More Resource Websites

Achieving and Maintaining the Simillimum by Dr. Luc De Schepper

by Luc De Schepper, MD, PhD, DI Hom., CHom., Lic.Ac
Reprinted by permission.

Read Dr. Luc De Schepper's New Blog for HSCN!
Dr. Luc is the author of excellent books on Classical Homeopathy.

About "Achieving and Maintaining the Simillimum"

“We homeopaths better hang together, or most assuredly, we will hang separately.”        
Modified version of Benjamin Franklin

Although I wrote this book in a spirit of dispassionate inquiry, I cannot expect my critics to always respond in kind. Practicing homeopathy is a challenge and criticizing each other seems to be a national sport. Truth never needs to fear, and I welcome intelligent well-founded criticism. I have always attributed my writings to Hahnemann, and yet I hear criticism such as, “you think Dr. Luc’s way is the only way?” Never have I mentioned that it is my way. Hahnemann deserves all due credit. But then again he was constantly criticized by pseudo-homeopaths as well, who found it too difficult to adhere to the Laws and Principles of homeopathy. They pretend they have cures too. But what kind of cures? Do they hold up to what we need to witness in Hering’s Set of Observations? Do they keep in account miasmatic blocks, obstructions to the cure, the nature of the disease, the patient, and the remedy? Why do they stick to what Hahnemann called his “barbaric methods, the 4th edition Organon”?

It is as if homeopathy froze in time around 1828 as most of the techniques used in modern practice are from this period. Although Hahnemann’s personal practice grew immensely beyond the stage of the 4th edition Organon, homeopathy as a whole did not. Most practitioners are still practicing by the rules laid down in 1828-1829. This is more than strange as the next 14 years of Hahnemann’s career, were the most productive of his life. Different reasons exist for this behavior. Laziness of the practitioner is a universal syndrome in most professions. Statements like “I am doing well enough; I am satisfied; why make more effort; why study more” are all arguments that do not hold up under scrutiny. Why bother to check facts when you can quote a new guru-homeopath’s opinion who charmed your shoes off yesterday? Then there is arrogance: “I am a great practitioner. I do better than most.”

Indifference is another prevalent emotion: “I can’t spend my time investigating what Hahnemann did in his later ‘senile’ years.” Maybe, the practitioner is guided by misplaced egotism: “I want to do my own version of homeopathy. Homeopathy did not stop with Hahnemann. He would have been proud with my experiments.” Yes, it is the duty of every generation to go beyond the last one. Hering once said: “It is the duty of all of us to go further in the theory and practice of homeopathy than Hahnemann has done. We ought to seek the truth, which is before us and forsake the errors of the past.”

Homeopathy has evolved considerably in the last 150 years. Nevertheless, homeopaths still have much to learn from what Hahnemann taught in his works. I doubt he would be proud if we are sinning against and omitting basic laws and rules. I do agree that too much dogma is always counterproductive and that an open mind is an important part of growth. I can hope that we all can progress beyond Hahnemann’s knowledge, but we are not going to arrive there by denying that the Organon had anything to do with it. The Organon is the text on which homeopathic healing is based. I never thought it was a religious document to be followed blindly, but I do treat it with the utmost respect, because without it there would be no homeopathy. Insults from “well-known” homeopaths such as “religious dogma,” “stuck in the past,” and “that old, dusty bible,” are used to undermine the careful observations of several generations of experienced homeopaths.

To “modernize” homeopathy by ignoring its legacy is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is like building the proverbial house on a base of sand instead of upon rock. As soon as the winds of difficulty blow, and the rains of hard times fall, the house will come crashing down. Kent, in his Lesser Writings (1994, p. 210), states: Eclectics building upon the uncertain sands of theory need to be continually rebuilding, as each new theory causes a shifting of their foundation. Homeopaths, building upon the unchangeable rock of law, need never rebuild. I am reminded of the present state in which “progressive” homeopaths use the words “dogma and old books” to belittle Hahnemann’s true teachings, when I read an article by Adolph Lippe, a famous homeopath of the 19th century:

“The progressive, anti-dogma wing of the homeopathic school, yearning for recognition, have distinguished themselves once more, and have given rise to a new phase of the history of medicine. As it cannot be long before the recognition craze will evaporate, it may be as well to put
on record the events of a few years, if for no other purpose than to complete history, and exhibit the folly of the recognition seekers, showing them how they are not only successful in their attempts to patch up a peace, but how in fact, they receive a severe rebuke from the other side of the house (Lippe, 1887).”

