Recently, two books have been published by Dr. Paul Offit, the leading proponent of vaccines in the US and one of the main experts featured in The Greater Good. The two books are called Do you Believe in Magic and Killing Us Softly. They laughably denounce supplements and alternative medicine like chiropractic, acupuncture and homeopathy as not only ineffective but even deadly. To be clear, when creating The Greater Good, we did not disclose the following information as we wanted to let Dr. Offit’s perspective stand on its own and not influence the audience with information about his potential conflicts of interest.
Dr. Offit is the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He is also a consultant to Merck and the developer of Rotateq, a rotavirus vaccine which he developed with Merck. He has served on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. He is the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and sits on the advisory boards of Every Child By Two, PKIDS, the Immunization Action Coalition – all groups committed to defending the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Curiously, only the Immunization Action Coalition reveals its funding – it comes mostly from the pharmaceutical industry and CDC.
Dr. Offit is clearly a very busy guy but somehow, despite his work commitments, he has managed to refashion himself as an expert on autism with the publication of two books on the subject and now as an expert on supplements and alternative medicine with the publication of two new books as well as finding time to conduct numerous interviews in print, radio and online (that is the kind of media coverage only big money can buy). He must be exhausted.
Dr. Offit is a real hitter in the medical industry so people should respect his opinion as an independent voice on all these matters, right? One might want to consider the following before deciding. According to a 2008 report by CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson, “Offit holds a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children’s Hospital, funded by Merck.” Hmmm. So his position at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is funded by one of the leading vaccine manufacturers in the world. He also developed Rotateq, a rotavirus vaccine, together with Merck and according to Attkisson, “future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit’s share of vaccine profits? Unknown.”
But surely he is honest and discloses all his financial ties priding himself on transparency? Apparently not. According to a 2011 report in the Orange Country Register, Offit has no evidence to support his claim that Attkisson lied and that she sent him a nasty email. It sounds like perhaps he was the one doing the lying. And the OC Register goes on to state the following after their investigation: “the network requested (but Offit did not disclose) the entire profile of his professional financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies including: The amount of compensation he’d received from which companies in speaking fees; and pharmaceutical consulting relationships and fees.”
So why rehash all of Dr. Offit’s conflicts of interest? Merely to remind folks that being a doctor does not make one immune to the lure of financial reward, nor does it make one an expert on everything that doctor chooses. So when hearing about Dr. Offit’s farcical denunciation of supplements and alternative medicine as deadly, one might want to consider his financial ties as well as some other information.
Pharmaceutical drugs are the 4th largest killer in America after heart disease and cancer – killing an estimated 106,000 people each year even when properly prescribed, properly administered, and yes, FDA approved. (See Mercola and JAMA.) When one considers complications, errors, etc., fatalities from conventional medicine each year number in the hundreds of thousands to millions depending on data and assumptions – outstripping both heart disease and cancer as the leading cause of death in the US (See Death By Medicine 1 and Death By Medicine 2. To suggest alternative medicine is dangerous and conventional medicine is not (ever hear of Vioxx, Avandia, thalidomide???) requires a degree of revisionist history bordering on the pathological.
While there are indeed reports of death after supplements and natural medicine, they are extremely rare. Indeed it is all but impossible to find data on them. In the absence of reliable data, perhaps the cost of insuring a variety of types of medicine will yield some insight on the relative dangers. Having spoken with several homeopaths, they report it costs between $200 and $1000 per year for insurance. According to a chiropractor I know, chiropractors pay about $2000-$3000 per year for insurance. Compare this to the tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars to insure a conventional doctor each year and one gets a sense of which practices are viewed as the most dangerous by the insurance industry.
Lastly, Dr. Offit says that none of these natural healing modalities work beyond the placebo effect. If that is the case, then why is there so much research on the safety and efficacy of acupuncture that it is now provided in conventional medical practices and hospitals across the US and even provided on the national health services in other countries? Why are acupuncture and chiropractic care covered on many health insurance policies if they are either unsafe or ineffective? And why are there dozens of studies published in peer reviewed journals attesting to the safety and efficacy of homeopathy as posted on the National Center for Homeopathy’s website?
