Is it not Part of the Deal in Promoting a Method of Practice to also Demonstrate its Efficacy?
Interview with André Saine, N.D., F.C.A.H.
PART I | PART II
The following interview was conducted on September 13, 2001 by Drs. Ralf and Karin Vigoureux of Neunkirken-Seelscheid, Germany, at the time of their three-week visit with Dr. Saine in Montreal, Canada. Parts of this interview were originally published in German in the Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie 2004; 48 (3): 117-127.
Question: During our time in your office, we noticed that you mainly treat patients with severe conditions. What is the reason for this?
André Saine: It is not always this way; as sometimes I have easier cases. An example would be when a patient asks if I would treat other members of their family. I usually refer them to colleagues, but sometimes I accept them in order to be able to observe the influence of heredity from one generation to the other. It is, however, correct to say that most of my patients come to me with serious conditions. It all started when I was practicing with my father over 20 years ago, and saw mainly patients suffering from very serious conditions. I saw serious cases right from the beginning, and I quickly became comfortable treating patients others didn't want to see. Working with severely ill patients is rarely boring, and is in fact often quite challenging. It is a good way to test your skills, the method used, and the limits and possibilities of homeopathy—and ultimately to improve it in its practical applications.
Question: What are the limits of homeopathy?
André Saine: The limits of healing with homeopathy are, as a rule, the limits of the innate (instinctive) healing capacity of the organism. For example, when you lose a finger, we know as a rule that it does not grow back. This is true with or without homeopathy. That said, you will nonetheless notice that the healing process is commonly accelerated beyond normal expectations with homeopathy. For instance, it is obvious that injuries heal faster with homeopathy. When people are treated before and after surgery, surgeons always remark how well these patients recover.
People also recover from grief faster under homeopathy. Healing with homeopathy is, in general, paraphysiological, that is beyond normal physiology. What I mean here is that we observe an increase in the speed of the normal process of recovery but there are no new processes of healing. Mechanical problems are often obvious limitations to homeopathy. For instance, a child born with an imperforate rectum is obviously not a case for homeopathy. If someone has a dislocated limb, the remedy will not bring the dislocated parts together. This doesn't mean that the person should not also be treated with homeopathy, but you have to use primarily mechanical means for purely mechanical problems. In comparison, addressing the dynamic aspect of cases with homeopathy makes a major difference. For instance, someone with a herniated disc will very often be greatly relieved with homeopathy, likely without affecting the mechanical lesion, but instead by dealing with the reaction of the organism to the mechanical irritant.
Cases of disease processes that are true limits of the organism to repair itself will also reveal limits with homeopathy. Take, for instance, patients with autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, etc. We observe, among other things, an inflammatory process targeting specific tissues, with eventual destruction of these tissues. Using homeopathy we can stop the disease process; therefore, the inflammatory process will stop and the affected lesions will heal to the extent that the organism can heal them. The end result of the inflammatory process is scar tissue, and this will remain permanent even with homeopathy.
Question: Let us talk about other conditions often found in your patients. What about the limits of homeopathy in patients with cancer?
André Saine: Cancer does not seem to be a purely dynamic condition. To a great degree, cancer appears to be the result of abuse followed by the eventual failing of the organism's defense mechanism. There is a limit to the defense mechanism of the body as well as to its reserve of vital energy. In cancer patients the capacity of the body to keep order is often being overwhelmed as a result of long-term irritation and a waning of defense mechanism commonly associated with aging. We are all susceptible to developing cancer, but to different degrees. The longer and more intense the abuse to the organism, the greater an individual's risk of developing cancer. For instance, if you take one hundred people and you scrape their skin while exposing it to ultraviolet rays, at some point skin cancer will develop in most, if not all of them. In essence, every person will develop cancer under the right conditions.
So, once the person has cancer, the aim is to find out if you can trigger a change in their response and recreate order in that person. The extent of the response greatly depends on the capacity of the body to heal itself. Though this is relative to each individual, there are rules that can help us determine prognosis. The younger the person, the more localized and the slower the growth of cancer, the better the prognosis with homeopathy. The more the development of cancer was precipitated by an intense stress and the more the impact of this stress can be annulled, the better the prognosis. The more visible a tumor is, the better the prognosis, as this is very helpful in monitoring treatment. Also, the fewer the symptoms and, especially, the fewer the characteristic symptoms, the less good is the prognosis. Despite all this, I have also seen old people with metastases from a rapidly progressing cancer respond very favorably to a well-indicated remedy. The higher the degree of similarity, the greater the response of the patient to the remedy. What we cannot predict, however, is the extent of this response. Will it be sufficient to overcome the cancer? This is an unknown right up to the end.