It would be more fruitful for us to study what really is in the Organon. The foundation is based upon the hard works of countless men and women who came before us and dedicated their entire lives to the enrichment of homeopathy. The speed of light has not changed over the centuries, and neither have the homeopathic laws of healing. Maybe the practitioner is guided by ignorance, but we should remember that ignorance is a crime when you deal with people’s health. What fits on the solid foundation, confirmed through experience in the field, we will use and develop further. What does not work in harmony with these well-proven methods, we must leave behind.

The history of homeopathy is just like all other discoveries in the world. Christopher Columbus in 1492 discovered a small island; his successors found a vast continent. As Columbus forever will be the discoverer of the Americas, Hahnemann always will be the founder of homeopathy. Patients want “promises” from the profession but Hahnemann calls one “ignorant” who can lightly promise the cure of a difficult disease. We may have to wait for centuries for a “Hahnemann” to come again and lead us to completion of the work he left us. So far, no one has been able to pick up where he left.

The advanced methods of the Organon are artistic ones that must be individualized to the patient. No preconceived schedules or protocols can guide the practitioner. You need to remain flexible and alert as the daily dose might be correct for one case, while one dose a week or even once a month is sufficient for other cases. In very acute cases, one single dose may suffice, or it may be necessary to repeat the dose at very short intervals. In chronic diseases, one dose might act for days, weeks, even months, or it may become necessary to repeat the dose daily or more often for a day, a week or even for months. In all this the practitioner must be guided by his individual judgment based on the advanced methods that Hahnemann taught.

As a classical homeopath, I have learned great respect for these principles, over the years I also have given wrong remedies and caused negative effects, suppressed symptoms with partial simillimums, disrupted the Vital Force with untimely repetition, and aggravated to the point that antidoting was necessary. Some say they have never seen any problems, suppressions or aggravations caused by giving homeopathic remedies. Bunkum! Such claims sound very, very hollow as this would mean that all the great masters who preceded us were incompetent souls – including Hahnemann, Kent and Hering! The wisdom of the rules of homeopathy are the result of two centuries of clinical experience, not religious dogma, fundamentalism or fanaticism. It is not always easy to be diplomatic when one is being called derogatory names and the blood, sweat and hard work of one’s experience is being called dogma.

Some practitioners ask, “Why go through all the trouble and work to use the watery solutions of the 5th and 6th edition, when I have satisfactory results using the dry dose of the 4th edition?” For some using bottles, spoons, brandy, etc., is just too “expensive” and too great a bother. It is just so “easy” to throw an undetermined amount of pills in someone’s mouth. The answer is simple. Do you want to treat the most chronically ill with their strong miasmatic background? Do you want to prevent unneeded similar aggravation? Do you want to treat the most sensitive patients, a group, which seems to increase daily in numbers? Do you want to speed up the time to cure by half, a quarter or less the time that it takes with a dry dose? Do you want to be successful with heavily suppressed cases and with illnesses deemed “incurable”? Do you want to use Hahnemann’s most advanced methods and walk in his footsteps?

If you do, then this book is for you. What do you have to lose? That your patient is cured more rapidly? That you seem to be able to help people more than other homeopaths? That your patient suffers less and often has no similar aggravation? It is a win-win situation for homeopath and patient alike. So far, few have responded to Hahnemann’s promises of 1833 (5th edition), and 1842 (6th edition). A little more effort and dedication from the homeopath will be well worth the efforts to relieve the suffering of mankind.

Let’s remember Hahnemann’s warning:

“I must warn the reader that indolence, love of ease and obstinacy preclude effective service at the altar of truth, and truly freedom from prejudice and untiring zeal qualify for the most sacred of all human occupations, the practice of the true system of medicine (1810, Preface to First Edition of the Organon).”

Let’s also remember Mark Twain’s immortal words: “Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you want.” It is in the spirit of studiousness and accuracy that I offer this work. May it unite all homeopaths. If some challengers can overcome their repugnance to what they deem as “mere blind faith and fanaticism,” they will find much to learn. The door is open!

