Fungi

In the case of fungi, we cannot think in terms of homeopathic families. Fungi are, in fact, an entire kingdom of very special organisms: much of them is still wonderfully undiscovered, even by various branches of science. Fungi are also a kind of challenge to some deep-rooted clichés, to which even a large part of the homeopathic community remains bound.
Many still consider fungi to be plant organisms, when in fact they are in many ways more similar to animals than to plants. In fact, fungi are fungi, and those that “speak through the voices of our homeopathic patients” clearly tell us how proud they are of their absolute original diversity.
Essentially, fungi break down matter through a metabolism that our anthropocentric perspective would define as “destructive”: their purpose is the total mineralisation of organic matter.
Fungi are a “fourth kingdom”, a challenge to those who insist on reading our pharmacopoeia as consisting only of minerals, plants and animals.
Another “homeopathic kingdom”, if we really want to remain stubbornly attached to this triple taxonomic perspective, to which we can add imponderable remedies, nosodes and perhaps even gases and others. I prefer to study substances as they present themselves and not only for their place in the periodic table or in other taxonomies, trying to understand why something is what it is … and not something else.
Fungi live, like us, but mainly hidden. They live, but their existence is fundamentally “catabolic”. They live mainly in environments that are hostile to plants and animals. They live, as we do, but following completely different paths and have done so for much longer, even though we have only been studying them for a short time.
Theoretically, our homeopathic literature recognises about seventy fungi. In fact, it is difficult to come across interesting cases beyond the well-known Agaricus muscarius, Bovista lycoperdon, Secale cornutum and Ustilago maydis.
In recent years, I have conducted some provings that I have never published, as I have simply had other priorities. Some of the fungi I propose for study are not yet present in our literature, but I thought that in the past other colleagues have written on several occasions about remedies that they had the intuition to study and prescribe, feeling then the duty to inform our community. I hope that in the near future I will be able to devote myself to publishing these provings, as it is not out of the question that someone else may do so, confirming, improving or refuting my experiences.
I wanted to offer as complete a picture as possible of this “kingdom”. I would like to reiterate that I do not consider fungi to be a “homeopathic family”, but I would suggest that we can recognise some broad common traits by broadening the scope of the concept of homeopathic similarity. I refer you to the case studies and your own judgement …
Natural history, materia medica, clinical cases with long follow-up and authorised by the patient, repertory additions, differential diagnosis. Summary of the fundamental themes, characteristics, coherent groups of symptoms, motifs, pathologies and syndromes successfully treated in my personal case history for the following remedies.
1) Agaricus muscarius
2) Bovista lycoperdon
3) Ustilago maydis
4) Secale cornutum
5) Boletus laricis
6) Psilocybe caerulescens
7) Boletus satanas
8) Boletus edulis
9) Phallus impudicus
10) Cordyceps sinensis
11) Auricularia polytricha
12) Lentinula edodes
13) Candida albicans
14) Boleus lucidus

In the case of fungi, we cannot think in terms of homeopathic families. Fungi are, in fact, an entire kingdom of very special organisms: much of them is still wonderfully undiscovered, even by various branches of science. Fungi are also a kind of challenge to some deep-rooted clichés, to which even a large part of the homeopathic community remains bound.
Many still consider fungi to be plant organisms, when in fact they are in many ways more similar to animals than to plants. In fact, fungi are fungi, and those that “speak through the voices of our homeopathic patients” clearly tell us how proud they are of their absolute original diversity.
Essentially, fungi break down matter through a metabolism that our anthropocentric perspective would define as “destructive”: their purpose is the total mineralisation of organic matter.
Fungi are a “fourth kingdom”, a challenge to those who insist on reading our pharmacopoeia as consisting only of minerals, plants and animals.
Another “homeopathic kingdom”, if we really want to remain stubbornly attached to this triple taxonomic perspective, to which we can add imponderable remedies, nosodes and perhaps even gases and others. I prefer to study substances as they present themselves and not only for their place in the periodic table or in other taxonomies, trying to understand why something is what it is … and not something else.
