Читать книгу Polarity Analysis in Homeopathy: - Heiner Frei - Страница 6

IMPROVING HOMEOPATHIC PRESCRIBING — A PREFACE

“Repeat the experiments … repeat them carefully and accurately, and you will find the doctrine confirmed at every step.”

With these words Hahnemann urged his reviewers to practice homeopathy in an accurate manner (Materia Medica Pura [MMP], Vol. II, p. 2)¹. Homeopathy has nevertheless developed in breathtakingly diverse directions since its discovery 200 years ago. When asked to find the best remedy for a particular case, the participants in a modern seminar will put forward a multitude of suggestions. For those less familiar with homeopathy, this generates the impression of considerable disorientation. In contrast, Hering reported in the middle of the nineteenth century that he had sent a patient’s medical history to 33 colleagues, requesting them to suggest the most suitable remedy. He received 22 replies, all indicating the same remedy.² There was evidently at that time a widespread consensus about the procedure to identify the required remedy. In view of the recent aggressive and frequent attacks on homeopathy, the fact that the required remedy cannot be reliably and reproducibly determined has seriously damaged homeopathy. Most new methods that have been introduced to homeopathy since the beginning of the twentieth century have not been statistically evaluated: we therefore do not know how they affect treatment outcomes, a situation that should urgently be corrected with outcome studies. These would also be an important step for homeopathy to acquire the status it deserves in medicine.

Polarity analysis (PA) was developed for the scientifically rigorous Swiss double-blind study with homeopathic treatment of hyperactive children, a study which demonstrated a significant difference between high-potency homeopathic remedies and placebo.³ A fundamental challenge in reaching this result was to improve the reliability of all elements used to determine a remedy.^4,5,6 The method of PA is based on Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook (PB) and its still unmatched grading of symptoms. Transferring the new insights to the treatment of acute and chronic illness as well as multimorbidity has led to a noticeable improvement in prescribing accuracy.

This book aims to convey the essentials of polarity analysis by providing the reader with a comprehensive practical introduction to this working method. We have included a wealth of case studies, chosen to illustrate the many different aspects encountered in clinical practice. We recommend that you try to reproduce the remedy selection process in these cases with one of the available software programs based on the revised edition of Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook (PB).⁷ The author uses the repertory program of the Boenninghausen Working Group (BOWG).⁸ Once you have understood the new principles of remedy determination, it is best to begin treating your own patients with acute illness (module 1). After you have acquired some experience in this field, you can start tackling chronic illness (module 2), and finally you can begin to treat patients in the most demanding field, hyperactive children and multimorbid patients (module 3). Two important conditions for achieving good results are the consistent application of the method, and the training of the patients to accurately observe and describe their symptoms – especially their polar symptoms (with the help of checklists and questionnaires). Polar symptoms have proved to be excellent signposts pointing the way beyond superficial physical symptomatology to deeper healing.

It may appear at first sight to be a disadvantage that Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook (PB) restricts the selection to 133 remedies. Yet this restriction in the number of variables is in fact an advantage rather than a disadvantage since it increases the reliability of the selection process. We actually have to choose between using reliable working tools with a limited number of remedies and demanding a high number of remedies, mindful of the consequences. In our extensive clinical practice over many years, it is our impression that the early homeopaths did in fact already find the most important remedies: it is rarely necessary to use additional homeopathic medicines.