The American Institute of Homeopathy defines a homeopathic physician as "one who adds to his knowledge of medicine a special knowledge of homeopathic therapeutics and observes the Law of Similars. All that pertains to the great healing art is his by tradition, by inheritance and by right."
     Homeopathy is a system of therapeutics based upon the Law of Similars as expressed by the maxim "Similia Similibus Curentur" -- let likes be cured by likes. When a patient presents a group of symptoms similar to those produced by the administration of a certain medicine to a healthy human, that medicine is homeopathically indicated and if prescribed in correct dosage will relieve or cure.
     Calomel by its physiological action produces diarrhea, frequent bloody mucus stools, increased secretion of bile and salivation. When these symptoms have been produced by any other cause other than the administration of calomel (Mercurius dulcis), very small doses of this medicine will be curative.
     Again, Belladonna is indicated homeopathically when the patient presents dilated pupils, violent congestion of blood to the head with throbbing headache, high fever with hot red skin, cerebral excitement, dryness of mouth and throat, muscular twitchings (symptoms such as are frequently met with in scarlet fever). Any physician will recognize the above symptoms as well known toxic effects of Belladonna.
     There are many outstanding examples of this dual action of drugs in common medical practice, but the observing student will note as he reads the Lessons of this Course that the Law of Similars applies to all substances possessing medicinal properties.
     Homeopathy, or the "New School" of medicine, was founded by Samuel Hahnemann. He did not discover the Law of Similars, but he was the first to give it practical application to the art of healing. He collected and translated from previous writings of all ages a mass of evidence to show that others before him, including Hippocrates and Paracelsus, were aware of this law.
     Samuel Hahnemann was a celebrated scientist and chemist and one of the leading physicians of his time. He had graduated from the best medical schools and received personal instruction under the physician to the Austrian Emperor, Freiherr Von Quarin. He was a translator of note. He practiced successfully in several of the leading cities of Germany and was looked upon as an eminent physician.
     Hahnemann was a thinker. He perceived that for the practice of medicine to be successful it must be guided by law. Up to his day no definite law of prescribing for the sick had been announced or followed. The practice of medicine was chaotic. Each physician prescribed according to his own ideas or those of some "shining light" of the profession.
     Hahnemann at last became discouraged. Day after day his doubts grew stronger. He said to himself, "It is not I who am at fault, it is the art of medicine which is wrong. I know that I can prescribe as well as the best of those who now give medicine, but if I am convinced that the sick will do better with no medicine at all -- God help me! I will practice no more!"
     Finally he gave up the practice of medicine in disgust and turned to the translation of medical and scientific books for a livelihood. While translating a chapter of Cullen's Materia Medica from English to German, it appeared to him that the author's explanation of the action of peruvian bark was fanciful and irrational. So he set about to determine in his own way the modus operandi of the drug. He tried it on himself. He found it produced typical symptoms of malaria for which it was recommended and used.
     From this time on he conducted his investigations along new lines. He did what others had not done before. He studied medicines systematically by testing them on healthy humans. After repeated experimentation upon himself and others, he eventually proved the Law of Similars to be the basic law of cure. {It is a tribute to the genius of Hahnemann that he was unaware that the homeopathic relation between disease and medicinal effects was taught and practiced by Hippocrates and Paracelsus, until it was brought to his attention by Trinks in 1825 (Vide: Life and Letters of Hahnemann, by Haehl).}
     One by one the medicines then in general use were "proved" by this indefatigable worker and his associates. In medicine Hahnemann was what Edison has been in electricity. He had vision as well as scientific knowledge. Outside the beaten path he went in search of new medicaments and found that each one tried was capable of producing its own peculiar and typical symptom picture when given to healthy humans; and when administered to the sick, who presented the same symptoms, was found to be curative.
     Early in his career, Hahnemann complained of the untrustworthiness of pharmaceutical preparations, which no conscientious doctor could prescribe. And in his contributions to medical periodicals which were always read with interest, he frequently advocated the use of simple measures and the single remedy in the treatment of disease. He was one of the first to teach that accurate and definite prescribing could be accomplished only by giving one substance at a time and observing the effects. He condemned as unscientific the customary mixtures which in his times often contained twenty or more drugs. He based his belief on the results of experience.
     He went further and found that clinically a very small dose of a remedy, prescribed according to the Law of Similars produced better results than larger doses. In fact, he found that large doses aggravated the sickness when exhibited in accord with the Law of Similars. Continued experiments along this line led eventually to potentiation.
     This briefly is the history of the origin of the prescribing of minimum doses of medicine in accord with the Law of Similars, guided by signs and symptoms of the sick individual corresponding to similar signs and symptoms produced experimentally by the remedy upon many healthy humans.
     These experimental or clinical observations of drug action called "provings" by Hahnemann were made under controls and in a most painstaking way. This was the introduction to the medical world of "animal experimentation" and led the way to all of the more recent developments of drug testing and standardization.
     Among the outstanding early professional accomplishments of Hahnemann we shall mention but one. During the scourge of Leipsic, when tens of thousands were dying "like flies" from the Plague, and when every victim of the epidemic was committed to the "dead house," Hahnemann with his homeopathic prescribing saved 183 consecutive cases (most of which were considered moribund).
     Hahnemann did not work alone, nor were his discoveries accidental. He had as associates many doctors who, like himself, had an intense yearning for the Truth and who hoped to effect a change in the haphazard and futile methods of medicine prevalent in their time.
     Hahnemann and his associates were eminently successful in practice, and as might be expected, jealousies and unjust criticism were not lacking. Traditional medicine, then as now, was intolerant of new ideas and human welfare was secondary to medical politics.
     Throughout his long and busy life (he lived to be eighty-nine) he continued to study, develop and practice the healing art according to the Law of Similars.
     Hahnemann's loyal and devoted students continued his researches. Remedies were "proved" on thousands of subjects and many volumes were added to the numerous works of the originator.
     To France, Italy, Spain, England, and the United States went homeopathic physicians, each one an apostle and a teacher. Later to Brazil, Colombia, Argentina and other South American countries this "New School" found its way: to Mexico and Central America it advanced with higher civilization: to Egypt and other civilized parts of Africa; to Australia and to Asia; to India where today it clalms millions of adherents. With higher civilization and broader learning Homeopathic medicine has kept pace.
     At the present time there is an unprecedented demand for doctors trained in homeopathic prescribing. Although the graduates from homeopathic medical colleges are doubling in numbers annually, demands are not one-tenth supplied. Answer the question "why?" in your own way.
     That people fundamentally believe in the internal administration of medicine in sickness cannot be successfully contradicted; that they are always ready and anxious for the more harmless, the more pleasant, the more certain and effective is also true.
     Homeopathic prescribing does not conflict with surgery, physical therapy, manual therapy, suggestion or other non-medical measures. However, homeopathic prescribing of properly prepared and standardized remedies is supreme in the field of internal medicine.
     You shall soon be led to see the raison d'etre of Homeopathy and to understand how it must be adopted by any physician fully awake to his responsibilities and possibilities.
     As the Course unfolds it will reveal a broader conception of disease and its management, and help you to become more proficient in your chosen profession.

