Never mind that we have to deal with the details outlined in Aphorism 2. “The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.” Like what if it’s rapid, but not gentle or vice versa or if it could have been permanent but was not rapid (here is where you lose the patient)? All the possible configurations are nothing unless you do the ideal cure which means what it says, cure. Nothing else will do for our master, the one and only Mr. Sammy H. (And forget that there are 291 Aphorisms in our beloved Organon and that these are essentially instructions for us to adhere to).
And, as well, since Hahnemann, that there are other experiences/interpretations of our principles that are often based on sound theoretical ideas and clinical evidence that we really ought to pay some attention to.
So, when do we take heed of something and when do we say to ourselves, “this is a phase and it too shall pass…”?
I am not advocating that we ride buckshot and just be happy to get the remedy and not worry if we’ve got the potency and dosing right. Or that we “just” get the right remedy and then wipe our hands of the matter as to whether we are really on target and progressing according to Herring’s Law and other such guidelines. No, not at all. I am really all about complexity and love a challenge.
But really, how to take into account the progress of homeopathy and still know that we are not going off on some tangent and getting lost along the way forgetting not only our roots, but potentially doing harm.
The opening quote is from the Preface of a nice little book that is quite well done: nice and neat really, yet, complex to a degree. It is Emlyn Thomas’s Homeopathy for Sports, Exercise and Dance. For laypersons, occupational therapists, along with homeopaths. I would recommend it as a great general quick reference for specific injuries to local areas and also, for treatment of susceptibility to injury and to enhance performance. This one replaces, for me, others to do with muscle-skeletal issues. Granted, they are all really welcome for this is where people essentially suffering from injuries may turn in desperation to our modality. The old last resort.
What I like about the Thomas book and why I am not afraid when I read it is that it embraces complicated or complex aspects of the patient, the complaint itself, and the remedy state but allows for you to make a prescription.
Over the last couple of years –without this book – I never had success in treating any injuries unless they responded immediately to either Ruta, Hypericum, Arnica, Ledum or Symphytum. If there was anything longstanding about the injury or some underlying reason for it then it was nearly impossible for me to have any success. I was badly trained in this area – it was all about getting the Constitutional at our school…now, I am retrying and hope to do injuries as I do colds, coughs and flus (which I have always loved to do, despite an inadequate training in this area as well). I agree on the use of intermittents that Luc de Schepper and others speak of as a failing in our profession and feel that some modern homeopaths are bent on the one remedy for everything. Like, what if, in the meantime, your patient has a cough or cold they can’t shake – go for it with an acute remedy and, maybe, in the end it will lead you to the simillimum!
For me, the sign of a good clinical book is that I can apply it and not just have it sit on my shelf looking pretty. Now, with something that’s not so self-contained as in a topic or issue that we have to contend with in homeopathy, what happens when the issue already is complex and, therefore, by nature of its complexity is contentious. Cause, let’s face it, we homeopaths are all about a good argument – if there is something to debate we will argue our point….some of us like to hear ourselves talk for the sake of talking but really there is barely a topic that doesn’t stir up a good discussion for us.
One such topic that everyone automatically finds complex is Miasms. An issue that is contentious and has been from the start – even supporters of Hahnemann during his time thought that he was unnecessarily adding to a perfect system, even though it was their own master/founder of homeopathic medicine was proposing to use and classify remedies into Miasms. So, many just choose to ignore what he was establishing to be superimposed onto and later to, actually, fit the existing homeopathic system into: the theory of Miasms. BTW, that be my little take based on what I read in a few books that all have good introductions to the history of Miasmatic theory, especially Miasms and Nosodes. These ones in order of appearance and sophistication as they came into my life were Luc de Schepper, Grant Bentley and Louis Klein. A few others in between – namely Scholten and Sankaran being big in there for sure and classified by myself as being equally sophisticated to Klein and vice versa…but, I now place Klein in a league of his own on the Miasm front.
There have been numerous works on Miasms and, naturally, the above rest on the shoulders of the others. Bentley and Klein outline chronologically these previous authors that are the basis of keeping our community up to speed on Miasms and keeping alive an aspect of Hahnemann that would have been swept under the carpet if some homeopaths had their way. They reference them in relation to documenting the evolution of Miasmatic theory but also to put into context their own experience of using Miasms in practice.
