What We Must Not Do In Homoeopathy – 1

The first part of the book is purely a translation of the article of Dr. Bernoville mentioned in the References. The second part of this book is a summary of ideas about the diagnosis of the patient by the help of morphology so long put forth in different journals of France by the French homoeopathic doctors and specially by Dr. Leon Vannier in his books referred in the References.


True homoeopathic treatment and its success depend on three things:

1. The diagnosis of the Patient.

2. The diagnosis of the Disease.

3. The diagnosis of the Remedy.

In each case there are several causes which may lead us to make errors. The object of this book is to set down some general principles which will safeguard the new as well as the old from making errors in diagnosing the patient, the disease and the remedy.

The first part of the book is purely a translation of the article of Dr. Bernoville mentioned in the References. The second part of this book is a summary of ideas about the diagnosis of the patient by the help of morphology so long put forth in different journals of France by the French homoeopathic doctors and specially by Dr. Leon Vannier in his books referred in the References.

The illustrations are tracing from Dr. Vanniers books for which he has very kindly given authorisation.

I hope that my colleagues of India will surely find something new and interesting in this book which will, I am sure, be helpful in their practice.

Last of all my thanks to the publisher who has very kindly financed the publication of the book.

Chapter 1


The result obtained in Homoeopathic therapeutics are extremely variable according to the method of application of remedies. The medical science is an art with two principles: The principle of prescription and the principle of practice. The same is the case with Homoeopathy as well as in other science of medicine. We must know that the results may be excellent or on the contrary negative or inexistant or even replaced by violent aggravations if we do some errors about the:

1. Tinctures

2. Doses

3. Repetition of doses.

4. Time of the application of doses.

5. And last of all there are some particular cases for some particular medicines.


The part played by a Homoeopathic doctor does not consist alone in treating the patient. He should at the same time control the value of the fabrication of medicines supplied to him by the pharmacists from different laboratories. One error which one can do in this regard is the result of the ignorance of the origin of a remedy and this is very important. It is then necessary that we must know how the Homoeopathic medicines should be manufactured. Hahnemann gave a solution of the problem in a very simple manner during his time. He completely ignored the part which a pharmacist can play in the preparation of medicines.

He himself used to prepare his medicines and even now there are a number of homoeopaths in different countries who, faithful to the principle of their master, prepare their medicines themselves and directly apply these medicines to their patients. This is no doubt illegal and moreover it is not a progress. We must call it a regression because it is not possible for us to have all the up-to-date machines and all the personnel employed for the preparation of two to three thousands of medicines that we require.

It is however, necessary that we know how the homoeopathic medicines are prepared, if not we may be victims of a wrong preparation. It is for this reason the homoeopaths in France have in the beginning decided that the homoeopathic medicines are to be prepared by the specialised homoeopathic pharmacists. But the doctors as well as the specialised homoeopathic pharmacists ought to know how to prepare the homoeopathic medicines.


As regards the MINERAL KINGDOM the control is easy. A mineral substance should be taken as a remedy. You may say that it should be taken pure and well prepared. But this is not all and neither it is true. When Hahnemann and others obtained a pathogenesis departing from a substance, it is necessary that we should depart from the same substance, even if it not purified, while the pharmacist, obsessed by the principles of modern chemistry, tries for purifying in an absolute manner their substances of mineral origin, though sometimes they find that these substances are less active.

A classical example: Hahnemann prepared Calcarea Carbonica from the shell of the egg of ostrich-from the portion which is found in between the external and the internal surfaces of the egg shell. It is no doubt Carbonate of Lime but it also contains trace so other minerals and marine substances. Therefore, it is not necessary to use the absolutely purified Carbonate of Lime but the egg-shell of ostrich itself for the preparation of Calcarea Carbonica. This may be considered as a general rule for all substances of mineral origin. It is preferable to depart from the mineral substances in their natural state.

The mineral substances are valuable medicines in the form as they are found in the natural state. They act generally better in the living organism. On the contrary the chemical substances are, for some medicines of secondary importance. Why? This requires no explanation. If we wish to use some dilutions of Pyramidon or Arseno-benzol we will find that they are rarely useful. But there are exceptions. As for example the Arsenic Compound of Bayer 205, has been very successfully used in dilutions of 200 and 1000,in azotemia – at least in some cases of Azotemia (The dilutions of Penicillin are also now used in France with very interesting results).

It should therefore, be a principle that we must not have our mind haunted by the idea of absolutely purity. There are some homoeopaths who go further and say that when water is used it should be used as it is in the place of distilled or bi-distilled water. It should also be decided whether for some products, the water from the source containing Carbonate of Calcium should be used instead of bi-distilled water. Some researches are to be made in this regard.

From the point of view of the mineral kingdom we have yet another rule which requires elucidations. It is the FREQUENT NECESSITY OF REPLACING THE PURE METAL BY ITS OXIDE. It seems that Cuprum Oxide is more interesting than Cuprum itself both having the same indications. The former is more active.

The case is the same with Bromides. Mr. Berne has shown that when we depart from a metal fro the fabrication of some medicines, we can not be absolutely sure whether the substance will remain pure in course of the preparation. Thus Zincum Metallicum will transform itself into Zinc Oxide in the process of preparation. The same thing may be said of Alluminium, Iron, and for all the metals (neither gold nor platinum).

Besides, except the very heavy metals, there is hardly any difference between the metal oxide and metal pure. For this reason it is better to oxidise the metal before preparing a medicine from it. In practice, take for example when you use a remedy having for its origin Cuprum Metallicum, which has not given expected results, you must try Cuprum Oxide which may prove to be more active having the same indications as that of Cuprum Metallicum.

Sometimes it is necessary to prefer some salts to others. This is not a rule in Homoeopathy; it is a rule of chemotherapy. In Homoeopathy we have two such examples. A classical example: Argentum Nitricum, the Nitrate of Silver – a remedy having an action though different to that of Silver metal, yet more deep and much more important. For this reason this remedy is very frequently used. There is another example which, as I have very often pointed out, is that of Plumbum Aceticum.

Since two or three years I have replaced my prescription of Lead Plumbum Aceticum which is much more active. Lead is a metal whose action is very well known to us. The pathogenesis of plumbum and of all its salts have been enriched by vocational in-toxications. On the other hand we also know marvellously well the anatomy and pathology of the lesions caused by the lead. But when we apply our knowledge to Homoeopathy we very often meet with some failures even when

Plumbum is indicated, while plumbum Aceticum has at least a much more interesting action in muscular atrophies of neuritis and poly-neuritis. Plumbum Metallicum does not act well in these cases. The Acetates of metal provokes some pains and some other acute phenomena which its metal cannot. Can we explain this fact by the help of chemical reaction? This is also a case of research.

On the other hand the simple acids are not the remedies of first importance in Homoeopathy. They are less important than the metalloids. Phosphoric Acid is not as valuable as Phosphorus. Sulphuric Acid has very much the less value than sulphur. The acids have for themselves some common indications which are primary to all acids. As for example the general symptom, the DEBILITY.

Some cases of debility may be covered by Muriatic Acid as well as by the Sulphuric Acid. Thus you will get amelioration of pains resulting out of hyperacidity by applying Muriatic Acid, Sulphuric Acid and Nitric Acid. Sulphuric Acid acts longer but it should be remembered that you may apply the one or the other but their action is secondary and functional which will ameliorate hyperacidity but will not cure it.

Rajkumar Mukerjee