Fungi live, like us, but mainly hidden. They live, but their existence is fundamentally “catabolic”. They live mainly in environments that are hostile to plants and animals. They live, as we do, but following completely different paths and have done so for much longer, even though we have only been studying them for a short time.
Theoretically, our homeopathic literature recognises about seventy fungi. In fact, it is difficult to come across interesting cases beyond the well-known Agaricus muscarius, Bovista lycoperdon, Secale cornutum and Ustilago maydis.
In recent years, I have conducted some provings that I have never published, as I have simply had other priorities. Some of the fungi I propose for study are not yet present in our literature, but I thought that in the past other colleagues have written on several occasions about remedies that they had the intuition to study and prescribe, feeling then the duty to inform our community. I hope that in the near future I will be able to devote myself to publishing these provings, as it is not out of the question that someone else may do so, confirming, improving or refuting my experiences.
I wanted to offer as complete a picture as possible of this “kingdom”. I would like to reiterate that I do not consider fungi to be a “homeopathic family”, but I would suggest that we can recognise some broad common traits by broadening the scope of the concept of homeopathic similarity. I refer you to the case studies and your own judgement …
Natural history, materia medica, clinical cases with long follow-up and authorised by the patient, repertory additions, differential diagnosis. Summary of the fundamental themes, characteristics, coherent groups of symptoms, motifs, pathologies and syndromes successfully treated in my personal case history for the following remedies.
1) Agaricus muscarius
2) Bovista lycoperdon
3) Ustilago maydis
4) Secale cornutum
5) Boletus laricis
6) Psilocybe caerulescens
7) Boletus satanas
8) Boletus edulis
9) Phallus impudicus
10) Cordyceps sinensis
11) Auricularia polytricha
12) Lentinula edodes
13) Candida albicans
14) Boleus lucidus

In the case of fungi, we cannot think in terms of homeopathic families. Fungi are, in fact, an entire kingdom of very special organisms: much of them is still wonderfully undiscovered, even by various branches of science. Fungi are also a kind of challenge to some deep-rooted clichés, to which even a large part of the homeopathic community remains bound.
Many still consider fungi to be plant organisms, when in fact they are in many ways more similar to animals than to plants. In fact, fungi are fungi, and those that “speak through the voices of our homeopathic patients” clearly tell us how proud they are of their absolute original diversity.
Essentially, fungi break down matter through a metabolism that our anthropocentric perspective would define as “destructive”: their purpose is the total mineralisation of organic matter.
Fungi are a “fourth kingdom”, a challenge to those who insist on reading our pharmacopoeia as consisting only of minerals, plants and animals.
Another “homeopathic kingdom”, if we really want to remain stubbornly attached to this triple taxonomic perspective, to which we can add imponderable remedies, nosodes and perhaps even gases and others. I prefer to study substances as they present themselves and not only for their place in the periodic table or in other taxonomies, trying to understand why something is what it is … and not something else.
Fungi live, like us, but mainly hidden. They live, but their existence is fundamentally “catabolic”. They live mainly in environments that are hostile to plants and animals. They live, as we do, but following completely different paths and have done so for much longer, even though we have only been studying them for a short time.
Theoretically, our homeopathic literature recognises about seventy fungi. In fact, it is difficult to come across interesting cases beyond the well-known Agaricus muscarius, Bovista lycoperdon, Secale cornutum and Ustilago maydis.
In recent years, I have conducted some provings that I have never published, as I have simply had other priorities. Some of the fungi I propose for study are not yet present in our literature, but I thought that in the past other colleagues have written on several occasions about remedies that they had the intuition to study and prescribe, feeling then the duty to inform our community. I hope that in the near future I will be able to devote myself to publishing these provings, as it is not out of the question that someone else may do so, confirming, improving or refuting my experiences.
