for his
outspoken comments on current trends in
homeopathic education and theory.

32

For me it has been an interesting

personal journey that started
when I walked into the office of
Ray Seidel, MD, HMD, in
Philadelphia in 1971. I was ailing, and he cured me. Rapidly.
Said Ray, Youll like this stuff. It
has lots of little bottles. How
right he was.
It was Ray who pushed me
into contacting the National
Center for Homeopathy and who
was instrumental in getting me
enrolled in the three-week
professional course at
Millersville, PA in 1980. It was
an interesting three weeks.
Richard Moskowitz, MD, just
back from George Vithoulkas in
Greece, drilled us in philosophy
during the morning of the first
week, and Maisimund Panos
totally confused us with the
repertory in the afternoon.
The second and third week saw
the morning session with
Catherine Coulter giving us her
Volume 1. Her book was still a
gleam in her eye and she was
lecturing from pages and pages
of scraps of paper.
Maisie and David Wember,
MD, did cases in the afternoon,
and in the evening we had
assorted presentations.
Two Indian doctors showed us
how they dowsed the remedy
using a measured rule as a guide,
and another practitioner
introduced his use of applied
kinesiology. It was all new
and exciting. And because
it was homeopathy school I
took it all on as homeopathy.
The next year I took a

sabbatical from my university

teaching position to figure out if
I wanted to go to medical school.
I spent six months driving
around the USA, meeting homeopaths of all stripes. I learned a
lot about the edges of practice. I
kept my mouth shut. I saw Rae
machines for both diagnosis and
remedy making. I saw early EAV
machines and was lectured by a
sincere German who waved a
Kents Repertory, told me it was
useless and assured me machines
were the way of the future.
I met an old practitioner who
figured out that it all came down
to nine remedies, administered in
groupings of three. I noticed
three books next to each other
on his bookshelf: The Organon,
the Bible and Hitlers Mein
Kampf. (I didnt ask.) I saw
people using essences in a
misplaced manner, and I spoke to
people who were dyed-in-thewool Hahnemannians some
80 years old, some 30.
I came away realising that
although I deeply loved
homeopathy I had no desire to be
a practitioner. I couldnt see making a living by listening to others
kvetch about their problems.
Shortly after returning from
my sojourn, I was elected to the
National Center Board of Directors, and soon after that I took
over the editorship of the NCH
newsletter Homeopathy Today.
Meanwhile, I began to amass
my homeopathic library (now
2.062 volumes), and read the old
literature. Along the way I
studied with Robin Murphy,
Homeopathy in practice January 2004

HIPJan04/Over the Rainbow FINAL

22/3/04

2:41 pm

Page 3

FEATURE

Jacques Imberechts, Francisco

Eizayaga, and most recently with
Jeremy Sherr and Paul Herscu.
Through all of this I have kept
an open mind, and kept asking
myself, Is this homeopathy? I
decided that the definition of
homeopathy is very simple: the
giving of a substance to someone
ill that has been shown to cause
similar symptoms when given to
somebody who is well. It has to
do with the application of the
simillimum, not to do with giving
homeopathic dilutions for
non-homeopathic indications.
The un-simple part is that
many people who have been
trained in the method have
always pushed at the edges of the
envelope even the man himself
who set out the principles. Even
during Hahnemanns life people
were beginning to advocate the
uses of specifics and combinations. After he died the fertile
market for combinations
bloomed in Europe and the USA.
The education in homeopathy
fell apart (2), and by 1865 few of
the schools teaching the subject
were teaching the pure method.
By 1880 most schools in the USA
claiming to be homeopathic
institutions were teaching a
bastardised therapeutic method.
By 1920, when most of the
schools closed, the people who
understood the pure method of
Hahnemann were few and far
between. In 1914, when there
were supposedly well over
10,000 homeopaths in the USA,
only 314 of them were listed in
the International Hahnemannian
Associations listing of
Hahnemannian practitioners.
But even within the ranks of
the IHA, there were sharp edges:

Samuel Swan was certainly at
the edge when he introduced our
three great nosodes:
Tuberculinum, Medorrhinum,
and Syphilinum. And then he
potentised blue ray of the sun
and other strange things (3).

Berhardt Fincke was at an
edge in 1898 when he did an
inductive proving of Adamas (4).