Luc de Schepper from what I can remember really just outlines what is in Chronic Diseases. I leant out Hahnemann Revisited to a friend, but who?? So, I can’t really remark in depth here: this textbook-like book is a worthy cause, but since Hahnemann himself was already seeing that his 3 main Miasms may have needed to be expanded – hence, Pseudo-Psora or Tubercular Miasm already having some remedies under them. IMO, it is never a good thing to say that Hahnemann would not have approved of deviating from his own work. He himself was doing it all the time.
In fact it is rather absurd to claim that one should only stick to the Organon and Chronic Diseases when Hahnemann himself was all about continuing to develop and grow in terms of his work thru experimentation/clinical experience. I learned just now in Louis Klein’s book, a nosode of Tuberculinum was in fact in use by Hahnemann himself before he died. Like many other progressive modern homeopaths I also believe that our master would have continued to find more Miasms in time. So, he essentially started with three Miasms but was on the verge of having a fourth one. And since we are all fond of speculating if he lived another 20 - 30 years (or more? Now we should be reasonable here – how old can one be and still be churning out new editions of a book? Talk about writers cramp, no keyboard…poor chap!)….Anyways, even another 10 years and I’d wager he would have added Malarial and, maybe…Typhoid or Pertussis as Miasms.
At any rate, despite my criticism, this is a good piece of work to supplement any course and Hahnemann’s seminal works: http://www.narayana-publishers.com/Hahnemann-Revisited/Luc-De-Schepper/b1055. When I get it back, I can see myself referencing it in future. Would have been good to have when doing my foundation education – along with keeping Kent’s philosophy and others on hand to keep on track/broaden things up a bit as Schepper can be somewhat narrow in purpose, but, definitely worth the read.
The Grant Bentley book with its nice and neat historical outline really impressed me about a year ago. The Seven Miasms of Bentley are cool – but, interestingly enough Sankaran’s and Scholten’s work is not even mentioned in his work. (http://www.narayana-publishers.com/Appearance-and-Circumstance/Grant-Bentley/b3454) I would nonetheless recommend it as a read. I also hear his Soul and Survival is fascinating and will have a look at it in the future. It has a historical/evolutionary bent and I just love that kind of thing! (I would be a Warrior out of his 7 roles, definitely not a farmer.)
The facial diagnosis thing is warranted and comes closer to what I see in Klein’s work as logically the closest we have to incorporating Hahnemann’s Miasms and modern science. As far as hereditary and genetic predisposition along with up to date biological theory that our founder certainly didn’t have access to we jump up a big step with the Bentley system – as with Sankaran and Scholten for different reason – and really, big time, with Klein. With Miasms and Nosodes: Orgins of Disease I we get the missing link.
I understand Schepper not touching on Scholten and Sankaran as he’s somewhat of a polycrest prescriber, with not much more than Hahnemann’s remedy kit to draw on. To give the man credit, I had bought and used intensely all his books for a period of 6 – 8 months…and it was totally great as needed to switch from the centesimal scale and dry dosing only (now I do a bit of everything, depending on what is called for in each situation, I am adaptable if need be…so, sorry friends that I ranted on about the Paris notebooks and how you were ignorant for not reading Luc de Schepper just because he was my Gura and all that – in fact, I think I was channeling his energy – as he is to Hahnemann, I was to Schepper…it was a crazy phase).
But with Bentley not emphasizing through remedy selection in the end...that there are Miasms based on different diseases that we have genetically/energetically is something very different considering that he opens with the facial features based on actual diseases of our ancestors. But, I feel, that his work is not really much more than what Hahnemann had come up with; four of his seven Miasms are really just combinations of the three initial Miasms that Hahnemann discovered/used.