The Introduction to Achieving and Maintaining Simillimum by Dr. Luc De Schepper
Reprinted by permission.

"We homeopaths better hang together, or most assuredly, we will hang separately." - Modified version of Benjamin Franklin

Although I wrote this book in a spirit of dispassionate inquiry, I cannot expect my critics to always respond in kind. Practicing homeopathy is a challenge and criticizing each other seems to be a national sport.

Truth never needs to fear, and I welcome intelligent well-founded criticism. I have always attributed my writings to Hahnemann, and yet I hear criticism such as, "you think Dr. Luc's way is the only way?"

Never have I mentioned that it is my way. Hahnemann deserves all due credit. But then again he was constantly criticized by pseudo-homeopaths as well, who found it too difficult to adhere to the Laws and Principles of homeopathy. They pretend they have cures too. But what kind of cures?

Do they hold up to what we need to witness in Hering's Set of Observations?
Do they keep in account miasmatic blocks, obstructions to the cure, the nature of the disease, the patient, and the remedy? Why do they stick to what Hahnemann called his "barbaric methods, the 4th edition Organon?

It is as if homeopathy froze in time around 1828 as most of the techniques used in modern practice are from this period.

Although Hahnemann's personal practice grew immensely beyond the stage of the 4th edition Organon, homeopathy as a whole did not. Most practitioners are still practicing by the rules laid down in 1828-1829.

This is more than strange as the next 14 years of Hahnemann's career were the most productive of his life. Different reasons exist for this behavior.

Laziness of the practitioner is a universal syndrome in most professions. Statements like "I am doing well enough; I am satisfied; why make more effort; why study more" are all arguments that do not hold up under scrutiny. Why bother to check facts when you can quote a new guru-homeopath's opinion who charmed your shoes off yesterday?

Then there is arrogance: "I am a great practitioner. I do better than most."

Indifference is another prevalent emotion: "I can't spend my time investigating what Hahnemann did in his later 'senile' years."

Maybe, the practitioner is guided by misplaced egotism: "I want to do my own version of homeopathy. Homeopathy did not stop with Hahnemann. He would have been proud with my experiments."

Yes, it is the duty of every generation to go beyond the last one. Hering once said: "It is the duty of all of us to go further in the theory and practice of homeopathy than Hahnemann has done. We ought to seek the truth, which is before us and forsake the errors of the past."

Homeopathy has evolved considerably in the last 150 years. Nevertheless, homeopaths still have much to learn from what Hahnemann taught in his works. I doubt he would be proud if we are sinning against and omitting basic laws and rules.

I do agree that too much dogma is always counterproductive and that an open mind is an important part of growth. I can hope that we all can progress beyond Hahnemann's knowledge, but we are not going to arrive there by denying that the Organon had anything to do with it.

The Organon is the text on which homeopathic healing is based. I never thought it was a religious document to be followed blindly, but I do treat it with the utmost respect, because without it there would be no homeopathy.

Insults from "well-known" homeopaths such as "religious dogma," "stuck in the past," and "that old, dusty bible," are used to undermine the careful observations of several generations of experienced homeopaths.

To "modernize" homeopathy by ignoring its legacy is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is like building the proverbial house on a base of sand instead of upon rock. As soon as the winds of difficulty blow, and the rains of hard times fall, the house will come crashing down. Kent, in his Lesser Writings (1994, p. 210), states:

'Eclectics building upon the uncertain sands of theory need to be continually rebuilding, as each new theory causes a shifting of their foundation. Homeopaths, building upon the unchangeable rock of law, need never rebuild.'

I am reminded of the present state in which "progressive" homeopaths use the words "dogma and old books" to belittle Hahnemann's true teachings, when I read an article by Adolph Lippe, a famous homeopath of the 19th century:

'The progressive, anti-dogma wing of the homeopathic school, yearning for recognition, have distinguished themselves once more, and have given rise to a new phase of the history of medicine.

As it cannot be long before the recognition craze will evaporate, it may be as well to put on record the events of a few years, if for no other purpose than to complete history, and exhibit the folly of the recognition seekers, showing them how they are not only successful in their attempts to patch up a peace, but how in fact, they receive a severe rebuke from the other side of the house' (Lippe, 1887).

It would be more fruitful for us to study what really is in the Organon. The foundation is based upon the hard works of countless men and women who came before us and dedicated their entire lives to the enrichment of homeopathy.

