Monthly Archives: May 2014

You Have The Right To Practice Any Occult You Like- But Don’t Say It Is Homeopathy!

Chandran K C

The entire post below is from Chandran K.C.





One senior homeopath friend commented on my discussions regarding ‘energy medicine theories of homeopathy. He Stated:

“In fact I treat my patients with energy medicine apart from Homoeopathy and magnetic therapy. Energy medicine is there and practiced from 4000 years and Homoeopathy is 250 years old. Study some more and learn to know before commenting on any subject. 4000 years back no labs, no trials, still medicine was being given in many ways and patients were being treated too. Just because you would not believe energy medicine, you cant call it funny and mock at it. Energy medicine is having its own value and such comments would not change its place in the Universe. Never think you can attack somebody like this and you do not have any right to discuss the unknown subject in the group.”

My friend is gravely mistaken. I am not discussing the “”value” or ‘efficacy’ of energy medicine. Nor its historical relevance. I am not interested in ‘knowing’ it. I would not question anybody’s right to practice ‘energy medicine’, ‘magnetotherapy’ or anything like that “apart” from homeopathy. It is up to you to decide what you should practice.

I was commenting on the widely propagated theory that “homeopathy is energy medicine”. In that case, it is a different matter. I did not criticize ‘reflexology’ per se; I criticized the method of selecting similimum using reflexology David Little talk about. I have nothing if anybody practice radionics or dowsing; but when somebody theorizes about using radionics machines to select homeopathic drugs, I have the right to comment. The age old occult practice using hair as as medium existed here since antiquity. I am not bothered. But when somebody talks about homeopathic drug transmission to distance through hair, and conducts courses and seminars for homeopaths on that topic, it becomes a matter of concern for every homeopath. I am not bothered about the ‘water memory’ theory of Emoto or Rustom Roy. But when a homeopath claims he writes name of homeopathic similimum on paper, keeps it under a glass of water to ‘charge’ it and treats his patients with that ‘charged water’, you should not expect me me to keep silent. When a reputed homeopathy claims he recorded the homeopathic drug information as mp3 file and cured AIDS by playing it to patients, you have no right to ask me to keep mum.

Anybody can practice any occults or woodoo as he like “apart” from homeopathy, if law permits a ‘physician’ to do so. I don’t bother. But when you make homeopathy “part” of your occult practices, and spin ‘ultra-scientific’ theories about homeopathy to justify such practices, I have the right to intervene and comment. I am bothered only about homeopathy- not about your ‘energy medicine’ or occults. You keep them “apart”, I will not “attack” you.

Whether anybody is practicing or propagating CAM, ENERGY MEDICINE, FAITH HEALING or anything else is not my concern. It is for the law-enforcing authorities to decide whether a HOMEOPATH registered under the provision of CCH Act is permitted to engage in such practices ‘along’ with homeopathy. I do not intend to comment on it. I am questioning the widely propagated theory that ‘homeopathy is energy medicine’. I am questioning the practice of ‘homeopathic occults’ such as homeopathic drug transmission through hair, homeopathic drug transmission through photographs, mp3 file transmission, selecting similimum by radionics machine, dowsing and reflexology, and such things which gravely damage the scientific credentials of homeopathy. I object only when you make homeopathy a PART of ‘energy medicine’. Homeopathy is purely a method of ‘drug therapy’- not energy medicine or spiritual healing. Homeopathy should be understood, explained and practiced a MEDICAL SCIENCE. Homeopaths should be scientific medical professionals.

Regarding my “right to discuss the unknown subject in the group”, I would like to reserve my comments for the time being, hoping not to spoil our friendship. I expect you would discuss only “known” subjects hereafter.







…The smallness of the doses of the nitrate, and more especially of the phosphate of ammonia, which cause the tentacles of immersed leaves to be inflected, is perhaps the most remarkable fact recorded in this volume. When we see that much less than the millionth* of a grain of the phosphate, absorbed by a gland of one of the exterior tentacles, causes it to bend, it may be thought that the effects of the solution on the glands of the disc have been overlooked; namely, the transmission of a motor impulse from them to the exterior tentacles. No doubt the movements of the latter are thus aided; but the aid thus rendered must be insignificant; for we know that a drop containing as much as the 1/3840 of a grain placed on the disc is only just able to cause the outer tentacles of a highly sensitive leaf to bend. It is cer-

* It is scarcely possible to realise what a million means. The best illustration which I have met with is that given by Mr. Croll, who says, “Take a narrow strip of paper 83 ft. 4 in. in length, and stretch it along the wall of a large hall; then mark off at one end the tenth of an inch. This tenth will represent a hundred, and the entire strip a million.

[page] 170

tainly a most surprising fact that the 1/19760000 of a grain, or in round numbers the one-twenty-millionth of a grain (.0000033 mg.), of the phosphate should affect any plant, or indeed any animal; and as this salt contains 35.33 per cent. of water of crystallisation, the efficient elements are reduced to 1/30555126 of a grain, or in round numbers to one-thirty-millionth of a grain (.00000216 mg.). The solution, moreover, in these experiments was diluted in the proportion of one part of the salt to 2,187,500 of water, or one grain to 5000 oz. The reader will perhaps best realise this degree of dilution by remembering that 5000 oz. would more than fill a 31-gallon cask; and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added; only half a drachm, or thirty minims, of the solution being poured over a leaf. Yet this amount sufficed to cause the inflection of almost every tentacle, and often of the blade of the leaf.