The flu pandemic of 1918 is a great opportunity for a quick history lesson. But first, let’s go back even further, to 1844 and the founding of the very first medical organization in the US, the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH). The AIH was founded by physicians who were also homeopaths to standardize the teaching and practice of homeopathy. Then in 1847, conventional doctors answered with their own organization, the American Medical Association (AMA). According to Dr. Domenick J. Masiello in his History of Homeopathy, “The A.M.A. charter contained specific language against movements such as homeopathy and its members were forbidden to consult with homeopathic physicians.”1
Why would the AMA be so threatened by homeopathy if it did not work? Jane Tara Cicchetti, a homeopath, may have the answer. She writes: “In a 1903 meeting of the AMA one respected allopathic physician admitted that they never fought homeopaths because of their principles, they fought them because they moved in and got the business.”2 So the AMA did not seek to destroy homeopathy because of lack of safety or effectiveness, it was about money. Some things never change!
Now back to the flu pandemic. Few folks know that in the early 1900′s there were 22 homeopathic medical schools, 100 homeopathic hospitals and 1,000 homeopathic pharmacies in the US.3 4 Hence when the flu pandemic hit, there was ample opportunity to assess the relative risk and success of what we today call conventional care versus homeopathic care. Normally when we read about the 1918 flu pandemic, we hear the horrors of how that flu killed over half a million Americans but one never hears how the fatality rate of homeopathic hospitals and physicians was but a fraction of that of the conventional hospitals. According to many accounts, the homeopathic hospitals lost 1%-2% of patients whereas conventional hospitals lost 20%, 25% or over 30% of patients. So much for homeopathy being nothing more than a placebo effect. (You can read physician accounts here.)
So what are Dr. Offit’s two books really about? Money, the proverbial wheel greaser. Unfortunately for Dr. Offit and those behind him, all the money in the world can’t make the facts go away – or change history.
Clearly, some folks are feeling threatened that millions of people in the US and around the world are questioning the safety and efficacy of conventional medicine and pharmaceutical products and are opting for truly safe and effective natural solutions to their health concerns, so it was time for a hit piece or two. Educated consumers can connect the dots and see what is going on here. At some point, Dr. Offit may be the architect of his own undoing…perhaps that time is not far away now.
Estimados Colegas en España:
En estas épocas financieramente difíciles, no es fácil encontrar buenos acuerdos para cursos homoeopáticos y seminarios. El seminario en Mallorca con toda su útil información y guía Hahnemanniana será dado en Inglés. Esto lo hace difícil de aprender si no es que imposible, para los homeópatas de España que no hablen Inglés.
Para ayudar lo más que se pueda, el Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine ofrece una sugerencia. Si un grupo de 5 homeópatas puede conseguir una sexta persona que venga y traduzca, nosotros daremos el sexto lugar gratis y nos aseguraremos de que esa persona sea atendida después y bien alimentada. Nosotros también trataremos y ayudaremos con cuotas especiales cuando se reserven lugares en grupos de 5 personas.
Si ustedes pueden conseguir llenar 10 lugares, nosotros daremos 2 lugares extras gratuitos para el seminarios y ofreceremos compensaciones para solventar los gastos del organizador.
Ustedes sólo necesitan hablar con nosotros acerca de los descuentos por grupo de 5 personas o más. Podemos ayudar considerablemente. Seminars@garyweaver.org
Ustedes pueden escribir en Español, nuestro personal del seminario es bilingüe.
El alojamiento en Mallorca, en el Hotel Blue Bay para reservar en línea es por debajo de los 22 euros la noche. Se encuentran vuelos desde España desde los 40 euros.
Hahnemann’s objection to the physiological approach to the study of drug-actions seemed to lie in the fact that the moment an attempt to establish the action of the drug from its supposed physiological effects, one was entering into a mystery that would give rise to various conflicting ideas and theories.
