NEESGAARD P., Hypothesis Collection – Primary Psora and Miasmatic Dynamic

This 'Materia Medica' is based on the dynamic paradigm for human health and disease put forward by the Argentinean Dr. Alfonso Masi Elizalde, to whom the honour for the origin of this 'dynamic Materia Medica' is dedicated. His paradigm gives a deep dynamic understanding of human nature in sickness and in health and contributes to a more precise and thereby more safe and efficient Homeopathic treatment.

This dynamic paradigm is faithful to the legacy of Hahnemann and represents a transcendence of his work. Hahnemann says that the remedy must be just as dynamic as the disturbance of the Life Force. Our picture of a remedy must be just as dynamic so that we can find it. It fulfils Kent's injunction of making Materia Medica alive.

The work of Masi sustains that all of mans pathology can be traced back to one original problem. The name Masi uses for this original problem is 'Primary Psora'. This is not a new idea, but Masi has on an empirical basis established a practical and dynamic model which allow the Homeopath, out of any well-proven remedy or any thorough pathogenesis, to find and prescribe on this original problem.

The beauty of this model is that it makes it understandable how this 'Primary Psora' imparts itself down through the hierarchy of man, down to the single symptom. 'The Miasmatic dynamic', of Masi, describes the 'natural laws' which this process follows, the dynamic structure of the hierarchy of man. And it works both ways.

Knowledge of this dynamic structure is important; both when you want to trace a complicated case back to its Primary Psora to prescribe on, and to evaluate the direction of the process of counteraction after the prescription.

Another important contribution from Masi is the implementation of 'The five nuclei' found in any well-proven remedy and any thorough pathogenesis. And it is precisely because they are found in any well-proven remedy and any thorough pathogenesis, that they are important. It makes them non-specific for any remedy and can thus not be prescribed upon. On the other hand it is important to investigate which ability in which area that are affected in these five nuclei, as this is individual and very much remedy-specific.

It offers an understanding of why a person does what he does. It shifts the attention from 'what' he does or has, to 'why' he does or has precisely this symptom. It focuses higher in the hierarchy of man, above the plane of symptoms, thus enabling you to differentiate, on a solid base of understanding, one central theme, which is easier to remember than a thousand rubrics. The symptoms are mere examples of the manifestation of this central theme. By focusing on the understanding of the dynamic behind the pathology, instead of on the memory of a thousand examples of symptoms, it is possible to prescribe with unprecedented precision.

The Miasmatic dynamic of Masi offers a very helpful way to "take the case", analyze the anamnesis, and find the Simillimum. In the follow up it helps differentiating the healing process following a Simillimum, from the suppression that can follow a Simile.

The labour of the analytical mind, which produces science, is the organ in human culture which tames the physical environment. Science is the extension of civilization's technological core. In the scientific sense, "true" means that which has the chance of being employed in effective technological procedures. This is not to say that the criteria we employ in settling scientific questions always depend on the likely possibilities of a practical application of the acquired solution. In their general shape, however, these criteria are so constructed that they enable us to reject from the area of valid knowledge whatever has no chance of technological application. Popular thought and scientific thought, as well as language, are correlated, in the overriding evolutionary strategy, with the physical survival of the species.

Metaphysical questions and beliefs are technologically barren and are therefore neither part of the analytical effort nor an element of science. As an organ of culture they are an extension of the mythical core. They are concerned with the absolute primal conditions of the realm of experience; they concern the quality of Being as a whole (as distinct from the object); they concern the necessity of events. They aim at revealing the relativity of the world of empirical experience and attempt to reveal an unconditioned reality, thanks to which the conditioned reality becomes intelligible.

Metaphysical questions and beliefs reveal an aspect of human existence not revealed by scientific questions and beliefs, namely, that aspect that refers intentionally to nonempirical unconditioned reality. The presence of this intention does not guarantee the existence of the referents. It is only evidence of a need, alive in culture, that that to which the intension refers should be present. But this presence cannot in principle be the object of proof, because the proof-making ability is itself a power of the analytical mind, technological oriented, which does not extend beyond its task. The idea of proof, introduced into metaphysics, arises from a confusion of two different sources of energy active in man's conscious relation to the world: the technological and the mythical.

But the need of a reference to an unconditioned reality, the absolute and thus the metaphysical, plays an important role in the life of man, regardless if this is conscious or not. The area of validity for the technological or scientific terminology does not, for most people, include satisfactory answers to existential questions about coherence in or the meaning of life, especially in the face of hardship and suffering. Thus it is not surprising that the terminology of technology or science is insufficient for a satisfactory description or understanding of man 'in sickness and in health'. The very norms of value which motivates man to live in accordance with the natural laws valid for man, and thus to remain or become healthy, goes far beyond the area of validity for technology or science.

For that reason I have in this collection of hypothesis chosen to use a terminology, which area of validity includes and fits the understanding that I want to describe, in accordance with how the vital force, empirically seen, understands it. The justification for this I find in the reproducible cures which this understanding and terminology allows within its area of validity. The advantage of this terminology is that even though the epistemological basis for these results lies outside of the area of validity for technology or science, the results in the form of reproducible cures are totally verifiable and valid from a scientific point of view. The disadvantage is the prejudices that many homeopaths have to overcome before they can benefit from the understanding and the results that it offers.

The method of analysis
The Hypotheses have all been worked out according to the method of analysis given by Alfonso Masi Elizalde.
The purpose of such an analysis is to establish a Hypothesis to explain the Primary Psora and the Miasmatic Dynamic of the remedy concerned. This analysis includes the following:

1) A study of the literature of available material about the remedy in the broadest sense, including the homeopathic Materia Medica, repertories, provings, toxicology, chemistry, biology, botany, mythology, symbolism, etc.

2) The Organisation and grouping of the collected material into associated symptom groups, with emphasis on especially important symptoms, modalities, concepts, abilities, susceptibilities, and areas.

3) The establishment of Themes, common denominators for symptom groups, which together cover the entire material, with emphasis on remedy specific symptoms, modalities, concepts, abilities, susceptibilities, and areas.

4) The collected material is examined and separated according to indications of the miasmatic phases and five nuclei, with emphasis on remedy specific symptoms, modalities, concepts, abilities, susceptibilities, and areas.

5) The Guiding Motives are searched for among the found modalities, concepts, abilities, susceptibilities, and areas which run through the five nuclei and all miasmatic phases. The Guiding Motives can e.g. be recognised as the hierarchically deepest injury, the deepest loss, that overcompensation or triumph which aims the highest in the hierarchy, that ability which should have kept in check that of which there are pathologically too much of, etc. Often they are expressed in symbolic form, but the Guiding Motives are the hierarchically highest which reappear in all nuclei and miasmatic phases and which the remainder of the found modalities, concepts, abilities, susceptibilities, and areas can be viewed as a direct or indirect consequence of. Alternatively a Guiding Motive can often be found in one of the junctions which appear in the synthesis of the Themes mentioned below.