Guy Beckley Stearns was way
over the edge when he suggested
that the IHA explore the Abrams
Machine and did regular reports
on the tests he conducted to
understand the connection
between the Electronic Reaction
Homeopathy in practice January 2004

of Abrams (ERA) and the

question of potency. (And when
he became ill he consulted the
psychic, Edgar Cacye) (5).

Arthur Grimmer, Kents star
pupil who took over Kents
practice when he died, regularly
used a radionic machine to
determine remedies and potencies
(Over a sample of blood I determined the remedy was
Symphytum 50M) (6)), as did
William Gutman, Edward
Whitmont and Fred Morgan.
Nevertheless, these old guys
had a full background in conventional homeopathy and were
real masters of materia medica.
Some say it all started to fall
apart back in 1900 when Kent,
with his Swedenborgian dial
turned full on, began to teach his

Blessings be to Samuel
Hahnemann who led us
into the maze from which
escape is nigh impossible
way of seeing Hahnemanns
thinking. His work is still with us
(7) and has influenced many
contemporary homeopaths.
Kent began teaching the concept of giving the constitutional
remedy based on the generals
and the mental state. It didnt go
down too well when, on 8 January 1903, Kentian constitutional
prescribing was formally
introduced to England at a meeting of the British Homeopathic
Society by Octavia M.S. Lewin,
MD. The only voice raised in
agreement was that of John
Henry Clarke who conceded there
might be something in it. (8)
Over the next 50 years all the
grand homeopaths died. Most of
those who were left were trained
by Kent or by Kents pupils. The
problem is that those who got it
from Kent directly understood it
in the way one can only when
accessing the fount. But those
pupils could not pass on what
they understood and, within a
generation or two, we had built
edifices to worship and rituals to
attend to, but the original
practice had long been eroded.
Then, in the 1970s, came

George Vithoulkas who studied

the books and learned homeopathy in India. He charmed
Maisie Panos at a LIGA meeting
in Greece, and she brought him
to the USA. There he charmed a
bunch of young American fledgling homeopaths who realised he
had something they were missing. Bill Gray went to Greece to
study with him and brought it all
back home but because Bill
didnt speak Greek, he didn't get
the full picture and only brought
back the cream. Armed with a
little knowledge and a touch of
Kents Swedenborgianism, he
began converting the heathen.
In 1978 The Science of Homeopathy by Vithoulkas (and Gray)
converted a whole new generation into a model of thinking that
was, in many ways, far from
Hahnemann. (9) The vital force
got a full-blown show and
became the mechanism that heals
us when stimulated by the remedy completely at odds with
Hahnemanns explanation in the
6th edition of The Organon .
Suddenly we have a generation
who think the remedy stimulates
the intelligent vital force to heal
and, because they misunderstood
the 5th edition-based teachings of
Kent (and the subsequent teachings of Vithoulkass pupils),
started to talk about treating the
patient and not the disease.

Hahnemann was very clear:

In Para. 153 he wrote about
treating the disease based on its
characteristic symptoms (as seen
in the patient). As for mechanism, it is clearly outlined in Para.
29 and 34 of the 6th edition:
The remedy is an artificial
disease and stronger than the
natural disease. When introduced
into the body, the stronger
disease displaces the weaker (natural) one. Then, because it is artificial it gradually fades, leaving
the body ready to be, once again,
governed by the vital force, i.e.,
the instinctive life principle,
which in itself is incapable of any
reflection or act of memory. It is
the vital force that is deranged by
the illness and which produces
the symptoms, but it is the
remedy alone that heals, without
the vital force, which is waiting
for health to return so it can