That is why the Homoeopathic Materia Medica consists of the collective statements of perceptible reactions of the healthy human body, recorded in the words of the persons acted upon by drugs and eschews all concepts, physiological and pathological and thus admits no misinterpretations with changing medical terminology, altered biological conceptions and newer scientific attitudes.
In so far as Hahnemann’s method remains on the plane of description of observations, it attains TOTAL stability to the extent that the observations are correct. When orthodox medicine attempts to “explain”, whenever these explanations are premature, each newly discovered fact will cause a shifting of emphasis and a consequent appearance of progress that is more of change than an advance; whereas the essentially descriptive view-point tends to account for the relative stability of Hahnemanns Materia Medica and his doctrine in general. And has done so for nearly 2 centuries.
However,there are many who, while affiliating with Hahnemann in his work, accepting the law of cure and the theory of drug provings, nevertheless are inclined towards the thought that a more thorough knowledge of the effects of drugs upon the organism should be established, more so than that which comes through the perceptible signs and symptoms caused by the drug. Further they want to explain that the modus operandi of the drug action has the capability of producing certain prominent physiological effects, or in other words, pathological alterations in the tissues.
We must ask why Hahnemann practically ignored these possible changes in tissues, and instead depended entirely upon the symptoms which provers recorded. We may note that this physiological approach to the study of drug-actions necessarily leads to the pathologising of remedies. The study of pathology and pathological anatomy shows how the study of connection of symptoms in the patient may greatly facilitate the discovery of symptoms by showing their mental connection, dependence and succession just as the study of physiology enables us to grasp the phenomena of healthy persons. This study aims at integrating all the symptoms into harmonious whole. But it would have been completely successful were our present knowledge of remedial actions perfect. However as the matter stands, neither physiological concepts nor the pathological symptoms completely cover the totality of symptoms in diseased conditions of the human organism, though these methods (e.g., physiological and pathological), no doubt help us greatly to marshal the facts in an orderly manner and to retain them in memory.
These methods of study attempt to grasp the conceptual whole, which are never co-extensive with the perceptual whole,
It is a fact that as yet there is not one single remedy in the whole of materia medica whose physiological action is completely understood and this being the case it becomes at once apparent that we cannot base our knowledge of drug-action upon that which we do not know or at least know very imperfectly. Then too, the study of the physiological effects of the drug to the entire disregard of individual symptoms necessarily leads to the pathologising of our materia medica.
Thus, when one studies the action of a drug. only from the effects to which he finds or supposes that he finds it to produce upon the tissues and organs he naturally concludes that when we find those alterations of tissues present in a manner similar to that which was supposed to be accomplished by the drug under consideration, that such a drug is the remedy regardless of any individual symptoms.
This leads to adoption of specific methods, which being once established everything pertaining to the pathogenesis which does not fall within the circle of this established specific drug-action is thrown away and cannot be considered of any more account;
It may be asserted without hesitation that whenever a remedy has been received as a specific in the sense which I have just mentioned, it has proved a curse both to the remedy and the physician as well. It is simply an impossibility for the action of any one remedy to be brought into any single recognised physiological or pathological process, at least in our day and without imperfect knowledge of drug-action. The continued study of drug-action upon this basis may give us eventually so perfect a knowledge of drug patho-genesy and disease pathology, if I may use such a term, that we may be able to establish a system of therapeutics based upon physiological action of drugs. That time has not yet come and it is very probably in the far distant future.
Our present knowledge of the pathology is not and can never be a guide to the administration of remedies. Object as we may, it is an undoubted fact that is becoming more apparent that we cannot understand the action of a drug from any other standpoint than that of the individual symptomology. We may theorise to as to the conditions which give rise to the symptomology; it is perhaps eminently proper that we should do so, but when it comes to the application of the drug itself itself we should not allow any theory that we may hold to stand against the indications that may be given by pure symptomatology. As the same rule holds good here as elsewhere in the study of various branches of medicine, that is, while extremes are sometimes useful in leading us to the consideration of effects, nevertheless they are seldom a safe guide in the study of either diseases or drug-actions.
