To be or not to be hannehmanian? Homeopathy

To be or not be Hahnemanian? Homeopathy.

Horrified by the fallacy that was the official medicine of the time, Hannehman  moved away and started to devote himself to other things, as history records.

He would actually develop a new medicine, committed to the seductive idea of a quick, smooth and lasting cure.

He rescued and perfected, from antiquity, the fundamental idea that the symptoms produced by the drug, tested in trials in healthy men and proven at the bedside of the sick, should mirror as much as possible, the symptoms presented by the patient.

He erected trial in healthy men cornerstone in the development of materia medica pura.

Facing the enormous challenge of chronic diseases, he anticipated, in some respects in a more relevant way, modern genetics and DNA.

He was an awakened spirit, a keen intelligence, a researcher and a tireless worker, very creative in life and in homeopathic medicine.

He bequeathed us all, we are grateful for that or not, the safety of materia medica, the invaluable understanding of miasmas and this extraordinary law of similarity, which guides us all the time, drawn by him from history and nature.

Many other giants came after and simultaneously also, famous and anonymous, and with their mistakes and successes, they let us as inheritance, repertoires, clinical cases, many more remedies and good computer programs.

Everyone worked hard, as we also work to that homeopathy can serve more and more to the cause of health and human happiness in peace on earth.

I can not name all the famous, neither all our heroic and anonymous office's homeopaths, who have dedicated and dedicate their lives to this cause so beautiful.

Jose Alberto Moreno, too, is an example of the cooperative and multitudinous character of modern homeopathy construction. In its fabulous Materia Medica we found absolutely unique and extraordinarily relevant information.

Our beloved teacher Eliete informs us that the great Kent had suffered in the last years of life, for taking too much Lachesis ... I've heard comments founded on some little mistakes done by the great master Samuel Hannehman, too.

How to build a so fabulous heritage for the benefit of humanity, without making a few inaccuracies?

Errare humanum est ... It's not how they spell?

Jan Scholten has surely committed some mistakes and probably will still commit others, but disposing of the table of elements, that Samuel Hanehman could not afford, in his time, he realized that linking the table contents with the contents of the consolidated materia medica, he got that thousands of medicines were yet to be discovered, tested and applied.

Jan Scholten worked for years with the view to identifying these remedies, as of possible elemental compositions, and made more: he related this fabulous collection of information and knowledge with the archetypes of Carl Jung's work, reaching surprising Key Notes for his new and abundant drugs.

For putting the famous "provings" as a step in the drug discovery process and expansion of materia medica and no longer as the only way to come up with new drugs, is not Jan Scholten, Hanehmanian?

Kent, who so much has borrowed from Hering, ceased to be hannehmanian by working with high power? Indians who do so are not? Those who proclaim not to be, they are not, really?

We are all heirs, grateful or not, of this giant of science and human happiness, which was Samuel Hannehman!