6) The Guiding Motives are utilized to make a Synthesis of the Themes into the two Guiding Motives, by showing the connection between each individual Theme and at least one of the Guiding Motives. The themes can be seen as 'satellite- problems' or manifestations of the balancing of the life-force further down in the hierarchy, which apparently has nothing to do with each other. But there cannot exist any independent problem in a person. Problems that apparently are independent always will be found to have a common point at a higher level in the hierarchy, where they are always connected. The common point for the totality of a persons apparently independent symptoms or themes, can be traced up through the hierarchy to that persons deepest violation of the law of nature, expressed with the aid of the two Guiding Motives. Together the two Guiding Motives defines 'the point of the Primary Psora'. The first Guiding Motive (L1) specifies the absolute ability or quality which is claimed. The second Guiding Motive (L2) specifies the ability out of the human conditions of life, by specifying the relative area or absolute prerequisite, a sub aspect of L1. When the leitmotif has been verified from every single Theme to the Guiding Motives, we can form the Hypothesis for the Primary Psora of the remedy.

7) The establishment of a Hypothesis that explains the Primary Psora of the remedy. I.e. a Hypothesis covering that fundamental problem, to which the totality of symptoms can be traced via the Themes and Guiding Motives. Explaining how the totality of symptoms for that remedy can be seen as counterbalance for the deepest violation of the law of nature in the hierarchy of man. The Hypothesis for this deepest susceptibility, can be expressed as the claimed absolute ability, specified from mans conditions of life by the relative area or absolute condition. The Hypothesis can be expressed as one synthesis of the Guiding Motives. E.g. 'Claim for L1 by virtue of L2' – or 'Claim for L1 in the area of L2'.
Correspondingly Masi used 'The Fall of Man and His Expulsion from Paradise' as a model for his phrasing of the Hypothesis. Masi did this by looking for the underlying anxiety and finding the remedy-specific 'motive for the Original Sin' which, for example, would fit the symptoms of Sulphur and thus could be phrased as the individual motive behind the Original Sin, which 'Sulphur-Adam' was tempted by at the Fall.

8) The Primary Psora contains a number of connected Nuclei, which offer a wording of the explanation for, in which problem this very remedy is rooted and which consequences this has, for how this type of man experiences his conditions of existence. By sorting out in the five nuclei, the found endogenous symptoms and reactions to the five fundamental existential conditions of life, the internal metaphysical drama can be described and the point of the Primary Psora can be identified.

The Nuclei are arrived at both directly based on the symptoms and based on the Hypothesis. One checks that each of the five Nuclei give the same picture when arrived at from the symptoms as well as from the Hypothesis.

The First Nucleus is the transgression itself of a natural law for man, the claimed absolute ability, which man can only possess to a relative degree. This violation of a natural law or existential condition has consequences, and therefore triggers anxiety. The consequence of rejecting the corresponding relative ability is the Second Nucleus: a loss, which brings suffering with it. There is partly a) the real loss, the primary rejected and thus in reality lost relative ability, partly b) often an imaginary loss, a secondary consequence further down in the hierarchy, which is dependent of the primary one and often overshadows the real loss. The Third Nucleus is the memory of this loss and nostalgia about the condition as it were before or without this loss, or longing for the ability to fill up this loss in the future. The Fourth Nucleus is the imagination about punishment or fear of the consequence of having violated a natural law. The Fifth Nucleus is the attempt to excuse and justify.

Masi phrased the five Nuclei as an explanation, for what the specific motive of 'Sulphur-Adam' was for eating of 'the apple' and why Sulphur feels the way he does after his Expulsion from Paradise. What it was that 'Sulphur-Adam' in particular reacted to at the Expulsion. On remedy-specifically what and by means of what did he react endogenously, and how that can be seen in the remedy picture today. The First Nucleus, Masi therefore phrased as the transgression itself, 'the remedy-specific motive for the original sin'. 'The original sin' has consequences, and therefore triggers anxiety.

The consequence in this model is the Expulsion from Paradise, and this is the Second Nucleus: that remedy-specific loss which individually brings the most suffering with it, out of all of that which man lost by the Expulsion. The Third Nucleus is the remedy-specific memory of- and nostalgia about the individually most deeply felt need in the life after the Expulsion. The Fourth Nucleus is that which remedy-specifically and endogenously is experienced as punishment or remedy-specific endogen fear of punishment. The Fifth Nucleus is that for which remedy-specifically and endogenously the most striking attempt is made to excuse and justify.

9) Working out the Miasmatic Dynamic of the remedy with a description of the remedy type in the Secondary Psoric, Egotrophic (in the repetition of the sin and the compensation or denial of the loss, etc.), Egolytic and Alterolytic stages.

The miasmatic stages are arrived at both directly, as based on the symptoms, as well as worked out on the basis of the Hypothesis. A check is made that each of the six stages gives the same picture arrived at both from the symptoms and the Hypothesis.

10) What remains is only to confirm the Hypothesis in practice. When we prescribe the remedy to a patient on the basis of the Primary Psoric Hypothesis, with the precise Themes and Guiding Motives, we must expect that cure will manifest as a quantum leap. When this really happens, we have a primary confirmation of the Hypothesis. Such confirmations will, however, only be final when a number of patients require only this one remedy for any relapse and acute illness over a period of five to six years.

Out of regard to the practical usefulness of the collection of Hypotheses as a database for searching purposes, all material has been re-worked and structured according to the schema below:

1) Primary Psora (The result of the analysis.)
Guiding Motive (The aim, the ability including area, condition, etc.)
Transcendental Quality (The absolute quality elevated to perfection. The Central Theme of the remedy in absolute form. The basis of this person's perception of reality. Definitions and explanation of the applied concepts.)
Man's Life Conditions. (Which life condition is rejected because it excludes the Transcendental Quality.) Focus of the Inner Attention. (That is, an area of increased sensitivity as a result of the person's limited possibilities for living out the Transcendental Quality.)
Nuclei (What in relation to the Transcendental Quality is experienced with guilt, as loss, punishment, etc.)
Guilt (The absolute. The point on which we claim Perfection)
Loss (The relative. That which we rejects as imperfect)
Punishment (The consequence. How the difference is balanced )
Longing ("The Heart". The feeling of what the good would be, e.g. 'the missing absolute prerequisite for Perfection on that point')
Justification ("The brain". The rational attempt to handle the Truth, e.g. 'proposed amendment to improve the Natural Law in question')

2) Themes
Main Groups of Themes (And their connection to the Primary Psora, respectively Guiding Motive)
Theme list (All Themes that together comprise the whole material.)