I am well aware that this statement will at first appear incredible to almost everyone. Drosera is far from rivalling the power of the spectroscope, but it can detect, as shown by the movements of its leaves, a very much smaller quantity of the phosphate of ammonia than the most skilful chemist can of any substance.* My results were for a long time incredible

* When my first observations were made on the nitrate of ammonia, fourteen years ago, the powers of the spectroscope had not been discovered; and I felt all the greater interest in the then unrivalled powers of Drosera. Now the spectroscope has altogether beaten Drosera; for according to Bunsen and Kirchhoff probably less than one 1/200000000 of a grain of sodium can be thus detected (see Balfour Stewart, ‘Treatise on Heat,’ 2nd edit. 1871, p. 228). With respect to ordinary chemical tests, I gather from Dr. Alfred Taylor’s work on ‘Poisons’ that about 1/4000 of a grain of arsenic, 1/4400 of a grain of prussic acid, 1/1400 of iodine, and 1/2000 of tartarised antimony, can be detected; but the power of detection depends much on the solutions under trial not being extremely weak.

[page] 171

even to myself, and I anxiously sought for every source of error. The salt was in some cases weighed for me by a chemist in an excellent balance; and fresh water was measured many times with care. The observations were repeated during several years. Two of my sons, who were as incredulous as myself, compared several lots of leaves simultaneously immersed in the weaker solutions and in water, and declared that there could be no doubt about the difference in their appearance. I hope that some one may hereafter be induced to repeat my experiments; in this case he should select young and vigorous leaves, with the glands surrounded by abundant secretion. The leaves should be carefully cut off and laid gently in watch-glasses, and a measured quantity of the solution and of water poured over each. The water used must be as absolutely pure as it can be made. It is to be especially observed that the experiments with the weaker solutions ought to be tried after several days of very warm weather. Those with the weakest solutions should be made on plants which have been kept for a considerable time in a warm greenhouse, or cool hothouse; but this is by no means necessary for trials with solutions of moderate strength.

I beg the reader to observe that the sensitiveness or irritability of the tentacles was ascertained by three different methods-indirectly by drops placed on the disc, directly by drops applied to the glands of the outer tentacles, and by the immersion of whole leaves; and it was found by these three methods that the nitrate was more powerful than the carbonate, and the phosphate much more powerful than the nitrate; this result being intelligible from the difference in the amount of nitrogen in the first two salts, and from the presence of phosphorus in the third. It may aid the

[page] 172

reader’s faith to turn to the experiments with a solution of one grain of the phosphate to 1000 oz. of water, and he will there find decisive evidence that the one-four-millionth of a grain is sufficient to cause the inflection of a single tentacle. There is, therefore, nothing very improbable in the fifth of this weight, or the one-twenty-millionth of a grain, acting on the tentacle of a highly sensitive leaf. Again, two of the leaves in the solution of one grain to 3000 oz., and three of the leaves in the solution of one grain to 5000 oz., were affected, not only far more than the leaves tried at the same time in water, but incomparably more than any five leaves which can be picked out of the 173 observed by me at different times in water.

There is nothing remarkable in the mere fact of the one-twenty-millionth of a grain of the phosphate, dissolved in above two-million times its weight of water, being absorbed by a gland. All physiologists admit that the roots of plants absorb the salts of ammonia brought to them by the rain; and fourteen gallons of rain-water contain* a grain of ammonia, therefore only a little more than twice as much as in the weakest solution employed by me. The fact which appears truly wonderful is, that the one-twenty-millionth of a grain of the phosphate of ammonia (including less than the one-thirty-millionth of efficient matter), when absorbed by a gland, should induce some change in it, which leads to a motor impulse being transmitted down the whole length of the tentacle, causing the basal part to bend, often through an angle of above 180 degrees.

Astonishing as is this result, there is no sound reason

* Miller’s ‘Elements of Chemistry,’ part ii. p. 107, 3rd edit. 1864.

[page] 173

why we should reject it as incredible. Prof. Donders, of Utrecht, informs me that from experiments formerly made by him and Dr. De Ruyter, he inferred that less than the one-millionth of a grain of sulphate of atropine, in an extremely diluted state, if applied directly to the iris of a dog, paralyses the muscles of this organ. But, in fact, every time that we perceive an odour, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves. When a dog stands a quarter of a mile to leeward of a deer or other animal, and perceives its presence, the odorous particles produce some change in the olfactory nerves; yet these particles must be infinitely smaller* than those of the phosphate of ammonia weighing the one-twenty-millionth of a grain. These nerves then transmit some influence to the brain of the dog, which leads to action on its part. With Drosera, the really marvellous fact is, that a plant without any specialised nervous system should be affected by such minute particles; but we have no grounds for assuming that other tissues could not be rendered as exquisitely susceptible to impressions from without if this were beneficial to the organism, as is the nervous system of the higher animals.

* My son, George Darwin, has calculated for me the diameter of a sphere of phosphate of ammonia (specific gravity 1.678), weighing the one-twenty-millionth of a grain, and finds it to be 1/1644 of an inch. Now, Dr. Klein informs me that the smallest Micrococci, which are distinctly discernible under a power of 800 diameters, are estimated to be from .0002 to .0005 of a millimetre-that is, from 1/50800 to 1/127000 of an inch-in diameter. Therefore, an object between 1/31 and 1/77 of the size of a sphere of the phosphate of ammonia of the above weight can be seen under a high power; and no one supposes that odorous particles, such as those emitted from the deer in the above illustration, could be seen under any power of the microscope.

[page] 174



by Peter Morrell
Honorary Research Associate in the History of Medicine, Staffordshire University, UK


Kents philosophy was the end of REAL medical homeopathy.


