Why repertorization fails

If we were to assume that there is one best remedy, the simillimum, for our patient and one only for the moment, we will be confronted with a giant task of discovering what that is. Most people have no clue how many possibilities there are for failure. Those possibilities seem to crop up all the time for those of us who have tried the task. The amazing amount of success we have is really incredible in the light of what odds there are. Experience as well as perseverance is needed a great deal here.

The table to the right is a summary of the more likely categories of possibilities that you will encounter as you try to discover that one best remedy for your patient. 

Looking at what symptoms you used to repertorize (before you've played with the data so it looks better when you show it to someone), here's what you can expect: One out of five confirms the remedy to another homeopath. Two out of five are good symptoms. Three out of five point you in a bad direction.

Looking in more detail at your written case, you can expect that: One out of four confirms the remedy to another homeopath. Two out of four are good symptoms. The other half point you in a bad direction.

And if you decide to retake the case or take another homeopath's patient you can expect the following: One out of three will confirm the remedy to another homeopath. Two of of three are good symptoms. The other third will mislead you.

As you notice, the odds of being right by randomly selecting a category increase as you go back to the source. The more intervention there is, the more error can occur. I didn't discussing the proving errors, the clerical errors in the repertory, or any other small area that can add to an inaccurate result. The ones that are of more concern are the ones that happen more regularly.

Now of course, you will want to stack the cards in your favor by only getting the good symptom categories. So your chances aren't equally weighted by all of the categories. The idea is to eliminate the bad ones and keep the good ones.

Here's an explanation of what the categories mean and each of the symptom types.

Materia medica

These are the symptoms that have been extracted through years of careful provings and analysis, and collection from poisonings or cured clinical cases. These are base elements from which we can work with that will give us a clear cause and effect relationship. If it caused the symptom in the prover, the effect should be to clear the symptom in the patient.

Patient

Our patient exhibits many symptoms. They weren't the ones who proved the substance that we should give them so many of their symptoms may not be recorded that would be part of the symptom picture we should be collecting. They also may have psychological or physical causes unrelated to the disease that are displaying and adding to their overall symptom picture.

Extracted from case

Now we come into the picture as an observer. The better we observe, the more symptoms we record. We get some, we miss some. And sometimes we make them up.

Used to repertorize

And finally there are those symptoms which you have to choose to base a decision on. You have to translate the language of the patient to the language of the repertory. You get some good one, you think a rubric applies when it doesn't, and sometimes, again, you pick one that has no relationship to the patient at all.

Symptoms

Symptom 1 - the keynote lives!

You love these. It's in the repertory, the patient has it, you saw it, and you thought it important enough to repertorize. And the remedy you selected based on it worked.

Symptom 2 - that's a good symptom?

You almost had it. It was something other people knew was a good symptom and your patient had it. Then you wrote it down but couldn't bring yourself to use it because you had too many, it didn't fit in with the remedy you thought was better, the patient didn't think it was too important, etc.

Symptom 3 - you had WHAT symptom?

You didn't get it. The patient was all about that and you focused in on your favorite symptoms, the symptoms that the last case had seemed so remarkably similar..., you didn't give the patient enough time to talk because you had another appointment, you weren't thorough in your questioning, you don't know how to listen well, the patient was uncomfortable talking about it, etc.

Symptom 4 - symptom not in patient's picture

How can that be if he's that remedy? You try to confirm your remedy choice with a materia medica but you just don't see this symptom. But, the detail of the symptoms isn't all inclusive. The nature of symptoms is that not all people exhibit all of the symptoms. As long as there are patients there will be more symptoms to record for a remedy. Check out the grading system of the symptoms as used by Kent and you'll see why that if you get just a few, you are doing good. After all, the provings are collections of many people; you just have one that isn't as good at being aware as the provers were.

Symptom 5 - symptom should have remedy

You got it but it just made things worse. You don't have any basis to use it for choosing a remedy and all it does it dilute your choices leaving Sulphur as the first choice again. But when you get the right remedy and the symptom is obvious that it was part of the picture, you should make an entry in your repertory to the symptom rubric for the remedy.

Symptom 6 - symptom lacks references; you don't use it

You got another one but just can't find it in the repertory. I've looked for hours for something that was appropriate. OK, maybe feasting on Cheetoz in front of the TV for two days won't be there in the repertory but something should be there like that. It's a darn good symptom. You can always add it to your repertory later. Or maybe you just saw it there but there were too few remedies to use it and you like to use the eliminative style only. Maybe it was categorized poorly or the older language got in the way.

Symptom 7 - symptom lacks references and you miss it

You saw it but it really wasn't that important. This is an energy-saving category. Even if you thought it was good enough to use, you'd waste your time looking for it. It's better you don't know for now. But it should be entered into the repertory and that is what you will miss.

Symptom a - fake symptom

You hate these. You got the symptom alright. It was a good one. And it was important enough to use. But unfortunately the symptom didn't arise from the disease that you are trying to treat. The better you know how to take a case, the less of these you will accrue. Kent found his wife this way. People kept telling her she was a Lachesis. She wasn't. She was just proving the remedy due to so many doses. Kent got it right and then married her.

Symptom b - fake symptom; good intuition

You saw it but something told you it wasn't all that important. Or you just tossed it aside for another reason. Whatever you did, it saved you from diluting the good symptoms. Maybe a second round of case taking will help you decide why.

Symptom c - fake symptom; good understanding of cause

You saw it but in your wisdom you asked the right questions. The patient likes to sleep without covers. Yeah, but his wife turns up the heat at night.

Symptom d - phantom symptom

You really need a vacation. The patient didn't have the symptom and you somehow put it down on paper and used it in your repertorization. I hear the Bahamas are nice.

Symptom e - phantom symptom; good intuition

Maybe you just need a good night's sleep. The patient didn't have the symptom but you caught yourself before using it to destroy a good list of remedies putting Sulphur back up on top again.

Symptom f - symptom in error

Where did this one come from? Did someone else add the symptom to my list on my computer? Do I need a better repertory program? Should I stop trying to do repertory work at 2 a.m.? Do I have a virus on my computer? Do computers have remedies?