     In order better to comprehend the lessons to follow in the Course, it is timely here to introduce a brief outline of Homeopathic Philosophy.
     All systems of prescribing have been based upon original hypotheses, clinical observations, philosophical conclusions, and scientific experiments. Aesculapius and other fathers of the healing art dealt with the hypothetical and philosophical, with just a little clinical observation. As the sciences developed, medicine lagged behind because of the lack of accurate research and the ever-present personal opinions of the theorizing physicians. The vagaries of early prescribing were as fallacious as were the concepts of anatomy, physiology and pathology.
     Instruments of precision such as the polariscope, ultramicroscope, electrocardiograph, manometer, and spectroscope, were not at Hahnemann s command. Yet he gave us by hypothesis, clinical observations and reasoning, many of the fundamentals of medicine which are now being proposed and confirmed by modern science.
     Hahnemann, by scientific experimentation on living human beings, repeatediy substantiated the Law of Similars. For nearly a century and a half this Law has been constantly confirmed by scientific clinical observation. And more recently, modern research laboratories are giving us confirmation of the scientific soundness of the action of minute doses and their dynamic action.
     Colloidal chemistry gives us definite figures within the limitations of the ultramicroscope. Gold, for instance, can be detected in the 25th decimal trituration, that is 1/(10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Radium in the 60th decimal trituration has demonstrated its radioactivity by affecting sensitive photographic plates sufficiently to produce distinct radiographs. Add thirty-five ciphers to the above fraction and you will have a mathematical expression of the degree of subdivision to which this substance was divided and yet identified by experiment. This radiograph can scarcely be ascribed to the chemical action of the infinitesimal amount of elemental radium present in the trituration used; but may be accounted for by the force or power or dynamis of its immeasurably minute emanations.
     The extensive experiments of Dr. August Bier of Berlin University proved the three cardinal requisites of a homeopathic prescription.

