Please enjoy this interview on Pamela’s experience and observations on using The Mueller Method™.
You are currently a full time practicing homeopath. I know you are also trained as an RN, but can you give everyone a brief overview of your past training and experience before becoming a homeopath?
PS: I worked as an intensive care nurse for over 20 years. When I moved on from hospital nursing, I worked as a home health nurse and a hospice nurse. My last job as a traditional R.N. was running a family practice clinic.
What led you into studying homeopathy and ultimately becoming a practitioner?
PS: I came down with a profound fatigue of unknown etiology, although after studying with Mr. Mueller I have a clearer idea of where this illness originated. For years, no medicines or other treatments brought me any relief. I became progressively weakened to the point where I was barely able to function and had to leave my job. I cannot remember who suggested I attend a homeopathic study group, but attend I did, and that was the beginning of my journey of personal healing and the most stimulating and satisfying career of my lifetime.
I love stories like that. Where did you study? Who did you study with?
PS: I started with National Center for Homeopathy summer school in 1997 and from there I studied under any homeopath who came to Florida to teach, mainly Durr Elmore ND, Jeremy Sherr from England, Henny Heudens-Mast from Belgium and Dr. Rajan Sankaran from India. Lately, I’ve been studying with Manfred Mueller, who has spent considerable time studying and adapting the roots of Samuel Hahnemann’s teachings and practices into a method that works well with today’s more complex health issues.
What methods did you try before coming upon Manfred’s work, specifically, The Mueller Method™ ?
PS: Mainly I used a method supported by James Tyler Kent. This method consisted of looking for and selecting the one remedy that fit the case most closely. The client would take the one remedy, most commonly in a high potency, and you usually would give this a long period of time to work. Later, I spent time studying and utilizing the Sankaran Sensation Method.
I saw some very good results with the other methods, but they were less consistent and did not seem to hold as long. By using The Mueller Method™, I know within a month if the remedies are working – there is no waiting. If the remedies are not starting to work on all levels, we make another selection.
What is one major difference that you see by using this more Hahnemannian approach of The Mueller Method™?
PS: I very seldom see aggravations anymore, except for a restoration of discharges, of course. Even path-to-cure symptoms with this method are mild and self-limiting, easily corrected with The Mueller Method™ which allows you to adjust the dose. (not the potency, but the dose, with a dilution method)
You know J. T. Kent was confused about dose and potency. He erroneously believed that to lower the dose, you had to go with a higher potency. Of course Kent didn’t haven’t access to Hahnemann’s 6th Edition Organon!
In your practice, what other benefits are you seeing by using aspects of “The Mueller Method™”?
PS: I can speak both as a patient and a practitioner. I am seeing far better results. The other methods I have used were less consistent. Often, I got very good responses, but they did not always hold if the disease was more deeply rooted, as are most diseases in today’s world. By alternating daily remedies, (and by taking each of these indicated remedy every day) every symptom currently experienced and observed is covered. And by using the most deeply acting remedies I find that I seldom miss anymore. Sometimes I need to tweak one of the remedies or add something, but it is very rare that I have a complete miss.
With so many remedies to choose from this is an achievement in practice, especially these days. What potencies do you find yourself using the most for chronic treatment?
PS: For this deeper healing, I only select the deeper remedies and in LM [or Q] potencies: those remedies that we all know which have the broadest actions, such as Natrum muriaticum, Silica, Lycopodium.
Interesting. So, you are finding deep acting polycrests are being prescribed frequently in your practice? Why do you think that is? What are you seeing that makes you select these remedies frequently?
PS: Because they work! At first I was incredulous that a relatively small group of common polycrests worked, and worked well, over and over, but Manfred assured me that this has been his experience for many years as well. I select more than one remedy for the protocol, and between these remedies every symptom the client complains of is covered by at least one of them. If any symptom remains at the first follow up appointment, a remedy will be changed or another added.
I have never seen an aggravation from giving several remedies each day.
Also, I am finding that for the more complete healing, each symptom needs to be addressed from the very beginning. Each symptom points us to where the underlying imbalance exists.
Manfred has been alternating daily remedies, as needed, for many years. This is especially important for people who are suffering from multiple disorders or who just have a laundry list of annoying symptoms. This is really only possible by using daily doses of Q potencies for chronic treatment.
Now, you have implied that you were using the centesimal potencies for chronic treatment before more recently using Q potencies. Why do you like the Q (LM) potencies?
PS: Used correctly, and there is a specific method, I am very rarely seeing aggravations. And those methods taught by Mueller allow for easy correction when they do occur (dosage cups, less frequent dosing, antidoting/removing obstacles to cure, for example). I agree with him that aggravations are hard on the system, and not necessary, and definitely not desirable for healing.
