Vol. 18 No. 5 November 1998

There’s an interesting collection of stuff in this issue. Over the page begins a fairly concentrated examination of Clemens von Boenninghausen’s discoveries about intercurrent remedies, an aspect of prescribing rarely mentioned, let alone employed, these days-but a topic dear to my heart.Next, page 7, there is a long discussion about the treatment of hay fever in which Herbert Roberts makes a distinction between superficial and deep remedies which contradicts my experience; it is a pity he died before immunoglobulin E, histamine and a host of phenolic compounds were available in potency.

On page 14 Sue Muller continues her excellent series with observations on the differences in case taking between the homoeopathy of Hahnemannian and Bcenninghausen and the so-called classical and Hahnemannian homceopathy of today.

know that I personally, and this magazine, push this barrow often, but I feel this is a very important issue that demands debate, not a shrug and a “there we go again.”
Homoeopathy is a branch of medicine in which people’s health, indeed lives, can be put at risk or greatly benefited by appropriate prescribing techniques. Some methods must be better than others; we are not doing flower arranging where the “school” you belong to does not matter much in ultimate.

The pieces by Murray Moore and Henry Allen were selected from long-defunct publications for their contrasting views on dosage half a teaspoon of 3x trituration three times a day for a week versus about nine doses of 1M in water for half a day. But I’m sure the cured patients did not care.

Then some contemporary thought on venom and trends emerging in New Zealand homoeopathy.

Please write, Homoeopathica would like to hear from you.

Bruce Barwell