WITH GRAINS OF

Most people associate me with the software I created, MacRepertory and ReferenceWorks, but it is the philosophy and mystery of homeopathy that is my passion and led to the programs' development. The blending of the depth, sensitivity and power of the homeopathic approach with the speed, retention and range of the computer has the potential to create a quantum leap in homeopathy. To loosely paraphrase Marshall Macluen, the way that we work with information determines its capacity. Just as Hahnemann could not have formulated homeopathy as he did without the newly invented printing press, whatever is coming in homeopathy will rely heavily on the special abilities of the computer. In the process of creating for this new medium we have a lot to reconsider.

In that spirit I will share a bit of what I have observed and understood. I hasten to say that I have no illusions that this is Truth; it is only my current thoughts.

In 1974 I began studying homeopathy. I was fortunate enough to apprentice for some years with one of our greatest prescribers, Bill Gray, and through him was deeply exposed to George Vithoulkas. Through Bill and George we came to understand that it was possible to prescribe effectively by combining the emotional state and the generals and our case taking technique focused intensely on the psychological. One remedy was prescribed, most often in the range of 200C to 10M and carefully repeated, at the most, every few months.

In 1980 I became friends with the great Argentinian homeopath, Francisco Eizayaga. His case analysis was radically different from what I had been exposed to. Francisco believed that all patients needed to be treated at 4 levels. At the most critical level you only take into account the pathological symptoms - no mentals or generals; this prescription heals the major complaint. The second level was that of the emotions - most people have an emotional state that is the stressor that results in the disease, so the emotions need to be treated as well. At this level we take into account the fears, angers, and some generals. The third level is the inherited one and one prescribes based on the general miasmatic characteristics; this prescription softens the general approach to life (i.e. tending towards destruction, or desiring escape, etc.). And the final level prescribed to strengthen the general physical type: phosphoric, calcaric, flouric, etc. Generally he'd prescribe the pathological remedy in a 6c daily at the same time as the emotional remedy once a week and the miasmatic remedy once a month.

Francisco's prescribing was profoundly disturbing to me. Vithoulkas had taught that giving remedies solely for the pathology would result in serious suppression - only aggravated by repeated low potencies. (His stress on the dangers inherent in prescribing was reminiscent of what Kent said in Hepar "They are means of tremendous harm, as well as of tremendous good.")

It would have been easy to dismiss his approach out of hand if he weren't such a sincere man.

But rather than harm I saw that Eizayaga had many brilliant, actually amazing, cures of deep pathology and often pathology that I would have assumed was incurable he was able to palliate. It was hard to judge his prescribing as incorrect and dangerous after seeing the results and coming to respect him as a sincere, deep and thoughtful man. At the same time it was very hard to reconcile his prescribing with the philosophy of Kent and Vithoulkas.

Meanwhile I saw that suppressions did exist; it appeared that, although very rare, I did suppress my patient's symptoms (despite prescribing very infrequently and always for the deepest part of the person I could see). I remember clearing up a very chronic rash only to have the young man report 6 months later that he seemed more emotionally fragile than before. I went to India and sat with very skillful prescribers who saw 20 people an hour and seemed to help a lot of people. It was a revelation to see that one could prescribe quickly and still do good work. Later I saw Vega Rosenberg prescribe profoundly effective remedies after only a few minutes of consultation (and occasionally prescribing -gasp - very high potencies daily without problems!). And recently I have seen Massimo, Lou and Rajan confidently give incredibly rare remedies with deep results.

On the other hand I have seen brilliant homeopaths like Andre Seine and Richard Pitcairn mostly prescribe polychrests and consistently heal their patients. They don't seem to need to use these small remedies.

Over the years I have had the opportunity to study with dozens of the world's greatest and most experienced homeopaths. Many of whom prescribed very, very differently from one another and all seemed to have very impressive results.

How to make sense of all of this? After almost 30 years I still have no certainty but do have an outlook that works for me. I don't want to say mine is the "Truth" at all - it is just an effective working hypothesis for me. It is different from the beliefs of some of my favorite and most respected prescribers which disturbs me. We all seem to get non-harmful results and my hope is that there is not a single truth but a variety of approaches that are effective if applied in a consistent way.