HOMEOPATHY! OR CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY?
HOMEOPATHY! OR CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY?
Dr. M. A. Usmani [Author of: HOMEOPATHY OF TOMORROW]
What is homeopathy except homeopathy, pure and simple, that was discovered by Hahnemann for which he coined the dictum: similia similibus curentur. There is and never was any other homeopathy, neither new nor old, neither modern nor classical, neither hahnemannian nor boeninnghausean, so to speak, or kentian. Homeopathy, pure and simple, is that homeopathy that has been explained and elucidated by Hahnemann under the dictum: similia similibus curentur. Later attempts at re-coining this dictum as: correspondentia correspondentibus currentur, is sheer theological nonsense or semantic somersault, which occurred when homeopathy was mystified by Swedenborgianism. A full progeny of homeopaths, of the ilk as Hampel, Garth Wilkison, and also including even such scions as William Boericke, inter alia, got themselves imbued in religiosity and mysticism of Swedenborg, a very intellectual and vigorous mystical influence of the time. Religion always flows low and deep, inundating and seeping through and through in what comes its way. It is in its nature to imbue and permeate talents of those who uphold it. It imposes its authority and superimposes its ideas and beliefs on everyone it encounters. Things get changed, in this process, beyond recognition. Same happened with homeopathy. Swedenborgianism played havoc with it. Homeopathy never remained a science of therapeutic, based on pathology. It became a science of psychology and theological psychiatry. It metamorphosed the whole scenario. A semantic problem at once arose to determine the connotation of the word ‘similia’, in the original dictum of homeopathy: similia similibus curentur. Originally this dictum meant the comparison or correspondence between two phenomena: the pathogenetic symptoms of the medicine with the pathology of the patient. This process or concept was spiritualized under the Swedenborgian influence. Now the pathogeneses of every remedy is conceived or carved in the sense or shape of personality and this personality now should be compared with the personality of the patient. So, inevitably these noble souls started giving the main emphasis to the mind and character symptoms over the physical, while originally the general practitioner of homeopathy used to base the whole process on the comparison of two pathologies: the pathogenetic pathology of the drug with the pathology of the patient. From Hahnemann to his immediate disciples and colleagues they all belong to the latter category. Homeopathic practice, at first, was universally done in this simple way. The colleagues and disciples of Hahnemann acted in this way as G.P’s: the general practitioners, and cured the day to day diseases of patients. Hahnemann’s immediate circle was: first Hahnemann himself, then Hartmann, and host of others, then Drs. Jhar, Hering, Boenninghausen, and many more. They dealt with day-to-day complaints, on the spot, with homeopathic prescriptions. This was simply marvelous! People getting cured by medicines that never looked like medicines. Peoples with many sorts of fevers, cold and cough symptoms and digestive and urinary problems and acute and chronic joints’ complaints, herded around them; and they immediately prescribed for them—as Hahnemann did with the washer woman by dropping a single drop of ‘strong’ Bryonia tincture on her tongue—and claiming that she will be cured. They never meddled with the patients’ psychological make-up or personality traits, unless these very traits were at fault that they had come for.
The trouble started, long time after Hahnemann, when spiritual influence and mystical element crept in through the mystical seeping of Kent, otherwise a very sturdy and intellectually vigorous homeopath. He, under the influence of Swedenborg, shifted the fulcrum of prescribing from underneath pathology and put it under the mind symptoms and psychological makeup of the patient. Emanuel Swedenborg happened to be the spiritual Guru and mystical master of Dr. Kent, who was metamorphosed under the great mystic’s pervasive and hypnotic influence. His outlook got tilted towards spirituality, looking askance at the mere scientificity of knowledge. He created long strings of intricate psychologically complex mind symptoms that one feels aghast as to how he could have weaved such sterling psychological images. One feels awe before his ingenuity in building such picturesque unique personality images.
It enticed many a mind and inclined them to participate in such fanciful practice. Flight of imagination is easy because it is unfettered and unbounded by the reality on the ground. They started vying with each other in weaving such stunning images of homeopathic medicines. Such a practice soon became a vogue and such crazy pictures came to be known that verge on veritable caricature. This practice became an occasion for the drifting away of logical and sane medical minds from homeopathy. The dominant school is already becoming louder and louder in rejecting homeopathy as patent quackery.
It is Kent, though, who introduced and incorporated mystical element in Homeopathy, the large part of the matter of his lectures on materia medica and the symptoms of his repertory were culled from Hering’s voluminous works, especially from his Condensed Book. By mixing it with Swedenborgian clay he created very charming ‘essences of the homeopathic remedies’ with this unique dough.
In spite of this heresy of mixing the esoteric with the scientific, Kent remained balanced. He did not cross the limit unabashedly. He still felt the need not to cross the scientific limitations. That is why he is still very much relied upon. But the mystic element from homeopathy is destined to go away. So if there is a tomorrow of homeopathy—which there certainly is, and very bright also— Swedenborgianism must quit from its therapeutics.
Now, in the line of legible ratiocination we have come to conclude that in the term ‘classical homeopathy’ the word ‘classical’ means to give precedence to mind symptoms over the body symptoms. So that a strong pathologically indicated remedy can be rejected in the favor of a strongly indicated mental remedy—if they at all differ. That is a drastic mistake giving bad name to homeopathy.
