The Structural Remedy Myth — Is It Real?

You go to a homeopath; the remedies you are given make you feel better, there is a sense of wellbeing that comes from having shared with your homeopath — but there is no improvement in your core complaints. You still have your pain; life is still hard. Yet you love your homeopath very much. One day they will find that right remedy, and all the problems will be solved. You hear sentences like "this isn't your constitutional one." You wait, assuming that once that constitutional remedy — whatever it is — is found, everything will be resolved.

Unfortunately, what you are facing is a misreading of homeopathy, of Hahnemann and of the Organon. Nowhere in the Organon does Hahnemann say anything like "there is a constitutional remedy; there is only one, and it helps all complaints." In other words, there is no such search, and no such rule, in the homeopathic system.

Hahnemann tells us to find the simillimum, the remedy resembling ALL the PRESENT complaints, and to start the process with it. Then, once the picture changes after that remedy, he tells us to give a new one; he advises changing the remedy as the picture changes. (Aphorisms 171 and 173)

Yes, he tells us to take complaints on the mental-emotional plane into account. But what is meant here is to also consider the mental-emotional symptoms that have changed along with the state of illness. Like not giving the same remedy to someone who wants to see no one when they have the flu, and to someone who suddenly becomes talkative and wants everyone by their side. He does not speak of searching for a single remedy to match every trait of the patient — let alone an approach that pushes bodily complaints to the background and looks for the problem in the spirit.

The origin of the myth: Dr. James Tyler Kent

All this constitutional-remedy confusion came about thanks to Dr. James Tyler Kent — a homeopath who lived in America some 80 years after Hahnemann.

Kent was a devout aristocrat attached to the Swedenborg church, and he interpreted disease as the result of "spiritual disturbance." He described remedies as "character portraits" that would help with it. He had sayings like "our spirit is ill; the cause of diseases lies in the spirit."

Naturally, the aristocratic and Christian circles embraced him. He said he gave his cases a single remedy, and that because their spiritual disturbances healed, their physical problems healed too. He pushed the body to the background and looked for the problem on an invisible plane. He claimed that the medicine for spiritual disturbance lay in one true remedy, and that if we found it, all bodily problems would pass.

Yet curiously, in the books containing his notes we see today that Kent, too, gave more than one remedy in the clinic. In other words, what he said and what he did did not match. Because his first aim was to popularise homeopathy and to ensure that the community he belonged to gained acceptance on such a controversial subject without drawing reaction.

Then this understanding spread from America to the whole world. Most homeopaths called themselves "Classical Homeopaths" while actually practising Kentian homeopathy. A brand-new confusion of concepts was created right there.

Today, most homeopaths in the world think they are working in Hahnemann's way while chasing this magical constitutional remedy. When they don't get the effect they expect from a remedy, they hope for benefit from newly proven remedies, or suppose that the stubborn, unresolved picture will resolve once they change the potency. Whereas all they need to do is look for the SIMILLIMUM OF THE MOMENT instead of a constitutional remedy. Even basing your observation on the chief complaint and building on it will change a great deal at the start — trust me.

The constitutional remedy myth is built on the illusion of a soulmate remedy — one that helps all complaints and never changes throughout life. It is the notion that if we find this magical remedy, give a single dose and wait for months, that miraculous healing will eventually take place.

One exception: those who stay in the constitution they were born with

I must note one exception. In my practice, a group of clients not exceeding 10–15 per cent genuinely stays in the constitution they were born with, lifelong. Their head still sweats in sleep as it did in childhood; they move slowly; they take great satisfaction in living in the safe place of the city they were born in, never having left it (Calc-carb). Yes — these people do have a single simillimum, and they benefit from that remedy throughout their lives. Technically, their constitutional remedies work lifelong and help all complaints, true.

However, in this age, finding such a high level of health has become a rare natural occurrence. In fact, we have come to see mostly one-sided diseases that give few signs. So moving forward by changing remedies has become a necessity.

One-sided diseases: a parenthesis for students

I would like to open the subject up a little for students by looking at the observation of "one-sided diseases" in the Organon. In these patients — whom Hahnemann called difficult cases — you can find no sign of their chronic disease beyond one or two marked symptoms. In this situation, making interpretations about a mental-emotional picture is also absurd; because there is nothing observable whatsoever beyond the one or two signs the vital force puts forward.

In this case Hahnemann tells us: "give a simillimum by looking only at these observable signs." This remedy brings out the other symptoms that the vital force did not have the strength to bring out; a set of signs begins to become observable. Before the remedy, the patient says "I only have a severe headache; its side and sensation are unclear, and I have no other problem at all," while after the remedy they say "my feet are very hot, and my headache always starts above my right eye; also, every morning and evening I crave spicy food." Now we have a totality of symptoms and signs from which to give the simillimum. Bit by bit, the case shows itself to us. And we adapt to it and change the remedy.

So most of us do not have a vital force that will heal with a single remedy; on the contrary, we need a group of remedies that must be changed as our complaints change. And for that, we need the close and careful observation of the homeopath. In fact, many states that look like a healing crisis are actually new symptom pictures emerging, signalling that it is time for a new remedy. (see Is a Healing Crisis Necessary?)

Read the Organon — your mind will clear on all of this, promise

In other words, he says: leave aside theories about the hidden, inner causes of disease; take into account what you actually observe.

These remedies given one after another are mostly "complementary remedies" that follow each other well. That is another marvellous topic — I explained it in this article: (see Remedy Maps)

I do not think Hahnemann ever said to a patient who came for follow-up with their chief complaint still continuing at the same intensity, "but look, your face is smiling; your vital force has risen — your chief complaint will pass too," or to a patient struggling with a healing crisis, "look, you're saying you sleep better; your remedy is working, bear it a little longer." I think he looked at the picture in front of him, observed well through which symptoms the vital force was speaking to us, and changed the remedy.

By doing exactly this — remaining an observer and always seeking the simillimum — you can solve both the healing-crisis problem and that problem of the chief complaint that will not go away.

A small example

We all have a base remedy underneath; a remedy picture that holds the characteristics of the constitution we were born with. As a child I would never eat; I was very skinny, yet I always walked around with a bloated belly. I was introverted; I would hide when guests came to the house. I was terrified of needles; I would always fall ill before exams. Yes — this person was born with a Silica constitution. But did she remain Silica? She could not — because her tonsils were removed, and instead of sore throats she began having lung infections. Her genital discharge increased, and she began having frequent urinary tract infections. Her parents fought a lot; in recent years she clung to her mother so they wouldn't leave her. On top of that, her first love left her. Layer upon layer, other remedy layers were added.

The question is this: what is the symptom the vital force is offering us right now? Where is the vital force shouting at us from? The urinary tract, the lung infection, the attachment to the mother? Or all of them? And what makes these complaints better or worse, and when? (modalities) How is her body temperature, in what position does she sleep? How are her liver and thyroid; is her digestion working well? (generals)

If you give this girl Silica merely because she is still shy and still afraid of needles — without doing all this investigation to find the simillimum — not only will her chief complaints not improve, you will also cause a HEALING CRISIS. (see Is a Healing Crisis Necessary?)

No problem — there is a solution for all of them. Kisses to you all.