It may be pointed out in this connection, that the so-called Hahnemannians of to day who ignore physiology and pathology in their study are found to be making the most ludicrous mistakes in their treatment of diseases, mistakes that might be avoided by a very simple knowledge of the other two important sciences which they leave entirely out of the question. On the other hand there may be a class of men who claim for themselves the title of homoeopathic physicians, but who have no knowledge whatever of symptomatology and never studied their materia medica carefully, but go upon the assumption that they possess a perfect knowledge of the physiological effects of the drugs and of pathological effects in disease; and they are found to be prescribing certain drugs for certain conditions under any and all circumstances regardless of the symptomatology or indeed regardless of any specific ideas whatsoever excepting only those relating to the pathological effects of the drug itself. It is very evident that such physicians are liable to err; and that there is not one who does not make mistakes at times in his supposed knowledge of the physiological effects of drugs. He therefore stands upon an uncertain ground and is neither scientific nor safe in his methods of practice.
It may be concluded therefore that the physiological effects of a drug must ever be, so far as known, the scientific basis of our knowledge of drug-action, and we should lend every energy to increase this knowledge and at the same time, we should realise how weak and lame we are in this direction before accepting as a fact that which almost every physician has established as unsatisfactory if he has given the matter any thought at all. This is why the theory expounded by Hahnemann in the early days of drug study holds equally good today, that symtomatology is the only safe language of a drug-action, wherein we are never liable to make a mistake and upon which we can at all times depend. One who closely follows the symptomatology of the drug and the patient we shall more nearly arrive at the individuality of the drug and the patient.
We should not ignore the very important relation that exists between the homoeopathic materia medica and physiology, but at the same we should not allow the relationship to become so great as to blind us to the true and only scientific method of drug-study: symptomatology, the science of semiology.
In a recent facebook post I asked readers where they would least expect to see the following symptom:
“It is intolerable to him to keep the affected part still, he moves it up and down.”
Understandably, most opted for Bryonia. Of course. We know of Bryonia as the remedy for those who have to keep completely still. For those who are so sensitive that even if you jar their beds slightly they go into paroxysms of whatever they are suffering from at the time.
It is true that when symptoms agree, Bryonia will be relevant in this need to keep still. Rhus Tox will be relevant in the need to move. However, to quote from Porgy and Bess – it ain’t necessarily so. The above symptom appears as symptom 593 in the proving of Bryonia.
Hahnemann writes about this possibility in his introduction to the proving of Bryonia:
The similarity of its [Bryonia’s] effects to many of the symptoms of Rhus Toxicodendron cannot fail to be noticed; in the preface to the latter medicine I have sufficiently dwelt upon this. At the same time Bryonia affects the disposition quite differently, its fever consists chiefly of chilliness, and its symptoms are mostly excited or aggravated by corporeal exertion, although its alternating effects, when the symptoms are relieved by movement, are not very rare.
Hence, when using Bryonia in diseases, there occur cases where the remedy, although chosen as homoeopathically as possible and given in sufficiently small dose, does not render adequate service in the first twenty four hours. The reason of this is that only one, and that the wrong series, of its alternating actions corresponded. In such cases a fresh dose administered after twenty-four hours effects amelioration by the production of the opposite alternating actions. …. This happens with only very few other medicines having alternating actions (vide the preface to Ignatia), but it occurs not rarely with Bryonia.
Rhus Tox and Bryonia are very similar remedies. This is often overlooked in the way the “better/worse for movement” issue is emphasized by so many. I have a case at present where I gave Rhus-Tox but it would have been easy to give Bryonia instead. The differential between the two in this case (which I’ll write up in the future) rested on other modalities and symptoms, not on anything to do with movement.
Although Bryonia’s symptoms are mainly worse for movement or exercise, you can have cases where the patient will be better for movement and all other symptoms will be pointing to Bryonia. And Bryonia will be the right remedy.
But because Bryonia is one of a group of remedies, which includes Ignatia and Rhus Tox, which produce alternating effects, the first time you give Bryonia, you might get no positive response, no action. This is because the “flip side” of Bryonia’s actions was called into play, which may not have had relevance to the symptoms. Hahnemann recommends giving a second dose after 24 hours to call up the alternating process, and bring improvement through the right set of symptoms.
