Books

THE BERN SEMINAR_PAGE 3

what am I doing? Have I been following a logical hypothesis without being aware of it? Why did one patient get well? Why did another patient not do well, in spite of the fact that he appeared to respond well to some of the remedies given? These were the kinds of questions I asked myself during the early stages of my homeopathic studies. By way of these questions I began to observe what was taking place.
As you know, with classical homeopathic theories one remedy is administered at a time. We can look at a case in primarily one of two ways: One way, or one theory, is that we can peel the case like an onion, going through the different layers of an individual state. The other theory says that we have to find that one remedy which runs right through the patient’s history because that remedy is the real similimum and will do the trick. As I look back on my experiences, I find that both these hypotheses, depending on the case, have been proven correct. Certain cases require just one remedy in order to bring about a beautiful cure, while with other cases you have to follow, step-by-step, one remedy after another in order to see the same type of result that you might have seen with a single remedy in another case. What is the difference? Let us take the first hypothesis: We have to find one remedy that is going to do everything, and that is the remedy which is indicated. Let us assume that this hypothesis, which is based on observations made during an interview, is correct; if this is so, then the hypothesis contradicts the theory of the miasms. According to Hahnemann there were three miasms: the sycotic, the syphilitic and the psoric. The cases that we encounter will, most probably, be complicated on the level of one of these three miasms. Our job is to take care of the syphilitic or the sycotic miasms first using different remedies.
Our primary interest lies in identifying the laws that underlie our method of treatment. I am just addressing here some of the questions and challenges that we face in this science. As homeopathic physicians, we have reached a point where we understand the processes and laws which underlie our actions and prescriptions. When you are confronted with a case, your immediate questions should be: Can I find one remedy in this case? Is only one remedy indicated, or are two, three, four, five remedies necessary in order to make this patient better? What are the laws, the guide lines, by which I see that this case needs only one remedy? What are the laws that tell me that this case needs two, three, or five remedies? Can I predict that? Can I know this beforehand? A precise prognosis of a case depends on our ability to answer all these questions. What do I mean by this? Well, if I see