Granted the combination Miasms have their own distinct MM. He’s classifying remedies under his seven Miasms by success in cases and seeing what facial features the patients have had. If there is a match with a set of features that matches what he has determined to be of a certain Miasm then those are the facial features of that Miasm. When a patient did well on a remedy then that remedy gets placed into the Miasm – and in this way he sees that certain facial features are similar with people of certain remedies. Now, I am getting mixed up cause I can’t remember which came first – it’s the old chicken and egg dilemma…but, really, again limited remedies in use is my issue with this.
Nonetheless, I was certainly sold – I recall doing it with movie’s that I thought I could classify as being in a certain Miasm – Mike Leigh’s Happy-Go-Lucky was totally a Tubercular and Cancerous film in terms of the 2 main characters and the colours (Bentley has colours that go with his Miasms and the colours in the film around these characters were always a match). Also, the feel of the characters matched the Miasms. The tubercular like one was fruitlessly busy/aimless - not unlike the pace of the case referred to by Sankaran and his way to get at the Miasm re- reaction to stimulus, problem, sensation, etc.
So now, I bring you to Miasms and Nosodes by Louis Klein. But, having been thrilled with Bentley (not that I was applying it in practice – do the films count?) it wasn’t without a fight that I went to this book.
I will say though that I am so glad I did because when I read Chronic Diseases it was like a death sentence. When we read Hahnemann on Miasms it really can be a total downer.
You may recall the sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach as well when you read his words: “All chronic disease of mankind…show much constancy and perseverance, that as soon as they have developed and have not been thoroughly healed by the medical art, they evermore increase with the years, and during the whole man’s life time, and they can not be diminished by the strengths belonging even to the most robust constitution. Still less can they be overcome and extinguished. Thus they never pass away of themselves, but increase and are aggravated even till death. They must therefore, all have for their origin and foundation constant Chronic miasms, whereby their parasitical existence in the human organism is enabled to continually rise and grow.” (p. 9)
Quick aside to note: a couple more books that I came across in my search in applying Miasmatic theory. The above bummer situation was addressed for me in one little book that I still like – so sweet, although like Chronic Miasms really is a litany of goo, pus, and other discharges. When I discovered Indications of Miasm by Harimohon Choudhury (2005, 2nd edition) I was thrilled for a few weeks. But, now I can see that like Bentley and also, least we forget, the Henny-Heudens-Mast work – it really did not address how to prescribe beyond some very basic remedies to aid your patients in overcoming and extinguishing their Miasmatically based conditions. The Heudens-Mast book was cool at the time I found it though: I recall liking the details on potency and dosing in relation to Miasmatic prescribing that only is in her book – ever the practical woman, it appears…very responsible and caring, as well as, a strong classically trained homeopath. Sort of simple though and this, as in a lot of areas other than Miasms, is the problem we can often face with our literature.
Where ever I turned it kept coming up for me: How to treat using the range of remedies that we have available to us but to match with the basics of Hahnemann?
Well the answer came to me once I got my hands on the Louis Klein book. Thank God…well, not God, but, actually Narayana as they mailed it to my door. If they hadn’t I might not have cracked open the binding on this book for even more time.
I have been well aware of the book by Louis Klein, Miasms and Nosodes: The Origin of Disease, for the last couple years. In fact, even before publication because I have been in his course here in my hometown, Toronto – the Homeopathic Master Clinician Course (HMC). He has spoken to us, his students here and elsewhere, of his use of Nosodes and refers to Miasmatic prescribing at times when lecturing on a remedy in a family of remedies and how it’s classified Miasmatically and otherwise by either himself or by others.
We, his students call Louis Klein, Lou. So, the author of the book, from here on in, will be referred to as Lou – he really is a Lou, a nice name that reflects his warm and engaging mannerism…he’s really a very approachable man: grounded, interesting, caring and with a great sense of humour – he plays us Will Ferrell and other comic’s skits after breaks and you’re practically in the aisles rolling around with the antics of the SNL crew (which is a good neck stretch after being hunched over your laptop for hrs). Just to be clear he, also, is a studious and serious man that is scholarly/learned but open to hearing what you think about his ideas and theories – not in an ivory tower in anyway.