Let me give you an example. Once I had a 73-year-old woman with multiple myeloma who went through the usual route of chemotherapy without any favorable response. When conventional medicine had nothing else to offer her, she came to homeopathy. In spite of being in a weakened state, having an advanced cancer, and being 73 years old, she recovered completely under purely homeopathic treatment. The point is that the extent of the response always remains unknown when the prescribed remedy has a high degree of similarity, even though there may be, as in this example, many factors that would initially suggest a less favorable prognosis.
Question: How many patients with cancer have been cured under your care?
André Saine: This is a somewhat complicated question to answer. If we define “cured” as a patient who is free of any sign of cancer for at least five years after having been treated with only homeopathy, a minority of patients would qualify. In the first place, many of the patients that I see have already received conventional treatment and have come to homeopathy in a weakened state. Secondly, I have treated a great number of patients who were concurrently undergoing conventional treatment. In the third place, the majority of patients that I have seen came to me in an advanced state of cancer, often with several metastases or in a desperate state. In my experience, the key is always to find the most indicated remedy for the presenting state. If this is done with accuracy each time, there will be a response. What we don't know, as I mentioned before, is the extent of the response.
The response may be favorable enough to remove the suffering but not enough to stop the progress of the cancer. There is a fine line between palliation and cure in treating cancer patients with homeopathy. Often the patient may say that under the indicated remedy they feel much better, but the cancer continues to grow and spread. This is a complicated situation. In such case, the clinician must then determine whether the cancer's growth has lost its momentum and the same remedy must needs to be continued perhaps in a higher posology, or whether a complementary remedy must be searched for to address the later stage of the disease. You can easily see the difficulty facing the inexperienced clinician. To successfully treat patients with cancer, you need to be, first of all, a very good clinician, second, a very good homeopath and third, have some experience in treating cancer patients. If you can combine these three factors, then your success in treating these patients will be higher. When I say success, I mean you would be able to find the remedy that is indicated in each of the different changing stages, because it is common with cancer patients that the remedy will change often.
Looking back at my own practice over the past 20 years, I can’t say exactly how many cancer patients I followed for five or more years after their recovery. I am not sure. Perhaps five to ten. For various reasons, many patients don't keep in touch with their physician after their recovery. There are also some patients, many of whom had responded well to homeopathy, whom I have followed until their death. Then complications developed in the course of their treatment and often not related to their cancer, got the best of them. I am reminded of a young man in his mid-twenties who came with a relapsing acute lymphocytic leukemia and having refused further conventional treatment. He came to me in a very advanced state with cachexia and we went through some hard times together. I treated him for about two years. He became quite well, and early in his remission he returned to his work of driving trucks long distances. Several months later, while on the job late one night, he received a severe blow to the abdomen. He phoned me in the middle of the night. It sounded as though he had internal bleeding. I told him to go the hospital, which he refused to do. Instead, he went to bed and died in his sleep. No autopsy was performed. I have had a few similar cases, in which the patient, family, friends, and I worked very hard and the patient died for other reasons.
In many other cases there was a response to the remedy, but there was a point at which either my skills were not good enough or it was beyond the ability of the organism to recover. Often a remedy has been found that looks like the simillimum. The patient improves on all levels; the tumor growth slows down considerably, eventually stops growing, and even begins to regress. Then a standstill is reached. The search for a complementary remedy can now be a difficult task. I am still working at perfecting the art in this field. It is very interesting and extremely challenging work, but it is not for everyone. Practitioners with less than several years of solid practice should not undertake these patients alone.
Question: What about incurable cases?
