In the last issue of “Health through Homoeopathy” questions were asked why Homoeopathy is not better known and more widely practised. Enlightened (on page 10) has challenged Homoeopathy whether it is competent enough to attract medical people into its fold.
It is not the incompetence of Homoeopathy which is responsible for the lack of converts but the incompetence of homoeopathic physicians. Homoeopathy physicians for over a century, with an air of superiority, have always pointed a finger at Allopathy, not knowing that they are incapable of seeing themselves as others see them. They look back to the early Victorian period and not to the present ear of fast developing sciences. In fact they look back to Hahnemann rather than look forward to the tremendous advances in the field of biology, medicine, physics, and chemistry.
Physics, the most advanced of all sciences to-day, does not feel shy to take a leaf both from astronomy and philosophy of Laplace, Kant, etc., in order to achieve better comprehension of new phenomena discovered day after day. But the homoeopathic physician believes only in symptomatology and is solely interested in therapeutic hints. He is not interested to know why Calcarea, Phosphorus, Natrum mur., etc. have their own peculiar constitutional appearance.
Why Conium is useful in cancerous conditions, or why Sepia and Pulsatilla act in hormonal disturbances. All these and much, much more can be explained by our knowledge of pharmacology and a more comprehensive idea of drug action can be achieved. Rather, I have heard a famous homoeopathic lecturer describe Pulsatilla “A person so yielding that you can easily make her pregnant.” This alone is quite enough to make any person, and more so a trained medical man to be disgusted and denounce Homoeopathy.
More than a century of homoeopathic practice has not taught homoeopathic physicians to describe and to teach Homoeopathy in the language of exact science but rather the vague nondescript terms of Hahnemanns times of medieval medicine are adhered to till to-day. Hahnemann in his time made use of knowledge of every branch of science both for the understanding drug action and for the purpose of cure.
I would greatly differ from “the doctor who explains” that there is an active opposition to homoeopathy in the medical profession. I would rather say that there is a professional apathy towards it rather than active opposition. And such an apathy can be easily substituted by active interest provided Homoeopathic physicians show the important facts of Homoeopathy in the precise language of Science.
This brings us straight to the sore question of why Homoeopathy has not been taken up by even a good minority of members of the medical profession. The causes of the decline of Homoeopathy may be grouped as under.
1. The inherent weaknesses of Homoeopathy.
2. The lack of opportunities for research and observation.
3. Defects of homoeopathic practitioners.
4. The defects of homoeopathic teachers.
1. The inherent weaknesses of Homoeopathy.
Though Homoeopathy has scored its greatest triumphs in constitutional therapy, its greatest defect is that it is entirely based on symptoms as related by the patient himself. It takes the objectivity from the doctors hands and makes him completely submissive to what the patient has to tell him, and in this way there is very likelihood of his being misguided unwillingly by the patient.
Hence the doctor, being so entirely dependent for successful treatment on the tale of the patient can no longer, in all cases, be entirely sure of the first choice of the remedy. Also owing to this he cannot plan his course of treatment unless his first remedy has produced therapeutic results. One can understand why Homoeopathy is blamed for being slow in curing, though the fact is that it is the most rapid and the most efficient method of cure, considering that the homoeopathic remedies always strive to put the constitution in order.
Homoeopathy aims at synthesis; in dealing with wholes rather than with parts; it is this synthesis, this idea of treating man as a whole rather than his particular organs, which has made Homoeopathy survive many storms, but Homoeopathy is poorer for abandoning an analytic attitude and solely confining itself to synthesis alone. Exactly opposite is Allopathy in which analysis is a sole aim and purpose of study of organs as well as drugs, completely neglecting integration of available data and knowledge for synthesis.
But the modern analytic trend has yielded immense knowledge, not only in the field of medicine but also of other sciences. Homoeopathy could have entirely displaced modern medical Science by this time if it had, side by side to synthesis, analysed more fully the action of its remedies and given a consistent explanation of its theory. For example a Phosphorus constitution is tall and lean. There is no Homoeopathic explanation why Phosphorus should act on such a constitution, but detailed biochemistry of Phosphorus on human and animal organism has revealed that it has a profound influence on the metabolism of glucose.
By its action depletes the store of glucose in the liver, muscles and other tissues for rapid combustion. Naturally, the fats are also burnt along with glucose, so that there is no chance of the fat being deposited in the body, therefore the person remains lean. Secondly, Phosphorus has a marked stimulating effect on the growing ends of the bone so that the person grows tall. Hence you have the Phosphorus constitution, which is essentially tall and lean. Conium, homoeopathically, is an important cancerous remedy, and the reason for this is easy to find.
Conium contains a volatile oil which on oxidation is identical to Stilboestrol, the follicular hormone of the ovary, and Stilboestrol is a carcinogenic substance. Therefore it is not surprising that Conium acts in Cancer of the female genital organs, especially the breast and uterus.
The reader can judge how easily such a clear explanation of the fundamental action of a drug can help in making Homoeopathy acceptable to the most critical medical man. No homoeopathic physician so far, with exception of Dr. Otto Leeser, has taken the trouble to give a sound explanation of the homoeopathic drug action on the basis of extensive analytical study. I do not for a moment advocate that the homoeopathic physician departs from basing his remedy on the totality of symptoms.
2. Lack of Opportunity for Research and Observation.
Homoeopathy bristles with many important problems. The first and the most important one is the content of high potencies. There is no doubt that the Hahnemannian way of making a potency does impart a dynamic action to the drug. for reasons entirely unknown to us. There is also a possibility that by means of succussion the molecule of the drug many undergo a change.
Thus it is an established fact that long chained molecules undergo fragmentation, and the giant molecule of proteins change their characteristic on succussion. From this one wonders whether Hahnemannian ideology is still hundred years in advance or not. The problem of potency is one which even the greatest of physicists have feared to tackle. You may ask you physicist friend a question. What happens to matter when it is diluted to infinity and succussed as it is diluted? Fortunately this aspect has been taken up courageously by Dr. Boyd, and it has been possible for him to carry out a series of experiments for years by means of donations.
The second important problem is through analytical investigations and provings of new drugs. Unfortunately no work of this kind can be done without co-operative effort and immense funds. The third important problem is clinical research. Homoeopathic physician have yet to prove the contentions of Homoeopathy as mentioned in Hahnemanns Organon by extensive clinical trials with controls and statistical analysis. Here again immense funds are required which are not available.
3. The Defects of Homoeopathic Practitioners.
The homoeopathic practitioner is always searching for symptoms because he can achieve effective cures when he bases his remedy on the mass of symptoms. But in his anxiety to collect all the relevant symptoms be often forgets to diagnose his patients condition. In Scientific Homoeopathy, diagnosis is as essential as in allopathy for two very definite reasons: (a) To evaluate the symptoms so that he may not fall into the error of prescribing on pathological symptoms. For example a person suffering from inflammation of the gall-bladder will have both aversion to and aggravation from fats.
And this symptoms is not a prescribing symptom but should an aggravation to fats occur in a chronic gastro-intestinal complaint it becomes a prescribing symptom of a high order. (b) Diagnosis is essential for prognosis, the proper valuation of achievement. For example gall-stones can be often dissolved out by means of Homoeopathic remedies. It is an achievement which must be repeatedly brought before all members of the medical profession in a proper statistical form, in order to show what Homoeopathy can do where Allopathy completely fails.