resume its normal functioning.
33

HIPJan04/Over the Rainbow FINAL

22/3/04

2:41 pm

Page 2

FEATURE

Back to George
So where Vithoulkas saw the
essences as a way of describing
patients, that concept was above
and beyond the materia medica
that few understood especially
those who were getting the information second hand, or simply
reading the Stolen Essences. (10)
Some took it as the way rather
than the possible confirmation
and soon people were prescribing
on essences right and left. And
finding it didnt always work
The rebound to this essence
prescribing came to the USA in
the form of Francisco Eizayaga,
MD, from Argentina. Eizayaga
started teaching seminars that
showed why many essence prescriptions failed: the remedy for
the essence was not the remedy
for the lesion i.e., the disease.
The Pulsatilla woman with a
Pulsatilla discharge will be cured
by Pulsatilla, but the Pulsatilla
woman with a Kali bichromicum
discharge will not be helped by
Pulsatilla only by Kali-bi..
I am certain Kent understood
this, since a similar situation was
reported by Frank Kraft in a case
he discussed in the 1892 Hahnemannian Monthly (11). Kraft,
Kents student, looking at the
totality of a case, prescribed
Calcarea carbonica. Kent, correcting him, said the remedy was
Thuja because of the peculiar
nature of the patients discharge.
But, as I said above, Kent was
not his pupils
Suddenly there appeared to be
a heretic in the house. But careful
analysis of what the two protagonists (Vithoulkas and Eizayaga)
were talking about reveals it was
all a question of semantics.
Vithoulkas talked about layers
of the onion, Eizayaga about
understanding the lesion before
the fundamental. They both
used the word constitutional
but it meant different things.
It was amusing to watch them
nearly come to blows in
Washington DC with Vithoulkas
being dismissive and Eizayaga
calling him a Kentian illuminist
(12). I couldnt understand it: they
were never able to hear they were
talking about the same thing.

Sigh
There were those who hadnt
given up on the essence idea
34

(13) and, as they taught others

(and their pupils taught others),
the entire concept became
corrupted. The slightest mental
symptom over-ruled anything
else. As the grand homeopathic
pharmacist John A. Borneman III
sarcastically summed it up, I
know you have a pain in your
side, but was your grandmother
afraid of cantaloupes? (14)

The fact that learning

homeopathy is a hard slog
has been forgotten
Maybe it was the better living
through chemistry culture that
thrived in the late 1970s and
through the 1980s. God knows
what they were smoking.
Somewhere homeopathy
became entangled with a New
Age consciousness. As I point out
in my book, The Faces of
Homeopathy (15), a good number of the younger docs in the
USA found homeopathy through
their Indian gurus. Many were
on a meditative spiritual path
and this made the boundaries of
homeopathy less clear.
Then there were those in the
UK who were followers of
Druidic thought, and that thinking began to permeate
homeopathy. Of course there
were already those who
associated the sun signs of
astrology with the 12 cell salts.
All the boundaries began to blur
and we began to lose sight of
what homeopathy was.
In looking for easy ways
through essence prescribing or
whatever the latest seminar was
offering, the fact that learning
homeopathy is a hard slog has
been forgotten. Vithoulkas was
once asked, Were Hering and
Kent geniuses? And he replied,
Their genius was in their
capacity for hard work. (16)
T.G. Sloan remembers the
grand homeopath Erastus Case,
MD, as not brilliant, but a
tremendously hard worker. (17)
The 1902 IHA Transactions
(18) report on the death of John
Ross Haynes, MD. The author of
the obituary, Dr J.H. Allen, told

of being cured by Dr Haynes and

says that his visits were brief and
to the point. When I would
invite him to remain, he would
answer, No, I must go and
study or some hard case will
come in, and go away and tell
what a fool Haynes is. And
that after 50 years of practice!
Today we forget about the
hard work these grand
homeopaths put in to learning
and studying the materia medica.
It was not unusual for them to
spend evenings reading and
re-reading the primary texts.
One glance through an old
IHA Transaction will quickly
show us the level we should all
aspire to, and how much has
been lost to us. It will take years
to retrieve the knowledge these
old guys and gals carried around
in their heads. Happily much of
it is still in print. Unhappily just
the tip of the iceberg of the
literature is readily available.
I cannot conceive that any
practitioner could read a whole
IHA Transaction and not come
away a better practitioner. Over
60 of them were published from
1880 to 1946. And there are
others: the 19 volumes of the
magnificent Homeopathic Physician published in Philadelphia
between 1881 and 1899; all the
Homeopathic World journals
edited by J.H. Clarke and C.E.
Wheeler from 1886 to 1931; the
early Hahnemannian Monthlies;
the Medical Advance; the Homeopathic Recorder (1886-1959).
However, there are few with
access to the old literature, few
with the inclination to dig deeply
and understand the real depth of
the method. The lure of the weekend seminar is hard to resist. (19)
All during my tenure as editor
of Homeopathy Today I have
held a fairly hard line about
definitions. Homeopathy Today
is a broad-based magazine and
not a professional journal. The
aim has always been to present
homeopathy as the simple
methodology: take the case,
match the symptoms, differentiate the remedy, cure the case. The
people reading it want to know
that homeopathy works, and that
is what I want to deliver.
When EAV and machine
homeopaths wanted to put in
articles, I said, Sorry, not homeHomeopathy in practice January 2004

