Adding Symptoms to the Repertory - homeopathy360
Articles Repertory

Adding Symptoms to the Repertory

Adding symptoms to the repertory is one of the most arduous tasks for any homeopath. It takes a lot of extra work to go though a cured case or new proving and add these to the repertory. Who has time for this?
But each new repertory addition if accurate can be utilized in hundreds of thousands of cases worldwide. This process is an essential component of the continued evolution and reliability of the repertorial database.
When repertory additions are made too quickly, the expanded rubrics can bring out differences that ultimately lead to confusion in many cases. Hastily introduced new information might be incorrect or irrelevant.
Kent’s repertory has been the main reference for almost a century for a number of reasons. One of them was its quality. The belief that the information it contained was reliable. Additions were considered with reluctance, and more than a few homeopaths argued that the best repertory is a virginal, untouched Kent, with no additions at all.
Barthel and Klunker (1973), and later Kunzli (1987), created the first repertories with many additions, which gained more and more acceptance. Then the computerized repertories appeared, making it even easier to add new information.
Since the 1980s, the tide has consequently changed; more and more homeopaths have become interested in quantity. The most often heard phrase became “why don’t you have this addition yet?”
So, the challenge in developing a repertory has become how to position oneself correctly on a continuous line, ranging between the extremes of abundant quantity and utterly conservative quality. The interesting fact is that all opinions, from one extreme to the other, are supported by at least some homeopaths, somewhere.
The implication of this variety of opinion is that apparently no repertory can satisfy everybody’s wishes. What one person considers as too many additions, is not enough for the other. The effort towards quality, which satisfies one homeopath, lets the repertory evolve too slowly for another.
Still another group wants all information with the maximum quality reassurance – Now. However, anyone who has painstakingly checked information in the original Materia Medica, or added a new proving to the Repertory, knows that while additions may go quickly, checking the quality of the information and the way it is inserted takes a tremendous amount of time. To pretend the opposite reveals a lack of experience or an excess of bravura.
This diversity of orientation within the homeopathic community has led to the varied response to successive versions of each repertory. Many homeopaths have been happy with the editing and additions that have been done. Some wanted to see many more additions, others wanted all information to be checked thoroughly before going ahead. Still others believed they needed to return to Kent’s Repertory, considering it the only reliable source.
(Taken from:
Criteria to Add a Symptoms into the Repertory From a Cured Case
Name of remedy: __________________________________________________________
Cured symptom in repertory language: ______
Example: Head pain, exertion agg__________
What to consider before making an addition:
1. Was it a clear simillimum reaction to the remedy with the vitality, mental emotional and chief complaint all getting better and staying better for at least a year? If this is true then all of the unlisted cured symptoms can be added to the repertory.
2. Was there an aggravation after the first dose of this remedy? How long did the aggravation last for? Not all cured cases get an aggravation but this is considered a good sign.
3. Were any other therapies involved or positive circumstances that could have made the symptom better? If another therapy could have cured the symptom it is better to wait and see if this remedy can cure those same symptoms in a new patient before being submitted to the repertory.
5. Did this remedy also work for an acute illness at a later date? If it did this is also a very good sign.
6. If this symptom also mentioned as a toxicological symptom in a textbook, in a materia medica or other repertory? Which text, program or Internet site? __________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
Adding symptoms to the repertory is important no matter how the case was solved. There are many unconventional ways to solve cases but the cured symptoms should still be submitted for inclusion so that the more conventional practitioner can use this information from the repertory to solve the case in the future.
Adding Symptoms to the Repertory Based on a Proving
Criteria to consider:
Name of remedy: ___________________________________________________
Method of proving? Hahnemannian? Tritation? Othere?
Proving method: Number of doses taken ______ in what potency taken by this prover ___________
Symptoms in provers own words: ________________________________________________
Rubric name: ___________________________________________________