Lou even once carried a copy of his book to the class for me - from across the country… from his Island no less (Bowen Island, British Colombia). This was upon my request and than I balk and tell him he can sell it to someone else. He must have wondered about my state. A person that can’t make a decision as to whether they can purchase a book or not…and although we homeopaths are i) hesitant to spend too much on books and ii) we don’t need to know the why of some things, he just might have wondered if this was a case of a) a cheap person or b) a disinterested student. I would have wondered on someone like me making out like they wanted to read the book I wrote after years of hard work on it (I’m sure it’s a major endeavor in one’s life to put down in writing what they have learned, especially if you run a practice and teach). So, when I go and say “no thanks” just like that and at the last minute, as he asks to the class, “Was it you Laura that wanted this copy?” he would have no idea of my inner turmoil over this purchase.
“A teacher cannot give you the truth. The truth is already in you. You only need to open yourself - body, mind, and heart – so that his or her teachings will penetrate your own seeds of understanding and enlightenment. If you let the words enter you, the soil and the seeds will do the rest of the work.”
Trich Nhat Hanh in The Heart of Buddah’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation.
When I finally started to read the book I did have to wonder why now and not before? I had ample opportunity to read it – it was all around me, everyone in town that was anybody or somebody was reading it. There was a study group that was reading it about a year ago I now recall. I was in the course. I worked in the local homeopathic supplier that had it on its’ shelves. I was practically tripping on it everyday.
What did enable me to finally get down to reading it. Well, it helped I must confess when I had it delivered to me as a gift from Narayana last December. It sat on my shelf looking pretty (scary) for months, right in my home!
It was scary to me for a number of reasons. I was scared to acquire new knowledge and not know what to do with it for one. Silly (actually “bad homeopathy”) you say…and who is to blame you as it is the acquisition of knowledge that furthers us as practitioners. I know this, but here, it was really a state of fear…cause I knew deep down that I would have to be changed by this book. Also, I remember sensing as well that I may see something into myself that I don’t want to see. So, all in all, it was a feeling that it would be like opening Pandora’s Box - and than what?
My worst fears did came true. However, I am happy to report that by reading the book I have overcome them and, in fact, they have just vanished into thin air. Poof. Sort of like how a remedy works with ones physicals and it’s, like did I ever have that problem? How this came about is due to the fact that the book has solved a number of problems for me that are all tied into improvement in health for my patients for example: from getting to remedies in stagnant cases that I would not have prescribed without Lou’s book. And it also was a blessing as it allowed me to get to a homeopath that in the end prescribed for me a Nosode (more later on this).
Basically, a shift in taking the case and case analysis to the overall potential feeling of confidence in my practice can be accounted for because of this book.
Funny cause that’s what is stated about Lou’s Master Clinician course by its’ graduates: if you take it you’ll hear from those that are repeating it to the newbies that immediately they “…prescribe with more confidence” and such. Or that you will go to small remedies that you would not have thought to use, etc. That was ever so slightly happening for me while in the course, but now, somehow I see myself being able to do this from now on in a big way. It has the same effect as being in Lou’s course, but, for me, with regards to Miasmatic prescribing the book was the cincher. So those of you not lucky enough to be in the Homeopathic Master Clinician Course this is your chance to have some of Lou’s infectious spirit (not bacterial or otherwise) catch hold of you.
Am I getting carried away here - as it is textbook like book on one level. But, really, on the subtle level it does have an infectious quality that makes you really want to open up all your patient’s files and start to broaden your thinking on them. There is not a dull moment.
This is what Louis Klein does: he gets your neurons all fired up…to ponder and to rack your brain out, but, at the same time, to involve the core of yourself in thinking on your patients. This is something that you get to read about in his book too – because he will spell out in his cases of the remedies (BTW not all are Nosode remedies for Miasmatic prescribing) how he dug into case/pathology and came up with using a potencized bacteria (Vol 2 will be viruses by the way, and more bacterial based diseases to be treated…with the reminder here that we’re not talking about always having the pathogen involved directly but having the bacteria energetically involved too).