     1. The single remedy (given alone).
     2. The similar remedy (Similia Similibus Curentur).
     3. The minimum dose (the smallest amount necessary to produce curative action).

Dr. Bier explains the above by saying that

     (a) all of the cells of the body are not sick;
     (b) the finely subdivided remedy goes past the healthy cells because they have no attraction for it;
     (c) the sick cells have less resistance and are more responsive to stimuli. The minimum dose affects these hypersensitive sick cells and stimulates them to reaction. The similar remedy induces normal reaction. If the remedy is dissimilar its action is not curative.
     (d) only single remedies produce guiding indications for the similar remedy. Iron (Ferrum) produces definite symptoms. Phosphorus produces a different group. Phosphate of iron (Ferrum phos.) produces symptoms of both iron and phosphorus but in addition has a distinctive action not found in either of its components. The characteristic symptoms produced by Ferrum phos. mark it as a distinctive single remedy.

     The Hahnemannian concept is that disease primarily is a disturbance in the vital force or guiding energy which governs and regulates all the organs and parts of the body. In health this vital force maintains normal growth and coordination of all organic functions. When, from some disease-producing cause, this force becomes disturbed, sickness or disharmony of function results. The causes of disturbance may be infections, injuries, exposure, climatic conditions, violent emotions, errors in diet, or others.
     How are symptoms produced? A symptom is a deviation from the normal. It is produced in exactly the same manner as a normal phenomenon, but is the result of a stimulus that is the product of dysfunction of some of the body's parts. For instance, failure to menstruate is a sign or symptom of pregnancy. It also may be caused by old age, disease or fright. Haemoptysis may be a symptom of pulmonary tuberculosis but is by no means always of tuberculosis origin.
     Objective and subjective signs and symptoms are alike of physical origin. All symptoms are efferent responses, voluntary or involuntary, or efferent impulses purchaseing in nervous centers.
     Bien etre and malaise are expressions of physical conditions. Prodromes are symptoms just as much as are eruptions, fevers, or discharges. Apprehensiveness, melancholy, tearfulness, loquacity, suspicions, delirium, delusions, fears, emotions, hysteria, propensities, and even tedium vitae are symptoms -- deviations from the normal.
     Symptoms and signs are by no means always pathognomonic of certain diseases. A patient with more than one disease may have symptoms not clearly identified with any one of them.
     Someone has said, "All that a doctor can find out about his patient, by all the means at his command, is often insufficient to make a clear diagnosis." It is a fact that our best diagnosticians are incorrect in more than 50% of their diagnoses. Even laboratory findings cannot always be relied upon. Correct logical reasoning must always prevail.
     Some signs and symptoms (departures from the normal in function, appearance, sensation or behavior) are characteristic of certain definite diseases, while others cannot be ascribed to any definite disease or pathological process.
     Many symptoms are often met with, such as "worse before a storm"; "relieved by warmth"; "aggravated by motion"; "better in damp cold weather"; "fear of death"; "worse from the least draught or cool air"; "better lying on affected side"; "cannot bear the smell or sight of food". These are definite symptoms resulting from some abnormal functional condition and not necessarily from pathology.
     Even when unable to interpret these and other like phenomena in terms of definite disease, should we disregard them? No more than we should disregard pathognomonic symptoms in the making of a diagnosis. Each change from the usual and normal in function, appearance or sensation of the patient comes from a cause whether we are able to determine and define it or not. The causative factor may be an individual characteristic of the patient. Later, you will find that symptoms unattributable to definite pathology are most often the determining factors in selecting the homeopathic remedy.
     The fact that the homeopath takes cognizance of symptoms per se, whether indicative of any known disease or not, enables him to correct the condition before definite disease results; and still more important, he is able to combat new diseases that have never been heard of before. For instance, ear abscess is prevented by removing the congestion and inflammation that lead to it. Pneumonia if taken in its inception may sometimes be aborted. Influenza, or the epidemic later called "flu" which created such havoc among the soldiers in the United States camps and in the army overseas, was treated symptomatically with surprising success by the homeopathic physicians while others were absolutely impotent because they did not know what caused the infection nor did anyone understand the pathology.
     Therapeutic nihilism (the travesty of medicine) originated with that group of pathologists (not practicing physicians) who sought to identify every disorder and disease with definite anatomical changes. They led clinicians to study disease only in this relation. The fact is that anatomical changes are resuits of disease and not the disease process itself. Disturbed physiology always precedes pathology but does not always produce it. Therefore, symptoms present themselves, before and during, as well as after the formation of pathological end-products or tissue changes. The homeopathic prescriber utilizes all signs and symptoms but recognizes their relative importance.
     Hahnemann was the first to systematize symptoms and call attention to their importance in treatment as well as in diagnosis. He proved that each drug invariably produced its own peculiar and characteristic group of symptoms when administered to healthy persons. These characteristic symptoms he called guiding symptoms because they guide to the selection of the homeopathic remedy.