1. Is this a new symptom this prover has not experienced before? An exacerbation of an old symptom? A return of an old symptom? If it is a new symptom and it is clear and lasted for some time, then it is likely to be a good symptom to add for that remedy.
2. Is the symptom mild and of short duration, moderate in intensity and longer duration or severe and lasted a long time. The more intense the symptom and the longer the symptom lasts for the more certain it is.
3. Did this person experience:
– one new symptom from the proving?
– a few new symptoms from the proving?
– many new symptoms from the proving?
The more sensitive the prover is to the remedy the more reliable the new symptoms are.
5. How many other provers experienced this symptom? The more provers who had the same symptom the more reliable it is.
6. Cured symptoms. The patient takes a proving remedy and some or many symptoms the patient had before the proving are cured. This can add many valuable symptoms to the repertory especially if the proving remedy happened to be the simillimum.
If a patient gets some benefit from the proving remedy which often happens then it is best to make the correct interpretation; add the cured symptom rather than adding the sensation of benefit. For example: Mind, sympathetic in a case where a prover use to be indifferent to others or cruel and then after the proving of say Anacardium they notice that they feel empathy for others. This is one of the most common mistakes in modern provings because the master prover takes the case books of the ‘provers experiences and makes the additions and he or she did not make the initial interview with the prover and did not know that they use to feel cruel.
The correct addition is Mind, cruel (Anac); not Mind, sympathetic (Anac).
7. Did the same person do the initial intake of the prover and add this cured symptom to the repertory ____ Yes, ____ No – the person who did the initial interview was different from the person who added the cured symptom.
The same person who made the initial interview with the prover to ascertain their totality of symptoms before the proving should be the same person who evaluates the effect of the proving remedy.
Write out the cured symptoms: _______________________________________________________
8. Can you write down the symptom in the provers own works: _____________________________
9. For new and cured symptoms: Did you look and see if there is already a rubric for this symptom: A new rubric is not added unless it expresses something characteristic (unique and different) of the remedy.
10. The most important rule is this: the addition is made to the most specific rubric, not to the more general rubric(s). Say the symptom to be added is: “eye – pain – stitching – coughing, on”. The more different modalities exist together, the more this symptom is specific. And we should maintain the
specificity of this information. This symptom does not allow us to add the same remedy to
the rubrics “eye – pain – stitching” neither to “eye – pain – coughing, on”. Did you use the specific rubric: ________ Yes. _____No I used the general rubric.
11. Did you speculate and use the doctrine of signatures or some other system of generalization to justify adding this remedy to this rubric: _____ Yes _____No, this is an actual proving symptom.
12. Was this a remedy prepared in a homeopathic pharmacy _____ Yes. _______No: explain: ___
13. If this a toxicological symptom found in a text book or on the Internet ______ Can you provide the source of that information: __________________________________________________________
14. Was this symptoms written down by the prover: _____ Yes. _____No. Found out through conversation with the prover ______Yes. _____ No. Was found out through a group discussion later on with other provers; _____ Yes. ______No. The most reliable symptoms are those that are written down by the prover.
15. Did an unusual stressful event happen by chance that could have produced this symptom in the prover: _____ Yes. ______No. Was this a typical reaction for this prover or a very different reaction from what they would normally have: ______The same as before. _______Different from before.
16. Was the same remedy proved again with this patient in a different potency and the same symptom produced _____ Yes two different potencies produced the same symptom.
17. Did this proving produce alternation of extreme opposite states for this symptom such as sleepiness and sleeplessness?: _____ Yes. _____No. This is a difficult situation to make sense of. For example in Opium there is both sleepiness and extreme wakefulness. Both opposite states need to be recorded.
18. Did this prover experience an overall worsening of their symptoms and then an overall improvement of their symptoms which lasted many days and weeks; in which case by chance this was the simillimum for this patient: ______ Yes ______No.
Send you additions to Archebel, McRepertory, Complete Dynamics or to the repertory of your choice. I know it takes work but that is how we can all give back to our profession and help each other.

Leave a Comment