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 ?

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dr Guillermo Zamora on February 19, 2010 at 2:53pm

Dear Katja, members.

As far as I know the original repertories in spanish, there are two:

1.- El Repertorio de la Materia Médica Homeopática of E. Anselmi (1950), based in Guiding Symptoms by Hering, including only the most important remedies=150 remedies.

2.- Psicopatología y Terapéutica homeopática of E. Puiggrós (1969), containing only mind symptoms.

About repertories translated from english to spanish, it seems to be three (all of them from Kent´s Repertory):

1.- El Repertorio de Síntomas y Remedios of Lara de la Rosa (Before to Eizayaga´s), with less rubrics than Kent´s original.
2.- El Moderno Repertorio de Kent de Francisco X. Eizayaga (1979)
3.- El Nuevo Repertorio de Kent de Shuji Murata (1983), I vol. inlcuding some aditions without references.

Yes, Synthesis is completely translated to spanish.

Best wishes
Dr. Guillermo Zamora

P.S. Thank you for your positive comments

Permalink Reply by DR. ARINDAM DUTTA on February 19, 2010 at 11:06pm

Dear Katza & GZ,

I can add two more Spanish Repertories-

1) “LO FUNDAMENTAL EN HOMEOPATIA: SU TEORIA Y PRACTICA”

by ROBERTO MARZETTI

1st Edition- 1978; Publishers- Hachette, Argentina

Materia Medica & Repertory

Name of the Repertory part- “SKETCHY REPERTORY”

2) “TRATAMIENTO BIOQUIMICO DE LAS EMFERMEDADES SAGUN EL METODO....”

by JULIO F. CONVERS

3rd Edition- 1922; Publishers- ?, Bogota

Biochemic materia medica & Repertory

Names of the repertory parts – “Repertory” & “Clinical Index”

The present work is a Spanish translation of Schuessler's work.

PS- I don't know Spanish. Spelling mistakes (if any) are regreted.

.................................ARINDAM

Permalink Reply by Katja Schütt on February 21, 2010 at 2:23pm

Thank's for your reply Dr.Guillermo !!! I really appreciate your contributions !

Katja

Permalink Reply by Pavalan R D on February 21, 2010 at 1:51pm

Dear sir...
You have touched a very important problem in the ever enlarging field in Homoeopathy... Repertory....

theoritically speaking, after many years of addition to the repertories... all most all the drugs 'll be there in all (most of) the rubrics?!?!?!

Here the point to understand is repertory 'll add a drug if it cures the symptoms... it never take notes on which basis this drug has been prescribed....

For.. Eg. a person comes with a peripheral symptom like pain in one region of the body... most of the time we select the remedy on the basis of general... Now a drug 'll cure that pain which (some times) was not listed under that particular pain rubric in the repertory... and now it 'll enter in to that rubric. but here the drug is prescribed not on the basis of the peripheral symptom... the basis of prescription is on general...

like that even in to generals also lot of drugs are entered and made the selection difficult...

so the drug should not be entered in to the rubric just because it removes the symptom... it should enter in to the repertory on which basis it has been prescribed (like eliminating symptoms).

A drug may cure any symptom or pathology... because we never know which pathology can be produced by the given remedy since we can't allow the drug proving to the pathological level... if we go on adding remedies to all these pathologies .. it 'll never end....

SO the basic repertories are more reliable when comparing with the recent advanced repertories...

Permalink Reply by Katja Schütt on February 21, 2010 at 2:22pm

Thank you for your contribution Dr. Pavalan !

I agree with you on the necessary clearness of the grades in the repertory.

You wrote: "Here the point to understand is repertory 'll add a drug if it cures the symptoms... it never take notes on which basis this drug has been prescribed...."

I think many of the old masters have considered the distinction of grades properly. Hering for example, whose MM is principally a collection of cured symptoms, used four marks of distinction which correspond to the four degrees in Boenninghausne's Repertory. These differentiate between occasionally confirmed symptoms, symptoms more frequently confirmed, symptoms verified by cures and symptoms repeatedly verified. He opines that a cured symptom never is of such importance as one produced in a proving and cured, yet, such one should not be ignored as it may be added to the characetristics in the course of time.