Kent also created the first coherent, persuasive and highly influential philosophy, which has largely gone unchallenged within the movement. It was formulated as a synthesis of Swedenborgian mysticism and the more romantic portions of Hahnemann’s Organon and the Miasm Theory of The Chronic Diseases [see Kent, 1900, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy].

However, as quickly became apparent, Kent’s homeopathy was rooted in a rather dogmatic and puritanical attitude, and seems to derive from a pedantically scholastic and uncritical reverence for everything Hahnemann wrote.

“Kentianism, then, was metaphysical, dogmatic, puritanical and millennial. Homoeopaths who failed to achieve results with the high dilutions lacked intellectual skill and rigour, as well as the moral fibre for the arduous task of identifying the simillimum. In short, so far as Kentians were concerned, the faithless were responsible for the corruption and decline of the movement.” [Treuherz, 1983]

It is also deductive and didactic and denies that the facts of the outer world are in any sense superior to, or an arbiter for, theoretical ‘principles’. In that sense it seems stubbornly medieval in its extreme deductivism. It turns its back completely on the empirical approach of scientific rationalism and thus on allopathy.

‘When a man thinks from the microscope, and his neighbor’s opinion, he thinks false-ly. Nothing good can come from this. Evil must take place, and changes, which are the ultimates of his internal thought, will take place in the body’ [Kent, 1926]

‘The microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be carried away by these idle Allopathic dreams and vain imaginations but should correct the Vital Force'[Kent, 1926]

‘The Bacterium is an innocent feller, and if he carries disease he carries the Simple Substance which causes disease, just as an elephant would.’ [Kent, 1926]

This stubborn determination to studiously ignore the rest of medicine and the ‘ideological push’ of the last 200 years, makes it appear to the modern eye, as reactionary, hard-line and perverse.

“You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual, to his outermost natural.” [Kent, 1926]

‘Experience has a place in science, but only a confirmatory place. It can only confirm that which has been discovered through principle or law guiding in the proper direction. Experience leads to no discoveries, but when man is fully indoctrinated in principle that which he observes by experience may confirm the things that are consistent with law.’ [Kent, 1900, p.40]

This passage, which is typical of Kent, can only make sense to a follower of pure dogma; Hahnemann, for example, would have totally disagreed by saying that ‘experience’ had taught him all he knew. Science, like homeopathy, is rooted in observations and experiments in the outer world, not in the enforcement of dogmas. Kent seems to place ‘the cart before the horse’ by stressing the philosophy and principles of homeopathy over and above the simple fact that it is primarily a system of therapeutics in which the progress of the patient is always far more important than the religious [or other] beliefs of the practitioner. In every science principles derive from observations, and do not dictate them.

Maybe this ideal of detachment and emotional neutrality even science subtly fails to comply with at times. Science occasionally gainsays the event before it happens and in effect dictates the outcome or ‘spin’ which should be placed upon some experimental data. This may be based upon theoretical considerations, political or financial factors. For example, the allopathic view of most clinical trials of unorthodox medicine, can hardly be described as ‘emotionally neutral’ or detached. Someone watching a horse-race with a million dollars placed on one horse, can hardly be expected to manifest very much emotional detachment and neutrality!

However, as one of the most important homeopaths after Hahnemann, Kent has had a big influence as a theoretician, a practitioner, a writer and as a teacher of homeopathy. His influence has been especially strong on American, Indian and British homeopathy [see Nicholls, 1988, p.186], while the Continentals seem to have been largely untouched by his influence, except in Switzerland and the influence of Dr. Pierre Schmidt. In the case of India, their delight in homeopathy in general and Kentianism specifically might depend to some degree upon their own general interest in philosophical aphorisms and religious matters. Homeopathy supplies them both; Kent supplies them in profusion.

Pierre SCHMIDT (1894-1987)
(Courtesy Dr R. Séror)
Pierre SCHMIDT (1894-1987)

Georges Vithoulkas
Georges Vithoulkas

As a follower of the Christian mystical sect of Immanuel Swedenborg, Kent delivered a blend of Hahnemann’s Organon and miasm theory, spiritual forces and a crude psychology, comprising only will, understanding and intellect [see Aphorisms].Some details of Kent’s ‘psychology’ and his ‘hierarchies’ are discussed by Taylor [1997, pp.5-7], elaborated by Vithoulkas [1980, pp.23-57 and especially pp.46-7 and pp.23-25], and considered by Sharma [1995, pp.39-40].Kent approached his philosophy with typical vigour. He viewed all Hahnemann’s works and especially The Organon with a fundamentalist zeal, seeking to amplify and reinterpret every word of the Master, much like a theology scholar or biblical commentator. His Lectures On Philosophy, for example, form quite literally a rambling Swedenborgian commentary to the first half of Hahnemann’s Organon. To him these were precious and immutable homeopathic truths that it is sacrilege for anyone even to question, let alone ignore, dilute, negotiate or compromise. He even goes as far as saying:

‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homoeopath.'[Kent, 1926, Aphorisms]

It is especially in Kent’s rather arrogant use of language, which hits us when reading his works, which really illustrates this fundamentalism and the precious certainty of his approach to homeopathy. The following quote from many possible ones, clearly demonstrates this:

‘…beware of the opinions of men of science. Hahnemann has given us principles… it is law that governs the world and not matters of opinion or hypotheses. We must begin by having a respect for law, for we have no starting point unless we base our propositions on law.’ [Kent, 1900, p.18]

Kent infers that homeopaths should base their whole approach upon the hard dogmatism of these ideas, which he elevates to the status of certitudes, and not upon the ever-shifting ideas of ‘mere men’. He is claiming a great authority and power behind such ‘immutable principles’, a power which like some divine form, stands ‘above and behind us’ and which we dare not abrogate or dilute for fear of one’s soul’s damnation.

