Isopathy and Homoeopathy Their Relationship



Isopathy, on the contrary, takes it for granted, in flagrant opposition to the fact that all body reactions to any antigen are stereotyped and conform to a fixed pattern which never varies. If this were true and if isopathy used a symptomatic finding principle, then something like the following would hold.

Accept, as a first part of a syllogism, that the remedy of choice in every case is that one that has the identical symptomatology and not a similar symptomatology. This is, to begin with, another assumption concerning the truth of which medicine today can offer merely opinions, no facts. Then it would follow that the isopathic remedy was always the remedy of choice. But this conclusion is based on two assumptions and hence holds no weight. Such teaching, and any therapy founded on such teaching, can claim no credence in scientific medicine.

However, there can be no denying the fact that if a certain drug, let us say plumbum, is employed as an experimental antigen and is given in the same dose of a subphysiologic strength, at the same intervals, to humans of the same sex and age and under closely similar circumstances, thee will result a series of body reactions which will conform to a pattern in a broad way. That is to say, those people who are sensitive to this antigen will react to produce symptoms of which not a few will be fairly well duplicated in a large number of provers. These are the so-called general symptoms.

Thus the isopathist, in spite of the fact that he selects his drug on other than a symptomatic basis, will be inadvertently practicing a kind of homoeopathy. Yet there may be, and indeed it often occurs, that a person taking plumbum will manifest symptoms more characteristic of the generals of causticum than of lead. In such a case, causticum would be the remedy indicated on the basis of symptom similarity. Nevertheless, in other similar cases, plumbum would be indicated on that same basis.

Therefore, and again speaking on a basis of symptomatology, the isopathic remedy may at times be the homoeopathic remedy and the homoeopathic remedy the isopathic. It is a question, in the last analysis, of degree of similarity of symptomatology displayed in the sick patient to the generals and particulars discovered through provings.

On this basis we may continue the argument in the following manner. Theoretically, it is merely a question of degree of similarity, that is, whether it is similar, more similar, most similar, or identical. The terms similarity and identicality express relative degrees of the same thought. Identicality in medicine, however, is like infinity in mathematics. It is a hypothetical possibility which is never reached.

In spite of this we can make the following assertion: All things that stand in relationship of identicality stand also in the relationship of similarity but the opposite does not hold, namely, that all things that stand in the relationship of similarity stand also in the relationship of identicality. In applying this logic to the relationship, theoretically, of isopathy to homoeopathy we obtain the following: All isopathy is homoeopathy, but only a small portion of homoeopathy may be isopathy.

The above would seem to be entirely explanatory of the relationship existing between the two principles of drug therapeutics but, as I have tried to point out and will reiterate, it is entirely fallacious since the one method is symptomatic, the other causal; the one recognizes the often incomprehensible body individuality, and the other does not.

There exists still another and vastly important distinguishing feature with further limits the relationship between these two methods. The isopathic method takes no cognizance of disease states, of diseases, varieties and complications of a given disease. It pursues the diagnostic method. This, as I hardly need to point out, is again antagonistic to the homoeopathic approach. Homoeopathy seeks to employ that antigen which can in the healthy produce a combination of symptoms that is presented in a given state or phase of a disease in a particular patient and recognizes that as the disease progresses its aspects change, old manifestations give place to new; in short, as newer symptomatologies take the place of old, the antigen may or must be changed in keeping with the newer situation.

Isopathy, one other hand, would have us employ the so-called identical antigen in any and all stages of the disease regardless of the changing aspects of the case. This being the case, it should be quite obvious that isopathy pays little, if any, attention to the body reactions or the symptomatology of the case and once again is clearly anti-homoeopathic.

The final difference is in the sphere of application. Isopathy is applicable only where there is a distinct, single, causative agent demonstrable beyond the peradventure of a doubt. Since modern scientific investigation teaches us that disease in the large majority of cases the result of a combination of many factors, the application of isopathy becomes immediately highly restricted. In not a few cases the identity of and the nature of the causative agent will be a mooted question, entirely opinionated, lacking exact proof.

On the other had, homoeopathic is indicated in any medical case where there is a symptomatology calling for a known and proven antigen if the organism into which it is to be brought into contact can react and in which the reaction will not constitute a danger.

W W Young