     The body cells, guided in their activities by physiochemical force (dynamis, or to use Claude Bernard's term, irritabilite) constitute a superstructure, the human organism; Vital phenomena are dynamic and the actions of the human organism should be regarded not from a standpoint of structure but of physiological processes.
     The healthy human body is like a marvelously regulated, energized, highly speciaiized electrical machine. This body gets sick, or parts of it may get sick, affecting the entire composite whole.
     What is the thing within the bodily tissues that responds to remedial treatment? How does the remedy act? What occurs to restore normality of tissue-substance and function?
     Let us confine ourselves to the consideration of the question more particularly at hand, "How do homeopathic remedies act?"
     It is clearly demonstrated that specialized organ cells, hepatic or renal for example, display definite selectivity. Poisons, drugs and remedies do not all affect the same tissues; for example, arsenic, strychnine, ergot, pituitrin. Normal physiological function of all the twenty-five trillion body cells in harmonious, coordinated rhythm, means health. To bring this about there must be intimate interchange of messages among the different parts, even among the cells of distinct organs and parts.
     That interchange of "body intelligence" occurs needs no argument. That it is both chemical and electrical (nervous) is admitted. Perhaps the present marvelous development of radio will enhance your vision of cellular intercommunication.
     Cells are stimulated to activity by capillary circulation of the blood, dissolved electrolites, hydrolysis, changes in PH and colloidal interface activity. The balance of all these may be influenced by a potentized drug.
     The actual generation of cellular and bodily energy by chemical changes, all based on oxygenation, must be given its proper but not too important place in our consideration, for there is something else in life beyond chemical reactions. The corpse still retains the chemical constituents of the body; but without the maintenance and direction of that elemental life force, the corpse chemistry is one of morbid processes and quite different from that of the ovum, the mulberry mass, the fetus, the growing child, the adult, the senile, or the dying.
     That elemental vital force; that something which activates alike the composite body and the individual cell and makes the living, changing, functioning body different from a dead man, we refer to as the dynamis.
     This dynamis or its counterpart is manifest in the lower animals, the fowls, the fish, and in the vegetable kingdom. Some hold with good reason that something analogous to it must obtain in the mineral kingdom as well.
     We must deal, in the healing art, with forces as well as with materials; with behaviors as well as with pathology; with signs and symptoms as well as with their causes.