As an attitude, this is so indistinguishable from that of fundamentalist religion, that it is clearly apparent how this form of homeopathy possessed, and generated for itself, so many problems with creative and imaginative people who much prefer to experiment and find truths out for themselves, eg. Samuel Hahnemann. This whole approach denies anyone the privilege or luxury of that kind of freedom. Total and unquestioning devotion to a given creed seems to be the basis of Kentianism, not reason or real-world experiment. As to whether Kent was truly a Hahnemannian homeopath see Henr 1995 and Cassam, 1999.

It is especially when he lapses into the moral sphere of homeopathy that his deep dogmatism reveals itself. When he is speaking purely about homeopathy, which is comparatively rare, he does well, but as soon as he enters human affairs, a certain clearly-recognisable ‘Bible-punching’ tone seems to shines through. As the following quotes clearly demonstrate:

‘It is law that governs the world and not matters of opinion or hypothesis. We must begin by having a respect for law…’ [Kent, 1900, p.18]

‘This means law, it means fixed principles, it means a law as certain as that of gravitation… our principles have never changed, they have always been the same and will remain the same…’ [Kent, 1900, p.28]

‘Had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race, the other two chronic diseases would have been impossible and susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible…’ [ibid. p.126]

Kent would have no dealings with allopaths nor with low-dilutionists, who were pejoratively portrayed as ‘mongrel, milk-and-water half-homeopaths’. Homeopathy was seen very dogmatically by them as pure classical homeopathy as ‘laid down in tablets of stone by the master’ or nothing. This narrow, simplistic and somewhat inflexible view of homeopathy had split American homeopathy right down the middle, causing a very acrimonious clash of ideologies. It is generally conceded that this bitter wrangling contributed significantly to the precipitous decline of homeopathy in the USA during the first half of this century [Kaufman, Coulter, Rothstein, Gevitz].



The Swedenborgian influence

To Swedenborg, the realms of nature, and particularly the body and mind of man, were theatres of divine activity…A ‘universal analogy’ existed between the various realms of creation. The physical world was symbolical of the spir-itual world and this, in turn, of God. He conceived a resonant system of hierarchies of God, universe and man. He became a theologian and established the ‘Church of the New Jerusalem’ [see Nicholls, 1988, pp.262-5; also Rankin, pp.70, 82, 94-5, 107, 112].

A Supreme Divine purpose reigned throughout creation. The life of the universe, whether physical, mental or spiritual was the activity of Divine Love. The physical universe is given its true place in the economy of creation, the womb of man’s most enduring and real life. Briefly, Swedenborg was heretical to mainstream Christianity, because he espoused that personal liberation could be won easily from an all-loving God and that ‘original sin’ was non-existent.

‘…he dispensed with the idea of original sin’, [Treuherz, 1983, p.48]

As with Paracelsus and ‘later theosophies’, the link with homeopathy is to be found in the vast hierarchies of form and spirit that he conceived as existing between God, mind and matter and penetrating throughout the universe. Kent linked all of this to the process of potentisation, the vital force and the miasms of Hahnemann, seeing them both as philosophies that fully confirm each other and which for him, married together splendidly, into a new organic creation. The following quotes from his Aphorisms more than amply illustrate this point:

‘Radiant substances have degrees within degrees, in series too numerous for the finite mind to grasp.’

‘The lower potency corresponds to a series of outer degrees, less fine and less interior than the higher.’

‘When it has passed to simple substance, the Radiant form of matter, it has infinite degrees. To express the degrees from the Outermost to the Innermost, we might say a grain of Silica is the Outermost; the Innermost is The Creator.’

‘There are degrees of fineness of the Vital Force. We may think of internal man as possessing infinite degrees and of external man as possessing finite degrees.’

‘There are degrees within degrees to infinity.’

‘Low potencies can cure acute diseases because acute diseases act upon the outermost degree of the Simple Substance and the body. In chronic disease the trouble is deeper seated, and the degrees are finer, hence the remedy must be reduced to finer or higher degrees so as to be similar to the degrees of chronic disease.’

Swedenborg composed a ‘theory of correspondences or connections between the visible and invisible worlds’, [Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 1981, p.617]. The James family including Henry and William were Swedenborgians and in Massachusetts and East Coast ‘among its adherents [were] most of the social, intellectual and business elite.’ [Coulter, vol. 3, pp.467-8; see also Winston, 1999, pp.166-7]. At that time, many of the ‘Transcendentalists’, led by Emerson, were very taken with philosophies like Swedenborg’s.

Henry James 1843-1916
Henry James 1843-1916
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
William Blake (1757-1827)
Self portrait of
William Blake (1757-1827)
sweden03.jpg (5967 octets)
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772)

Another important adherent was Dr. John James Garth Wilkinson [1812-99] who was a big friend of Henry James senior. Wilkinson had trained at Hahnemann College Philadelphia and published several books on the sect. Indeed, many people were attracted to Swedenborg’s ideas, including the English artist and poet William Blake [see F Treuherz, 1983, The Homeopaths, 4:2, winter 1983, Heklae Lava or the Influence of Swedenborg on Homeopathy, p.36-7 [pp.35-53; see also Barrow, 1985]; re Blake see Ackroyd, 1994:

‘[Blake]… picked up separate ideas, or fragments of knowledge, as he needed them. He was a synthesiser and a systematiser, like so many of his generation, but it was his own synthesis designed to establish his own system of belief… he borrowed notions from Swedenborg or Paracelsus. He was above everything else an artist and not an orthodox thinker’ [Ackroyd, p.90]

