Creating Waves of Awareness
Reliability of repertories
Kent's repertory was once said to be the most reliable and universal
repertory. Meanwhile it is outranked by dozens of others, which not
only contain much more rubrics but also much more remedies, even the
commonly known polychrests and lesser known remedies of Hahnemann's
time appear now in rubrics where they haven't been before, or are not to
find in Kent's repertory for example. In article about "Homeopathy in
2050" Dr. Marcelo Candegabe outlines the development of repertories and
entrance of remedies as follows:
Kent / Barthel / Synthesis 5 / Millenium / Radar 10 / ????
(1916) (1982) (1995) (2004) (2008) (2050)
Forsaken 32 49 50 113 190 400
Dictatorial 9 18 20 47 62 150
T.storms 11 17 25 38 54 130
Milk agg. 30 60 62 78 128 320
I would love to hear other homeopath opinions regarding the reliability of repertories. Are the results still reliable if we really - and only
- take the strange, rare, peculiar and uncommon symptoms into account ? Which repertory do you find most reliable in practice ?
repertory. Meanwhile it is outranked by dozens of others, which not
only contain much more rubrics but also much more remedies, even the
commonly known polychrests and lesser known remedies of Hahnemann's
time appear now in rubrics where they haven't been before, or are not to
find in Kent's repertory for example. In article about "Homeopathy in
2050" Dr. Marcelo Candegabe outlines the development of repertories and
entrance of remedies as follows:
Kent / Barthel / Synthesis 5 / Millenium / Radar 10 / ????
(1916) (1982) (1995) (2004) (2008) (2050)
Forsaken 32 49 50 113 190 400
Dictatorial 9 18 20 47 62 150
T.storms 11 17 25 38 54 130
Milk agg. 30 60 62 78 128 320
I would love to hear other homeopath opinions regarding the reliability of repertories. Are the results still reliable if we really - and only
- take the strange, rare, peculiar and uncommon symptoms into account ? Which repertory do you find most reliable in practice ?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Debby Bruck on -
I'm so happy to see you here today. Thank you for these references. I will have to see if they are on my MacRep programs. I use Murphy when it comes to hardcover.
-
-
Permalink Reply by sajjadakram on -
Dear Hans,
Don't you feel any difficulty in using Boenninghausan's TT.I do.Can you please guide us ?
Regards.
sajjad. -
-
Permalink Reply by DR. ARINDAM DUTTA on -
Hi Katja,
How do you do? Very timely discussion you've started. Congrats!
A century has elapsed after the first edition of Kent’s repertory. The sixth edition was published in 1956. Since then all the editions appeared time to time were mere reprints of this edition. Therefore,
with the passage of time, it became necessary to improve the work further. Repertory making is a continuous process- there can not be an end to it.
A number of repertories appeared after the sixth edition of Kent’s repertory. These repertories are updated books over Kent’s Work. The authors added and updated many rubrics as well as many drugs in these compilations. But they universally considered that the plan, construction and basic philosophical background of Kent’s repertory as unique and preserved it in their repertories, as far as possible.
Actually, we are going through a revolution by which we are adding this and that- many things to these repertories, even sometimes we are upgrading the ranks of the existing drugs as well. Only future may tell us the efficacies of these compilations after verifications and re-verifications.
We must not forget the reason behind the reliability of the works of Boenninghausen, Kent, Boger & many others worth mentioning. They are based on strictly verified & reverified data. Now a days we are compilling repertories by keeping Kent's work as the basis and adding to it various data from different reliable or unreliable sources.
Only making the thing voluminous does not mean a good work. We must be concerned about the quality rather than the quantity.
Please don't think that I am against these modern repertories. Personally I use Synthesis, Murphy, etc. beside Kent and Boger in my day to day practice. My intention is that we must know their limitations. Then only we can extract best out of them. After all, it is our duty to prove the efficacy of these works. Is n't it?
..................................ARINDAM -
-
Permalink Reply by Katja Schütt on -
Thanks for all your contributions so far and your excellent comment's on the history of Kent's repertory, Hans.
Yes, Dr.Chopra, I agree about the problem regarding the flood of new (and often insufficiently) proven remedies. I wonder why many homeopath like Dr.Luc still cure the most of their patients (>90) with the commonly known polychrests and lesser known remedies whereas others only have a success rate of 5% with these remedies. While I do not deny the potential usefullness of new remedies it is obvious that their entrance in our repertories and MM's should be based on reliable proving results and clinical observation.
