Clinical and pathogenetic symptoms

Sir,

I am happy that Homeopathy has published a debate on homeopathic pathogenetic trials (provings).[ ¹ ] I have an observation about the long-standing question of the clinical symptoms reported in materias medicas and repertories, as an argument to dismiss or refute provings.

If one examined the clinical files of homeopathic doctors, one might find thousands of clinical symptoms, and even syndromes or diseases, to add to repertories. These would be “clinical symptoms not present in the pathogenesis”.

I believe that most such “clinical symptoms not present in the pathogenesis” arise from the fact that using HPTs original symptoms, homeopathic doctors have ameliorated or cured other symptoms and pathologies. It seems improbable, with perhaps the exception of a “last desperate try”, that homeopathic medical doctors have given homeopathic medicine just to try if it works, without some clue arising from an HPT. So such “ab usum in morbi” symptoms are used operationally only in conjunction with the whole person symptoms present in a repertory or materia medica.

For these reasons I believe that controlled methods to capture the effect of substances on healthy subjects are the only logical approach to apply Homeopathy surely.

• References

• 1 Various authors. Homeopathic pathogenetic trials: a debate. Homp 2007; 96:273–278.