‘…Blake has picked up elements of Thomas Taylor’s Neoplatonism as well as Swedenborgian doctrine and some alchemical terminology. Everything upon the earth has a spiritual correspondence, and the world itself is inspired with the breath of divine humanity.’ [Ackroyd, p.116]

‘Blake was very clear about his spiritual ancestors. He told John Flaxman that ‘Paracelsus and Behmen appeared to me’, but their arrival meant he turned away from Swedenborg. ‘Swedenborg’s writings are a recapitulation of all superficial opinions, and an analysis of the more sublime, but no further. Have now another plain fact: any man of mechanical talents may from the writings of Paracelsus or Jacob Behmen, produce ten thousand volumes of equal value with Swedenborg’s.’ It is true that the writings of Paracelsus and Boehme [Behmen] do seem to come from a purer spring of spiritual revelation than those of Swedenborg…’ [Ackroyd, p.147]

‘..many critics have noticed how intimately the ‘Marriage of Heaven and Hell’ is related to Blake’s movement from Swedenborg towards Boehme and Paracelsus…’ [Ackroyd, p.15]

‘…there is no doubt that the ‘Marriage’ represents Blake’s most serious attack upon Swedenborg and Swedenborgians…’ [Ackroyd, p.153]

There are definite links with other forms of American Transcendentalism in the 19th century especially the Romantic literary figures like Thoreau, Hawthorne and Emerson.

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1882)
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1882)

The teachings of Swedenborg are especially reflected in Kent’s ‘Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy’, where they are shaken up with parts of Hahnemann’s Organon to form an attractive but baffling cocktail of ideas. Before his death, he published three main works: ‘Repertory’, ‘Lecture on Materia Medica’, ‘Lectures On Philosophy’. He also edited the ‘Journal of Homeopathics’ from 1897 to 1903: seven volumes, constituting the lectures which he gave to advanced doctors and personal articles. Kent’s writings on Philosophy and Materia Medica were published in this journal before they came out in book form. After his death a collection of aphorisms, lesser writings and notes and cases was published [1926, ‘Lesser Writings, New Remedies, Aphorisms, etc.’].

Kent seemed to emphasise a rather tenuous link between religion and science and this spilled out into a form of hard, dogmatic, fundamentalist creed. There seemed to be no middle ground, no shade of grey.

Presumably this approach worked well in the USA at that time and held converts of homeopathy together. Over here it tended to make Kentian homeopaths look rather strange and to set homeopathy itself even further apart from mainstream allopathy than before. Once the Kentian creed became the official, legitimised creed of the BHS [c.1910-60] then it seemed that one had to be like that in order to practise any form of homeopathy. This tended to push homeopathy as a subject, even further out on a limb from allopathy than before, and thus no further dialogue between them became possible.

“In practice, Kentian homeopathy was, according to Wheeler, ‘slightly contemptuous of any attempt to make terms with other medical knowledge regarding, as it were, the teaching as something so transcendental that no reasoned explanations are likely to have any validity.”

It is of interest that Dr. Percy Hall-Smith, in 1930, a member of the BHS, said:

“My own conviction is that our teaching is not sufficiently practical, and the approach unduly philosophical, and too far removed from the line of thought of the average doctor… It requires a rather special type of mind and outlook to swallow at the first blush undiluted ‘Kentian principles’. The average mind trained on a more materialistic basis is liable to be repelled by such teaching at the outset. “

Dr Gordon Smith [Faculty]:

“But for high dilution, the man of the 200th potency is nowhere, he is still among the crudities of posology. For we have brethren who are not happy till they get to the 10,000th, and even then they are not quite at home, they deem the 100,000th a good point to start from, and hence upwards to anything you like… I am satisfied in my mind that the 100,000th potency or dilution made according to, and by, the Hahnemannian method has never yet been seen on our planet. And if it should some day make its appearance, someone will have spent much time over its preparation which might have been employed to better purpose.”

Kent’s Obituary appeared in the BHJ 6, 1916, pp. 337, 541. As Kent himself implies, in order to be a good homeopath one must also be a good Swedenborgian first! This idea is relatively easy to illustrate from looking at his writings, which are packed with aphoristic certitudes.


Kent’s Morality

Disease might be seen as an entirely human phenomenon. It probably also reflects the fact that nature ‘in the raw’ is in a state of near-perfect balance and harmony, which contrasts with the many conflicts and disharmonies of the world of human affairs.

We can also argue that perhaps it is the ‘moral uprightness’ of animals which protects them from disease. By ‘moral uprightness’ I mean their purity and the way they stick very strictly to their received pathways in life, never deviating from ingrained habit patterns and conventionalised patterns of accepted behaviour. By contrast, humans seem to lack these ingrained habit patterns and to conduct themselves in various diverse ways driven on according to their own innate willpower. No doubt Kent, and other religious moralists, would tend to regard ‘the way you live your life’ as being very intimately bound up with the quality of such a life [on a spiritual basis] and its relative ‘sickness’ with regard to the possible experience of suffering, symptoms and signs of disorder, imbalance and disease. Such moralists, as we shall see, do regard disease as having a moral dimension, and of very largely deriving from slack morals.

Kent took the view that the basis for this human ‘origin’ of disease is moral. That means that we have disease because we have lost a moral order for our lives, and that it is a direct and inevitable result. Are the two equated at all?