HIPJan04/Over the Rainbow FINAL

22/3/04

2:41 pm

Page 3

FEATURE

opathy. When people asked

about pendulums and radionic
machines, I said the same. When
a group of anthroposophical and
alternative physicians
resurrected the New York State
Homeopathic Society and tried
saying that anthroposophy and
chelation therapy were homeopathy, I loudly raised objections.
Understand, please, that this is
a public stance. I will admit to
owning a Rae potentiser and
have used it on occasion. It
works. I even did a proving of a
Rae-prepared remedy. Ive been
told Im a pretty clear dowser.
Ive used paper remedies in
three emergency situations, and
felt just fine about doing it. But
thats my personal edge.
Starting in the early 1990s I
went to several seminars (both in
NZ and in the USA) and began
to hear some amazing leaps of
imagination. Provings were being
done that, to me, didnt
adequately separate imagination
from reality. Provings were being
done loosely at seminars. People
were taking the Fincke lead and
doing inductive (meditation)
provings. Cases were being
shown as cured that didnt, at
least to me, seem to be cured.
Moreover, cases were being
submitted to the newsletter that
showed no homeopathic logic or
reasoning. I turned them down.
In December 2000 I wrote an
editorial entitled But is it homeopathy? in which I suggested
that we look at what we are calling homeopathy these days and
see if it fits the basic criteria. I
questioned some of the work
being done. I likened the run for
the core delusion to that of the
essences 20 years earlier. I
bemoaned the speculative nature
of some of the kingdom analysis,
periodic table work and doctrine
of signatures. Though these are
being promoted by homeopaths
I asked if it were homeopathy. It
was only a question.
Instead of a rational reply to
the question, 21 homeopaths
(some of whom never saw the
editorial) signed a letter of
complaint suggesting that I resign
my editorship because of my
fundamentalist tendencies. If it
werent so serious, it could be
amusing a group of the leading
edge saying, in essence, that they
Homeopathy in practice January 2004

are the new direction and speak

for homeopathy. In speaking
against intolerance and
divisiveness they asked for
tolerance to new ideas and said:
No one asks us to throw out
our repertories. Rather they say,
When you find yourself with a
patient for whom repertorisation
does not lead to a clear remedy
try looking at the case from this
perspective to see if it may shed
some light. If some misuse the
work, should we throw out the
concept? Do some people carry
these ideas too far? Yes, but lets
not throw out the baby with the
bathwater. (20)
A good sentiment.
But it does not answer the
question: Is it homeopathy?
There had never been any shame
in the past when, in a stubborn
case, something new was tried.
The old journals are full of hits
and misses. Some, like the
nosodes and the milks, finally
made it into the homeopathic
armamentarium. Scholten says
that in an unknown case you
might need an unknown remedy.
It is an interesting concept. But
the question comes up: Is the
remedy unknown because of a
lack of skill on the part of the
prescriber?

I know you have a pain in

your side, but was your
gran afraid of cantaloupes?
I am afraid that some are
giving pigeon wing when the
case really needs Pulsatilla, but
because of a lack of thorough
knowledge of the materia medica
(possibly because Pulsatilla was
only learned as an essence or
from keynotes) the right remedy
is not seen.
I know a number of
homeopaths who have, once
again, become aware of Bnninghausens method and are learning
to use the newer editions of the
Therapeutic Pocket Book with
great success. Cases that had not
responded to all sorts of
kingdom analyses and newer
remedies are responding to old
standbys like Bryonia and Thuja.
Im not saying you can cure the

world with only 125 polychrests,

but what is being done with them
in the hands of skilled prescribers
should certainly be looked at as
one direction where improvement
in our craft is possible.