There is another field of activity in homeopathy which can’t be classified in any sort of system of medicine: neither Unani, nor Ayurvedic, nor homeopathic nor modern medicine. So it is beyond any classification. If any name can be assigned to such practice, it can be ‘Nostrum Mongering’. That is, they create nostrums with the name of diseases by jumbling together homeopathic medicines, potencies and mother tinctures. Thus they have created ‘combination medicines’ with the names of various day-to-day diseases; and various pathologic names are assigned to these concocted formulae. For example cough drops, pneumonia medicines, headache, chronic alimentary canal ailments, diarrhea drops, constipation, etc., etc. It is an errant sort of quackery. No name of any system of medicine can be assigned to it. It can never be given the name of homeopathy, as mixing of medicines or potencies of homeopathic medicine was never thought of by the first generation of the votaries of homeopathic systems of medicine, including the founder. It can never be called Ayurvedic as it is not based on Dosha sort of concepts, nor can it be labeled as Unani Hikmat, as it cannot be matched with their age-old concept of temperaments. Allopathy of yore is nowhere extant in the world now. Modern medicine has taken its place now, which has nothing to do with the allopathy, with its classical connotation. Modern pharmacology has no such niche. The strict pharmaceutical procedures based on scientific standards and rules and regulations of modern pharmacology which these hotchpotch mixed medicines can never meet.
There is no place in any system of medicine for this spurious practice. As they give it the name of homeopathy, it will bring bad name to it and ultimate disaster. Using and mixing homeopathic medicines in one’s fanciful ways, does not make one a homeopath, nor this practice homeopathy. The rules and regulations that identify homeopathy as homeopathy must be adhered to.
All the big pharmas that churn out tons of such spurious nostrums daily, project their founders as ‘the BABA-i-HOMEOPATHY’ (that is fathers of homeopathy), either of their respective cities or the whole country. There is no doubt that their fathers were devout and devoted homeopaths, but they little knew that their scions—the brave progeny, of their second or third generation, will become so mammon loving, that they would not be shy of earning bad name for them. Insatiable aggrandizement is the main impetus behind their all consuming passion. One feels as if the nest that their forefathers built by knitting little straws—straw by straw—so industriously on the tree of life, has been struck by the thunder and lightning of the Mammon god that has put it afire and now the very leaves on which it was built and tucked have started fanning the fire.
Jin pa takia tha wohi pattay havaa deney lagay.
Verily these scions of theirs were their future hope! Alas!
There are serious allegations to this sort of unbridled practice. First and foremost is:
When one medicine can do the job, why the conglomerate of seven to ten medicine?
I discuss only one example; and that is of ‘homeopathic potency, Ipecac.’ In thousands of cases of pneumonia, infantile cough, infantile diarrhea, fevers, gastric disorders, etc. this can be the prime, and singly indicated remedy, that can alone settle the whole case. I say that this remedy ALONE can cure the whole case. If so, then why on earth you need mixing so many incongruous medicines to treat a pathologic condition? The following nostrums have been constructed for different emergencies.
NOSTRUM No.1 (for infantile pneumonia) for which the formula contains: Aconite, camphor, Chamomilla, Euphrasia, Gelsemium, Eupatorium. Antipyrinum, etc.
NOSTRUM No.2 (for various sort of undefined fevers): some of the above + cinchona, china-ars; Eupatorium, Cedron, etc.
NOSTRUM No. 3 (for bronchitis of children, or adults, with respiratory complications and asthma) Ephedra, Drosera, Ipecac. Rumex, Senega, Spongia, Thymus, etc.
NOSTRUM No. 4 (for children’s diarrhea and dysentery) Acid phos, Berb., Cham., colocynth., hydrastis, merc. Cor. Etc., Etc.
When one remedy can do the job, it is sheer cruelty to concoct and prescribe such dirty nostrums. Would you do it for your child? But if you have been doing this nasty practice, day in and day out, time will come when you could do nothing else. Nature will obliterate your memory and insight. You won’t be able to do otherwise. And children of such parents will be doomed to die in hospitals, with needle of saline in their veins. Destiny won’t let you do otherwise. Your senses will be crippled by your nefarious routine. This is dark justice of destiny! While the fact is, that Ipecac. alone might have saved your child.
Eighty percent cases of sudden diarrhea, by food poisoning and otherwise, with gushing watery and drenching motions can be settled with one or two doses of Croton tig. 30. Then what is the use of the nostrum containing: Podophylum, Arsenic, Veratrum Alb., Aloes, Colocynthis, and many others? In inflammatory sore throat: in about 60 to 70{2199fd5a08fd4327006de97eb55639ae209b35f77d7fcf7e4d124ba1edc48180} of cases, Merc. Sol. totally wipes away all symptoms of pain, fever, cold (coryza) and cough. And if cough remains then Pulsatilla or Kali-Bi clears the case. What is the use of the nostrum containing: Belladona Apis, Baryta, Hep.sulph, Phytolacca, Spongia, etc.? Examples can be multiplied in thousands. The question is ‘when two globules of one remedy in a watery solution can wipe away the whole disease, lock, stock and barrel; what is the fun in throwing a full regiment of medicines in the battle, and that too in multiple drop doses?
You can ‘cure’ thousand times a case of sinusitis by your nostrums, or a classical homeopath, by his single high potency remedy, no one can stop the patient coming back, time and again, unless you administer the basic remedy, the indicated nosode. Only that would radically cure. The same is true for other chronic cases, as cancer, or other malignant diseases, and chronic Kidneys and liver problems.
Why I used the word ‘cruelty’ for treating patients with nostrums, in one previous paragraph? There can be cases of ‘Proving’ among the children thus treated. There are sensitive patients, who cannot tolerate repetition of potencies and the material doses of your nostrums. Why I’m a homeopath and a very careful prescriber? I was one such patient, who could not tolerate the repetition of potency doses, without undergoing provings and, thus, remaining trapped for many days or weeks to come.
Even if a modicum of success these combination nostrums show here and there then too their triumph is not the triumph of homeopathy. Such things can happen sporadically anywhere, any time. This will be the success of that particular nostrum: nothing more nothing less. Homeopathy won’t try to appropriate it.