However the grades in the different repertories vary greatly in their meaning, and of course a symptom which is only known to have cured a symptom without being produced in a proving, should be marked as such for the sake of clarity.

Unfortunately the grading of symptoms in homeopathy has not been standardized from the beginning and over the years there was not much consistency. Therefore it is impossible to identify exactly the correspondence between the actual proving symptom and the grade found in any repertory for a particular remedy.

Grades can represent either:
1. The frequency of the appearance of the symptom in the proving (number of provers who have experienced a particular symptom, for example 20%, 40%, 80%) or of verification in clinical practice
2. The intensity of the experienced symptom during the proving or determined by clinical experience).

Whether frequency or intensity is used for grading it thereby points to the importance of a remedy in some way. But it is to bear in mind that any remedy of a given rubric can apply, not only those of a high grade should get our attention, and only the totality of symptoms can point to the truely indicated remedy (simillimum).

Although the repertory has a consistent concept as an index into the Materia Medica, the way of implementation varies greatly in different repertories and in the course of time the implementation as well as the grading has evolved. In the beginning there was no representation of the grade at all, remedy abbreviations were different from ours today and symptoms were intermixed with remedies, not listed in separate lines. In the subsequent development the concept of grades was established using numbers such as (1) and (2), or capitalization for the first letter were used for remedies of a higher grade, and symptoms were listed in separate lines rather than intermixed with remedies, however there was no clear standard.

Data’s were influenced by clinical experience thus we find in Kent’s repertory a mixture of symptoms derived from original provings, modified or added to as clinical experience contributes additional understanding of the remedy.
Kent made an attempt to create a standard organization in the late 1890‘s with frequent updates and improvements regarding set of abbreviations and representation of grades, combining all information’s from the various repertories (carried on by his wife and others).
The value of symptoms is divided into three grades: first, second and third. Symptoms can be recorded, confirmed by reprovings and verified upon the sick. A recorded symptom is being told by a prover, but when several provers record the same symptom then it becomes confirmed, and when it has been removed or cured by the remedy it can be said to have been verified.

Kent used three grades whereas Boenninghausen used four grades, but his fourth grade is included in those of the third grade under Kent’s classification.
Symptoms of the first grade are symptoms all or nearly all provers (the majority) have experienced or were affected to a great extent, i.e. are recorded and confirmed and moreover verified by cure upon the sick.
Symptoms belong to the second grade if they have only been brought out by a few of the provers but not by the majority, they also have been confirmed and occasionally verified and are therefore not entitled to so much consideration like remedies of the first grade.
If the symptom was only experienced now and then in a prover and has not yet been confirmed by reproving, but it stands out pretty strong or it has been verified or is admitted as a clinical symptom (cured without having been occurred in the proving) then it appears under the third grade. When a symptom is only experienced by one prover then it is doubtful whether this symptom is a result of the action of the remedy.

Kent used the frequency of the symptom for grading because this is much more reliable and independent from subjective perceptions and because the frequency of the occurring symptom in a proving interrelates with the probability of its occurrence in the sick representing thereby the average susceptibility humans have to a particular remedy (related to the symptoms).

The most characteristic symptoms however are rather to find in smaller rubrics and occur less frequent, in a lesser number of provers and allow individualization. The most proven and used remedies are usually the 3s because we know the most about them thus symptoms of the top grades are dominated by polychrest remedies – they appear in most rubrics and cover the most symptoms and are used most often but we must also look at the 2s and 1s very carefully if we are to use the smaller and lesser known remedies correctly. These are known for only a few symptoms and if these come up through repertorization, even if only in a very low grade, this is unusual in itself and they should be studied in depth in MM. The more specific the rubric the smaller and more helpful it is but also the more incomplete.

The intensity of a symptom however is often related to the individual perception and sensitivity and therefore more subjective and unreliable.