How have we gotten to

this place?
There are several suggestions:
Hahnemann suggested that the
state of the mind was important
in some cases, so Kent, with his
Swedenborgian ideas, elevated
the state of the mind to the most
important. Not quite what
Hahnemann was suggesting in
Para. 211 when he said that (in
cases of mental disease) the
emotional state often decides the
choice of remedy.
Contemporary with Kent was
Freud and then Jung, and then
followed the whole public
acceptance of the mind and its
unplumbed depths, and the
tendency to over-psychologise. It
overlapped into homeopathy. But
most homeopaths are not trained
psychologists, although they
often act as if they are. The
mental symptoms have assumed
predominance, having been
pushed there by the last century
of homeopaths and by a populace willing to accept that view.
Because of the over-psychologising of our life, we might
have forgotten how to feel our
bodies. We do not know how it
hurts, only that it does hurt.
With a concurrent inability to use
the language accurately, patients
often can no longer describe their
physical sensations. The inability
of the client to communicate
coherently (Yeah, man. Like
well, you know Im, like,
bummed out) leads to the
homeopaths inability to use the
very tools they are given the
materia medica and the repertory
all of which use descriptive and
exact wording.
Of course, we have also grown
to expect immediate results.
Cases in the literature that took
months to resolve would not be
found to be an acceptable
outcome today. I want to be able
to get back to work tomorrow.
We have forgotten how to take
time. The one-days journey
described by Hahnemann is now
a 10-minute drive by car. We are
forgetting how to take time to
35

HIPJan04/Over the Rainbow FINAL

22/3/04

2:41 pm

Page 4

FEATURE

prepare food. We buy it ready

made and pop it in the
microwave. We want the result,
and we want it now.
One of the ways this instant
gratification segues into homeopathic practice has come about
through the computer. We no
longer have to slog through the
repertory, writing out each rubric
and making columnar lists. All
we have to do is put the rubrics
in and look at the analysis.
When MacRepertory first came
out Roger Morrison lauded it,
saying that in the time saved
doing the repertorisation he can
now read more materia medica.
But what happens when the
materia medica itself becomes
part of a search program? Very
simply, you risk losing the context. You search for a specific
symptom and find that doctor
so-and-so described this very
thing in the 1895 journal of soand-so and one leaps upon that
as an answer, without any
context. Who was the doctor?
Was he reliable? What else did he
write? What were his other cases
like? What was the rest of this
case like?
We get to know the names of
Dunham and Farrington as
historical markers (21) whose
works we can use to look up
details. But we never take the
time to read the whole work to
understand their entire presentation, the part that made them
great in the eyes of others. In our
hurry to find the remedy we
miss the larger picture.

So Is it homeopathy?
There are some edges that most
certainly have nothing to do with
homeopathy at all basing the
remedy selection on things like
astrological signs, tarot cards,
pendulum swinging, or any other
number of esoteric practices.
The problem arises when the
teachers of some of the newer
ideas are known as
homeopaths and, therefore,
what they do must be homeopathy. This is a false assumption,
not to mention poor logic.
What we forget (and the
teachers also forget) is that the
material they are teaching has
come from a long and studied
practice as a homeopath. Rajan
Sankaran has probably forgotten
36

more homeopathy than we will

ever know. Vithoulkas and Rajan
(and his Bombay school) and
Scholten are putting together their
material after years of dedicated
practice in homeopathy. And
many of the most vocal
proponents of their work have
also been practising for quite a
while. It is a subset of
information that the most
seasoned practitioner finds useful.
It is post-graduate education.
There are four stages in
knowledge:
1. unconscious incompetence; you
have no idea what you dont know.
2. conscious incompetence; youve
a glimmer that you dont know.
3. conscious competence; you
know it and you work at it.
4. unconscious competence; you
dont know what you know.
People who dont know which
end is up (i.e. have not had a
good grounding in materia med-

Cases in the literature

that took months to
resolve would not be an
acceptable outcome today
ica, case taking and case analysis)
should not be listening to these
teachers. Because when they do
they try doing it without having
any of the basic knowledge that is
unstated by these folks who are
teaching from a place of unconscious competence.
The four stages outlined above
are not linear, because stage 4
leads directly to stage 1 you
have no idea what you dont
know. Stage 4 is a difficult place
to teach from. A teacher I know
says that at the clinic a student
asked, How do you know that?
And she replied, I dont know. I
just do. And then realised that
she must find an answer to how
she knows it, otherwise what she
knows is not teachable.
Students and practitioners who
dont have an education in the
basics, and could not recognise a
Pulsatilla case if it were delivered
on a silver platter, get discouraged
by poor results and look around
for shortcuts. And there are all
these seminars! And that is the