The speed of light has not changed over the centuries, and neither have the homeopathic laws of healing.

Maybe the practitioner is guided by ignorance, but we should remember that ignorance is a crime when you deal with people's health. What fits on the solid foundation, confirmed through experience in the field, we will use and develop further. What does not work in harmony with these well-proven methods, we must leave behind.

The history of homeopathy is just like all other discoveries in the world. Christopher Columbus in 1492 discovered a small island; his successors found a vast continent. As Columbus forever will be the discoverer of the Americas, Hahnemann always will be the founder of homeopathy.

Patients want "promises" from the profession but Hahnemann calls one "ignorant" who can lightly promise the cure of a difficult disease. We may have to wait for centuries for a "Hahnemann" to come again and lead us to completion of the work he left us. So far, no one has been able to pick up where he left.

The advanced methods of the Organon are artistic ones that must be individualized to the patient. No preconceived schedules or protocols can guide the practitioner. You need to remain flexible and alert as the daily dose might be correct for one case, while one dose a week or even once a month is sufficient for other cases.

In very acute cases, one single dose may suffice, or it may be necessary to repeat the dose at very short intervals. In chronic diseases, one dose might act for days, weeks, even months, or it may become necessary to repeat the dose daily or more often for a day, a week or even for months. In all this the practitioner must be guided by his individual judgment based on the advanced methods that Hahnemann taught.

As a classical homeopath, I have learned great respect for these principles, because over the years I also have given wrong remedies and caused negative effects, suppressed symptoms with partial simillimums, disrupted the Vital Force with untimely repetition, and aggravated to the point that antidoting was necessary.

Some say they have never seen any problems, suppressions or aggravations caused by giving homeopathic remedies. Bunkum!

Such claims sound very, very hollow as this would mean that all the great masters who preceded us were incompetent souls including Hahnemann, Kent and Hering! The wisdom of the rules of homeopathy are the result of two centuries of clinical experience, not religious dogma, fundamentalism or fanaticism.

It is not always easy to be diplomatic when one is being called derogatory names and the blood, sweat and hard work of one's experience is being called dogma.

Some practitioners ask, "Why go through all the trouble and work to use the watery solutions of the 5th and 6th edition, when I have satisfactory results using the dry dose of the 4th edition?" For some using bottles, spoons, brandy, etc., is just too "expensive" and too great a bother. It is just so "easy" to throw an undetermined amount of pills in someone's mouth.

The answer is simple.

• Do you want to treat the most chronically ill with their strong miasmatic background?

• Do you want to prevent unneeded similar aggravation?

• Do you want to treat the most sensitive patients, a group which seems to increase daily in numbers?

• Do you want to speed up the time to cure by half, a quarter or less the time that it takes with a dry dose?

• Do you want to be successful with heavily suppressed cases and with illnesses deemed "incurable"?

• Do you want to use Hahnemann's most advanced methods and walk in his footsteps?

If you do, then this book is for you. What do you have to lose? That your patient is cured more rapidly? That you seem to be able to help people more than other homeopaths? That your patient suffers less and often has no similar aggravation? It is a win-win situation for homeopath and patient alike.

So far, few have responded to Hahnemann's promises of 1833 (5th edition), and 1842 (6th edition). A little more effort and dedication from the homeopath will be well worth the efforts to relieve the suffering of mankind.

Let's remember Hahnemann's warning:

'I must warn the reader that indolence, love of ease and obstinacy preclude effective service at the altar of truth, and truly freedom from prejudice and untiring zeal qualify for the most sacred of all human occupations, the practice of the true system of medicine.'
(1810, Preface to First Edition of the Organon)

Let's also remember Mark Twain's immortal words: "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you want."

It is in the spirit of studiousness and accuracy that I offer this work. May it unite all homeopaths. If some challengers can overcome their repugnance to what they deem as "mere blind faith and fanaticism," they will find much to learn.

The door is open!

Dr. Luc De Schepper

HSNC does NOT provide any form of treatments. HSNC offers educational information and resources to parents on classical homeopathy.
Read Disclaimer. Copyright 2005-2008 by Homeopathy for Special Needs Children (HSNC), Kari J. Kindem, Director.
All rights reserved.  Web development by Creative Group Design.