3) Miasmatic Dynamic
Secondary Psora (Physically, we find here only functional disorders.)
Derived picture: (Description of how the Primary Psora expresses itself in the Secondary Psoric phase. From what and in which area does this person suffer? What is used as a projection screen for the Primary Psoric anxiety. Examples of Secondary Psoric symptoms.)
Tertiary Psora (Physically, we find here pathological organic changes.)
Egotrophy (Egotrophic reactions to the Primary Psora: which ability in what area is exaggerated or played down. Repetition of the Sin, Denial of the Loss, the Triumphant Egotrophy, the Masked Egotrophy. Examples of Egotrophic symptoms.)
Egolysis (Egolytic reactions to the Primary Psora: Confronted with what area and which ability does the person capitulate? Destructive reactions directed towards oneself, flight and encapsulation. Examples of Egolytic symptoms.)
Alterolysis (Alterolytic reactions to the Primary Psora: Destructive reactions directed at others. On what is projected the blame for one's own failure? As regards others, towards which ability and what area are destructive reactions directed? Examples of Alterolytic symptoms.)

4) Other Hypotheses. (Are summarised and commented upon.)

5) DD Differential diagnosis. (In relation to remedies that have a similar Primary Psora, or a Guiding Motive in common.)

6) References. (From literature which deals with the problem complex of the Primary Psora, e.g. Thomas Aquinas.)

7) About the substance. (Connections between the Primary Psora and the qualities, signatures, mythology, etc. of the substance.)

8) Bibliography.

Consequences and elaboration
Re Primary Psora. Kent said that a man who does not believe in God cannot be a good homeopath. Man is a religious being and one cannot just cut a part of the whole out of the picture. That would be the same as if a homeopath said: 'I only want to take care of the physical, the psychological does not interest me, and I don't believe in it.' Such a homeopath would not be able to cure anyone.

However, such a homeopath could use the present database if he everywhere for the words 'original sin' and 'God' respectively substituted 'rejected natural law' and 'ability upgraded to perfection or the absolute'. The problem complex then becomes which Ability in what area does this person reject mastering at the relative level of man, and instead makes claim to possess this quality in an absolute degree.

When one rejects using the relative degree of the ability in question possible to man, and does not master this ability absolutely and perfectly, then one falls between two stools on precisely this point. One may here replace the word 'punishment' with 'natural consequence', just as, for example, a fractured skull would often be the natural consequence of rejecting the law of gravity and stepping out of the eighth-floor window. Use of this database is similar, just expressed in a hierarchically lower, and therefore relative terminology.

Re Motive. If one only prescribes on one Guiding Motive, it will often succeed, but also often fail. For example, if one has a patient with a clear and markedly wrong conception about his own incompetence, insecurity and uselessness, and one here recognises one of the Guiding Motives of Arnica and then prescribes Arnica, but later it becomes apparent that the patient, in spite of improvement, is not being cured, one must then review the case taking. It will subsequently become clear that Arnica's second Guiding Motive 'vulnerability' is not present. Both Guiding Motives must be there in order to justify a prescription.

Re Transcendental. It would be very difficult to differentiate between different types if we did not have clear references, but luckily we have precise references in the provings and in the ill who talk about their illness, their guilt and their punishment. Hahnemann refers to human beings having a transcendental goal, and our health is dependent upon whether we strives for this transcendental goal or not. Allen stated very clearly that behind the symptoms of any disease there lies hidden evidence about what the transgression has been. That which we must do is by a patient's statements and symptoms discover what punishment and what guilt this person tries to explain to us, even if he does so in a masked fashion behind material, time-dependent and concrete manifestations. If we are to follow Hahnemann's orthodox line, we must follow his schema, and thus also search for the transcendental goal.

All of the symptoms of a remedy must be understood on the basis of the postulated Hypothesis of the Primary Psora. Thus we also run into symptoms which are not directly understandable, because they have symbolic content. To this belong all dreams, all delusions, certain as-if symptoms, as well as Word Themes. In order to understand such symptoms in the way that the life-force understands them, we make use of symbols, mythology, ethnology, synonyms, and analogous and language connections, because this is the language of the life-force and our subconscience. Briefly said, knowledge from any science and the collective unconscious may be used to understand the meanings of such symptoms and their inner connections with the Primary Psora. There cannot exist any independent problem in a person. Problems that apparently are independent always will be found to have a common point at a higher level in the hierarchy, where they are always connected.

Our ability to conceptualise is mottled by the foggy content of our subconscious. We all have inborn reminiscences from the collective unconscious. The intuitive knowledge of the symbol language of the subconscious, which crosses race, language and national boundaries, is in concord, and that is why all cultures and civilisations use the same symbols. This information is received by man on two levels, in part, consciously, in part, unconsciously. On the conscious level, we judge and evaluate information on the basis of the experiences we have had in life, but simultaneously the subconscious receives information from the same object, and it is not limited by our ability to conceptualise.

It contains all the cognitions we have inherited from the collective unconscious. This unconscious also produces an impression of the information received, but this occurs in the light of the knowledge of the collective unconscious. Therefore, this is often an impression which is diametrically opposed to that of 'the reasonable consciousness', and thus it is rejected. In all cognition, there is triggered a positive, a negative, and often a painful feeling which we cannot justify rationally. The subjective component crops up from the subconscious and disturbs the conscious impression. It is this subjective component which weaves itself into the passions, and which it is so important to elicit in the case taking.

Re Inner Focus. In a good case taking the original Primary Psoric anxiety comes to the surface, and we see how it has brought about the patient's defensive reactions. For example, behind their anger and reactions one recognises why they have no confidence in their fellow men, because, for example, they feel that they are a danger, that they interfere in their affairs, and that they have injured them in business life, etc. When we understand a patient's 'why' in this way, instead of just looking at individual symptoms, we can understand a patient's totality and identify him as an Alterolytic Bryonia instead of, for example, a Nux-v.

Re References and concepts. As with Masi, this database uses the Bible and the Thomistic reference system, but any other complete anthropological reference system could be used for this purpose. Again, it is only a question of terminology.

The concepts that have come forth during the Theme synthesis are translated into transcendental qualities in the Thomistic reference system. From the question regarding what man is and what his goals are, one arrives at the questions: 'Which natural law is violated in the principle of this remedy? Which original sin is the symptoms of this person in consistency with?'

In order to find the answer, we use the thesis: all which is transformed into suffering and punishment in man, he has failed to respect. His suffering is the consequence of his sin, is the consequence of his violation of the natural laws. What he suffers from, he has sinned against; the principle he suffers from, he has violated. If he suffers from music, he has sinned against the harmony of numbers. If he suffers from the concept of truth, he has sinned against the harmony of thought. If he suffers from the concept of good, he has sinned against the harmony of act. If he suffers from the concept of beauty, he has sinned against the harmony of form.