danger of exposing unformed

homeopaths to these ideas: they
see a shortcut, as so many saw
with Georges essences.
It all has to do with a solid,
grounded education where
students are taught the whole slog
and taught the literature and
taught the careful case taking,
and then have good supervision
to prevent poor practices from
taking hold. Only then should
they be exposed to the edges.
Many of the new ideas
(essences, kingdom analysis,
periodic table analysis) are not
new. Kent was developing
essences at the turn of the
century, E.A. Farrington was
analysing remedies by kingdoms
in 1880, and Otto Leeser was
working with periodic table
information in 1935. (22)
But it remains that all these are
simply mental constructs to help
homeopaths understand what
they are doing in their practices.
And, as such, they all place a
level of abstraction between the
prescriber and the case at hand.
Although this might not be a
problem there is always a
risk involved.
Before the question is asked,
To which kingdom does this
patient belong? the question
should be asked, What are the
characteristics signs and
symptoms in this case of disease
before me. If the case is well
taken, those should be evident.
And if they are evident, they
should be able to be matched to
similar symptoms in the materia
medica. That is what homeopathy
is about.
The question is still: Is this
homeopathy? If it is, great. If it
isnt, fine. It doesnt mean it isnt
useful or doesnt work.
It just means that at this point
when you use an unknown
remedy based on periodic table
analysis you are experimenting
and not doing homeopathy even
if the shingle on the door says
homeopath.
All the old guys did it too, and
there is no shame involved. Just
lets be honest in our definitions.
Because if we dont define the
ground rules to what we are
teaching and practising, then
there is no way of assessing the
result, and everything becomes
everything else.
Homeopathy in practice January 2004

HIPJan04/Over the Rainbow FINAL

22/3/04

2:41 pm

Page 5

FEATURE

REFERENCES AND
FURTHER READING
1. Coulter, C.R. (1986)
Portraits of Homeopathic
Medicines: psychophysical
analyses of selected
constitutional types.
Berkeley: North Atlantic
Books.
2. The schools stopped teaching
homeopathic philosophy, and
started teaching simplified
therapeutics. See the
summation of the article by
Daniel Cook, MD, and Alain
Naude in Faces of
Homeopathy, pages 226-229,
or read the full article The
Ascendence and Decline of
Homeopathy in America: How
Great was its Fall? Journal of
the American Institute of
Homeopathy, Vol. 89, No. 3
(autumn 1996) or in
The Homeopath, No. 64, winter 1997.
3. For a full biography of
Samuel Swan (1814-1893)
and a list of all the remedies
he prepared, see:
http://julianwinston.com/archiv
es/swan/index.php.
4. Fincke, B. (1898) Adamas
an inductive proving,
Transactions of the
International Hahnemannian
Association, 19th Annual
Meeting, pages 65-68.
For a full biography of
Bernhardt Fincke (1821-1906)
and a list of all the remedies he
prepared, see
http://julianwinston.com/archiv
es/fincke/index.php
An inductive proving is
done by holding the remedy or
substance, without ingesting it.
Fincke did four provings of
Adamas in 1879, and reports
them in this article. The first
was done by holding a large
diamond. The other three were
done with holding a 5M
potency.
5. Edgar Cayce Reading
3017-1 M72, May 21, 1943.
The subject is identified only as
3017. However, a look at the
correspondence will show that
it can be only one person: Guy
Beckley Stearns, MD.
6. I saw this years ago in an
IHA Transactions or in a
Homeopathic Recorder. I did
not write the exact reference

down at the time, but I

certainly remembered it!
7. Kent, J.T. (1900) Lectures on
Homeopathic Philosophy,
Examiner Printing House,
Lancaster, PA. This book has
been republished many times
by many publishers.
8. Lewin, O. (1903), Cases
Illustrating Constitutional
Treatment, British Journal of
Homeopathy, Volume XI,
pages. 130-139. A summary
appears in Faces of
Homeopathy, pages 200-203.
9. Vithoulkas, G. (1978) The
Science of Homeopathy, Athens
School of Homeopathic
Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Reprinted by Grove Press,
1980.
Because of Vithoulkass lack
of fluency in English the book
was, essentially, Georges ideas
and was written by Bill Gray. It
quotes Kents view of the vital
force as having formative
intelligence. It speaks of how
the VF intelligently operates
(pg. 72, Grove ed.), and of the
intelligent vital force (pg. 75,
Grove ed.). It says that the VF
provides thoughts and
creativity and it conducts
spiritual inspiration (pg. 59
Grove ed.).
This is in direct contrast to
Hahnemanns thinking,
expressed in the footnote to
Aphorism 22, where he refers
to the operation of the VF as
highly imperfect mostly
inexpedient strivings of the
merely instinctual, intellect
lacking life-force, which was
only instilled in our organism
to continue our life on its
harmonious course as long as
the organism is healthy, but not
to cure itself in diseases. If it
had an ability so worthy of
imitation, then it would not
allow the organism to get sick
at all.
It is also in direct contrast to
Aphorism 34 which is
translated by Dudgeon as the
vital principle which is
instinctive, unreasoning, and
without memory and
by Decker/OReilly as
instinctual life principle
(which is not capable of any
deliberation or recollection)
The book also perpetuated
the myth that homeopathic

