SURVIVAL OF HOMEOPATHY
SURVIVAL OF HOMEOPATHY
Dr. M. A. Usmani
(Author: HOMEOPATHY of TOMORROW)
It is a truism to say that the survival of science lies in science: in more and more scientificity of every aspect of knowledge; bolstered up by logic and uncontroversial facts, shedding all the overtones of belief and hearsays, peeling off all the superfluous layers of faith and mysticism from over the face of the reality.
The survival of homeopathy depends, by the same token, on its being a pure therapeutic medical science, based on hard pathological facts, not on poppy cock tales, of a person’s social character, his predilections of behavior, liking, disliking, being civil or rude, being valorous, brave or timid, meek of heart or belligerent, industrious or careless or carefree. These are all fickle facts, having no solid roots in physical body.
Prescribing in homeopathy is based on the similarity between the organic disease of the patient and the pathogenetic disease created by the drug in the provers. The law of cure of homeopathy is similia similibus curentur: that is, the cure is begotten of the similarity between the drug disease and the natural disease (or disorder) of the patient. So the degree of similarity between the two phenomena is the real magic of cure. The truer the similarity between the two phenomena, the nearer the true cure will be the result. The more superficial the similarity, the lesser degree of reliability, for a permanent cure, will be the outcome. The superficial similarity occurs when you choose superficial or inconstant symptoms for comparison. The above described and enumerated mental, behavioral or psychological symptoms fall in this category. They can’t, verily, provide the true basis for diagnosing the factual disease.
Because of the transiency of these symptoms, solid pathologico-therapeutic science cannot be based on them. For pathology only the hard facts, testable in laboratory and by other diagnostic means are ipso facto essential.
My thesis in this article is that the similarity of mental, psychological or character symptoms—that are seldom permanent or dependable, cannot become the basis of a vigorous practice. In fact, in actual proving, these and such symptoms seldom crop up in drug pathogeneses.
Remedies should be studied with reference to the pathologies that are created in the ‘provers,’ for determining the full scope and extent of their generating symptoms, with their intensity and extensity and specificity of the seat of their main action, i.e. their organ affinities.
Some medicines or herbs have inherent tendency to influence certain particular organs. They are said to have specificity of actions on those organs. After Honheim, in the history of medicine, Rademacher gathered a specialized knowledge of such remedies, which the homeopaths all over the world exploit in their practice. These remedies which later on were called ‘organ remedies,’ i.e. specific to the particular organs: stimulating: either thwarting or invigorating those organs.
The second original thinker after Hahnemann, Dr. J. C. Burnett made the versatile and creative use of these remedies. He made such a unique use of these remedies that one feels ascribing the very discovery of these remedies to him. He himself also was the discoverer and inventor of many remedies enriching the homeopathic materia medica. His main prestigious contributions are, e.g.: Bacillinum, Levico, Jaborandi, Urtica Urens, Jugulans Cinerea, etc. He has given for these medicine an established background and clear-cut indications. They are popular additions to the homeopathic materia medica. No clinic is complete without, for example, Bacilinum on its shelves.
Previous to Burnett, a sentiment was pervasive among the contemporaries of Hahnemann—among whom were his learned colleagues and dedicated provers—to know and delineate the therapeutic scope of every remedy. Many of them tried to write monographs on the subject. What they produced were scientific documents on therapeutics. Dr. Hering and Jhar’s manuscripts stood out conspicuously. Other voluminous works came out on scientific therapeutics, among which the most imposing were:
i) Two big volumes of Practice of Medicine by Dr. Goodno. (pub. 1897, some 2000, large size pages);
ii) The Scientific Therapeutcs, According to Principles of Homeopathy; 2vols. by Burnhard Baehr. (Pub. 1869);
iii) Practice of Medicine, George Royal. (Pub. 1923);
iv) Diseases of Brain and Nerves, by same author. (1928)
But the book that became the Vade Mecum for post Hahnemann generation of homeopaths, the world over, was Dr. Jhar’s ’40 Years’ Practice’.
