AI in Homeopathy: A Tool for Support, Not a Replacement

The integration of technology into homeopathic practice is not a new phenomenon. In fact, we've been using computerized repertories since 1979, when the first digital tools were developed to help practitioners analyze complex symptom pictures. One of the earliest was the Vithoulkas Expert System, followed by tools like MacRepertory in the 1980s.

A major milestone came in 1987 with the creation of the Synthesis Repertory by Dr. Frederik Schroyens, based on Kent’s work but significantly expanded. In 1988, this repertory was included in the RADAR software, making it one of the most widely used digital platforms in homeopathy today.

From the beginning, all these tools were seen as helpers, not as diagnostic authorities.

In homeopathy, understanding the cause of illness is essential. Patients may present with a symptom, but with deeper questioning, we often find a related emotional or environmental trigger. They might say, "Yes, something happened, but I don’t think it’s related.” Often, it is. For example, someone may develop urticaria or catch a cold after being insulted at work but not being able to respond. Or illness may come after long periods of overwork without rest. These are important details—often missed by patients but essential for the physician.

Another challenge is understanding modalities—what makes symptoms better or worse. Many patients are not aware of these patterns. When we ask, “Does it feel better with warmth or cold?” they often say, “I haven’t noticed, but I’ll pay attention now.” Helping patients become more self-aware is a core part of our work—and it’s something only a skilled practitioner can do.

This is why AI cannot replace the homeopath. It cannot judge which symptoms are most important or understand emotional nuances. It cannot feel the energy of the patient or sense what is unspoken. Diagnosis and remedy selection require more than data—they require human insight, empathy, and clinical experience.

But AI can be a powerful support when used wisely. After repertorizing a case, if I’m choosing between two or three remedies, I may ask AI:

• Can you compare these remedies according to Boenninghausen or Kent?

• Is there a similar case in the literature that matches this one?

In such cases, AI can help save time, provide clarity, and even point out subtle differences we may overlook. It’s a great tool—as long as the practitioner stays in charge.

Refusing to use AI or ignoring its benefits is not wise. It is already part of our world, and when used properly, it helps us grow in our work and serve our patients better.

In conclusion, AI is not a threat to homeopathy—it is a helpful tool. When we use it wisely and with care, it can support us in understanding our patients better and finding the right remedy.

Thank you to the developers, programmers, and visionaries who continue to improve these tools and support the sacred art of homeopathic healing.