So, gentle reader, in order that you get a sense that this book has meat to it I’ll highlight a few areas that are just the best! One, as already mentioned, is that you get a juicy history of miasmatic prescribing from Hahnemann’s time of the development of the “theory”, which in keeping with his way, was experimentally based, i.e. – based on his work with patients. And then Lou goes on in a succinct but filled out and expanded manner to give you the evolution of Miasms in homeopathy. I love how Lou, as he does in his course, gets to the point or makes points that are useful for us clinically and in our evolution. So, if you ever wondered why some practitioners are into Miasms and some not but had nothing to work with (historical data or otherwise), you get it here.
Extra, extra read all about it: On page 17 of the book Lou theorizes and quite correctly I think (cause I sure couldn’t come up with any idea!) that it is based on the footnote of Aph 1 in the 6th Edition of the Organon that it is a big NO NO to postulate or speculate on “…the interior Wesen of the life process and the origins of disease in the invisible interior of the organism (on which so many physicians mongering for fame have hitherto wasted their time and energy).” I love our Hahnemann’s dramatic use of words; with “mongering” you sense that there is frothing at the mouth as these egotistical physicians, including mongrel homeopaths of course!, were all just scrambling to keep at this theorizing to prove that they knew something someone else didn’t. In fact we homeopaths of modern times seem to take pride almost as we state to potential patients (or anyone who will listen to us) that we don’t need to know the why or how of a pathology or the symptom’s expression in our patients…but are treating the vital force and how it just outwardly shows it’s imbalance.
So, this has been the basis of the contentious issue of Miasms because even though Hahnemann himself speculates with the introduction of the Miasms as the causative agent – either as pathogens or as energetic imprints that could not necessarily be linked to the original disease in someone at first impression – so, scabies was the basis of Psora was really, before the advent of genetic science….was huge advance…he was ahead of his time baby! Lou shows us how Hahnemann “…saw a familial thread in the nature of chronic disease.” Or that he was aware of “….the underlying infectious nature of disease”.
The other thing, besides the main body of the book that is very nice and necessary – is that Lou gives us 9 pages packed with info on how to basically identify and prescribe Nosodes. This is huge, as it really is hands on or useful clinically unlike some of the works mentioned above. And unlike these others even when applicable in practice, we get to up it a notch and move to a very sophisticated next section: the actual Miasms based on the bacterial Nosodes with a Materia Medica for the Miasm and also for the remedies suggested (and their DD’s) that is very, very good.
There is an excellent review of the book by Pat Deacon, a Canadian homeopath as well, in Interhomeopathy. It will help you get a good sense of the book and, like all Canadians, is very sensible (I am exception to the rule as I only wear sensible shoes).
Also, on the Narayana site you can see the contents of the book and get to see an excerpt from the book. So, suffice it to say here by little ole me that if you haven’t experienced Lou in person nor read his Clinical Focus Guide believe you me you are in for a treat with this book, cause this baby is a template of what a good remedy write up should look like. I would say that the Klein book on Miasms and Nosodes is in a class of it’s own as far as what great clinical pictures are all about. More and more of our great homeopaths are setting the bar nice and high - so they have to live up to their own standards each time they produce something for us as members of the homeopathic community.
So, even with a well known Miasm, such as the Tubercular Miasm, we get waaaay more information. More is about quality here, as it is all relevant in relation to how one selects which of the known remedies (there are 14 for us to draw upon!). Incidently, this Miasm is actually a sub-Miasm of The Mycobacterium Miasm. Lou classifies the Miasms under the actual Bacterial classifications. The Mycobacerium are part of a larger family known as the Actinomycetales. Along with the Tubercular Miasm there is the Leprosy and the Johne’s Miasm under this sub-family of the Actinomycetales. The last one having the Johneinum Nosode as it’s corresponding remedy and it is what can, if covers symptom picture/prescribed correctly – see those packed 9 pages mentioned above – can address Crohn’s Disease.
The bacteria has been isolated in conventional research but what differentiates Louis Klein from the allopaths is that he shows us the energetic resonance of the substance as played out in provers of the remedy. Lou did a proving in 2002 upon the suggestion of one of his students and in the book we get the mind set of the remedy. Interesting how really matches with what seen homeopathically with patient’s who have Crohns. In the book we get this one remedy proving as it is illustrative of how a Nosode has a full picture and exemplifies the Miasm nicely. Actually more than nicely – it is mind blowing.