André Saine: I am uncomfortable using the word incurable. Often, the use of the expression “incurable cases” only reflects the limits of our present knowledge rather than true knowledge of what is incurable. History teaches that the limits of homeopathy have been further extended with increased knowledge. “Incurable” is often just an opinion to be taken with a grain of salt. A broad knowledge of what types of conditions have been cured is a more reliable measure of curability than the opinion of a single practitioner with his or her practice as the only frame of reference. Many cases previously thought to be incurable with homeopathy have recovered. Many professed homeopaths have said that cancer patients are not curable with homeopathy, but that is not true. Patients with cancer can recover with homeopathy as their sole treatment. We cannot always know a priori who is curable and who is not. When we fail, how do we know whether the cause of failure is due to inaccurate application of the method, or the case was beyond the organism’s capacity to recover? I cannot say that I have mastered the treatment of patients with cancer. But I can foresee that in the future we will go beyond our current results. I have seen some extraordinary results of people with poor prognoses recovering under homeopathic care. We have just scratched the surface of treating people with cancer. I have seen great potential, but I have also seen great defeat, great disappointment. I don't like to teach about treatment of the cancer patient to beginners, because not many people in homeopathy are able to do this well; only experienced homeopaths with advanced knowledge should attempt it. The margin for error is very small. To be successful with such cases often demands of the practitioner one hundred percent accuracy one hundred percent of the time.
Question: How is your success with patients with autoimmune disease?
André Saine: This is easier to answer. If we have favorable therapeutic conditions, meaning that the homeopath finds the right remedy and, the patient is compliant and has a lifestyle favorable to recovery, I would say that 100 percent of patients with serious autoimmune disease should recover with homeopathy. We have to be clear again about what is meant by recovery. It means that the inflammatory process stops and there is a certain amount of tissue regeneration, but within the limits of the organism's capacity to heal. Certain tissues may be permanently destroyed and will not return even under the best homeopathic care. What we observe is that what is within the capacity of the body to heal will be restored under good homeopathic treatment. So this means that in the best of circumstances, the disease process of all patients with autoimmune disease should stop under homeopathy. Success will be reduced when the skills of the practitioner are not adequate, when the patient’s lifestyle is not conducive to good health, when the stressors in the patient’s life keep overwhelming the capacity of the organism to recover health, e.g., someone with an inconsolable grief, or when the patient is not compliant or cannot readily describe his or her symptoms, which may be due to allopathic medications masking or altering the symptoms. Realistically speaking, only about 5 percent of compliant patients with full blown autoimmune diseases but with favorable lifestyle conditions will now be problematic for me. In some cases it is related to defective symptomatology, while with others it is due to late stage of serious disease. I am thinking of a patient who came to me in a very advanced stage of pneumonitis. Despite very good response to homeopathic remedies, eventually, after many months of struggle, the patient died. There are certain types of conditions that will also tend to be more resistant to treatment, allopathic or homeopathic, such as a full-blown case of lupus or a case of inveterate psoriasis. Only the experienced practitioner will know how to handle these cases successfully.
The study of patients with autoimmune disease is an excellent way to demonstrate the superiority of homeopathy over any other form of treatment. Not only will the vast majority of patients recover their health and become free of medications and their side effects, but at such a relatively low cost and with minimal burden to our society.
Question: You have a lot of children with epilepsy and cerebral palsy. How do they react to homeopathy?
André Saine: If they get proper homeopathic treatment, they have an optimal chance to regain health. I have followed a number of patients with cerebral palsy over many years. It is true, however, that there are limits. The ability of the nervous system to regenerate is quite limited. Within these limits, however, the treatment of patients with epilepsy is excellent. I would say that in the great majority of cases of epilepsy, the number and intensity of the seizures will diminish to the point of complete disappearance. I have one case of cerebral palsy that I have followed for about 15 years. When I first saw this boy, he was two years old and had about 150 grand mal seizures every day, despite being under the influence of 3 anti-convulsive drugs at double the maximum dose. This boy had never in all his life had a bowel movement without aid. He had no voluntarily movement, made no sound, and didn't respond to his environment. After about six months, he was off all allopathic medications and became responsive to his environment. He developed the reflex of pushing for stool, which eventually became normal. The number of seizures decreased over the years, and he now goes months without one.
Question: How are your results with patients with severe psychiatric conditions?