We don’t have to search very hard to find a mass of moral ideas within homeopathy which illustrate how puritanical and moralising homeopaths tend to be. The following quotes from Kent’s Lectures and from his Lesser Writings reveal a very rich seam of such material:

“You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural” [Kent, 1926, Lesser Writings, p.641]

“A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.” [ibid., p.671]

‘The body became corrupt because man’s interior will became corrupt.’ [ibid., p.681]

‘Man… becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil, through thinking wrong…’ [ibid., p.664]

‘Psora is the evolution of the state of man’s will, the ultimates of sin.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil willing, is Psora.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘Thinking, willing and doing are the 3 things in life from which finally proceed the chronic miasms.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘…had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race… susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible… it is the foundation of all sickness.’ [Kent, 1900, p.126]

‘Psora… is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing evils.’ [ibid., p.135]

‘The human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little better than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the present day. To put it another way everyone is Psoric.’ [ibid., p.135]

‘Psora… would not exist in a perfectly healthy race.’ [ibid., p.133]

‘As long as man continued to think that which was true and held that which was good to the neighbour, that which was uprightness and justice, so long man remained free from disease, because that was the state in which he was created.’ [ibid., p.134]

‘The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him; therefore, the environment is not the cause…’ [ibid., p.136]

‘Diseases correspond to man’s affections, and the diseases upon the human race today are but the outward expression of man’s interiors… man hates his neighbour, he is willing to violate every commandment; such is the state of man today. This state is represented in man’s diseases.’ [ibid., p.136]

‘The Itch is looked upon as a disgraceful affair; so is everything that has a similar correspondence; because the Itch in itself has a correspondence with adultery…’ [ibid., p.137]

‘How long can this thing go on before the human race is swept from the earth with the results of the suppression of Psora?’ [ibid., pp.137-8]

‘Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness… is the underlying cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human race.’ [ibid., p.126]

‘…for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness… which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases. [ibid., p.126]

It seems pretty clear from these quotes that Kent took a very puritanical and moral line about the origins of disease within the human race and he apparently felt that Psora was equivalent to Original Sin or the Fall of Man. That is the clear implication of the above remarks he made. He got himself into this very strange position very largely from insisting that homeopathy necessarily involves a religious dimension which places a moral duty upon the practitioner, and thus the homeopath has a morally redeeming influence through cure. Thus he viewed the homeopath as a Godly saviour who dispenses spiritual as well as physical cures; and that illness stems from a corrupted state of man, which homeopathy can cure. Kent’s logic is rather like…’all sick men are bad; Socrates is sick, therefore Socrates is bad’. And he also contends:

‘all sickness originates from internal causes; internal causes are spiritual; therefore all sickness has a spiritual basis’

And then from there he equates internal and spiritual causes as the miasms. Thus in his view the miasms are to be viewed as internal spiritual sins, or derivatives of them.

He also avers another line of argument:

‘all disease causes [inner world] are invisible and nebulous; all potentised remedies are of a similar nature; thus potentised substance, and especially the higher potencies, are the only means of curing disease [by reaching into the subtle interior realm of disease causes]’

This also leads to his oft-repeated adage of ‘the higher the deeper’. This probably also forms the basis for his strong advocacy and use of the very highest potencies. In this manner we can analyse and dissect Kent’s brand of homeopathy.

Like the Mediaeval Churchmen, Kent shows a remarkable devotion to deductive logic and an apparent ignorance of induction or of knowledge based upon experiment, data and the evidence of the senses, to which he also remains either oblivious or contemptuous. There are some good parallels between Kent and Thomas Aquinas [1225-74] in that both treat their subject matter with immense reverence as received dogma which cannot even be questioned, and then build upon that base their towers of speculation and philosophy. Both also tend in the direction of rigid dogmatism, excessive preciousness and zealous devotion to ‘truth’ as received dogma, not as freedom of thought or experimentation, towards which both seem utterly opposed.

Kent, like many others seems to regard illness as an unwanted evil, obtained through contamination, which must be ‘cleansed’ out of the system by the healer. In most cultures the healer is thus regarded as an agent of divine assistance, a cleanser, or purifier of souls.

Kent seems to have causally linked together two otherwise distinct and separate observations, which may not be causally connected at all. Is it really true that lack of morals leads to disease? Are the sick to be viewed as bad? And the bad as sick? And what of those who die of cancer, disfigured by arthritis, ravaged by Human BSE, muscular dystrophy or MS? Are we to truly believe they ‘deserved’ those illnesses? And to have reaped what they have sown? Or is this all a nonsense? It is so very hard to say. Perhaps Kent has mistaken ‘moral rectitude’ with health and purity and hence concluded that disease must therefore stem, pretty fundamentally, from an amoral or immoral position. But it is surely quite a different thing to arrive at such a conclusion from sustained observation and contemplation of the natural world, than it is by deciding that is the way things have to be, because some religious dogmas say so.



The appearance of a typical Mercurius flu is very similar to that of Pyrogenium, although the patient appears somewhat bloated. It may be that one finds a localized, hectic flush, but a generalized redness is typical for Mercurius. Often the face is bright red. The wet welding seems strange oily, so that the patient’s skin looks greasy.

In contrast to the volubility at Pyrogenium Mercurius patients appear driven. Their language is hasty, and they almost stumble over their words. They are much more anxious and restless.

Although Pyrogenium patients are very ill, so they are quite unconcerned about their condition. Mercurius patients, however, are extremely depressed, restless and anxious. Very often they are dejected as Pulsatilla and cry when they courtesies brought. Linked with their haste is a tendency to impatience and irritability.