I wanted to offer as complete a picture as possible of this “kingdom”. I would like to reiterate that I do not consider fungi to be a “homeopathic family”, but I would suggest that we can recognise some broad common traits by broadening the scope of the concept of homeopathic similarity. I refer you to the case studies and your own judgement …
Natural history, materia medica, clinical cases with long follow-up and authorised by the patient, repertory additions, differential diagnosis. Summary of the fundamental themes, characteristics, coherent groups of symptoms, motifs, pathologies and syndromes successfully treated in my personal case history for the following remedies.
1) Agaricus muscarius
2) Bovista lycoperdon
3) Ustilago maydis
4) Secale cornutum
5) Boletus laricis
6) Psilocybe caerulescens
7) Boletus satanas
8) Boletus edulis
9) Phallus impudicus
10) Cordyceps sinensis
11) Auricularia polytricha
12) Lentinula edodes
13) Candida albicans
14) Boleus lucidus

In the case of fungi, we cannot think in terms of homeopathic families. Fungi are, in fact, an entire kingdom of very special organisms: much of them is still wonderfully undiscovered, even by various branches of science. Fungi are also a kind of challenge to some deep-rooted clichés, to which even a large part of the homeopathic community remains bound.
Many still consider fungi to be plant organisms, when in fact they are in many ways more similar to animals than to plants. In fact, fungi are fungi, and those that “speak through the voices of our homeopathic patients” clearly tell us how proud they are of their absolute original diversity.
Essentially, fungi break down matter through a metabolism that our anthropocentric perspective would define as “destructive”: their purpose is the total mineralisation of organic matter.
Fungi are a “fourth kingdom”, a challenge to those who insist on reading our pharmacopoeia as consisting only of minerals, plants and animals.
Another “homeopathic kingdom”, if we really want to remain stubbornly attached to this triple taxonomic perspective, to which we can add imponderable remedies, nosodes and perhaps even gases and others. I prefer to study substances as they present themselves and not only for their place in the periodic table or in other taxonomies, trying to understand why something is what it is … and not something else.
Fungi live, like us, but mainly hidden. They live, but their existence is fundamentally “catabolic”. They live mainly in environments that are hostile to plants and animals. They live, as we do, but following completely different paths and have done so for much longer, even though we have only been studying them for a short time.
Theoretically, our homeopathic literature recognises about seventy fungi. In fact, it is difficult to come across interesting cases beyond the well-known Agaricus muscarius, Bovista lycoperdon, Secale cornutum and Ustilago maydis.
In recent years, I have conducted some provings that I have never published, as I have simply had other priorities. Some of the fungi I propose for study are not yet present in our literature, but I thought that in the past other colleagues have written on several occasions about remedies that they had the intuition to study and prescribe, feeling then the duty to inform our community. I hope that in the near future I will be able to devote myself to publishing these provings, as it is not out of the question that someone else may do so, confirming, improving or refuting my experiences.
I wanted to offer as complete a picture as possible of this “kingdom”. I would like to reiterate that I do not consider fungi to be a “homeopathic family”, but I would suggest that we can recognise some broad common traits by broadening the scope of the concept of homeopathic similarity. I refer you to the case studies and your own judgement …
Natural history, materia medica, clinical cases with long follow-up and authorised by the patient, repertory additions, differential diagnosis. Summary of the fundamental themes, characteristics, coherent groups of symptoms, motifs, pathologies and syndromes successfully treated in my personal case history for the following remedies.
1) Agaricus muscarius
2) Bovista lycoperdon
3) Ustilago maydis
4) Secale cornutum
5) Boletus laricis
6) Psilocybe caerulescens
7) Boletus satanas
8) Boletus edulis
9) Phallus impudicus
10) Cordyceps sinensis
11) Auricularia polytricha
12) Lentinula edodes
13) Candida albicans
14) Boleus lucidus