Rational Homoeopathy

The Homeopathic Compendium

I was really looking forward to reading this book. The blurb on the Internet (i.e., the back cover) promised: ‘clear, concise information presented in a methodical way […] to fully understand homeopathy’, by ‘a scholar of the writings of Samuel Hahnemann’.

The book arrived: hardback, concise indeed (159 pages), maybe a little old-fashioned looking. No information about the author who, according to an Internet search, is a qualified Heilpraktiker (i.e. holding the qualifications required in Germany for a lay person to practise any type of complementary therapy), living and working in homeopathic practice in Ireland for many years.

The book launches straight into the foreword, written by the author himself. (Indeed, there is no commentary from anybody else in the book.) At this point, my eyebrows rose in astonishment:

I completely dissected, checked and then reformulated and rearranged […] [the] ‘Organon of the healing art’. Obsolete and contradicting sections were omitted. I added my own findings and clarifications to fill the gaps left in Hahnemann's Organon.

And Hans Weitbrecht did! The first third of the book is the proposed ‘concise, easy to understand Organon of Homeopathy’. In 168 new aphorisms, Weitbrecht summarizes and rewords his own interpretation of the Organon. Similarities to the original are obvious at times, not so at others. There is no reference to the original work that is which aphorisms are being quoted. Weitbrecht claims that the original work by Hahnemann was too ‘difficult and tedious’ and he seems to believe that his work is clearer to understand. However, I found the introduction of new definitions, for example, of the grading of symptoms very confusing indeed.

Weitbrecht holds some strong views, especially in regards to patients taking conventional medication (‘cases of artificial disease are incurable’) and of placing emphasis on the patient's ‘psychological profile’ or ‘to “understand” the patient’. Any classification, in regards to kingdoms or miasms etc., needs to be avoided.

Next in the book follows the study guide: 11 pages of suggestions about which books to read (Hahnemann, Boenninghausen and Boger) and how to study Materia Medica. The author kindly reminds us that we will need a notebook, ruler and coloured pencils too!

Then follow a few pages on Q potencies (LM potencies) and 50 pages with 10 clinical cases. Some of these give more detail as to the reasoning behind the (often frequently changed) prescriptions, others I felt were lacking.

The book ends with what seems to be odds and ends: guidelines on healthy lifestyle, a ‘dialogue’ on classifications and a history of homeopaths (J. T. Kent, no surprise, is mentioned only in passing).

What do I make of the book? I am absolutely astounded that any homeopath would claim the need to re-write the principles of our philosophy as they have been defined by Hahnemann, and to claim that they, in effect, know better! I simply cannot recommend this book to anybody and will not be passing it on to a second-hand bookshop even, as I fear that it can create huge misunderstandings as to what and how homeopathy treats and heals diseases.