Another way in which Masi used to approach the Transcendental Quality consisted in imagining where in the story of Creation this person, such as 'Chamomilla-Adam', sinned. That is, where in the story of Creation can we place Chamomilla? Where does the Chamomilla person with his sufferings fit into the story of Creation. That is, we must find a picture at a given moment in the story of Creation. Find that which this Chamomilla person would react to if he were Adam. Find that part of the collective drama which he is about to play out or live just now.

Thomas Aquinas always talks about three souls. The rational soul, the sensitive soul and the vegetative soul. At the same time, he says that they are not three different things, but the same soul which different capabilities and different goals can be expressed by theese three names. To Aquinas, the soul has three functions and modes. The generative capability, the nourishing capability and the reproductive capability. The soul's vegetative part builds the body and maintains it as Hahnemann's Life Force does. The sensitive part of the soul is superior as far as aims are concerned, and has as a purpose to create imaginative conceptions.

Above this stands the intellectual and rational part of the soul, the function of which is afterthought. The soul is perfected through knowledge and the ability to be perfected, and thus survival and propagation of the species is the purpose of the vegetative and sensitive parts of the soul. Thus we have the three capabilities: intellect, will and the intellectual memory.

Moreover, the Thomistic reference system is a good tool for understanding the selection of the organ where pathology manifests. The Primary Psora will express itself in those organs that correspond to the Primary Psora at higher levels. For example, with Conium the choice of organ is a graphic expression of the Primary Psora, but we must also be able to recognise Conium even if the sexual organs are healthy. For if one does not recognise Conium and then gives him a partial Simili, he will return with cancer of the reproductive organs.

The objective is recognition of the transcendental, or an attempt to grasp to what degree all parts of the relative reality each represents an aspect of the absolute. It is necessary to recognise this part of the absolute which lies hidden in every single stone, in every mineral, in all substances and elements, which the reality has placed at our disposal. There is a message hidden in each of them. We must become aware of the fact that the remedy picture tells us what the transcendental purpose of the substance or remedy is. The substance does not just cure us, but it helps us to recognise its Transcendental Quality and with that our Primary Psora.

Re Themes. If we look at the characteristics of the symptoms we use to make Themes with, we can divide Themes into three categories. The first category consists of Themes with symptoms that show how the patient is doing. These are symptoms such as anxiety, anguish, a tendency to weep or excessive joy. They are symptoms that give us a graphic picture of how the patient seems to us.

Another category can be designated as Argument Themes. This category consists of Themes which symptoms in one way or another shed light on, and tell us why the patient feels the way he does. For example, great anxiety with trembling and the feeling as if he has committed a crime. This is then a Theme with an argument which explains why the patient is anxious and trembles.

The third category is the group of Word Themes. Here we are dealing with the type of verbal expression, the way they formulate themselves. These are wordings which the patient uses all the time. And then we have word Themes where the symbolic meaning of the words are expressed. The reason that a patient continually uses certain expressions must be that these expressions in a graphical way express what he feels, and that he is unconsciously motivated to use certain words that not only have their usual meaning, but also have a deeper symbolic meaning, even if the patient is not consciously aware of it.

Themes must be specific for the remedy in question to be of use in the analysis of that remedy, just as themes and symptoms must be specific for the patient to be of use in the analysis of that patient. If we include too many unspecific themes or symptoms in the analysis it will just blur the picture. If e.g. we include that the patient or the remedy has two arms, two lungs, two kidneys, eyes, ears, etc., but only one nose and one mouth, the individual picture will be blurred. The same applies if we on this basis form the theme '2' or 'one', as this is not the specific for the individual. Also if we form the themes: suffering, control, growth, destruction, escape, encapsulation, projection, guilt, loss, punishment, longing, excuse, etc., as this is found in every remedy.

Or the themes: respiration, metabolism, defecation, urination, perspiration, menses and all the other physiological functions common to man.
If the patient or the remedy has a special affinity to one or a few of the above mentioned localities, reactions or functions, or a special combination not so common, then it is individual and can justify a theme. But if e.g. 50% of the themes consist in this kind of unspecific common data, it will be very difficult to find the individual common denominator. If we do not separate the individual from the common, that which individually is the expression of the balancing for the internal disturbance bye the Life Force, then we do not find the basis of ordination, neither for a patient or a remedy. It would then be unnecessarily difficult to match the two.

Another common source of errors comes from the fact that we in everyday talk ignores confusion of ideas and don't take it too hard if we use the one or the other concept. Normally we get the point regardless whether people say 'it struck me that…' or 'I remembered that…' or 'I came to think of…' or ' I suddenly knew that…' or 'I got an idea…' or feeling, intuition, sense, cognition, suddenly knew, etc. We misuse the concepts synonymous even though they are not synonymous at all and actually are different abilities and qualities. This is no problem in everyday talk, but is no good when the very task is to grasp which of these different abilities and qualities it all is rooted in, neither in the case taking nor in a Masi-analysis.

Re. The connection between the themes and the Guiding Motives: The leitmotif running from every single symptom through the themes to the Guiding Motives and the Hypothesis follows the structure of the hierarchy from the single manifestation back to the deepest violation of a principle in the hierarchy. During the elaboration of the Hypothesis it must be verified that this leitmotif runs unbroken from every single symptom and not at least that it follows the deepest violated principle in the hierarchy all the way back to the Hypothesis. In this part of the analysis we find some common pitfalls which is important to know, not only for anybody who is making the analysis, but also really for every Homeopath, as the same pitfalls asserts itself in the differential diagnostic between possible remedies for a patient.

Even the best proving of a remedy only produces part of the possible symptoms witch that remedy covers and has as its potential. The single prover can only produce those symptoms contained in the arsenal of his Life Force and thus in accordance with his own constitution and miasmatic phase. The contribution from the single prover is thus only examples from the intersection of what the prover and the remedy cover. The proving only gives examples from that area where the single prover and the remedy overlap each other, and what is more, only examples of symptoms from that miasmatic phase where the single prover is at the time of the proving.

If we wanted examples of symptoms from all the miasmatic phases that the remedy covers, the group of provers should be composed of provers individually being in every miasmatic phase. The same applies to provers with a primary problem within different areas, systems and principles. This however is not practical realistic and would not fulfil the demand of Hahnemann that the provers should be healthy individuals, and fortunately this is not necessary. When we know the structure and composition of the human hierarchy and the miasmatic dynamic, it is enough with examples of symptoms, preferably as many as possible and as scattered around the different levels as possible.