Their general perception of temperature is another distinguishing feature. Mercurius patients feel as hot as Pyrogenium cases. They have the same hot sweat and feel uncomfortable when too warm, and frosty, if they are covered up too easily. But they never have the same intense sensitivity to cold as Pyrogenium where the state is constantly changing between too hot and too cold. When Mercurius patients are in a quiet atmosphere at moderate temperatures, they feel quite well.

Unlike Pyrogenium Mercurius patients have a clear night aggravation. You feel uncomfortable all night, have a significant temperature increase and tend to sweat more, which makes them feel even more uncomfortable.

It is difficult to distinguish between the headache of Pyrogenium and Mercurius patients. Both suffer from the same oppressive headache in exactly the same situations. Both have the same heat sensation in the head, and in both the sinuses, the antrum and the ear are affected; the symptoms are very similar.

Maybe Mercurius patients are a little more sensitive to drafts over the painful areas. More helpful is that they have more relief from pressure on painful areas perceive as Pyrogenium cases.

As far as it comes to thirst, there is little difference between the two means. Both are thirsty and demand for cold drinks. But the mouth provides clear indications. In the mouth of Mercury there is always a feeble, swollen, pale and coated tongue, with a disgusting, greasy taste and agonizing sticky, fairly profuse salivation in contrast to the dry, brown coated tongue of Pyrogenium.

The Mercurius tongue trembles. She trembles clearly when it is stretched out. The excessive salivation makes the tongue sticky, and the patient finds it difficult to speak and express themselves.

The Mercurius-neck is acutely inflamed, and the submaxillary glands are enlarged early striking. The neck itself is very swollen, dark, dark red, very sensitive, it feels hot and burning. The whole tissue of the posterior pharyngeal wall appears inflamed and every movement hurts; Swallowing is very difficult and can stabbing pains that extend to the ears cause.

The sensation of burning and soreness extending down the throat and involved larynx, trachea and bronchi. The cough is extremely painful, the inside of the chest feels so rough on as if the mucous membranes replaced. The intense inflammation causes hoarseness, and very often a complete loss of voice.

Mercurius flu patients always have an intense conjunctivitis with profuse lacrimation. There are hot, burning tears that excoriieren the skin of the cheeks. They are very sensitive to light and especially sensitive to radiant heat. Furnace heat leads to sore, burning eyes.

These patients have profuse, watery, excoriating nasal discharge, which tends to excoriieren the upper lip. This is accompanied by intense burning pain in the nose and violent Nießattacken. These attacks are provoked either by walking out into fresh air, or by entry into a warm room. They are caused either by heat or cold or drafts.

The aqueous secretions tend to be thicker, to turn green. When this happens, patients receive intensive, the antrum under the eyes or up into the sinuses radiating pain.

In the context of the intense throat infection there is usually acute involvement of the middle ear. Usually this starts with the feeling that clog the ears, and this may roaring ear noises. It set up very quickly earache one, a sense of heightened tension and throbbing pain.

The pain tend to extend to the side of the head, and often involve the entire side of the head. There will be more pronounced sensitivity of the mastoid, often swelling of the retro-auricular glands, the neck down extend, and extremely injected eardrums with early rupture.

Mercurius patients suffer complete loss of appetite during flu. Due to the high acute strep throat she can barely swallow. Moreover, continuous forms unpleasant saliva, which can be swallowed without pain and causes a feeling of intense nausea.

These patients have generalized pain of the muscles. You have stiffness perception of the neck, back, arms and legs and movements are painful.

And not only the tongue but the entire patient is shaky. The hands are insecure and all fine movements shaky.

Thoughts regarding drug delivery.

BKC College

Kolkata-700108, India

Some of the latest concepts of medicinal science are indebted to Hahnemann’s intuition regarding holistic approach of cure. Patient-specific treatment, therapeutic vaccination (both involve proteomics), drug-targeting and drug-delivery technique by applying least amount of medicine within micelle and liposome as ‘carrier’, all are the latest outcome of his philosophy.

Yet, according to many scientists infinitesimally diluted drugs have no molecule of the original remedy left; they therefore are ‘non-molecular and non-functional’. There are several theories about how such a medicine can function, but all of them suffer from some shortcomings.

However, after observing some experimental evidences it has recently been suggested that diluting away of molecules is possible so long as the solution remains homogeneous. When homogeneity is lost, few molecules can be obtained up to much higher dilution than Avogadro’s limit (12C).

As water has a high Dielectric Constant (DC= 80), it can separate the +ve and -ve charges of the solute molecule wide apart, but during ritualized succession and infinitesimal dilution, where the number of solute molecules is depleting drastically, the number of solvent molecules covering its surface increases making the charged particles come close together, eventually the DC falls. Moreover, addition of ethanol (DC = 24) to such an aqueous medium causes further reduction of DC. As a result, the solute molecules become more concentrated towards the bottom of the vial and non-homogeneity is established.

If one tries to transfer a drop of such a non-homogeneous dilution to the next vial of fresh ethanol, the solute molecules gaining much higher speed than the solvent molecule become fluvial, rush to the next container, but most of them cannot return to the original vial due to loss of homogeneity.Therefore, we can make single line serial dilution one after another without reaching zero-molecular state.

Succussion between each two steps of dilution has another utility also. The deficiency of a minute unknown enzyme(s) or transcription factor(s), which remains at the interior of a cell, is the root cause of all diseases.

Crude diluted drug cannot enter there and bring symptoms to a healthy person (‘Prover’) or cure the same from patients due to cross-reaction with other biomolecules present in the body fluid and selective permeability of the cell membrane system to that medicine. Hence, a special protective molecular orientation is required.

