Up The Swanee To Atlantis Part 2 by Mike Bridger CCH Principal
01 February 2026 | by Mike Bridger
Continuing directly on from Part 1 of “Up the Swanee to Atlantis”, Mike Bridger delves into the potential pitfalls and dangers of Homeopathic psycho-diagnosis and how inaccurate assertions can lead to distortions in our methods of case analysis, for which our patients may pay a heavy price.
Up The Swanee To Atlantis (Part 2)
I do not dismiss other therapies or systems of belief, but they are themselves a lifelong pursuit of learning, and we have to be careful what we poach. Certain concepts which have been the preserve of psychotherapy can be extremely useful in illustrating some of our own homoeopathic philosophy, but just because we use such concepts does not entitle us to regard ourselves as psychotherapists. Many students do not understand the boundaries between homoeopathy and psychotherapy but think they do, or worse still, think there isn’t any delineation (psychopathy?). They are quite willing to judge a case or interrogate the patient in a way no competent psychotherapist would. They interrogate patients not from a simple spirit of enquiry and humility, but from a place where they assert their own muddled concepts and beliefs onto the patient. This is also apparent in case analysis. This confusion leads to a tendency to prescribe not on the symptoms of the case, but on the apparent psychological cause of the symptoms, which is usually completely speculative, and worse, judgmental.
This isn't a student problem; it is a drip feed of confusion that is leaking through the profession. Neither is it simply a matter of intellectual debate amongst ourselves. This lack of clarity will pollute the image of the profession from the grassroots, because patients are not willing to rely on the old power-based principle of 'Dr knows best'. Patients demand that we explain clearly and in everyday language, what we as homoeopaths can or cannot do for them. We have a duty to respond. If we are not clearer about how we communicate, and muddle the issue with concepts from other more obscure systems then we will be in trouble.
Hahnemann was impatient with allopathic medicine1 precisely because of its endless speculations about the causes and effects of disease, yet if we are not careful we are in danger of making the same mistake. He stated clearly that it is only the outer image of disease that need concern us because this outer image is a reflection of any inner imbalance.
It is the totality of symptoms, the outer image expressing the inner essence of the disease i.e. of the disturbed vital force, that must be the main, even the only, means by which the disease allows us to find the necessary remedy…2
A sore throat with a splinter sensation and extreme sensitivity ought to be part of the picture that leads us to Hep Sulph3, and there is the end in itself. Some students and homoeopaths alike seem to be bored with this kind of obviousness and now overlay 'sickness' with new symbolism. The sore throat is actually the patient's inability to talk (Catch-22 scenario) and communicate with people because it hurts on some psychic level. Alternatively (and spoken with the same scary sense of certainty and judgement), the glands of the neck are swollen and painful, so we follow the lines of who is a pain in the neck for this patient. This kind of interpretation, which I encounter again and again, is what I would call "new age allopathy", where real meaning is dismissed with new age Latin and is about as meaningful as the doctor diagnosing tonsillitis. The reality is that we, not the patient, deprive them of their voice.
The above is a real example and one which I have encountered many thousands of times, in different guises, during my years as a teacher. This tendency for psycho-diagnosis, which springs from a trend which mistakenly assumes that the only good prescriptions are ones which are rooted in the mental/emotional sphere, is increasingly prevalent. Many students are led to believe that unless their prescription is rooted at this level then they are liable to suppress. Such an attitude is not grounded in clinical experience. There is a re-interpretation of the meaning of a deep prescription. While Kent4 meant this to mean a prescription which covers pathological degeneration, it is now taken to mean a spiritual or mental prescription. The corollary of this is that to prescribe on physicals is somehow superficial and shallow. Some students and homoeopaths unashamedly announce that they have a good understanding of essences of remedies and of the mental picture but are very vague and unsure when it comes to learning the physical nature, the physical generals etc. Some even say it with a sense of pride, as if the blood, sweat and flesh of humanity are to be treated with disdain and the mind and soul are to be deified. The fact is they are the same thing.
Such assertions miss the real beauty and wonderment of homoeopathy, which recognises no boundary between mind and matter. This boundary is essentially an invention of allopathy. If I fall off my skateboard and bang my head and say I'm alright, presumably we could have a debate about whether I fell off my skateboard because I felt I needed to feel alright. Alternatively, we might argue that there must be a mental or emotional reason why I fell off the skateboard in the first place. Perhaps we could take it that I love attention and prescribe Pulsatilla5. Maybe we should look at why a 41-year-old man bought a skateboard in the first place? The answer could be in the rubric "childish". There is something wonderful about these Sulphuric speculations unless you happen to be the patient, holding his bloody nose and deprived of the obvious Arnica6. Of course I exaggerate for illustration, but the implications are very serious.
The unprejudiced observer realises the futility of metaphysical speculations that cannot be verified by experiment, and no matter how clever he is, he sees in any given case of disease only the disturbances of body and soul which are perceptible to the senses…7
Check back in a fortnight for the continuation of this controversial original article, in which Mike Bridger continues to explore the dangers of prescribing without an appropriate regard for the hierarchy of symptoms, in Part 3 of “Up the Swanee to Atlantis”.
References:
1Chaitow, L., Zeff, J., Snider, P., et al. (2008). Physical Medicine in a naturopathic context. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 1–23). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-044310390-2.50006-7
2Hahnemann, S. Organon of Medicine. Presented by Médi-T. Organon 1-19. (n.d.). http://homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/organ001.htm#P7
3Olsen-Stanko, K. (2025). Why Hepar Sulph should be in your medicine cabinet | Boiron USA. Boiron USA |. https://www.boironusa.com/why-hepar-sulph-should-be-in-your-medicine-cabinet/
4Wikipedia contributors. (2026). James Tyler Kent. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tyler_Kent
5PULSATILLA from Materia Medica by James Tyler Kent. Homeopathy. (n.d.). https://www.materiamedica.info/en/materia-medica/james-tyler-kent/pulsatilla
6Smith, A. G., Miles, V. N., Holmes, D. T., et al. (2021). Clinical trials, potential mechanisms, and adverse effects of Arnica as an adjunct medication for pain management. Medicines, 8(10), 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines8100058
7A, S. C. (n.d.). Unprejudiced observer. Scribd. https://www.scribd.com/document/837421349/Unprejudiced-Observer#