MANGIALAVORI M. – Suggesta

Mangialavori M. Suggesta has also corrected inconsistencies and errors found in the older and classical repertories. The Homeopaths everywhere will relish or enjoy using Suggesta repertory as an accurate clinical tool which has been enhanced by a famous master’s boundless experience. They will also acquire valuable new insights about our homeopathic medicines.

The aim and reasons that “forced” Dr. Massimo Mangialavori to create and produce Suggesta are many…

In those 35 years of clinical practice or experience, he has collected immense verbatim material from the patients, he has had the amusement of meeting. he spent an hour of his time nearly every day to review and assessment of the best cases, where the same medicine works in chronic as well as in acute states and with a prolonged follow-up.

He extracted the recurrent, common symptoms which are confirmed by the clinician in multiple cases. He has tried to elaborate and intricate the material also for reasonable concepts, for themes. This result is a compilation which up to now contains about 30,000 additions.

Earlier more than 12 years ago, then after years of wages and working side by side with David Warkentin, he starts to give in to his exhortation, insistence and the crazy plan of ​​rethinking the repertory. To visualize it as he wanted it. However, he felt like a dwarf in front of a mountain. He thinks that like numerous colleagues who are not so young anymore, he was fortunate enough to live in his homeopathic experience in a moment of appreciable and great revolution.

The repertory on which he learned to study has passed – possibly too quickly – from Kent, to Barthel, to Kunzli, to Synthesis, to Complete, just to name the finest known. Since then, the community has exponentially pursued and continued the attempt to study more and more medicines and to add more and more symptoms to the repertoires.

Understandably, but … they have augmented Kent’s repertory by adding symptoms, extricated as faithfully or constantly as possible from his literature. In his opinion, more than 30 years later, today they have a huge different problem: alike as big data. A problem of all science and not only with Homeopathic Medicine. A plethora of “data” that is not undoubtedly “information”: essential, clinically diriment and confirmed.

Then how can they forget the nineteenth-century terminology and lexicon of a text that is proposed as rudimentary for the training of each and every good homeopath doctor: how can they, after more than a hundred years of repertory, carry on to call the sense of guilt “anxiety of conscience”? The hypertrophy of the lymph nodes is “scrofula, without distinguishing a mononucleosis from a lymphoma? How can we persist in the help of manifestly judgmental symptoms: unobservant, lust, want of moral sense, idiocy or cretinism for medicines clearly known for great relationship difficulties, instead or before of cognition?

What about the numerous “hysteria” which means everything and the opposite of everything, when the disease has even disappeared from the medical lexicon and, when it was present, it indicated something huge different from repertory usage. These problems, and many others that he has not mentioned so as not to bore, have always represented a thorn in his flesh, a pair of shoes that over the years became progressively tight.