It’s always important to be certain of the prescription, but especially where remedies with alternating actions are concerned, as it may often be necessary to prescribe a further dose of a remedy that does not seem to be helping, and it’s essential to understand the reason why it is not helping.
And with Bryonia, Hahnemann tells us, this can happen quite often. It is certainly not rare. Forewarned is forearmed!
I.H.M. senior homoeopathic Practitioner Vera Resnick
The Mallorca Seminar is a two day intensive based on the writings of Hahnemann and Boenninghausen, As such it qualifies for a certificate from the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine upon completion.
The Seminar content (outlined here) is a fairly rigorous study which will require deep concentration and application to the lecture material. At the end of the seminar, it is our experience that the attendee will have a firm grasp on the basics of Hahnemanns work and methodology, plus a Hahnemann approved repertory to work with if you opt to purchase. There is no obligation or requirement to do so.
The I.H.M. in conjunction with P & W Synopsis have set the prices for the Seminar as follows:
Please keep in mind that the purchase price of the SYNOPSIS program alone is $799 €610 £520
Seminar Only: £400
Combined Seminar and SYNOPSIS program £580
Seminar only: £350
Combined Seminar and SYNOPSIS program £550
Extra SYNOPSIS program purchased at the Seminar will be available for £350.
The seminar will give insight into the writings of Hahnemann without interpretation. The direct result of years of research and practice, has allowed the I.H.M. and P & W to piece together and comprehend the methodology as the founder intended, and demonstrate his thinking through the exhibited individual disease reaction and symptoms produced.
For those wishing to utilise Hahnemanns thinking and use it in case analysis, the SYNOPSIS computer program (Windows and MAC on the Dongle, so you will never be stuck for a platform) is built around the 1846 Therapeutic Pocket Book of Boenninghausen. This work has been completely revised by P & W and compiled from original print editions and hand written copies, and corrections made to errors with each rubric translated from the German using original medical dictionaries of the time period. This monumental work is used in the main by I.H.M. practitioners in Mexico, Australia, USA and Europe. The SYNOPSIS program has 4 language interfaces at present ,German, English, Spanish and Hebrew. The T.P.B. has been carefully translated into these languages too.
For research and familiarity for those that use other repertories, the SYNOPSIS also contains 16 other repertories. All meticulously compiled into the easy to use OpenRep SYNOPSIS engine. These include Kents final General with additions, Boger Boenninghausen and 14 other well proven repertories of note. The Kent and Repertorium Publicum are also in Spanish.There is also the ability to add or remove Symptoms, add or remove remedies and grades AND… the ability to make your own repertory entirely.
Along with the Repertories, there are over 400 Materia Medicas and texts to read using the powerful search engine. (please go to http://homeopathyonline.org to read all about the program and even D/L the demo.
We have currently over 30000 OpenRep and Synopsis programs in use worldwide.
This seminar has been designed to put the real practice of homoeopathy as defined by Hahnemann back into your clinic for the benefit of your patients. To give you the practitioner, certainty in prescribing and confidence in the process of the medical practice of homoeopathy.
This is the 5th seminar in the series. It caters to small groups and, in truth is a fairly intense workshop, There is a lot of information to impart and some unlearning to do. Using Video, Power Point, Audio, case examples and live case taking, the methodology of eliciting the pivotal symptoms becomes very clear when viewed through Hahnemanns instructions.
Why Mallorca? Its actually much cheaper to do the Seminar in Mallorca than in London. You can view it as a free Seminar if you choose the SYNOPSIS option, with a cheap holiday, or, as an inexpensive seminar and holiday for the price of a SYNOPSIS if you already own one.
Seminar Fee… £400. 2 nights accommodation £150. Food: £100 travel from outside London, parking, Petrol, Train, bus etc £100. Total £700. We were unable to factor in a total price for the Seminar including the SYNOPSIS due to room rental and travel costs for us!