     This lesson presents the relation of patient and disease, and discusses some of the deeper, more subtle and less apparent causes of acute and chronic ailments so frequently met with and so seldom understood. These are problems which have baffled physicians since the days of Hippocrates, Paracelsus and Galen. But in a course of this character the importance of these considerations warrants close attention on the part of the student in order that he may better understand the depth of action and special application of the remedies to be studied in future lessons.
     In Lesson One the homeopathic concept of disease was presented. This may have seemed new and revolutionary and quite at variance with prevailing opinions. Nevertheless, it was made plain that there was no actual discrepancy between prevalent science and homeopathic concepts. The homeopathic concepts are broader and more applicable to the art of healing.
     We now come to the consideration of the difference between acute and chronic disease; the causes of susceptibility, dyscrasias and recurrence of acute morbid processes. This is necessary in determining the basic nature of the case to be treated and in choosing the remedies to be employed.
     The philosophy of Homeopathy is laid down in Hahnemann's Organon of the Art of Healing, a work replete with much wisdom and cold logic, written after he had put his principles and methods to the test for a period of twenty years. Although the first edition was published in 1810, many of his teachings are only now being accepted, in principle at least, by the medical profession at large.
     "If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in disease, that is to say, in every individual case of disease; if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines; and if he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient ... if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them so that the restoration may be permament; then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art." (Hahnemann's Organon, par. 3)
     Whether or not the student can accept all that is taught therein, the Organon contains certain fundamentals which are indispensable to success in homeopathic prescribing.
     To clearly perceive what is curable in each case of disease, one must know the underlying causes of chronic diseases, their intrinsic quality, their course and manner of manifestation and the part they play in the production of many acute morbid manifestations.
     To clearly perceive what is curative in each individual medicine one must possess a knowledge of the homeopathic materia medica and the genius and therapeutic action of remedies.
     To know how to adapt these remedies to the morbid states of the patient one must have at his command a knowledge of how to examine the patient and how to elicit symptoms, how to interpret the various changes that follow the administration of a remedy; of dosage, repetition and sequence of remedies.
     The knowledge of what each remedy will do is contained in the lessons on materia medica which constitute the major portion of the Course.
     One of the principle reasons why Homeopathy has not been more generally accepted is that many of those who essayed it disregarded these essentials. Many conscientious physicians have undertaken to use remedies prepared according to homeopathic formulae, only to cast them aside as worthless because of failure to appreciate the importance of homeopathic fundamentals.
     Disease naturally falls into two classes, acute and chronic. The acute diseases run through a certain limited course and may terminate favorably without remedial measures if the patient possesses sufficient vitality and resistance. Chronic ailments are not self limited but persist throughout life unless successfully treated in accord with the Law of Similars. Any remedy acting curatively in a chronic disease acts homeopathically.
     Hahnemann practiced for a number of years before he fully realized the fundamental differences between acute and chronic diseases. However, with his usual sagacity, he noticed that although he was able to overcome such ailments as common colds, croup, whooping cough, pleurisy, pneumonia, dysentery, scarlet fever, in many patients he observed recurrences of groups of symptoms which disappeared after treatment only to return in the same or different form, and that the patient's general health was not permanently improved. This led him to the conclusion that there must be some unrecognized underlying factor responsible for chronic disease in general as well as these apparently acute manifestations and that they were only the outcroppings of some sub-latent chronic miasm.
     He made a thorough search of the history of disease and the recorded experiences of others, seeking some common dyscrasias that were more or less universal.
     There existed at that time a fairly good knowledge of the venereal diseases, syphilis and gonorrhea. To each of these, as we do now, Hahnemann attributed many chronic ailments. The basic cause of syphilitic manifestations he called the miasm "syphilis"; that of gonorrheal sequelae, "sycosis"; that of chronic diseases (except those due to drugs or poisons) of non-venereal origin, "psora". {Vide: Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases, Vol. 1, p. 19.}
     We do not attempt to explain the Hahnemannian concept of disease causation in terms used in modern medicine. The language of today's accepted hypotheses may seem quaint a hundred years hence. Nevertheless, Hahnemann's concept of miasms is fundamentally substantiated by present day research.
     Whether or not we use the terms "miasm", "psora" or "sycosis", and whether or not we accept or reject Hahnemann's explanation of them, there still remains the fact that the conditions he attributed to them actually exist. No other theory or explanation offers as clear an understanding of the underlying elements of chronic states.
     Chronic cases present many and varied manifestations as is well known. Sometimes, even with the appearance of good health, the patient complains that he is "off color" and "lacks pep", with no apparent or discoverable pathology and no pathognomonic signs or symptoms. In this type the miasm is latent or quiescent, but the patient nevertheless is chronically ill.
     There are those with lowered vitality, lowered resistive powers, increased susceptibility, anemic, who are neither sick nor well; who are afflicted almost continually with one transitory ailment or another. These get but little sympathy or attention. But each will present symptoms which if rightly interpreted will guide to an individual remedy selection applicable to the totality of the symptoms and the underlying cause of the chronicity.
     Other chronic cases will be definitely sick. Their symptom syndromes indicate definite diagnosable diseases. Physical examinations and laboratory tests are confirmative. They have arthritis, nephritis, diabetes, broncho-spasm, gallstones, gastric ulcer, neurasthenia, and so on. These are of the active chronic type.
     How often have you met with a case in which the cause of illness was obscure -- a case which has baffled every attempt at diagnosis and case analysis? And how often have you exclaimed, "How I wish I could get at the bottom of this?" It is hoped that this lesson will give you a start toward the fulfillment of your wish.

