WHAT IS WRONG WITH HOMOEOPATHY


The philosophy of homoeopathy has been clarified and modernized so that it can be understood by anyone. The work of modernizing the materia medica is being carried on by Dr. Boericke and a number of others. This stupendous work should be completed. It is a piece of work that every homoeopath should contribute to. Whether you are doing research work, teaching or engaged in the clinical practice of medicine your help is needed.


Inquiring of numerous members of the homoeopathic profession as to what is wrong with homoeopathy the consensus of opinion would indicate that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homoeopathy. The question then quite naturally arises, ‘Why if homoeopathy is sound, scientific and definitely effective, is it not used to a greater extent?” The answer is that the difficulty is in the application of this law of cure.

Outstanding is the complaint that to properly prescribe a remedy is tedious and time consuming. It requires an encyclopaedic knowledge of the materia medica, a task that is extremely difficult and impossible for anyone to completely master. This is an unfounded objection usually taken care of by reference to the standard works on homoeopathic materia medica. Any homoeopathic physician with a fair knowledge of the materia medica can cure the majority of his patients without too much trouble.

For the few cases that are not clearly understood the repertories are not clearly understood the repertories are ever ready to aid in the solution of the similia. Again, the objection of time required for this type of study. Surely an hour or even two spent when a patient’s cure or even life is at stake were well spent. It not only points the way to the remedy but enhances your knowledge of the materia medica.

Among the various investigations, suggestions, and plans made for easing the burden of prescribing, most of them in my opinion show a lack of knowledge of the philosophy of homoeopathy and of the laws laid down by Samuel Hahnemann for the practice of homoeopathic medicine.

One physician states that homoeopathy is not in step with the high pressure of modern times. We must give our patients speedy results, yet there is not a physician of experience who cannot relate numerous cases where the injection of a narcotic or the taking of depressant sedatives has entirely failed to give the temporary relief expected. Furthermore, any experienced homoeopath can cite case after case where an indicated remedy has given relief as promptly as a narcotic or sedative ever did.

Another physician decries the lack of adjuvant treatments. He grants that Hahnemann recognized that remedies can be effective by topical application but Hahnemann warns that it is not as effective or as definite in its action as when given by mouth Hahnemann recognized the use of olive oil inunctions and

the use of saline compresses as local treatments. They do not interfere with medication by mouth. He furthermore approved of thermal treatments, heat and cold hydrotherapy met with his approval. This permits the use of our modern physiotherapy measures, lamps, diathermy, hydrotherapeutic methods; in fact all modern physiotherapy where properly applied could not be considered inconsistent with sound homoeopathic philosophy. His next objection was not so easily answered, that there are no approved nasal sprays. However, we need but watch the changing ideas in the use of these adjuvants.

Fewer and fewer rhinologists are using medicate oil sprays because of their ineffectiveness and likelihood of causing mucous membrane changes which enhance the possibilities of sinusitis. Bronchoscopists warn of the chances of causing aspiration pneumonias by introducing medicated oil globules into the lungs. The swing is definitely to aqueous solutions as was the custom in our grandfather’s day. Ephedrine solutions are being condemned because the relief is temporary and it is being observed that frequent use of these sprays causes boggy mucous membranes, damage to the cilia of the mucous membranes and interference with the normal drainage of the accessory air sinuses.

Even spraying of any adjuvant into the nose is agreed may cause damage to the mucous membranes, damage to the cilia of the mucous membranes and interference with the normal drainage of the accessory air sinuses. Even spraying of any adjuvant into the nose is agreed may cause damage to the mucous membranes. So perhaps in the light of modern scientific medicine nasal sprays are definitely not adjuvants but deterrents in the treatment of diseases of the nose and throat.

Another objects to the fact that one cannot prescribe for an unintelligent patient, one who cannot describe his symptoms accurately. This I admit is difficult but it is surprising how much can be learned by observing the patient’s behaviour. I have seen an experienced homoeopath prescribe successfully without asking any question, but just observing the objective symptoms.

This is a legitimate objection and one that may be enlightened by further study, although this type of patient is rarely met. Symptoms are the only things we know of disease and being entirely individual, must be expressed as individual reactions dependent on the intelligence of the patient. We have all prescribed successfully for the Belladonna patient in delirium or the unintelligent mutterings of the Hyoscyamus patient or the acutely sick, fearful Aconite patient, etc., etc.

Another physician objects to the lack of knowledge of the homoeopathic profession as to the territorial affinity of drugs, or better still, the geographic affinity of drugs, stating that, for instance, a patient presenting symptoms of Belladonna in Philadelphia responds, but a California patient responds better to Gelsemium. Or that a California patient responds to Natrum mur. routinely in the treatment of head cold and that head colds of the usual type show no response to Natrum mur. in Philadelphia. The Pulsatilla type of mucous membrane affliction with bland, changeable type of discharge responds in Philadelphia better to Hydrastis than to Pulsatilla; in California he responds to Pulsatilla. The regular school of medicine has its problem to explain why a diabetic patient in Toronto, Canada, required a larger dose of insulin than a similar patient with similar findings in Indianapolis. Or why a patient from the tropical sections who comes north cannot tolerate near the large dose of calomel or quinine in the north as he did in the south.

Others object to the lack of “word picture” descriptions of drugs or definite personality of drugs, citing the scarcity of such descriptive accounts. Calling to our attention the fair, fat, flabby, emotional blonde female Pulsatilla; the jittery, irritable, sarcastic dyspeptic male Nux vomica; the half-dead female Sepia patient suffering from the ill effects of too much martial difficulties and abuses; the loquacious, snake-like Lachesis patient too tired to get up from her sleep; the Belladonna child and a few others that we all know.

Perhaps it is just as well that we don’t have too many of these types. This leads to keynote prescribing which is helpful in finding the similia but may be misleading. Witness the number of times that Pulsatilla is indicated in the brunette or Nux vomica in the female blonde or Belladonna in the adult. Keynotes are helpful but don’t let them mislead you. A keynote prescription or a personality prescription is not curative unless it is indicated.

Others object that homoeopathy attempts to cure every disease, whether it be medical, surgical or mechanical. This objection does not apply to homoeopathy but rather to certain individuals who fail to recognize or understand the laws laid down for the successful practice of medicine by Hahnemann. Namely, we must recognize what is curable in disease and second, what is curative in medicine.

A serious objection and one that is founded, is the lack of investigation being carried out to substantiate clarify and modernize the homoeopathic materia medica and the application of homoeopathic therapeutics.

At Hahnemann Medical College work is being carried on in reproving remedies on students, accurate recordings of the symptoms produced in modern nomenclature and checked by the latest scientific laboratory methods known. Time will reveal the worth of this procedure.

The following remedies have been completed: Echinacea 0, Arsenicum album 3x., and Cactus 0. These remedies in action were observed for one month. The members of the various proving squads were given a complete physical examination including ear, eye, nose and throat survey. The pulse, blood pressure and respirations were recorded daily. Blood chemistry was taken biweekly. These results will be published by Dr. Boericke later.

Crystallographic study is being made of various remedies and an effort is being made to compare the crystal formation of the remedy with those found in the patient’s blood calling for the particular remedy required. The difficulty of this investigation is apparent: having the right patient available at the time the remedy is to be investigated. More serious is the lack of persons trained to carry on this extremely technical procedure.

Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer of Hahnemann in his interesting book on crystal formation has microphotographic reproductions of the following remedies: Apis, Bufo rana, Formica, Vespa crabro, Allium cepa, Aspidium, Lachesis and Fragaria.

Russell K. Mattern