Homeopathy in practice January 2004

remedies can be rendered null

by heat in the range of
110-120F, an obviously false
assertion as anyone who has
worked in the tropics or left a
remedy kit in their car in the
summer will know. Recent
work by Boron has concluded
that the remedies are nullified
by heat in the range of
110-120C a big difference.
10. In 1978 Vithoulkas came to
the USA to do a seminar in
California at Esalen. After the
seminar his notes about
remedies were typed up. They
were given out to the
participants and then given to
the folks who took the next
class. The notes from the
second session were typed up
and distributed to the people in
the third class.
Vithoulkas made it clear that
these notes were fragmentary,
incomplete, and were for the
reference of the class only, and
not to be shared. One of those
attending the third class then,
without permission from
Vithoulkas, copied the notes
and distributed them to friends.
These were the Stolen Essences.
11. Kraft, F. (1892) The use of
Repertories a criticism.
Hahnemannian Monthly,
Volume 27, pages 336-7. It was
quoted in an article by the late
Georg Von Keller, MD (1981),
Lilium and the relative value of
symptoms, The British
Homeopathic Journal, Vol. 70,
number 1. pages 11-23.
12. This was at an AIH
meeting in Washington, DC in
the mid-1980s. I dont recall
the year.
13. A number of the students
of Vithoulkas (and his pupils)
stuck to the essence idea like
glue. In some study groups
essences were all that was
taught. The mentals took top
priority in the case, and any
other way of looking at it was
considered heresy.
14. In a personal conversation
with John A. Borneman III
some time during the late
1980s.
15. Winston, J. (1999), The
Faces of Homeopathy: An
Illustrated History of the First
200 Years, Great Auk
Publishing, Tawa, New
Zealand, pages 395-397.

16. Said in a reply to a question

in a seminar at Burlingame,
CA, around 1988.
17. Sloan, T.G. Reminiscences
of Dr. Erastus Case, pages
99-100 in the revised edition of
Some Clinical Experiences by
Erastus E. Case, edited by Jay
Yasgur, 1991, Van Hoy Press,
Greenville, PA.
18. Allen, J.H. Obituary
Notice, 1902 Transactions of
the International Hahnemannian Association 23rd Annual
Meeting. pages 9-13.
19. Collection of old journals
and books are few and far
between. The best that come to
mind are the libraries at
Glasgow; the Bosch Collection
in Stuttgart; the Schmidt library
in Switzerland; the National
Center library in Alexandria,
VA; the Medical Library at Ann
Arbor, MI; the special
collections at the University of
California in San Francisco;
and the National College of
Naturopathic Medicine in
Portland, OR. A number of
private individuals hold some
fine collections: Francis
Treuherz (UK), Chris Ellithorp
(NY, USA), William Kirtsos
(NY, USA), Dana Ullman (CA,
USA), KH Gypser (Germany),
and of course, my collection in
Tawa, New Zealand.
20. Morrison, R. et al. (2001)
Against Divisiveness,
Homeopathy Today, vol. 21,
no. 5 (May), page 20-21.
21. Dunham, C. (1879)
Lectures on Materia Medica,
Francis Hart and Co., NY.
Dunham, C. (1877)
Homeopathy, The Science of
Therapeutics, Francis Hart and
Co., NY.
Farrington, E.A. (1887), A
Clinical Materia Medica,
Sherman and Co.,
Philadelphia, PA.
22. Farrington, E.A. (1887), A
Clinical Materia Medica,
Sherman and Co.,
Philadelphia, PA.
Leeser, O. (1935), Textbook of
Materia Medica, Boericke and
Tafel, Philadelphia, PA. Translated from the German by
Linn Boyd.
Winston, J. (2001) The Heritage
of Homoeopathic Literature.
Wellington: Great Auk
Publishing.
37