P.S. Hi Dr. Dutta ! I'm fine, more or less... -
-
Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on -
Dear Katja, dear members
one way of confirming entries in rubrics is by looking up the symptom in the provings, which in many situations is impossible.
Even the early repertories of Boenninghausen, Jahr et. al. contain a lot of clinical experience, which is not reflected in proving symptoms. A lot of skin stuff is purely clinical.
Just take for example all the measles mumps, cancer rubrics etc. -- And there it is -- to know what is clinical and what is proving and to give preference to proving entries, as clinical experience changes with time -- the same remedies listed may not do the trick anymore nowadays.
So-- it makes sense to take the proving to the repertory and see which rubrics can be reliable, as their entries do not change with time, (the grading may) and use those.
Another topic is Kents final repertory, of which at least two printed versions exist, -- One from Dr. chand , one from Pierre Schmidt, both coming from the same source manuscript. This in itself raises a lot of questions how accurate those manuscripts were copied, as they should be identical and they are in many aspects not.
the ultimate question is, what defines a cure -- much depends on this definition, as what one practitioner sees as a cure, may as well be in the eyes of another one just a palliation or a suppression. -
-
Permalink Reply by Katja Schütt on
-
Dear Hans,
you wrote: "the same remedies listed may not do the trick anymore nowadays."
It is an often heared argument that the commonly known remedies may not cure anymore nowadays. I rather think that the type of diseases patients suffer from, may change, but that our remedies, covering a huge variety of symptoms, are still able to cover the symptom picture of the patients. As cure is based on similarity and if the remedy covers the totality of symptoms, why shall a remedy not be able anymore to cure certain symptoms ? Have reprovings shown different symptom pictures than before, especially with regard to strange, rare, peculiar and uncommon symptoms ? -
-
Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on
-
Dear Katja
Your contribution invites a few lines of explanation.
>> the same remedies listed may not do the trick anymore nowadays."
This applies in specific diseases, and rubrics relating to them, and in a wider sense to entries from clinical observations.
A remedy will always cure (if indicated) what is in the scope of its action. The scope of action is determined by its proving and particularly by its characteristics. I share your view expressed further down: >> I rather think that the type of diseases patients suffer from, may change, but that our remedies, covering a huge variety of symptoms, are still able to cover the symptom picture of the patients.
>> As cure is based on similarity and if the remedy covers the totality of symptoms, why shall a remedy not be able anymore to cure certain symptoms ?
The question here is: what “certain” symptoms are? – If those certain symptoms are proving symptoms of the remedy, clearly caused by its action and not symptoms derived from clinical observation, then there is no reason why a remedy should not cure, but as it is unclear from Kent on what is clinical observation and what is proving in the repertories it is uncertain if a remedy selected on repertories only will cure.
>> Have reprovings shown different symptom pictures than before, especially with regard to strange, rare, peculiar and uncommon symptoms ?
Yes, read Wolff’s proving on thuja (1856), likewise look it up in Allen’s Encyclopedia and compare the symptoms from Hahnemann with those from Woilff. (only to mention one example) -
-
Permalink Reply by Katja Schütt on
-
Thanks for your nice explanation, Hans.
Regarding Thuja and reproven remedies, my concern refered to the remedies which were already fully proven by the old masters (fully proven means that more provings did not bring up more and other symptoms than already documented), and wether those have produced more and different symptoms nowadays than at that time... -
-
Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on
-
Hi Katja
I have no definite answer, as I haven't come across any serious re-provings lately. The last i can recall was Friederich's proving of Carcinosum, which brought out next to nothing. It would be worth a topic on how provings were conducted by hahnemann and his contemporaries.
From my experience, I can say, that the Cure-combinable elements of the symptoms are not changing and are still the core of the provings.
From that i am inclined to conclude, that remedies may bring out different symptoms in different areas if reproven today, simply because the old provers were very preoccupied with certain areas of human live and other areas were neglected.
Yet, those symptoms will bear the hallmarks of the remedy, so -- it would not make much of a difference. -
-
Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on
-
Hallo Michael
Nice summing up, I want to be a bit more detailed.
