Keywords
Media - Provings - Dream - Signatures - Sensations - Delusions - Immunisation - Homeopathy
- Homeopathy attacked - Placebo - Homeopathic Prophylaxis
Introduction
At the time homeopathy is going through the worst attack ever from the British press,
we need to ask ourselves: are these attacks really justified? The attacks may be serving
opportunism, vested interests or even the hatred of those opposed to homeopathy. They
may be ill-intentioned and even malign, however if we are honest, we must accept that
they draw some of their arguments and ammunition from the ranks of homeopathy because
of irresponsibility on our part. I refer to outrageous statements made by some homeopaths
and “modern teachers” and their “new ideas” which are destroying the principles, theory,
and practice of real Hahnemannian homeopathy.
Methodology of provings
The credibility of the provings (homeopathic pathogenetic trials) of homeopathic remedies,
the corner stone of homeopathy, is today being demolished by “new ideas” concerning
the ways provings could be conducted. Certain teachers claim that there is no need
for the remedies to be “proved” on humans, but instead the symptoms can simply be
imagined, for instance: ‘It is on the mind level that group analysis can offer the greatest benefits. Once
the central themes of the component elements are known it will be possible to deduce
the theme of the combination remedy’[
1
] and ‘The method of group analysis makes it possible to think about homoeopathy on a new
level, an abstract, or even metaphysical, level. This enables us more or less to predict
the picture of a totally unknown remedy.’[
2
]
One can easily foresee where such absurd “new ideas” will lead: hundreds of “imaginative”
homeopaths will “imagine” hundreds of different “provings” for the same remedy! There
is nothing wrong in the efforts of some to attract attention through the invention
of new remedies. It is however not fair, for the sake of those who rely on provings,
that such authors ignore the rules according to which a correct proving is conducted,
in accordance with the Principles and Practice applied by Hahnemann.
The methods that many experimenters have followed in order to “provide” provings for
new remedies prove that they did not follow the directions of Hahnemann ‘…a new and revolutionary method of provings, that involved making an entire group
of persons take a dose of the remedy, a few days before or even during a seminar,
and then discussing the effects of the dose during the seminar… They were usually
very productive in terms of symptomatology, especially in the emotional sphere in
the dreams, which gave an idea of the inner processes of the substance… I was impressed
by the effect that the dose had on the collective group consciousness, and how, when
taken collectively, the effect of the dose seemed to multiply and become much more
prominent than when given on an individual basis.’[
3
] ‘…A proving can be conducted with a study group or at a seminar by having each student
take a single dose a few days before or during the class, then comparing experiences.
These provings often concentrate on dreams and mental symptoms in an endeavour to
uncover the deeper meaning of the remedy. This method has been practiced extensively
by Jürgen Becker in Germany and adopted by other contemporary teachers. The idea is
to discover the main unconscious theme of the remedy during the seminar proving. This
is further enhanced by discussing the experience with the group to air and formulate
the central ideas. The advantage of this method is that it may be a short cut to an
inner essence of the remedy.’[
4
] ‘At the School of Homeopathy, where we meet once a month, we have achieved results
in group provings since 1991 using a variety of stimuli: by using material substance;
by holding it; by looking at it; and by meditating upon it. We have achieved results
with potencies from 30C to 200C. We have invoked group provings by one member holding
the concept/image of a thing in their mind (the sender) while the group has sat in
a period of silence and self-observation (the receivers)… It is common experience
amongst provers that certain individuals (who later reveal cardinal symptoms because
of their affinity to the substance under test) develop symptoms which subsequently
are confirmed as belonging to the proving before anyone else had ‘taken’ the substance.’[
5
] ‘For me the meditation proving is often the most convenient and helpful. It gives results
fast and with little effort. The disadvantages are that the picture will not be complete
and can be incorrect in parts. But that can also be the case with other provings.
In my experience, meditation provings often are quite reliable and give the essence
of the remedy, more so than dream provings.’[
6
]
The enthusiasm to “bring out” symptoms has led to claims that even one dose of a high
potency can produce hundreds of symptoms in a small group of people. ‘The proving of Coca-Cola was conducted during my San Francisco seminar in May, 1994.
The participants of the seminar were given one dose of the drug in the 30C potency.
They were instructed to note their symptoms over the next 2 days, whether they took
the dose or not.’