André Saine: This is similar to patients with cancer in that not everybody should treat these patients. You cannot improvise with severe psychotic cases. A mistake can be a serious one. You have to be a good clinician, you have to know homeopathy very well and you have to have some experience in psychiatry. At the very least, you must know the manifestation of psychosis or work with somebody who has experience dealing with psychotic patients. As in any serious condition, you have to be persistent in applying homeopathy to the rule. Then, and with a bit of patience, success will come. So again you need a good practitioner, a compliant patient, and the appropriately supportive environment for the healing to happen. In cases of psychosis, a supportive environment is very important to obtain success with homeopathy, as most of us do not have the benefit of treating such patients in an institution. Patients with depression, mania, and anxiety, even when severely affected, tend to respond very well to homeopathy. Some cases of autism have responded wonderfully well. On the other hand, patients with idiocy or imbecility who show neurological impediments tend to have unfavorable prognoses.
Neurotic patients are yet another story. When the neurosis is primarily the result of a certain environment, then homeopathy will help only minimally. What Hahnemann says in the footnote to paragraph 17 and in paragraph 208 of the Organon applies very well to these patients, in whom the mind is the primary source of disease, instead of its being the result of the untunement of the vital force. Such cases need more than homeopathy. There is an old saying, “Let the word heal the word.” When people are making themselves sick primarily from misuse of their mind, wrong thinking, beliefs or the power of their imagination, they should not be treated with means directed at the vital force, but with means directly addressing the cause, which in these cases is the mind.
Question: During the three weeks we observed your practice, we saw impressive results and heard very positive feedback from patients. Frankly, we have never encountered this level of success before. What can be done to help other people to practice homeopathy with similar results?
André Saine: Better education is clearly the answer. I will first answer this question for students of homeopathy. The history of homeopathy clearly teaches that the most successful practitioners have been the ones who have fully studied, understood, and conscientiously applied the work of Hahnemann. History also teaches that education in homeopathy has been one of homeopathy’s weakest points. Too few practitioners have been well trained and have done the necessary work to achieve mastery. Inherent to human nature is the tendency to look for easy methods and short cuts to accomplish difficult tasks. Such an approach should be commended as long as it is not at the expense of success. When this tendency is applied to the study and practice of homeopathy, it is, as a rule, followed by failure. Discipline in learning the depth of the works of Hahnemann and of the great Hahnemannians will yield the best results. Too many practitioners have learned homeopathy through seminars and too few through their own study of the work of Hahnemann. A way to turn things around would be to develop institutions with teachers and practitioners who have done their homework and would thus be able to train qualified students with the highest standards of homeopathic education and practice, even with the objective of publishing the clinical results of such a project. If well done, the results obtained will be impressive.
To answer your question in regard to established practitioners who would like to improve their success rate and for whom it might be difficult to get rid of bad habits: they would have to follow somewhat the same path, from Hahnemann upwards. Once during a seminar I met a practitioner who had attained an unusual level of accuracy in finding the curative remedies during presentations of paper cases. Out of a crowd of over one hundred practitioners he would repeatedly be the only one who would know the remedy prescribed. During dinner I asked him how he had become so good. He said that a few years prior, I had suggested during a seminar that students study all the works of Hahnemann. That, he said, is exactly what he did. With discipline and hard work, he had reached a high level of understanding of the works of Hahnemann and its application. There is no reason others cannot follow the same path. I do not recommend people to attend seminars unless they are offered by experienced and able Hahnemannians. Otherwise, they will learn more by staying home and studying the works of Hahnemann and the ones of the great Hahnemannians.
Groups of well-trained Hahnemannians would then easily be able to demonstrate the superiority of their practice over any other, whether allopathic, or of other complementary medical practices, or the practices of other professed homeopathic schools.
Question: That sounds interesting. But isn't it unrealistic to think that the representatives of the different schools of homeopathy would be able to unify and participate as one?
André Saine: I agree with you; however, is it not part of the deal in promoting a method of practice to also demonstrate its efficacy? This will likely be accomplished when more research is invested in homeopathy. You have to understand that it is easy to present at a conference or seminar an isolated case of a patient having recovered with a remedy that has no proving and that nobody knows anything about. Perhaps the curative remedy was found by intuition and no method offering consistency could lead to such a prescription. That is fine for this patient. However, as it is not reproducible, such results are haphazard. Out of 100 patients, how often would such an approach be successful? If it's a shot in the dark, then there is not much that we can learn from it. On the other hand, with careful application of the method of Hahnemann, we obtain systematic and predictable success. Such success can be repeated time after time from one qualified Hahnemannian to the other, from one patient to the other. Moreover, this method can be taught. Our failures are the exceptions and not the other way around. You can also test the efficacy of a system of therapeutics, including systems based on departures from Hahnemann's homeopathy, by observing the results obtained with a group of patients with a serious condition. The more serious the disease, the more the patient's sensitivity narrows to one specific remedy.