Boenninghausen published several repertories. the general ones being SRH (Systematic Repertory of Homeopathic Medicines)and TT (TB)( Therapeutisches Taschenbuch ).
Kent follows the plan of SRH (1835) -- he copied it almost completely.
Therefore the SRH can be seen a the mother of all modern repertories.
In its structure it is a head to feet structure.
Boenninghausen continued to use it till the end of his live as handwritten notes in his copies show. It was almost exclusively built on proving symptoms.
By the grading Boe. passed on clinical experience which was not vast at the time of print (1835).
Not to forget the brilliant repertories of G.H.G. Jahr, -- he always had a repertory with each new Materia Medica.
the repertory of the characteristics (1846) found its way into Boger-Boenninghausen 2 (1937) and many practical rubrics can be used still today. They were not used by Kent.
At the end of his live Hahnemann preferred the SRH to Jahr's repertories.
I am unaware of any recent publication of the SRH -- part of it was never published in english.
i use the SRH quite frequently and find it very reliable.
Phatac copied boger's work, included some of his own observations and put his name under it without mentioning boger. I suspect, that Phatac was involved in the 5th edition of the SK, which is a indian post hum compilation. boger's last authorized edition was the fourth american.
Every repertory is put together on a plan.
This plan is different from author to author and from repertory to repertory.
Knowing the plan lets us use the repertory safely.
Kent included rubrics from all different repertories, without earmarking them in such a way, that we know which plan applies for the use of a rubric. furthermore, the meaning of grades was changed by Kent from the original rubrics, which makes the bigger rubrics almost meaningless.
As from Kent on there are no more clear guidelines for entering remedies into rubrics, it became a free - for - all. At this stage 90% of entries in the latest compilations cannot be verified in the provings. -
-
Permalink Reply by Dr Shashi Mohan Sharma on -
Dear Katja,
Thanks for the very interesting subject and topic. It is really worth thinking and evaluating the new additions in the repertories, especially adding of more rubrics and remedies. Although the Anatomy of the Human Body will remain the same, but as the time is moving foreward, certain new illnesses are coming into existance. In any case the old remedies will remain our trustworthy tool as remedies such as Sulphur, Nux Vomica, Lycopodium and Arsenicum Album etc shall be the most commonly used and trustworthy for any true homeopath.
Please remember even we can not substitute salt and sugar in common use. There may be many options and grading of sugar eg brown sugar and iodised table salt etc, but the basic constituents and usage will remain the same.
In my 40 years of homeopathic practice and reading and adding many new repertoties to my library, I still consider and use my most favourite Dr Kent's Repertory, and many authors are adding to this masterpeice and labelling as their ones. Honestly, we owe a lot to out Master Dr Hahnemann and his true followers like Dr Kent and others and carefully depending on their books and repertories. In some cases I see other repertories as an open minded Homeopaths, but in most of the cases I end up to the main or polychrest remedy, the one we will find in the Kent's repertory.
It took nearly 10 years of hard labour to select 3000 most commonly rublrcs and selection of 400 most used remedies to finalise the basis for the making of my Homeopathic Card Repertory. During this period, I very carefully read each and every rubric and confirmed indicated remedies against the same and also studied other repertories. I very confidantly confirm here that I found Dr Boericks Repertory ( Last part of the Boerics Materia Medica) very helpful. Other repertories like Synthesis by Frederik Schroyens, Kunzli, Robin Murphy etc are also helpful. As no homeopaths match the wisdom of our master Hahnemann, similarly I personally respect and condsider Dr Kent's Repertory as the best and unmatchable Masterpeice.
I have no intention of disrespecting my fellow Homeopaths, but truth always prevails. I would like my friends to discuss more on this matter as Repertory is most helpful tool in everyday practice and is my most favourite subject alongwith Materia Medica.
Materia Medica is the true soul of any repertory, as body is nothing without soul, so repertory is lifeless without materia medica.
With best wishes
Dr Shashi Mohan Sharma
Director & Principal
Hahnemann College of Homeopathy -
-
Permalink Reply by sajjadakram on
-
Hans,
you want to say that all other repertories except Boenninghausen TT,even BB are not reliable because they are not based on proving symptoms.Please clarify.
Regards.
sajjad. -
© 2013 Created by Debby Bruck.
