Jeremy Sherr (bio) has published provings of Scorpion,
Chocolate, and Hydrogen that are appreciated as
valuable additions to our homeopathic literature.
Through his Dynamis School he offers superior education in homeopathy.
AH - What are the most important books in your practice?
In philosophy, number one is the Organon; then all of Kent's writings. Then Chronic Diseases. In terms of philosophy these are my mainstay books. Many of the rest are repetition of the same ideas.
In terms of Materia medica, the two main books that I use are Kent and Allen. I use Allen a lot, all the time.
In clinical settings I use Phatak and Boericke. But when I'm studying a remedy, I use Allen or Kent.
Allen has all the provings and most of the stuff from Hahnemann as well. Hering is great, but Hering used only the clinically proved symptoms, whereas Allen has all the symptoms, clinical and proven. Allen retains the language of the patients and the provers and tells us who proved what symptom.
So you can see, okay, that's Mrs. Smith age 54 that-and-that, and she ate the wrong mushroom. You can see if it's a toxicological symptom or the affect of a 10M.
Clarke, Tyler, Anshutz- they all have a use. It is a dynamic thing; each book has to be used for what it's good for.
One of the projects I'm trying to instigate is that a lot of the provings are toxicological information. For instance, most of the remedies aren't proved.
If you look at Allen's Encyclopaedia most of it is poisonings - Phosphorus, Plumbum, even remedies that we think are well proven are mostly toxicological.
Kent said, "Since the time of Hahnemann, there haven't been twenty-five good provings". And since the time of Kent, there have hardly been five. There have been provings, but not full ones.
So a lot of the information is toxicological, which makes it incomplete.
What I'd like to instigate is based on the fact that today we have so much toxicological information. We have huge, immense, databases of toxicological information that could fill another fifty volumes of Allen's Encyclopaedia.
It's out there and it's easily accessible on the computer.
AH - I like it. How do we start?
You would go to a medical university or a library and find the information, do a search on the computer. You may search for "Thallium and poisoning", "Thallium and toxicology", "Thallium and chemistry", "Thallium and symptoms" etc., - you mix it up.
You get all the symptoms, then you've got to arrange them in the homoeopathic schema, and you have to put them by degrees; you have to say, "Thallium produces baldness in 90 percent of the people, so that's bold type."
Each symptom should state whether it came from toxicology in humans or from rats, etc. Then convert to repertory - not easy but a learning experience.
AH - What else?
All homeopaths need to meet to discuss repertories and how to make additions to repertories, because this is one of the worst areas of homeopathy today, the way additions are made. It's a mess, to my mind.
There are six, seven different repertories, and they've all been added to. Everybody adds in a different way, everybody adds with a different philosophy, with a different scoring of what is black type, italics, and low type.
What we're getting is so much diversity of homeopathy, so much mish-mash. Now, I appreciate the people who are carefully doing this work, like Roger van Zandvoort and the Synthesis people. But it is important to have a common standard. If Philips and Sony can, we can.
AH - What would you say is a minimum standard for a repertory addition?
The minimum standard is that it comes from a proving. If it's not from a proving, then you should have seen it in more than one case. I mean, the perfect addition is of a symptom that aggravated, ameliorated, and then vanished for a long time.
Now, not every symptom is perfect like that, but I've seen additions where one person saw a couple of cases, and they added it immediately as black type. So now that symptom is black type, above and beyond other remedies that have been there for 200 years. Weird. We are adding too easily and too loosely.
The rubrics are not thought about deeply enough; Remedies get added in sensation of isolation when maybe they should be in estranged from family.
Remedies get added in black type when they should be in plain type. I think all clinical information should be added in plain type. We should discuss whether we are adding by frequency or intensity. Half the people are adding by frequency, half by intensity, big confusion.
As far as I know, Kent added by frequency of provers producing a symptom. But we have to agree on a format, and it's not that easy.
For instance, if you have eight people producing irritability, you can add it in black type, but if you have a symptom &qout;red stool with green spots&qout; - strange, rare, and peculiar - and three people get it, it is a strongly emphasized symptom. I wouldn't mind giving bold type on that, because - two people having a red stool with green spots - wow! Whereas, &qout;irritability&qout; - everybody and their uncle has it.
Also, are we talking number of provers or percentage? And how do you measure intensity?