[
7
] ‘Out of 305 mental symptoms in hydrogen, 61 were produced by the 6th potency (2 provers),
17 by the 9th potency (1 prover), 27 by the 12th potency (3 provers), 3 by the 15th
potency (2 provers), 140 by the 30th potency (3 provers) and 56 by the 200th potency
(4 provers).’
[
8
] “The remedy is made up into a 30C potency… All provers start at approximately the
same time and day by taking one dose.”
[
9
]
Most of these “experimenters” probably had not read and appreciated that Hahnemann
used only material doses in the provings on which his Materia Medica Pura is based.
Paragraph 32 of the Organon[
10
] states that all “substances can produce symptoms as long as they are taken in large enough quantities.” In the sixth and final edition of the Organon paragraph 130, he states
that only those sensitive to a substance can have symptoms from a high potency and
this only if they take the remedy every day for several days.[
11
] In order to establish symptoms are reliable and are due to the remedy the experiment
has to be repeated several times. In daily practice we often prescribe the wrong remedy
yet “proving” symptoms are seldom seen. This fact alone shows the scarcity of such
“sensitive persons” that could prove remedies in high potency.
Some have even claimed that there is no need for a real remedy. You can write the
name of the remedy and the potency in a piece of paper, put a glass of water over
it and the potentised remedy is prepared! ‘I had been having my patients write the remedy and potency on a piece of paper for
years and it works like a charm… Because we are working with energy and spirit, our
INTENT of what we set out to do is critical to it behaving as we expect it to behave,
i.e., if you write Lachesis 30C on the paper and the person with the hot flashes stops
having them, then the homeopath must be focused and concentrated in her/his gathering
of this energy.’[
12
]
Or that you do not even need to give the remedy, you just have to think about it and
the patient is cured! ‘I was taught intent was everything. And, of course, we see a patient in the midst
of our case taking suddenly begin to get better once we think of the remedy for them…at
least I do.’[
12
] With such statements how is it possible to defend against the idea that homeopathy
is nothing but “placebo” effect?
Selecting the remedy
The second important issue raised by this storm of “modernisation” is distortion of
the essential methodology through which the remedy is chosen. Some “modern teachers”
claim to have found ways to cut short the laborious work required to find the remedy
that matches with the symptoms of the patient. They suggest, for instance: finding
the delusions of each person and prescribe accordingly. ‘I also realized the importance of the section on delusions, because a delusion is
a false perception of reality, and disease too is a false perception of the present.
The whole mental state of a person is an expression of this false perception (delusion).’ ‘Cure is the restoration of health. It is achieved when man becomes aware of his false
perception of reality. This is made possible through exposing him to his delusion.
This is the basis of the Law of similars on which Homoeopathy is founded.’[
13
] In other words, they guide the naive and credulous student to locate a delusion
in each patient!
Others suggest prescribing only according to mental symptoms ‘To repeat, let me point out that we prescribe on the symptoms of the mind (leaving
aside all the other symptoms relating to the popularly known physical level of the
body) and in turn get a stimulus in the automatic system, which is responsible for
keeping the system of Assimilation and Elimination efficient.’[
14
] Even though many patients suffer only physical symptoms and don't necessarily have
psychological symptoms, let alone delusions.
Within this wave of spurious theory and oversimplification, others suggest grouping
patients according to some “common” characteristics, ignoring the principle of uniqueness
of each organism.[
15
] They teach, for example, that the student should explore whether if the patient
has similarities with an animal, or plant, or mineral, and accordingly look into the
corresponding group of remedies to find the similimum.[
16
] This is essentially the old idea of “signatures” abandoned as useless hundreds of
years ago, now presented as an enlightened modern solution for easily finding the
indicated remedy. In reality what is suggested is the abandonment of the process of
finding the correct remedy through repertorisation and searching the materia medica.
Hahnemann's opinion about these ideas was very clear: ‘…I shall spare the ordinary medical school the humiliation of reminding it of the
folly of those ancient physicians who, determining the medicinal powers of crude drugs
from their signature.’[
17
] The failure of this method is one of the main reasons why Hahnemann sought a more
logical way of curing people and why he developed homeopathy.