Even if there always will be gaps and blind spots in our knowledge about the human hierarchy, to day we know enough to be able to reconstruct to what all the examples from a thorough proving can be traced back. Not with absolute certainty, but relatively close enough to be able to establish a Hypothesis with a scientific foundation which in practice can be verified and adjusted, the gaps filled in and the Hypothesis finally can be replaced with a reliable basis for ordination.

If we from a thorough proving know what the healthy provers suffered from, then we already have an idea about how people in later miasmatic phases will react and to what. If we know in which area the provers had functional disturbances, then we already have an idea about where pathological organic changes will appear in the later miasmatic phases and how this person will react mentally and emotionally. All of this of course has to be verified before it can be prescribed upon, but in a thorough proving we find enough material to verify most of it. The rest of it must, with our present knowledge, be left to clinical verification.

Our starting point is normally a more or less thorough proving complemented with more or less qualified clinical experience, if any toxicology and what else the information retrieval produced. Altogether this material is only examples of how the Life Force can balance a violation of the laws of nature and its consequences, whether it origins from a case or a proving. In principle we can then place all the examples where they belong in the hierarchy of man, on their respective planes. Then we can start connecting all the examples which reflect 'the same', which can be seen as balancing 'the same' by the Life Force. In this way we can spin all the examples in to a partial cobweb and find that leitmotif which ends deepest in the hierarchy at the violated principle and its consequences, the one to which all examples can be seen as a balance for.

However the connections or the single threads in the cobweb cannot just be spun as you please. They must necessarily follow the same laws of nature and precisely the same hierarchically structure and composition as the Life Force is subordinated and did follow at the manifestation of those symptoms. And this is where the previous mentioned pitfalls reappear.

E.g. to connect via the remedy itself or its symptoms is not valid, as we already knew that the remedy itself is a unified whole which contains and internally connects all of its symptoms. Beside the internal connection we must therefore prove the existence of a connection of universal validity between e.g. the Themes and the Guiding Motives. Thus the connection must be established to the common denominator of the Theme, normally the name of the Theme – not to the symptoms contained in the Theme.

The reason why it must be proven that the connection has universal validity and not only has internal validity for that remedy, that patient or for the homeopath himself, is that it only can be Guiding Motive for that Theme, if that Theme in accordance with the Natural Laws for humans and the hierarchically structure of man can be the reflection or manifestation of that Guiding Motive. I.e. that the Theme and the Guiding Motive expresses the same principle.

The same applies to the balancing a violated Natural Law of the Life Force. A symptom can only function as counterweight and balance such a violation if it expresses the same principle. The symptom must manifest itself at a place in the hierarchy that correspond to that which needs balancing; otherwise the two has nothing to do with each other. Thus the Life Force in its function is subordinated to the structure of the hierarchy and cannot just manifest a symptom anywhere by chance, but among the possible possibilities it has to choose among, it will try to place the symptom as peripheral as its strength allows it to place it. The Life Force must follow the internal structure that connects the different levels in the hierarchy, that structure according to which a principle imparts itself down through the hierarchy until it manifests itself physically in the body. If a principle is violated or modified far up in the hierarchy, it will impart this downward in the hierarchy, but only where this principle is manifested.

The same applies to the projection we find in the different miasmatic phases. Not everything or everybody can be used as screen for the projection, only what expresses the same principle as the one we projects. That's why the object we use for the projection tells us quite a lot about what it is that we projects.

This consistency between different manifestations of the same principle we name Symbols, Synonyms, Allegories, etc. dependent upon in what way the consistency exist and it is such a consistency we must prove the existence of between every single Theme and at least one of the Guiding Motives. If just one Theme can't be a manifestation of those Guiding Motives, the superior problem in this remedy or case must be something else, since the Life Force has manifested it in accordance with the superior violation of the principle, since it can be used as screen for the projection, etc.
That both the Theme and the Guiding Motive is part of life or alive is insufficient to verify if they express the same principle, as there are many other principles making itself felt in life.

Thus an association to a superior concept, which in itself is superior to a number of principles, doesn't verify if it is the same sub principle manifest in the Theme and the Guiding Motive.

Examples of such superior concepts could be the division in Yin and Yang, the Feminine and the Masculine, Life and Death, the Four Elements, the Kingdoms of Nature, etc., but also les extensive concepts which in itself are superior to several principles.
Re. Guiding Motives: The Analysis aims at distilling the total material down to its common denominator expressed by preferably only two Guiding Motives. They must in return be individually different, as they otherwise could be distilled further down to one Guiding Motive and then we have lost the other one. If this happens, we must return to the Themes and try to find it or investigate if important information from the symptoms has been lost in too comprehensive or diffuse Themes. Another possibility is to wait and see if it appears in the Nuclei or the Miasmatic phases and then verify if it fits in the connection between the themes and the new Guiding Motives.

Together the two Guiding Motives defines 'the point of the Primary Psora'. The first Guiding Motive (L1) specifies the absolute ability or quality which is claimed. The second Guiding Motive (L2) specifies the ability out of the human conditions of life, by specifying the relative area or absolute prerequisite, a sub aspect.
Re. The Hypothesis: The Hypothesis can be expressed as a synthesis of the Guiding Motives. E.g. Claim for L1 by virtue of L2 – or 'Claim for L1 in the area of L2. But – the succession of the factors involved are important. It would be quite another remedy if the hypothesis were: Claim for L2 by virtue of L1 – or 'Claim for L2 in the area of L1'.

E.g. it matters if the claim is for the ability of 'perfect love by virtue of knowledge' or 'perfect knowledge in the area of love', as this is two different remedies.

The wording 'Claim for L1 and L2', i.e. 'Claim for perfect love and absolute knowledge' isn't one Hypothesis, but two even though half Hypotheses which yet are unspecified, as independent problems cannot exist in a human being. Problems apparently independent always have a point of contact in common at a higher level in the hierarchy, where they always are united. The common point of contact for the two apparently different Guiding Motives must be found one step higher in the hierarchy.

Re. The Nuclei: The Nuclei are part of the Primary Psora, but are of course reflected down through the miasmatic phases as everything else. In this way the manifestation of the symptom will be different, but it signifies the same. E.g. from the Nucleus of Loss we have the Psoric symptom 'suffers from the lack of love' which in the phase of Alterolysis can be replicated as 'destructs the love of others'. Both symptoms specify 'love' as the problem. But when the Nuclei are described as part of the Primary Psora, it is to be preferred to express them in accordance with the terminology of the Primary Psora. I.e. in the Nuclei of Loss we describe what is being experienced as loss, and we therefore translate to the terminology of the Primary Psora the symptoms we find from other miasmatic phases, which expresses the corresponding reaction of this phase to a Primary Psoric loss. In this way we get the most transparent picture of what each Nucleus points at as L1 and as L2.