These attempts to construct scientific therapeutics, and in fact, to write even full materia medicas on the therapeutic bases, continued throughout the whole history of homeopathy till today. There were many great souls, among them the brightest stars are: Dr. Farrington (Clinical Materia Medica, etc.); Boenninghausen (Therapeutic Pocket-Book); Richard Hughes (4 volumes of Encyclopedia of Drug Pathogenesy, and Pharmacodynamics, etc.); Cowperthwaite (Materia Medica); Dr. Clarke’s 3 volumes of Dictionary of Practical Mateia medica, in which therapeutic scope of every single remedy is given in the beginning. In addition to this he also wrote a Clinical Repertory. A testament for all homeopaths: William Boericke’s Materia Medica with Repertory is regularly consulted at all homeopathic clinics the world over. There are scores of other authors who have written materia medicas on therapeutic basis and tried to establish homeopathy sternly on purely scientific basis. They were the torch-bearers of scientific therapeutics in homeopathy.
The niche that Burnett created for himself with his vision and sedulous industry is incomparable in the whole history of homeopathy. It is hard for a mortal, during his short sojourn on this globe, to be ever able to encompass and imbibe the whole wisdom and erudition of this God-gifted genius. His innovations have enriched homeopathy in ways never ever thought of before.
About 90{2199fd5a08fd4327006de97eb55639ae209b35f77d7fcf7e4d124ba1edc48180} of daily practice can be dealt successfully with these books, enumerated above. Only 10{2199fd5a08fd4327006de97eb55639ae209b35f77d7fcf7e4d124ba1edc48180} cases and those of the chronic nature will need “higher” homeopathy, which people have penchant to call ‘Classical Homeopathy’—an unnecessary epitaph. And about 95{2199fd5a08fd4327006de97eb55639ae209b35f77d7fcf7e4d124ba1edc48180} of this 10{2199fd5a08fd4327006de97eb55639ae209b35f77d7fcf7e4d124ba1edc48180} chronic cases can be dealt with nosodes, with total and non-controvertible success. For a pathology that can be corroborated by laboratory checking and chemical analyses, the aim of the prescriber is to treat the diseases to alleviate or cure the pathology. If In such situations more than one remedies stand out as indicated, one is selected on the basis of maximum similarity: including some personal traits of the patient. Sometimes the similarity of a single symptom decides the remedy. This happens when a very peculiar and proven symptom of a remedy is strikingly found in the patient. For example, if in a rheumatic patient, you find that the patient can predict a coming spell of bad weather, may it be still a hundreds of miles away from the patient’s station. This is a confirmed symptom of a homeopathic remedy “Rhododendron”. This single symptom will suffice for its selection as a true similimum.
Unless the patient comes for a psychological problem, there is a rare need for asking and discussing psychological issues. Prying into the psychological complexes unless the case falls among the 10{2199fd5a08fd4327006de97eb55639ae209b35f77d7fcf7e4d124ba1edc48180} cases, that we have discussed above, is uncalled for. In the science of behavior or psychology there is no absolute. These are fluid traits or symptoms. There is no person absolutely timid or absolutely brave. Sometimes timidity can be sagacious, and bravery foolish.
The 10{2199fd5a08fd4327006de97eb55639ae209b35f77d7fcf7e4d124ba1edc48180} cases, which we have eulogized as chronic ones, felling the miasmatic barrier sometimes suffices to lay bare the similimum. But even the need for knowing the similimum is, many times, obviated or rendered unnecessary – ‘the case is already cured’—lock, stock and barrel.
When the simlimum does not work or works impermanently, try to find the miasm—there lies the solution and the salvation! Miasm similarity is more comprehensive than symptom similarity. Symptom similarity is superficial; and miasm similarity is pervasive. One stands aghast before the sweeping onslaught of the miasmatic prescription. One can liken it to the clearance of a long bleak spell of cloudy weather that suddenly becomes sunny.