Subsequently another point of view has manifested: that each patient corresponds to
one and only homeopathic remedy, the “core” remedy which has to be found, else the
patient would not be cured, ignoring the fact that in deep miasmatic diseases, as
are the most of cases today, a series of homeopathic remedies prescribed in sequence,
at long intervals, are necessary in order to accomplish a cure. ‘It is my experience that if you find the remedy that is really at the deepest level,
they will do very well on it for many years. Usually at the end of that time they
are so healthy they don't need any other remedy. Otherwise, you will just get a partial
effect, but you have not really got it. As Hahnemann said, you are zigzagging towards
cure and I can't do that very often, it makes me dizzy!… If you go the depth of the
person, you see the main switch, which in one flick makes all the individual bulbs
light up.’[
18
] ‘When we prescribe the remedy to a patient on the basis of the Primary Psoric Hypothesis,
with the precise Themes and Guiding Motives, we must expect that cure will manifest
as a quantum leap.’[
19
]
Sensations and delusions
Another recent idea that, I am afraid, will prolong the confusion of students is that
of the projection by the practitioner of a supposedly underlying “context” of the
“sensations” of the patient, to something beyond their meaning and reality. ‘Another key component of this system has to do with becoming attuned to the patient's
sensations. There is a certain energy in precise sensation(s) having to do with both
the chief complaint and the general state of the patient, which has enormous significance.
Dr. Sankaran has termed these as the vital sensations. Vital sensations are not merely
physical symptoms or emotions, but rather the common sensations that connect the mind
and the body. Indeed the vital level is deeper than the mind or the body; it is at
the center point of the diseased state. These are non human specific phenomena i.e.
not exclusive to the domain of only human beings and thus take us directly to the
source of the remedy itself.’[
20
]
Projecting the “sensations” of the patient is a slippery path for a homeopath to take
because these “projections” are not recorded in the materia medica, and every practitioner
will be tempted to find another underlying “context” in the feelings of the patient.
The fact is that we have to match the patient's symptoms to the remedy proving symptoms
and for such a work we have both tools and rules.
The rest is mere conjecture that allows the ridiculing of homeopathy as has appeared
recently in the British press. These extreme ideas create confusion in the minds of
uninformed students and at the same time gave ammunition to the foes of homeopathy.
Dangerous ideas
Other still more dangerous “new ideas” have also surfaced; for instance, the homeopathic
version of vaccination. This originated from a misunderstanding of the idea of Hahnemann
that Belladonna, for instance, could act therapeutically during an epidemic of scarlet fever, not
as a preventive but because it was the “genius” of that epidemic and acted curatively
at the beginning of the infection. This observation was taken to mean that we can
give someone a remedy today and it will protect him/her from a prospective epidemic
which might break out a year or two later.[
21
]
Other ideas followed that only fanatics of a religious sect could adopt: like “homeopathy can cure everything even all forms of cancer or AIDS”
[
22
] or even worse “potentise musical tunes,
[
23
] or the light of Venus or the moon
[
24
] and give it as a remedy!” Then some homeopaths, misled by such ideas, claim to have found a cure for AIDS like
a musical tune played by a CD ‘Healing Downloads are a form of holistic self-healing based upon resonance for a wide
range of illnesses and diseases. They are based on a breakthrough that came about
while applying a neglected part of homeopathy to the treatment of AIDS and Malaria
in Africa. We discovered a new way of healing based on time-tested homeopathic principles
and practices but with a new form of delivery.’[
25
] And they call such nonsense classical homeopathy!
With all these irrational and arbitrary “new ideas” the “modern teachers” are defaming
homeopathy and demolishing the corner stones that constitute its scientific edifice.
So it is not without reason that scientists reacted badly, that the media launched
a war against homeopathy and the opponents of homeopathy are at this moment celebrating.
Conclusion
The attacks of the British media have influenced the perception of whole homeopathy
all over the world. I foresee that this will continue and irrespective of the obvious
vested interests they serve. But the sad reality is that they are not without justification.
The great edifice of scientific credence in homeopathy that was built with so much
labour in so many years by so many committed people is now crumbling as we, the homeopathic
community, are providing the arguments that homeopathy is not a science. Real knowledge
is interspersed with confusion and misinformation, hard work is replaced by projection;
and self-interest is presented as altruistic teaching.
However this is life: where there is light, there are also shadows. There are today
enough sane homeopaths who can turn the craziness, disorder and confusion into order
and sanity, but they must speak out. This journal should be part of such a proactive
movement defending the essence and substance of the theories and principles bequeathed
to us by Samuel Hahnemann.