What we in the light of the Hypothesis expect to find in the Nuclei and would like to have confirmed bye the symptoms that point to that Nucleus, is of cause different expressions of the Guiding Motives.

I.e. in the Nucleus of Punishment it is not everything from the outside in any area that is experienced as a threatening punishment, but particularly and almost exclusively what can symbolize L1 and in particular and almost exclusively in the area of L2. In the Nucleus of Loss it is not everything that is lost, but particularly and almost exclusively what can symbolize L1 and in particular and almost exclusively in the area of L2. In the Nucleus of Guilt it is not everything in general that provoke the feeling of guilt, but particularly and almost exclusively what can symbolize L1 and in particular and almost exclusively in the area of L2. Nor is it in the Nucleus of Guilt indicated that the Sin or transgression is a 'claim to be absolute' in general on all accounts and in all areas, but only at that point indicated bye the Guiding Motives. In the Nucleus of Longing it isn't a general longing back to the Garden of Eden on all accounts and in all areas, but particularly and almost exclusively what can symbolize L1 and in particular and almost exclusively in the area of L2. In the Nucleus of Excuse and Justification it is of no use to give the Primary Psoric 'Loss' as an excuse for the Sin, as 'the Loss' is the consequence of the Sin and thus came after the Sin.

'The Loss' in the Nuclei of Loss is the Primary Psoric Loss and can be seen as the directly consequence of rejecting the only possibility of man at that point indicated bye the Guiding Motives, without being able to fill out that point with something better. In this way it is the relative ability of man at that point indicated bye the Guiding Motives which is rejected and thereby 'lost', not the Absolute ability, as man never possessed this. Even in the myth of Garden of Eden man did not have the Absolute ability, but there man did not need it anyhow, as God took care of it all.

Re Miasmatic Dynamic. All factors in the environment that can function as triggers, permit both polarities. The Materia Medica says, for example, that Nat-m. cannot stand the sun, but Nat-m. can also be quite comfortable in the sun. The same also applies to the sea. In most cases Nat-m. is worse from sun and sea, but if a patient gets markedly better by sun or sea and otherwise fits in with the same miasmatic phase of Nat-m., then it definitely does not eliminate Nat-m., and it must be given. It only shows a special sensitivity for this influence and whether the patient gets better or worse from the influence, depends completely on the miasmatic phase he is living through at the moment. The symptom changes, not the sensitivity and thus not the modality.

For example, Nat-s. is known as one of the great anti-Egotrophic remedies, even though in the provings there hardly are any Egotrophic symptoms to be found. From clinical experience, we know, regardless of any suppression or cure, that even though no miasmatic references were seen in the provings, the remedy picture nevertheless contains Psoric, Egotrophic and Lytic stages.

With Nat-m. we can, as an example, use 'anxiety after dinner or after the main meal'. This is a Psoric symptom triggered by the intake of nourishment. But it may also be indifference towards nourishment, and according to the situation may be an Egotrophic or Egolytic symptom. If indifference towards nourishment is due to a desire to die and the patient is not interested in life, the symptom is Egolytic. If the reason is that he feels elevated above physical food, the symptom is Egotrophic.

This dynamic connection gives us the possibility of understanding, why one type can be so different and react in such a different manner – opposite and contradictory in relation to what we have learned from the more static Materia Medica. Hahnemann says that the remedy must be just as dynamic as the disturbance of the Life Force. Our picture of a remedy must be just as dynamic in order that we shall be able to find it. It must stand in the light of one large Theme which can consist of two, three or four Guiding Motives, but together it must form one large 'argument', and on this basis we can prescribe on a totality picture. First then can we say that we have understood the patient and know what his remedy is, as if it were a good friend.

The individual symptoms, what they are called and how they look is not so important. They have already done their work, by making it possible to set up this general 'argument', and now we are able to recognise this 'argument' in its different variants with different people. Just as we are able to recognise a person even if he has taken his glasses off, has had a haircut, coloured his hair, put on a fake nose, and has totally different clothes on than we have ever seen on him before. First then have we freed ourselves from the symptom and can now prescribe on the basis of a totalling wholeness. In this way we get multi-dimensional pictures instead of the classical flat and stereotyped symptom picture.

As the name imply, the Primary Psora deals with that which is 'the primary' in the remedy, that to which the rest is secondary, that which cannot be explained from anything previous in the life of that person, with what is there 'for no apparent reason' or known cause. In all thorough proved remedies we find symptoms that fit this description, but in the insufficiently proved remedies they can be difficult to identify. When we find them we use them and when we don't find them we have to do without this confirmation until we know the remedy better.

It is mostly in the reports of provings and Materia Medica that the symptoms are described sufficiently detailed to identify them as primary or secondary. In the Repertory the symptoms are mostly combined in standardised rubrics, where the individual expression of the remedy has been lost. Thus in the Repertory it is mostly impossible to recognize, if the presence of a remedy in a certain rubric, tells us something primary or secondary about the remedy. This problem is usually directly proportional to the size of the rubric, and for the remedies thoroughly proved we therefore find the best indications in the keynotes. Conversely can't the standardised rubrics deprived any individual indication be interpreted as Primary Psoric, as it isn't because they are primary that they are listed 'without a reason'.

In the Secondary Psora it isn't at the surrounding in general that man projects his problem, but only at something in his surrounding which fits as screen for the projection, and not everything apply. Only what expresses and thereby symbolises the Guiding Motives can be used as screen for the projection, and not the surroundings in general.

Even though man in the Egotrophy claims to possess the Absolute ability, he doesn't deny the obvious. The purpose in the Egotrophic phase is to get the suffering under control, and denial of the obvious would result in immediate exposure and thus loss of control with the most important issue. As a better tactic he overcompensates (Trophy) for the obvious 'hindrance', and in this way it will appear as if he possesses the ability absolutely, in spite of the hindrance. Man does not deny the hindrance in the Egotrophy; on the contrary the hindrance is what he uses the most of his resources to overcompensate for, and in this way he can demonstrate how brilliant he is in handling precisely that hindrance, and exactly because he is so good at this, he can triumph over others with that particular ability.

In 'The Masked Egotrophy' man play down his own ability in order to manipulate others to remove the hindrance for him. Here again the hindrance is often 'the obvious', or that others clearly can see 'the obvious', that it is relative, and therefore don't automatically ascribe the absolute ability to him. What man tries to achieve in the Egotrophy is the illusion that he possess 'L1 bye virtue of L2' in spite of 'the obvious', reality, that e.g. the prerequisite L2 is missing.