The cross over with Leprosy and with Leprosy with Tubercular all really shows that Klein’s classification by actual causative substance is warranted – those Mycobacerium are really a nasty lot. They all “…overcome adversity, through activity” (p. 261) and what is cool is we see how the source influences: these bacteria are all “acid-alcohol fast” (p. 164). As with all the remedy states you get to see how they correspond to the source or how the source’s traits are played out in the Nosode and, therefore, the patients needing the Nosode.
Here is the review that will be helpful for you (in our beloved Interhomeopathy): http://www.interhomeopathy.org/book-review-miasms-and-nosodes-by-louis-klein
Okay, I was subconsciously influenced by this it seems – just reread it and see that Pat Deacon’s choice of what to highlight is what I did…but, folks, there is sooo many more things that I could have mentioned re- biological classification and other remedies or views and experiences on practice...all very deep but accessible (a total Lou thing).
The number of actual bacterial groups that are in this book are 5, but under these there are some sub-groupings, as mentioned with the Myscobacterium being under the Actinomycetales. And then, under these are the Miasms – some with names we are familiar with, such as Typhoid or Tetanus Miasm…but, there are headings such as the Yersinia Miasm, responsible for the Plague – with 2 Nosodes under it and, as well, the remedy Rattus in use to clear this Miasm…could be good to deal with this as the patients needing this Miasm dealt with would definitely be suffering as anyone around them would be as well.
From the book:
“Just as the actual bacteria practices pathogenic deception to avoid phagocytic destruction, the individual who needs homeopathic remedies of the Yersinia group at first idolizes the host to seek to overcome, before attempting to destroy that host, mainly through covert and destructive sabotage. They will idolize a successful person or even an authoritative body such as a teacher, new country, new school or organization – and then attempt to sabotage, destroy, and overcome it – mainly through covert and aggressive behaviour. These individuals can have “borderline personality disorders” or live on the shadowy fringes of society.” (p. 407). Note- there is a Parasitic Miasm too and it is juicy and really wonderful that we have now to draw on for our patients.
This is the great stuff you get thoughout the whole book…just non-stop action really. Not a dull moment. Your brain has to do mental gymnastics, but will be invigorated and ready to take on the world! Just as Pat Deacon said (I see this referenced in her review! Boy, with my once over I really did absorb her words! Oh well, I haven’t claimed I was original…just want to express here what I love reading these days. This book was the best to date (yeah, yeah, what I said last time!)).
The definitive version of a recommendation is in the Foreward by Jan Scholten: http://www.narayana-publishers.com/Miasms-and-Nosodes/Louis-Klein/b4531
Also, what you get on the Narayana website, in pdf’s from the book are: the full Contents, the Introduction, and the Rattus write up. The latter is what Lou call’s a remedy write up: the Clincial Focus Guide (like 2 pages in total are there for you to check out on the website). This really gives you the picture of how Lou does a remedy.
So, there you have it – I took Miasms and Nosodes off of my shelf and grappled with my demons. As far as I am concerned Pandora’s book can now just stay open.
One thing that was happening for me all through my struggle to just read the book…Let alone integrate Miasms into my practice fully and into myself (fully as well) was that I went to a homeopath – my new one – and she put me on a new remedy based on an intake that was thorough and well done…like went to the core and quickly too. And guess what? without my knowing what came out of it initially, I got my first Nosode! And all along I had thought I was of one Miasm – since I started my studies. This was despite having a remedy originally that shifted me in my health and not having it fit within my romanticized Tuberculr Miasm (yes, I delude myself even about my Miasm): I thought that I was the lovely insect-like Tubercular Miasm…but, in the end I got a Nosode of a different Miasm. But, what is super cool, is it is the one that follows well that one remedy that I have had. The remedy that was hugely curative (chronic allergies and asthma) and the Miasmatic remedy were prescribed without knowledge of each other – that is the homeopaths were just going with what my state presented. So, this Miasmatic prescribing works – and like a charm at that. I know this personally.