     All ailments are divided into two natural classes --

     1. Acute
     2. Chronic

Likewise, homeopathic remedies are classified as to their application.
     Acute remedies are more superficial in action and act for a shorter time.
     Chronic remedies are deep acting and chiefly applicable to ailments of chronic nature although at times they may act wonderfully well in acute ailments.
     The chronic or deeper acting remedies are subdivided into three groups --

     1. Antisyphilltic
     2. Antisycotic
     3. Antipsoric

This division is made because these remedies are capable of producing on healthy persons the miasmatic symptoms as well as correcting these symptoms in the sick.
     Suppression is not a cure of disease any more than it is of crime. The natural tendency of the organism in health is to throw off waste products from within outward. A similar tendency obtains in disease. Suppression of natural excretions such as perspiration, urine or menses, gives rise to serious systemic disorders. Skin eruptions usually are the result of nature's efforts to throw out some toxin or local irritant. The dire results of the suppression of the eruptions of scarlet fever or measles are well known. Suppression of eczemas by local applications has been known to produce colitis, asthma and bronchitis. Suppression of syphilis gives rise to a myriad of chronic manifestations. The same is true of gonorrhea.
     The suppression of any of the above or like diseases is followed by changes in the resistance and susceptibility of the individual, and new expressions of deranged vital force instituted which differ from those of the original ailment and are frequently mistaken for new ailments.
     Symptoms due to suppression may not be readily recognized by the novice, especially in cases where they are delayed for months or years, as frequently happens in venereal and other diseases. That they are in reality genuine effects of the suppression can be demonstrated by the administration of the homeopathic remedy selected on the totality of the symptoms and in accord with the Law of Similars. The correct remedy will cause the original disease manifestations to return.
     Illustrations: Thuja Occidentalis has many times relieved rheumatism following suppressed gonorrhea and caused the re-establishment of the urethral discharge. Sulphur has often reproduced a suppressed skin eruption with relief of internal disturbances such as bronchitis, asthma and diarrhea. Chronic headaches frequently follow the application of local astringents to relieve offensive perspiration of the feet. Silica relieves the head symptoms and restores the foot sweats.
     The considerations of this lesson have been introduced in order to emphasize the fact that since the homeopathic prescription is made from the totality of the patient's symptoms, objective and subjective, it is necessary that the important symptoms attributed to miasmatic origin be given their proper evaluation.
     There is still another class of conditions which may be acute or chronic -- those induced by the action of drugs and inoculations. Inappropriate remedies or drugs, especially when taken in appreciable doses (either by order of the physician by the patient on his own account, or by accident) poison the system, even though they may effect the changes for which they were taken. An artificial disease is produced which increases the task of determining the proper homeopathic prescription. For instance, how could you expect to get a true picture of the patient's symptoms from one who has for a long time taken bromides, "physic", morphine, quinine, sulphur, aspirin, bromo seltzer, and the like? It is therefore frequently necessary to discriminate between those phenomena which are the result of drugs and those of the disease itself. The indiscriminate use of sleep producers, pain killers, headache remedies, rheumatism cures, blood purifiers, cathartics, and the many self-administered drugs and nostrums must be taken into consideration by the prescriber and discontinued by the patient in order to facilitate or make possible the selection of the similimum.
     This lesson is to be studied in preparation for the messge of Lesson Four which deals with the taking of the case, the evaluation of signs and symptoms, and the relationship of pathology and diagnosis to homeopathic prescribing. As you will have observed in the study of the lessons thus far, there are many prerequisites to correct homeopathic prescribing. It is the purpose of the School to present to you these necessary fundamentals and to guide you to accuracy of remedy selection and eventually greater successes in your practice.