E.g. man might be able, bye virtue of a bluff, to pretend that he possesses L1, but e.g. L2 is too obvious. Then he may achieve the illusion in another way, bye manipulation. If man e.g. considers it too obvious that he doesn't possess L2 to perfection, then instead bye playing down his L2 he can cause L1 to appear impressive considering his alleged handicap on L2. At the same time he gains the help of others to take care of L2 for him bye means of his alleged handicap.

In this way he achieves the illusion precisely where he wants it, on the primary L1. L1 appears much more impressive in that artificial light so the others praise his L1 and in that way calms exactly his Primary Psoric anxiety. The operation was successful! In this way man achieves a new pleasant balance instead of the suffering from the Primary Psoric anxiety, which others now calms for him.

Another consequence of the Miasmatic Dynamic is its important role in the understanding of what happens with a patient after having taken a more or less homeopathically prescribed remedy, that is miasmatic evaluation of the treatment. For the deluded curative process often leads to Egotrophy. The Nux-v. patient who has received another Simili suddenly gets very clear conceptions about right and order, developing in these areas an enormous penetrative power and playing the role of the authority (pseudo self-confidence in the Primary Psoric area). These are all qualities that are judged as positive in our society, but which mean the opposite of cure.

Cure must first yield to the Psoric yoke. The consequence of this is: most homeopaths interpret pseudo health (Egotrophy) as health, because a common misinterpretation of Hering's Law is that cure should begin with an 'amelioration on the mental plane'. But this depends on what miasmatic phase the patient was in, whether the patient directly experiences the change as an 'amelioration on the mental plane'. If a patient is to be cured, the healing process must also follow 'Hering's Law' miasmatically, so that he moves out of the miasmatic reactive phases and ultimately recognises his Primary Psora.

The Psoric patient with low self-confidence, lack of energy, a couple of phobias and some functional disturbances, who after another Simili obtains good self-confidence, an excess of energy, and now dares to challenge what previously paralysed him with fear, is most often, at first, quite satisfied with the treatment. But the homeopath should make a miasmatic evaluation of the development, and investigate what abilities and areas the change involves and how they fit together with the given remedy.

For if the remedy has pushed the patient from the Secondary Psoric stage to the Triumphant Egotrophic stage, the annoying functional disturbances may, depending on the strength of the patient's vital force, be replaced by organic tissue changes, which are an expression of a much deeper pathology. If the Life Force is strong enough, it will by itself reject the Egotrophic life lie and return to Psoric suffering. But if the homeopath does not recognise the problem, he will often repeat the remedy until the Life Force has been sufficiently weakened so that the patient is permanently pushed down into the Egotrophic phase, where, among other things, cancer may develop.

If the reverse happens, the Egotrophic life lie unravels and the patient now lets himself be confronted with his Psoric anxiety, it naturally will be important to inform and support the patient in the process, instead of working against it. Experience shows, however, that just as easily as one may 'antidote' a wrong Simili, which pushes in the wrong direction, using known antidotes such as coffee, camphor, etc., it is, luckily, just as difficult (all according to the Life Force!) to stop a Simillimum, provided it is given in a potency that is suited to the Life Force. In this light, the patient is actually protected against 'poor homeopathy' and wrong Similis by drinking coffee, using camphor, etc.

Another consequence of the Miasmatic Dynamic is its value in the case taking. It is a homeopathic principle that one goes with the patient rather than going against the pathology. It is general experience that one usually needs more strength or larger doses in order to work against something, push something down, or change something by force than what is needed to go along with, catalyse, or stimulate something, which is the principle of homeopathic treatment. We can use the same principle in the case taking, provided we identify what miasmatic phase the patient is in.

There are things people will very readily tell you spontaneously, and there are other things they greatly resist talking about. Instead of using a lot of energy in fighting their resistance, which is unhomeopathic, based on the miasmatic understanding, we may choose to find the points of no resistance. When we do this it is incredible how little is needed to stimulate the conversation into flowing almost by itself.

All symptoms are signs of one illness and express only the different aspects of one illness. From the Miasmatic Dynamic, we know that it is the same Theme that is seen again in the various miasmatic phases. It is the same Theme which he in one phase suffers from, in the next phase defends himself against, in a third phase flees from, or actually turns it into his triumph. It is this Central Theme we have to get hold of, the miasmatic form we see it in is secondary. We can therefore just as well ask for it at the point where the person presently is located.

In the Psoric phase there is despair, but hope, and in this phase such a patient will gladly tell about his suffering. So here we just need to understand what it is that he is suffering from.

The Egolytic patient has given up the fight for perfection in his Primary Psoric area and now torments himself with self-reproach. As he has rejected man's relative capability in this area and given up achieving the absolute, it is exactly in this area a hole exists. In all other areas he makes the humanly possible out of his situation, but just here he does the opposite. He has tried, but it was impossible, and he will gladly speak about it even if he veils it with understandable excuses. Actually he most often welcomes the opportunity to justify his passivity in that area.

In Alterolysis, he projects the blame over on others instead. It is their fault that he did not succeed. So here it will not do any good to ask about where in him the problem lies, for it is the others who in his eyes are the problem. This he will gladly speak about, and what we are listening for is the qualities and areas he attacks in others, because there his Primary Psora is hiding.

If with a patient in the triumphing Egotrophic phase we prescribed on the weaknesses we forced out of him, we know with certainty that it was not the Simillimum we gave him. Here we want to know what he is good at, has success with, is brilliant at, is proud of, and he will be very happy to talk about these things even if it wasn't exactly what he 'came for'. Miasmatically, we know that it is the Primary Psoric area he is being triumphant in during this phase, and studying the Materia Medica of well-documented remedies which cover this Primary Psora, we will find both the physical and the mental symptoms in agreement with this patient.

In the Masked Egotrophic phase, he puts the best face on it instead in order to manipulate others from within by projecting his Egotrophy over on them. If we try to unmask this, we will meet resistance and diversionary manoeuvres. He will underplay his own abilities, but is glad to talk about the good qualities of others, and what and how much others are doing for him. The purpose is naturally that we indirectly understand how much others value him, but what we are listening for is what and in which area he tries to get others to appreciate him for.

Re DD. When we are differentiating between different remedies, we ought not try to find the symptoms one remedy has which the other does not, but, on the contrary, rather try to find different nuances in the basic reason for, and the causes of, the symptoms they have in common.
Re The Substance a). As the last methodical step, the symbolic meaning of the substance is investigated in order to see if there are further connections that can be used.

With some substances there is analogy between the physical properties of the substance and people who have a special sensitivity to this substance. When one understands the ultimate existential purpose of a substance, there is then the possibility of finding this drama in those people who are especially sensitive to the substance concerned. For those people who react to this substance have exactly the same ultimate existential purpose with their existence.