Mallorca: MAXIMUM seminar price including the SYNOPSIS £580. A one week stay on the Island in October is from £200. http://travelrepublic.co.uk
I.H.M. staff have a long history with the Island. Even having owned residential property there.We will be able to help with all inquiries.
October is not far away. Drop us a line on firstname.lastname@example.org if you are interested. We will not be catering for more than 20 people so as to give personal attention to your seminar enjoyment.
The human organism is a combination based on thought ability living matter. It is complex in its constitution and diverse in its manifestations which is the result of the mutually interacting forces—chemico-physical, vital and mental working in and through the organism.
“What innumerable unknown forces and their laws may there be in operation in the functions of the living organs of which we can form no conception and for ascertaining which we should require many more senses than we have, and these endowed with infinite delicacy”!—asserts Hahnemann.
The human organism presents two aspects—inward and outward. The former is invisible or imperceptible whereas the latter is visible or perceptible to our senses. Though the invisible morbid alteration in the interior and the alteration in the health perceptible to our senses (totality of symptoms) together constitute what we term disease, the totality of symptoms is the only side of the disease turned towards us, this alone is it that is perceptible to us, and is the chief thing that we can know respecting the disease and that we need to know to cure the disease.
Thus the totality of symptoms signify much more to Hahnemann than what they appear to the orthodox school of medicine. The symptom totality cognizable to our senses thus constitutes the outwardly reflected picture or image of the internal essence of the disease. These symptoms are either expressed by the patient himself or observed by the outsiders as sensational, functional and structural changes of the human organism.
In so far as our observations are accurate and complete, our mental associations of symptoms of diverse kinds and grades strictly logical, our mental representation of the disease picture is the closest approximation to the factual reality. Thus empirical truth is also a truth of certain order and this truth can claim as much reality as any other scientific truth if it is based on correct observation, proper experimentation and complete verification through deductive and inductive methods of logical reasoning.
Hahnemann takes his stand on this point of view. He built up a science of semiology which would not admit any speculative hypotheses, wrong inferences or assumptions of half-truths. Facts, to him, constitute the whole truth and not the theories which attempt to explain, interpret or correlate fact-sections which supply the bricks for constructing the different sciences of physiology, pathology, anatomy etc. Thus symptoms are the language and the only language of diseases; and symptoms are the language and the only language of drug-actions on the human organism. So Hahnemann did not attempt to unravel the mysteries of drug-actions or unfold the physiological effects that each drug might be construed to have upon the human system. He saw only the symptoms and to him these were all that were necessary for a thorough study of the drug-pathogenesis.
A strict interpretation of the symptom similarity relationship of homoeopathy does not allow for the use of homoeopathic remedies for prophylaxis, for it is obvious that in order to prescribe a homoeopathic drug we must have symptoms. These do not make their appearance until a disease is established. It has been found however that certain Homoeopathic remedies do exert a prophylactic action. Certain symptoms can be anticipated through knowledge of pathology, and assumed to take a known course. A remedy which can mirror and cause the symptoms, can be given with every chance of benefit e.g., prophylactic administration of ‘Belladonna’ in Syndenham’s smooth scarlatina.(page 115, foot note 17, Organon by Hahnemann) .
A brief look through the casebooks and writings of homoeopaths through the 18th and 19th century, show that practitioners made big use use of of inadvertent preventive medicine in their daily round of practice due to the abortive effects of the clearly prescribed remedy.
The facts show that homoeopathicdrugs exert prophylactic action in certain acute infectious diseases.
Homoeopathy is opposed to the METHOD of applying the principle of vaccination as being a violation of sound, natural principles of medication and can and will cause serious injury to the living organism. It has been proved experimentally and clinically that such methods are unnecessary, and that the results claimed by their advocates can be attained more safely more rapidly and more thoroughly by the administration of Homoeopathically indicated medicines in sub-physiological doses, through the natural channels of the body, than by introducing it forcibly by means of material doses from hypodermic insertion.
Homoeopathy is a system of doctrines, laws and rules of practice which were first formulated, named and systematically set forth by Hahnemann in his Organon of the Rational Art of Healing. Homoeopathy, while not perfect, is complete in all essentials as a system of therapeutic medication, since it commonly uses medicines or drugs alone to effect its purposes.