Boenninghausen too felt that it is important to fix the comparative value of remedies in relation to a given symptom and assigned the following marks to remedies:
CAPITALS represent 4 marks and the first grade remedies which produced the symptom in most of the provers and have given repeated clinical confirmation, Bold types denote 3 marks and these second grade remedies are only a shade lower than the first grade remedies, Italics denote 2 marks and these third grade remedies, though observed in provings less often, have received clinical confirmation, whereas ordinary types stand for one mark and these low-grade remedies have been confirmed in practice occasionally and should not be ignored and may, with other symptoms of the totality complex, lead us to their choice.

Boenninghausen was very careful in fixing the exact relative value of remedies , he used a fourth grade, but Kent writes that these remedies do not form a grade but are only probationary remedies, requiring demonstration by reproving and clinical confirmation. Many of the remedies of the fourth grade really belong to the third grade but Boenninghausen was very carefully with symptoms that had never been verified and his fourth grade remedies include clinical symptoms and unconfirmed or unverified symptoms.

In Allen’s edition of Boenninghausen’s therapeutic pocket book five ranks are used, but seldom in the body of the book - more often under the section on Relationships. This fifth place contains doubtful remedies which require critical study and occur most seldom, are thought necessary for approbation and to be hereafter proved or accepted.

Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on February 21, 2010 at 4:00pm

Dear Katja, dear members

I agree with you on the necessary clearness of the grades in the repertory. (So do I)
And in this context a fundamental misconception about Boenninghausens repertories needs to be adressed.

Boenninghausen used a grading system of 5 distinct grades in his repertories and not 4 as so many wish for. This makes a huge difference.

Katja cited Boenninghausen:
Boenninghausen too felt that it is important to fix the comparative value of remedies in relation to a given symptom and assigned the following marks to remedies:
CAPITALS represent 4 marks and the first grade remedies which produced the symptom in most of the provers and have given repeated clinical confirmation, Bold types denote 3 marks and these second grade remedies are only a shade lower than the first grade remedies, Italics denote 2 marks and these third grade remedies, though observed in provings less often, have received clinical confirmation, whereas ordinary types stand for one mark and these low-grade remedies have been confirmed in practice occasionally and should not be ignored and may, with other symptoms of the totality complex, lead us to their choice.
The original wording of it is (in german):
Bei der grossen Menge der, unter fast jeder Rubrik vorkommne3nden mittel war es fuer beide Zwecke unerlaesslich, durch Verschiedenheit des Drucks den verschiedenen Werth anzudeuten, wie in meinen frueheren Repertorien geschah und welches Hahnemann wiederholt als ein nothwendiges Erforderniss bezeichnete. Demzufolge finden sich durchlaufend durch das ganze Werkchen unter den genannten Arzneien fuenf durch die Schrift kennbar gemachte Rangordnungenm wovon die vier Wesentlicheren in der ersten abtheilung Geist unter der Rubrik ‚‘Habsucht‘‘ sehr uebersichtlich vorkommen und zum erklaerenden Beispiele dienen moegen.
Das dselbst mit gesperrten Kursiv-Lettern gedruckte Wort P U L S nimmt die oberste ausgezeichnetste, am oeftesten zutreffende Stelle in. Darauf folgen in abstiegender Rangordnung die mit einfachen Kursiv- Lettern gedruckten Woerter Ars und Lyc, aks weniger ausgezeichnet, aber doch noch sowohl durch die characteristik der Mittel als durch die Praxis vorzugsweisse bewaehrt. Noch untergeordneteren Ranges sind ide mit gesperrter Antiqua – Schrift gegebenen Woerter N a t r, und S e p, aud auf der untersten Werthsstufe steht hier Calc, welchs wort mit nichtgesperrter Antiqua –schrift gedruckt ist. Die fuenfte, allerniedrigste Stellenehmen die zweifelhaften, naeherer Bestaetigung beduerfenden, am seltensten vorkommenden Mittel ein, welche in Klammern eingeschlossen sind wie S. 86 die Woerter: (arg,), (Asar), (bism) ,( cic), und einige folgende.

IMO: You can see for yourself, that something must have gone wrong with your source, as Boenninghausen clearly states 5! Grades and not 4. You may correct that in your otherwise well written contribution.

I posted a blog, which goes into great detail about this matter:
http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/orginalia-th...

