Erratum to: Constitutional Treatment versus Clinical Homeopathy

In the illuminating article “Constitutional Treatment versus Clinical Homeopathy” by Dr. Christoph Abermann in the last issue of 2017, an illustration that was made by the author has by mistake been altered during the final lay-out of the journal [Homœopathic Links 2017;30(4):233]. DOI of the article is 10.1055/s-0037-1608935. In [Fig. 4] on page 233 the author portrayed the two methods graphically.

Fig. 4 Two tool kits

The patient on the left requires for his or her complaints (pains in left knee, angered by trifles and gastritis) a constitutional remedy as suitable as possible to all his symptoms; the patient on the right requires a clinical remedy first, the search for which is determined only by the symptoms of the stomach carcinoma and the ailments in other parts of the body, originating at the same time. The permanent anger over trifles and the knee pains are to be ignored for the time being and only after a definite improvement of the abdominal carcinoma to be drawn on in the search for a constitutionally suitable remedy. For this reason these two symptoms have been crossed out in the right side of the illustration. These strike-throughs were missing in last year's publication, for which we apologize to the author and the readers.