Therefore, to successfully and systematically treat patients with serious problems, you have to be a very good prescriber. On the other hand, people who are overly sensitive by nature and have a less serious condition tend to respond positively to a much greater range of remedies. With such a group of sensitive patients, many influences could produce changes: such as the wrong foods, weather changes, minor emotional stresses, happy news, numerous medicines, etc. However, to provoke the reversal of a serious chronic disease, something fundamental must be affected and this, therefore, confirms the validity of the method used. That is how you come to appreciate the teachings of Hahnemann and those who confirmed them. At present, there is not much money invested in homeopathy for research but once the word is out, such studies will be done. In the meantime, hopefully, philanthropists will step up and fund the greatly needed research into homeopathy and homeopathic institutions. More people deserve to have access to such an efficacious way of regaining and preserving health.
If a well-done study comparing the efficacy of different medical practices was performed, it is clear to me that homeopathy would be found to be far superior to any other. For example, such a study could be done with 100 patients being treated with allopathy, 100 patients with Hahnemannian homeopathy, 100 patients with the most popular departures from homeopathy, 100 patients with Chinese medicine, etc. At the end of two years the results would be analysed in terms of general outcome of health in the short and long term, the iatrogenic effects, and the cost of achieving such results. Because the results of such studies depend on the quality of the practitioners, each school of medicine would have to assign only their most qualified practitioners. This type of study would surely provide eye-opening results. The National Institutes of Health* have the money to research homeopathy. The way to open the eyes of health officials would be to conduct a study using patients with serious chronic disease whose care is very costly to governments and insurance companies, and who create a lot of morbidity and mortality in society. If we could conduct such studies, the outcome would be shocking for many.
Question: Which type of disease would you choose?
André Saine: I would think the easiest would be to study the outcome of patients with autoimmune disease, because such cases are considered incurable by conventional medicine, are very common, and create a great burden for our society and on our health care system. Also, full-blown cases are easy to diagnose and easy to assess subjectively and objectively. Moreover, such patients are found everywhere. Autoimmune diseases make up a varied group of more than 80 chronic illnesses. Over 50 million Americans are affected with autoimmune diseases with more than $86 billion in health care costs annually. Autoimmune diseases are the fourth leading cause of death and disability, following heart disease, cancer, and iatrogenic diseases. Research on the therapeutic outcome with such patients would be a great opportunity for homeopathy to show its value.
One of the criteria for patients to be accepted in such a study would have to be the patient's willingness to be treated by a different approach. Do you know which parties would be most interested in the outcome of such studies? The insurance companies and the government who, as third parties, presently pay for the current exorbitant cost of healthcare. Patients with autoimmune disease are currently receiving palliative care year after year at very high costs to the patients and third party providers. With homeopathy, people recover and maintain their health at a very low cost. In the conventional system, it is not unusual for patients with autoimmune disease to take two, three, or even more different drugs such as steroids, analgesics, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In contrast to the costly palliative care currently provided, homeopathy would restore people's health at a fraction of the cost.
Question: These days, you are completing your book about the work of Adolph Lippe. How did this book come about?
André Saine: More than twenty years ago, I started to go through the old homeopathic journals. My interest in what I was finding grew, and in 1982 I started a systematic search of the old literature, going through some journals volume-by-volume and page-by-page. I collected and classified the best articles according to subject and author, looking specifically for articles by Hahnemann, Hering, Jahr, Lippe, Joslin, Bayard, Dunham, Bœnninghausen, Wells, Guernsey, Chargé, Nash, Allen, Kent, Harvey Farrington, the Pulfords, and Pierre Schmidt. I then realized that what I was learning was much more important than what was being offered by modern teachings, and that the works of masters of the past had been largely forgotten and needed to be re-introduced. I also realized that the best of these works by far were the ones of Adolph Lippe. Therefore, in 1988, I decided to publish the works of Lippe and now, in 2001, the book is in its final stage of writing.
Question: Why is it taking so long to write this book?