So, Lou for all your efforts in writing this great book, you can feel joy in knowing that all the benefits that we as homeopaths with our legions of patients in the world will all benefit –reaping the rewards with better health. And more in line with what homeopathy really can offer, deeply, but, of course in the gentle, rapid and permanent manner that Samuel H. prescribed for us! Your book can help us all transform suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation.
The gentle Spring rain permeates the soil of my soul. A seed that has lain deeply in the earth for many years, just smiles”. Trich Nhat Hanh, from “Cuckoo Telephone” in Call Me by My True Names.
On this note I will say if you are lucky enough to ever have the chance to attend one of Louis Klein’s seminars do…and if you actually are able to attend the HMC course he runs in various locations, the Master Clinician Course, really do consider it as his way of perceiving and working out cases/MM and just teaching are lovely – he brings out the best you can be as a homeopath…and not just by being a great human being and modeling what a practitioner can accomplish, but by giving you really great material to really refer back to all through your work with patients. Here is the website: http://www.homeopathycourses.com/
Peace, Joy and Liberation to you all, readers, and to you, Louis Klein as well (& just plain Thank you as well).
 The book that I like to really see this played out is In Search of the Later Hahnemann by Rima Handley of Homeopathic Love Story fame: http://www.narayana-publishers.com/In-Search-of-the-Later-Hahnemann/Rima-Handley/b2997
I thk that this book and a look at the Paris Notebooks warrants more reading/thking about for our profession when we want to discuss any thing that are considered deviations from the Organon or Hahnemann’s works.
 This is a great piece to help get one’s head around Bentley: http://hpathy.com/homeopathic-interviews/grant-bentley-and-louise-barton-2/ The similarity between him and Klein lies in the reference of the latter to disposition and the first to the distinction of the Vital Force and the Soul, with the latter of these being about the individualization of the patient being here and the Vital Force is what needs to be treated when deranged (the derangement of the Soul is not what we treat – this is how I interpret what I have read at least. Just as disposition for Klein is not what is to be cured, but pathology. “The nature of the indications for a nosode remedy is not for the effects of the disease, but for the disease itself.” (p. 42 of Klein). And now for a totally Hahnemannian thing to do – a footnote within a footnote – see this great piece by Jan Scholten in Interhomeoapthy: http://www.interhomeopathy.org/jans-column-what-does-it-mean-homeopathy-treats-the-patient-not-the-disease?jn32a44d03=1#jotnav32a44d034860970661cdc84c720b6454
 http://www.narayana-publishers.com/The-Foundation-of-the-Chronic-Miasms-in-the-Practice-of-Homeopathy-paperback/Henny-Heudens-Mast/b2496 This book and the Choudhury book go well together as each are lacking what the other has to offer – so, good to have on hand really to compliment Hahnemann’s works. But, when you need remedies to work with, there is not much on offer in that department. This is almost like a pamphlet: http://www.narayana-publishers.com/Indications-of-Miasms/Harimohon-Choudhury/b13 Would say it could be used in a class on Miasms…at our school we went straight to Sankaran but this in conjunction with Chronic Diseases would have been good basis to start us off on the idea that the actual pathogens are relevant and to clear that avenue prior to just looking modern approaches to Miasms that really must go hand in hand with the biological aspect of our health.
 This is where I see parallels with Klein and Kent, more so than with other homeopaths. In the many tributes to Kent at the start of the Lecture’s on Homeopathic Philosophy it is C.P. Thacher that he speaks to the “Homeopathic Trinity” of a homeopath being “…a fearless investigator and writer, a thorough conscientious teacher and leader, and a marvelous practitioner” (p. 6). These words on James Tyler Kent, I feel, are applicable to Louis Klein with Lou being more, well, Canadian –as well Kent’s bushy moustache gave him an edge or austere presence that I feel Lou doesn’t have...seems though Kent was gentle and kind too – that old way of writing just makes everyone from long ago seem so serious.
 See again the Scholten piece in Interhomeopathy mentioned in Footnote 4.
 http://www.narayana-publishers.com/Clinical-Focus-Guide/Louis-Klein/b385 (Total great book. Really we need every remedy done up like this combined with Welte’s succinct case write ups he did for Periodic Table book on Silver series.)