Comparisons of Boenninghausen rubrics with Kent rubrics have revealed, that Kent downgraded Boenninghausen grade 5 into 3, 4 into 2, 3,2,1 into one. ( See KH 1/96: A. Jansen: Eine Untersuchung zur Quellenlage des kentschen Repertoriums und zur Herkunft / Veraenderung der Repertoriumsgrade )

Even though Kent did not give an exact meaning of his grades in the introduction of his repertory, elsewhere he states, that his grade one is used for proving symptoms, his grade two for clinical symptoms not necessarily being proving symptoms and his grade 3 for proving symptoms verified by clinical use.

Katja wrote: >> Kent used the frequency of the symptom for grading Would you be able to reference that for me?

IMO: – He may say that -- but in reality he could not have possibly done that, as he copied Boenninghausens SRH and TT using above downgrading.

Permalink Reply by ingrid wawra on March 19, 2010 at 12:46pm

hello Hans !

may I ask, which software you decided to use`?

regards
ingrid

Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on March 19, 2010 at 1:40pm

hallo ingrid, dear members

Answer: NONE

I repertorize by hand -- its the best way to learn rubrics and my time to study, -- the slowness of the process allows ideas to evolve from memory when actually writing out the rubric.
through 20 years of doing that i know most of the common rubricss by heart, and that allows me in many cases to decide the remedy without using a repertory at all, or just to have a quick look at certain aspects to refresh my memory.

regards, Hans

Permalink Reply by ingrid wawra on March 19, 2010 at 3:31pm

hello Hans and members of the group !
quality before quantity ... most of homeopaths will agree that this is the way to go and the shiny software so practical to use does not necessarily provide knowledge.
some years ago I was 2 months in India, north of Mumbai in a rural hospital, (Dr. Dhawale Memory Trust, Rural Hospital in Palghar) where young doctors got the education to be specialists in homeopathy - fantastic experience - but often quite awkward for me:
6 to 15 young doctors cramped in tiny consultation rooms with a patient and an experienced doctor taking the case. I was lost without my computer, while most of the specialists-to-be knew half the MM by heart. politeness sometimes required that I was asked first about my impression of the case and my ideas about a possibel remedy - uuuuhh - horribel .... so I try to learn more MM, but in my consultations I still relay on my computer.
- on a seminar in Hamburg of Doris Beursken about the use of Boenninghausens pocketbook I got the inspiration to use a Schäfers software analysis of Boenninghausens repertories. it is helpful.
regards
ingrid

Permalink Reply by Katja Schütt on March 19, 2010 at 5:51pm

Hi Ingrid ! I too used Thomas Schäfer's Boenninghausen software before working with Hompath - which is much more comprehensive and includes a great many of repertories, moreover it is quite cheap in comparison to other software programs and really good !
But I agree... much gets lost with the aid of technique even if the time-saving factor is of advantage.

Permalink Reply by ingrid wawra on March 19, 2010 at 6:40pm

hej Katja !
really funny with the parallels...
I know "Homeopath" quite well too - I nearly got to be the scandinavian distributor when I was in India. I recommend the software often to the students. I "like" Mcrep more - without intellectuel reflections, but with the years I get more and more interested in the sources: the first homeopaths and the oldest repertories, MM, experiences ...
we have another parallel, which is David Little, my "guru" for quite some years now. I took a year of online class already something like 9 years ago - time runs... and if I ever will break a leg, thats what I would do again.
good night - ingrid

Permalink Reply by Dr. Rajiv Chopra on March 20, 2010 at 1:12pm

Hi Ingrid.
Regarding the use of a software. Hans is right in pointing out that one learns and remembers the rubrics better without a software. But on the long run it is time consuming. I feel it is better for a beginner to refer to the books first, for a few years. Then, as you get familiar with the structure and contents of the Repertory one can shift to a software. The only caution one has to use in any of the softwares available is that it is better to check the sources from where all additions have been made to the text. A reliable source gives one more confidence in using the remedy.
Another advantage one finds in good softwares is the additions of new remdies, which have been well proved and veirfied clinically. One such example is Carcinocin, which is not mentioned in some of the older repertories.
Rajiv
(I use the Radar software.)