Swan gave us the nosode Syphilinum and later Abrams reinforced the argument, but like other isopathic remedies it has not taken a very strong hold on the profession….

Hahnemann’s Sulphur has amply justified itself as the greatest of antipsorics; but greater cleanliness has lessened the need for it considerably. On the other hand our recent moral let down has increased the demand for an equally effectual antisyphilitic.

Swan gave us the nosode Syphilinum and later Abrams reinforced the argument, but like other isopathic remedies it has not taken a very strong hold on the profession; probably because the provings are notably fragmentary and weak and also for the reason that its use rests too largely upon presumptive evidence, being in fact almost entirely empirical.

Mercury, Syphilinum and 606 each at times yields almost startling results, but at others fails miserably. All specifics have the habit of doing this, because they are only occasionally indicated. There can be no greater fallacy than to chose remedies on the basis of diagnosis and percentage; yet this is very largely the general custom.

Disease never runs exactly true to form. The variations from case to case contain the very incidents which enable the prescriber to choose the curative similar. This one remedy and this only will again restore vital harmony in the very best possible way; all others modify sickness only, and no more. Provings which decidedly portray disease forms are the very ones that betray us onto suppression if not skilfully used. This accounts for many false cures that have often, deceived both patient and doctor. The true similimum often redevelops these disease pictures; an impossibility had there been a genuine cure.

The manifestations of tertiary syphilis multiply as our information increases; so that for the purpose of final, individual differentiation we must perforce fall back upon the personal elements of each case. Fortunately these are the very ones needed to build up a correct clinical picture of the remedy which will cure.

Usually leutic patients have suffered many abuses before they fall in with good homoeopathy;then unless some one drug is clearly indicated, it is well to give this nosode to clarify and put in order the confused symptom array. Then it is that an unexpectedly long reaction often follows; but it always stops short of actual cure, which can only be accomplished with the aid of the patient’s constitutional antipsoric remedy.

C.M. Boger
Cyrus Maxwell Boger 5/ 13/ 1861 "“ 9/ 2/ 1935
Born in Western Pennsylvania, he graduated from the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and subsequently Hahnemann Medical College of Philadelphia. He moved to Parkersburg, W. Va., in 1888, practicing there, but also consulting worldwide. He gave lectures at the Pulte Medical College in Cincinnati and taught philosophy, materia medica, and repertory at the American Foundation for Homoeopathy Postgraduate School. Boger brought BÅ“nninghausen's Characteristics and Repertory into the English Language in 1905. His publications include :
Boenninghausen's Characteristics and Repertory
Boenninghausen's Antipsorics
Boger's Diphtheria, (The Homoeopathic Therapeutics of)
A Synoptic Key of the Materia Medica, 1915
General Analysis with Card Index, 1931
Samarskite-A Proving
The Times Which Characterize the Appearance and Aggravation of the Symptoms and their Remedies