“Roots” homeopathy

I’m often asked if I practice “Classical Homeopathy” or define myself as a “Classical Homeopath.”  Sadly, that term has been adopted by so many in the diverse community of homeopathic practitioners & teachers, that it has really lost much meaning.

“Classical homeopathy” was a tagline adopted by students of George Vithoulkas in the 1980s to describe a Kentian/neo-Kentian approach to practice (single remedies in high potency prescribed in a single-dose wait-&-watch manner, with a focus on chronic disease & “constitutional” treatment with “constitutional” remedies. (the concept of “constitution,” “constitutional remedies,” & “constitutional treatment” is one I’ll address in an upcoming essay on this site).  This description of “classical” practice has been subsequently adopted by widely diverse practices inspired by contemporary teachers including those of Francisco Eizayaga, Rajan Sankaran, Jan Scholten, Massimo Mangialavori, & others.

I prefer to describe my perspective as that of “roots” homeopathy, focussing on the teachings of Hahnemann & his colleagues & close followers (most particularly, Boenninghausen, Lippe, Hering).  Adhering to the teachings these early pioneers of homeopathy not in a dogmatic fashion (Hahnemann’s most admirable contribution to medicine was to reject Hippocratic/Galenic dogma in deference to the medicine of experience), but with respect to their verifiable observations.  Jermy Sherr has suggested that contemporary homeopathic practice suffers a “yin deficiency” in inattention to its roots; many contemporary homeopathic teachings are untethered in basic homeopathic principles, lacking in roots.  It’s these roots that provide a nourishing basis for practice I wish to emphasize in my teaching.