André Saine: First, I had to find all of Lippe's writings. This took many years to achieve as the journals are scattered throughout the U.S. It must have taken thousands of hours just to gather the material. Then I read through most of it three or four times. I also had to find and read all the different authors and texts to which Lippe referred in his writings, which also took a considerable amount of time to complete. Then I planned the book. To edit his writings was rather simple, but to draw the lessons out from Lippe's work is now taking a considerable amount of time, as I have to write, for the first time, entire chapters on certain key aspects of the history of homeopathy. I used mostly primary sources since very little had been written on some of these keys aspects of our history. To draw out all the lessons contained in Lippe's works, and ipso facto in Hahnemann's, has been an incredible learning experience.
Question: What can we expect?
André Saine: Out of about 3,500 pages of journal articles, I selected about a quarter of it as Lippe's best writings. I then organized them by subjects: philosophy, materia medica, posology, clinical cases, specific clinical subjects, his defense of pure homeopathy, etc. Throughout this work, one cannot fail to develop a clear understanding of what pure homeopathy is. Another important aspect of this book is that it recounts, for the first time, the history of homeopathy from the perspective of pure homeopathy. Lippe was the great defender of Hahnemann's work, the Ajax of homeopathy, as Bayard called him. During the second half of Lippe’s professional life, he continuously confronted and denounced departures from homeopathy. In my book, I try to give an account of these various conflicts. You begin to realize, and then become profoundly convinced, that one of the great lessons contained in Lippe’s work is that the more you understand and apply the work of Hahnemann, the greater will be your clinical success. In other words, departures from the pure methodology taught by Hahnemann have, without exception, been met with failure. The great lesson is that the fundamental principles of homeopathy make up such a successful formula that any change from it has so far been for the worse.
In the first part of the book, I have included chapters on Lippe's extraordinary clinical success and his great contributions to homeopathy. I came to the conclusion that, without Lippe, homeopathy would have probably been remembered only as medical folklore of the nineteenth century. The work of Lippe is second only to Hahnemann's in importance. Why? Because Lippe was able to confirm the work of Hahnemann and to demonstrate it in a very clear and convincing way. No one else had such great clinical success and wrote so well and so extensively in explaining it. It is hard for some people to read Hahnemann and it can be discouraging to many. But when people read Lippe, the consensus regarding its clarity and the force of his teaching is unanimously positive. Also, it is much easier to understand Hahnemann once you have read Lippe. One should start by reading Hahnemann, follow this by reading Lippe, and then go back to Hahnemann who then becomes very clear. Finally, you go back to Lippe, and then it becomes even clearer!
After such rigorous training, it is difficult to imagine someone wanting to depart from such a perfect method. It would be like being given a map with all the major obstacles explained and with instructions as to what to do—and then, somehow, not achieving success. It is difficult to imagine.
The minority that will read the book in its entirety and will come to an understanding of Lippe’s work are likely to make significant and permanent changes in their method of practicing homeopathy. If people like Lippe had not existed, it is very likely that you and I would not be talking about homeopathy today. It would have disappeared and people would say, oh yes, it was something that existed two centuries ago. But Lippe, by convincing his colleagues of the urgent need to preserve pure homeopathy, was the one responsible for homeopathy reaching us in the 20th century. Lippe and his colleagues started the International Hahnemannian Association (IHA) in 1880. This kept the tradition alive until its last meeting in 1959.
Besides helping found this institution, Lippe particpated in the foundation of four homeopathic journals, the last one being the Homoeopathic Physician, which was published by Lippe's closest students from 1880 until 1899. Through these publications, a whole generation of practitioners were inspired by Lippe and his coworkers, thus perpetuating pure homeopathy into the 20th century. Here we find names like Edward Berridge, Henry C. Allen, Thomas Skinner, W. P. Wesselhœft, E. B. Nash, Edmund Lee, Walter James, James Tyler Kent, W. A. Yingling, D. C. McClaren, Alfred Pulford, Harvey Farrington (son), etc. H. C. Allen, for instance, edited another Hahnemannian journal, the Medical Advance, from 1884 until his death in 1909, as well as founding the Hering Medical College and Hospital, one of the few homeopathic colleges that was granted a favorable review in Flexner’s Medical Eduation. All this history can be found in my book on Lippe. One inevitably sees the common thread uniting all those who have mastered homeopathy: —they simply followed the same path of consciencious study and application of the method taught by Hahnemann.
› Return to the website