The different substances of the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms each reflect their own point as part of the Absolute, each represents an image of one part of Perfection. This part is the Transcendental Quality of the substance, which may help precisely those persons whose total problem derives from the rejection of precisely this relative human condition of existence. If it is just this point he wants to master absolutely, and his human condition only allows this mastery to be relative, then precisely this substance, whose Transcendental Quality is that point, will bring the person cognition of his purpose. It will act as a Simillimum and all the pathology that was a consequence of the disharmony on this point will vanish as a quantum leap.

This method of studying remedy types fulfils Kent's injunction of making Materia Medica a living thing and not expecting that patients will repeat precisely the wordings used by the provers.

Re The substance b) None of the above, however, helps our experience or patient in the least if the remedy we give the patient does not precisely correspond to that which was used in the proving, and that is the responsibility of the homeopath. I have therefore under 'The Substance' given examples of the problems I myself have experienced with the quality of the remedies concerned.

The for most people 'unknown', and often doubtful, quality of homeopathic remedies is one of the greatest threats against a science like homeopathy, which is based on empirical methods. So long as the subject, the homeopath, is aware of how little he knows about the object, the human being, he can explore it and empirically develop his cognition with partial truths, for he will be aware of the area of validity of his cognition. That is science. It is, on the other hand, both unscientific and unhomeopathic to ignore whether the remedy we are using, in order to confirm or invalidate whether our cognition was right or not, indeed is the remedy and the potency we presumed. If we ignore this, we learn nothing we can build further on. If we also ignore that and extrapolate further, we may be able to see the result in the miasmatic dynamic.

The very basis for the use of homeopathic remedies is the empirical knowledge about their effects, which is collected in the homeopathic Materia Medica. The sources of this are, primarily, remedy provings and, secondarily, toxicology and clinical experience. It is therefore essential that a homeopathic remedy is produced from precisely the same source and, in principle, precisely the same way as the remedy the original proving was made on. The smallest departure in source material in principle changes the remedy into another homeopathic remedy that has another symptom picture and thus another prescriptive basis.

Apis mellifica is an example of this. It was included in the homeopathic Materia Medica of 1835. The remedy picture was derived almost exclusively from cases of poisoning and remedy provings of the poison of the bee. After 1850 (Gruner), one started gradually using the whole bee instead of only its poison, and this is still being done today despite the remedy picture being based on the poison alone, which only makes up a small portion (1%) of the total weight of the bee. But, as today's authorities anyway require the use of autoclaves and sterilisation of all raw material for nosodes and remedies of animal and human origin, it, of course, means less that the remedy picture was misleading beforehand.

Another example is Causticum. Hahnemann's prescription for Causticum is probably the most difficult of all his remedies to reproduce, not least because it is based more on alchemy than on chemistry.

We do not know the precise composition or origin of the two pounds of marble, which Hahnemann used in the production of the original Causticum. Neither do we have the exact analysis of his complete Causticum and the many trace elements it must have contained. On the other hand, we have his precise instructions as to the procedure for its production step-by-step, and we have his description of the qualities of the completed Causticum. Pharmacopoeias have through the years avoided this problem by either, as the German HAB 1, completely excluding Causticum, or by replacing the two pounds of marble with two pounds of burnt lime without giving the source. That is, pure, industrially manufactured, 99.9% calcium oxide is used instead of marble.

Another source of error is the difference in Hahnemann's equipment and the modern laboratory equipment, which is in use today. The distillation apparatus used by Hahnemann in the production of Causticum included a clay lid, which was sealed with a wet pig bladder. Precisely this pig bladder seems to play a role in Causticum as a possible explanation for the presence of ammonia in Hahnemann's Causticum. As a compensation for the lack of traces of ammonia in Causticum produced with the aid of modern distillation equipment, some add a few drops of ammonia water afterwards. Other pharmacies have from the beginning avoided this problem by selling Ammonium Causticum (potentised household ammonia) under the name Causticum.
Hahnemann's original Causticum, which the remedy proving was based on, contained many trace elements, including a certain amount of potassium. However, much of the Causticum which is made today does not! Accordingly, it is not the remedy we thought we prescribed.

Extensive clinical experience has shown that 'the new Causticum' only covers a limited part of the remedy picture. Strikingly, a number of the patients who did not react curatively to 'the new Causticum' received a marked curative and lasting improvement with the Causticum whose qualities and production were in accordance with Hahnemann's instructions.

But not only that, our Materia Medica and Repertories contain today an unknown number of clinical additions based on an unknown mixture of clinical experiences: partly with Ammonium Causticum, partly with Kali Causticum, partly with 'Causticum' based on 99.9% industrially- manufactured calcium oxide, partly with Causticum of unknown origin, with or without potassium lye, and the only factor in common is that they are sold as Causticum.
But it is not only the same starting material and which part of it used that is important. Time of year and place of harvesting, water content, quality, pollution, fresh or dried, condition, and not least the method of production itself, including trituration or tincture, are just as important for the result.

For regardless of whether exactly the same source may be found or not, it does not help if the quality of the potentisation is too poor, and this is unfortunately more the rule than the exception. The different homeopathic pharmacopoeias bear more the impress of consideration for the drug industry than for Hahnemann's research and development which is only sparingly represented, as, for example, in 'The German Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia' (HAB 1).
An example is the succussion of tinctures. Originally Hahnemann succussed for 'several minutes' (1801), then he changed to 'three minutes' (1814). In 1821, the arm should be struck down ten times, and from 1824 two strong strokes of the arm should be employed. From 1837 and forward, he again increased the potentisation to ten strong strokes of the arm. In Paris he experimented with 30, 100 and 200 strokes. He finally discovered that 100 strokes against a hard, elastic layer gave the optimal result.

There are several reasons why it is necessary to follow Hahnemann's instructions exactly. Take for example a 5ml bottle containing 100 drops and strike it hard ten times against a hard, elastic layer. Compare this with a one-litre bottle, which you strike ten times, and then an oil barrel, which you treat in the same way. In HAB 1, this large margin is permitted. It merely states: 'Strike hard at least 10 times.'

Other pharmacopoeias, for example, the French one state: 'At least 100 vibrations.' These are carried out in many different ways, for example by placing the bottle between two loudspeakers and letting it vibrate for some seconds so that it receives 100 vibrations. Others fasten the bottle on a vibrating tuning fork, which vibrates about 300 times in eight seconds. Some manufacturers state: 'In the same way as when shaking a thermometer.' At any rate, these are certainly quite different than striking hard against a solid layer.

Remedies that are produced in this way apparently also have an effect. The problem is that we don't know how we are to compare them with the remedies produced in another way. The only thing they have in common is the degree of dilution, for example 1:1.000.000 for C-3. What potency which hides in them we do not know, and endless discussions about whose posology is correct is therefore to be compared with 'chasing the wind'.