In other words, “don’t aggravate your patients!” In what other ways has your practice changed (and hopefully improved) since you began studying The Mueller Method™?
PS: Before, I would select a remedy after a consultation and send the client off into the ether, with inconsistent follow-ups. Now I keep monthly appointments so that the clients are involved consistently with their homeopathic treatment, and so I can more effectively help to keep them moving forward. This way, when a person does not believe that the remedies are working, or has had an aggravation, there will be a consultation where this will be evaluated. This closer connection is crucial, in my experience, for the best and most consistent healing to take place.
Another advantage of making monthly appointments is monetary. Not only are more frequent appointments a more responsible and effective way to see the best results, but also are more financially feasible for a homeopath. If more homeopaths made more money, there would be more of us and better health care on this planet.
I couldn’t agree more! A more regimented schedule of follow-ups also makes the client feel more responsible for their own progress which is usually a good thing.
There are other aspects of our practice that are very different from what is being taught in current homeopathic seminars. Could you comment on any part that you have found the most effective and helpful in your practice?
PS: An integral part of The Mueller Method™ addresses another crucial part of the healing process that I did not pay adequate attention to in the past. This involves addressing the obstacles to cure which Hahnemann addresses in paragraph 4 of the Organon. For example, without removing the heavy metals, if indicated (which it almost always is), and also the imprints of other substances that have brought the person to illness, you may see remarkable results but they may not hold, due to the continued existing causative factor. In serious or chronic disease, this is a most likely scenario.
Yes, we have seen this over and over again.
Along the same lines, you see many children in the autistic spectrum, a valiant endeavor. Can you give me a few examples of how addressing obstacles to cure and using other aspects of The Mueller Method™ have helped you see better results in your practice?
PS: After a month or two of ascertaining that significant improvement has begun with all complaints: mental, emotional and physical and that the child is on the best combination of homeopathic remedies I will generally address the heavy metals. Gentle, high quality products afford effective oral methods of chelation. These slow but sure methods allow for very rapid correction of any symptoms that could come from chelating too rapidly. Again, the Organon paragraph 2 says “the most GENTLE, rapid and permanent restoration of the health.”
I am seeing that, although complete heavy metal detoxification can take years, we will see improvement in all areas as treatment continues.
In addition, the imprint of substances that contributed to the autism in the first place can be removed homeopathically.
Like a homeopathic “antidote”!
PS: Yes! After the layers of causation are peeled off like an onion from current to the beginning of life, even labor, delivery and gestation, generally the method is to add Carcinosinum to the protocol in order to address the original cause of the tendency towards the autism.
The cancer diathesis is one of the broadest and most prevalent disorders of the modern age. Manfred has said that this predisposition goes far beyond cancer itself. It is the closest thing today to the psora that predominated chronic diseases of Hahnemann’s time. The only difference is it is not an infection like psora was, but a hereditary dyscrasia that affects the majority of people in today’s industrialized world.
PS: Yes, and furthermore I am finding that just about 100% of the autistic children I see in my office fit into the parameters of the cancer diathesis. This diathesis is making these kids more susceptible to the harmful influences that can lead to autism.
Would you say that you are doing better at helping people resolve chronic and complicated disorders than in the past?
Before taking these tutorials, there were so many things I did not address in my practice. And so many things that are now so clear to me, including not only “new” methods but also which substances are today’s most likely obstacles to cure and how to address them. Also I am learning more effective and gentle posology, how to better run my practice, antidoting insights, etc. The tutorials have been life changing for me.
Have you noticed any other improvements in your practice that you would like to comment on?
PS: My confidence has skyrocketed. With every client I am more certain of the remedy selection and no longer am spending time trying to find just the right one, or looking near and far for the more rare or lesser known remedies. I know that the deeper acting remedies I am selecting are going to cover every complaint between them. For constitutional treatment I am finding that old stand-by’s almost always work.
In addition, the remedies are taken daily in the Q/LM potencies. When a new acute picture arises, this can easily be dealt with using 30C potencies, either per an “acute consultation” or by the family at home. I always encourage the family to get a 50 or 100 remedy kit in 30C potencies and a couple of acute books on homeopathy.
Yes, that is exactly what we do in our practice. I have heard many homeopaths say they don’t treat acutes that arise during chronic treatment but I have come to understand that this is mostly due to the method of high potency, one dose watch & wait prescribing. We as homeopaths can do so much more with our homeopathic tools – the most profound and life-changing healing method I’ve ever witnessed. Thank you Pamela for taking the time for this interview! And continued perseverance in the important work you do.
Resources From This Interview:
To learn more about the aspects of The Mueller Method™ including removing obstacles to cure, antidoting or reverse chronological tautopathy (RCT), please see:
and many others!
Header Photo Credit: Pamela Swanson – Orlando FL