Homoeopathy is not, strictly speaking, a “system of medicine” as it is often inaccurately called, using the word “medicine” in its broad general sense. It is a department of General Medicine like anatomy, physiology, pathology etc. But homoeopathy differs with regular medicine in its interpretation and application of several fundamental principles of science. It is these differences of interpretation and the practice growing out of them which give homoeopathy its individuality and enable it to continue its existence as a distinct school of medicine.
Its method of approach to the study of diseases and drug-actions on human organisms—is fundamentally different to that adopted by the dominant school of medicine. It is not a fact as is often erroneously held by medical men, that homoeopathy and the so-called “Allopathy” differ in their “Materia Medica” and “Therapeutics”. Dr. J. H. Clarke writes “Homoeopathic Materia Medica is so unlike anything known as Materia Medica of the old school that it is a pity that a different name could not have been found for it.” By the clinical mode of approach to the study of diseases and drug-actions homoeopathy has made medicine assume it’s true place in being an art—the art of healing, having a life of its own, independent of the nourishment its associated sciences bring. Homoeopathy has a limited scope and sphere of action. It is a science of vital dynamics. Proper appreciation of this fact will explain the difference in attitude of a homoeopath and a so-called allopath with regard to the relative importance of the pursuit of study of auxiliary sciences (anatomy, physiology, pathology etc.) and medicine proper. It must have a separate institution of its own; its method ofpedagogy must be different, in many ways, to that followed in an Allopathic institution; and necessarily the equipment and paraphernalia in the two types of institutions must not be judged by a common standard.
Modern sciences, in general, and medical science, in particular, regards the facts of the universe from a materialistic standpoint; they endeavour to reduce all things to matter and motion. The so-called modern scientific medical man, always tries to enrich his knowledge about life through the studies of bio-chemistry, bio-physics and bio-mechanics, yet, at every turn he is forced to admit that organism transcends mechanism. No complete vital phenomenon has yet found adequate chemico-physical description. Physiology and pathology can never be co-extensive with life and disease. Still, the modern scientific medico refuses to accept the existence of Life-principle, even though he is compelled to admit that, as a matter of fact, organisms require for their complete scientific description certain biological concepts or categories which cannot be reduced to those of physical sciences. Homoeopathy, on the other hand, views the facts of universe, in general and medical facts, in particular, from a vitalistic-substantialist standpoint —which regards all things including Life and Mind, as fundamental verities, having an objective existence, in the Universe.
The field of action for homoeopathy is the vital plane. Our attempt to judge the scientific validity of homoeopathy by the standard of conceptions relevant to the physical sciences, is to commit the philosophical crime of “confusion of categories”. It is a particular attitude of mind, a particular line of correct thinking and a particular method of handling of facts, that constitute science, whatever may be the content of a particular department of human knowledge. Judged according in this light, homoeopathy is as much a scientific study in domain of biology as physics and chemistry are in the sphere of physical science. Hence, the attempt on part of the “so-called” modern scientific medical man to belittle the scientific character of homoeopathy falls to the ground and betrays his utter ignorance about the funndamentals, scope and limitations of what science is. The homoeopathic teacher, Caroll Dunham pronounced homoeopathy as the science of therapeutics, but it seems more within the bounds of strict terminology facts to claim no more than that Homoeopathy follows a strictly scientific method, that it is the curative method of scientific medicinal therapeutics. Homoeopathy is the logical and legitimate off. spring of the Inductive Philosophy and method of Aristotle and Lord Bacon. The basic difference between orthodox medicine and Homoeopathy is that orthodox medicine is science based on causality and therefore subject to the endless search for causes and ever changing conceptions and terminologies, whereas homoeopathy is a descriptive science, based on phenomenalism and not concerned principally with causal explanations. This basic difference of thought which is underlying the conflict of both schools and which is more unconsciously felt than clearly understood, makes it so difficult for the orthodox school to find an easily understandable approach to homoeopathy.