Have you noticed that when you solve a case with different repertories manually or by using a software you get different outcomes? Learning to work with these differences by seeing the repertory as a tool to be manipulated (as opposed to an oracle) can be a real game changer.

Denise Straiges  & Alastair Gray, the speaker of this session have developed a few strategies to work around/with this issue: using multiple “micro repertorizations” of characteristic symptoms. This, alongside a conventional “Bönninghausen” approach, ensures that accuracy is maintained and the larger themes are addressed, providing repertorial balance and, ultimately, accurate remedy possibilities.

This approach narrows down to smaller remedies which otherwise are lost in polycrest soup. But, at the end of the day, the most important part of a repertorization is what comes before it! You can take a great case, and do a great analysis, repertorization, and differential…but if your perspective on the totality of symptoms is “off”, well, you know how that goes.

They will be employing different software platforms, books to show their differences and to work through problems, thus illustrating that it’s the thinking behind the tool that makes for a great prescription, not the tool itself.

This means that you are not doomed to choosing an inaccurate remedy if you don’t have the “right” software package or books at your disposal; the answer lies in you, your analysis, not your tools.

Learning Objectives:

• To understand classification and evaluation of symptoms
• To learn about  micro repertorisations
• To integrate the Bönninghausen approach
• Utility of homeopathic software