Succussion is comparable to sonication, which is responsible for a special type of orientation of the solvent molecules. Ethanol has a small polar head and very short hydrophobic tail. In the original tincture the heads remain arranged around hydration layer of drug molecule like that of ‘inverted micelle’. During succussion and centesimal dilution, ethanol forms another protective ‘capsule’ like sheath around the micelle, keeping their tails close to the tails of the initial layer, like ‘drug-loaded liposomes’. The number of ethanol molecules in the sheath increases with potency. Hence, the ‘capsule’ becomes more compact and its penetration ability increases.

When poured upon lactose globules the ‘capsules’ stick to them and the former acts as ‘carrier’. Deficiency of a transcription factor can create difference in protein profile between healthy and diseased individual. It may cause either depletion of a known metabolic enzyme from its normal level, or accretion of a deleterious one, much downstream to the factors, causing a particular combination of symptoms in patients.

When such symptoms become similar to drug-induced symptoms of a healthy person, it indicates that the minute unknown factor in both is the same. ‘Proving’ is therefore an indirect way of identifying the factor(s). It represents blockage at the same location of branching metabolic pipelines, manifested in terms of symptoms by scanty flow of some metabolites and overflow of others. Thus, the same drug can indirectly be selected, and recovery is possible by triggering the said factor, comparable to ‘gentle hammering’ to that particular point of pipelines to remove the blockage. When the blockage ‘flows away’ towards the terminals, older symptoms would return before the final recovery.

The active principles of medicines mostly are plant products containing alkaloids, exudates of healthy or diseased tissue containing antigens, or comes from mineral kingdom.

These are actually a ligand-inhibitor of that minute unknown protein factor as they can mimic the substrate or product of the respective enzymes, or antigen of the respective antibody. When these are applied to ‘Prover’ or patients the drug loaded ‘capsules’ move in an enormous speed through the body fluid and strike the lipid bilayer of the affected cell, which undergoes ‘flip-flop transition’, so that entry of drug molecules to the interior, even up to the nucleus becomes possible. In course of journey through the lipid bilayers the protective ethanol capsules is lost and the medicine molecules directly or indirectly bind with specific transcription factor by replacing its original ligand-inducer. It causes expression of symptoms in ‘Provers’. In patients it results slight aggravation of symptoms due to additional overflow of the deleterious product or further deficiency of the useful metabolite. Lastly, there is a ‘gentle recovery’. Thus, the defective protein profile in patient might be rectified.

As the principle of homeopathy (or Isopathy) is a stimulatory one it is similar to ‘hormesis’ (the achievement of tolerance over a poison by pretreatment of the same), by which the number of competent cells increases in tissue day by day and/or the number of competent DNA segments increases in genome to overcome the induced ‘stress’ by the removal of the deleterious product or compensation of the deficient one. An autoradiographic method has been suggested to sort out the correct remedy (a ligand-inhibitor of the minute deficient factor, semantic to the deleterious product) without matching the Prover’s symptoms. Such a stimulatory method might be effective for any dynamic disease, including cancer and AIDS. Some preliminary success (rectification of protein profile of cancer patients) has been achieved very recently by following the said protocol.

What homeopathy is not

Dr Rajesh Shah, MD(Hom): Dr Shah heads Life Force, in Mumbai, India.

In Summary: Misconstruction has surrounded homeopathy ever since its inception. Even after 200 years, homeopathy has remained the most misunderstood or ill-understood medical science ever; unfortunately, within the homeopathic profession as well. Diversity of view-points on the scope of treatment in the profession may no be a healthy sign for the growth of the science. Homeopathy is among the youngest of medical sciences calling for modern approach and extensive research. Some points related to misinterpretation about various facets of homeopathy, by the homeopaths, are raised and discussed. )

From dictionaries to encyclopedia to websites and books, it is almost explicitly explained ‘what is homeopathy’; however, it is equally important to discuss about what homeopathy is not.

Homeopathy is one of the most mysterious science streams, which is highly ill-understood, misunderstood, over-understood and hence there exists confusion in the minds of not only the lay-people (patients) but also the homeopaths themselves.

After having spent almost three decades in the study, learning, practicing, teaching, promotion and research in the field of homeopathy, I will rightfully share my thoughts and concerns; explaining what actually is not homeopathy.

Homeopathy is not a miracle medicine:

Many people believe that homeopathy is a miracle science, it can make magical cure in even most incurable diseases such as cancer, comatose stages, paralysis, etc. Actually, it is not. Homeopathy is simple a science based on certain laws (law of similars, comparable with that of vaccinations); with its own scope and limitations. There are rules, parameters and methods of application, which determine the scope of treatment.

Homeopathy is very effective but please do not expect magic or miracles.

Homeopathy is not a panacea:

One of the myths about homeopathy is that it is a cure for all, a panacea. It is not. Homeopathy enjoys all the joys of scope of its application, as well as the limitations of the science. No medical science can be a panacea.

Homeopathy can cure early stages of Rheumatoid arthritis but not the deformities, which go with it, as an example.

Homeopathy is not just the mind-based medicine:

One of the hardest concepts about homeopathy is that homeopathy is based largely on the understanding of the mind. The homeopathic fraternally is also not fully saved of this mis-belief. The study of the mental attitudes, the emotions and the mind-set is one of the important aspects of patient-study in homeopathy. However, it is not the sole determining factor.

Many homeopaths, especially in the western world, have a delusion that homeopathy is almost identical with mind-medicine. Homeopathy study encompasses, actually, the disease, the nature of pathology, the kind of immunological or hormonal changes, the physical components (perspiration, thermal preference, sleep, etc) and the mental sphere; all or most of them put together, depending on the case.

Homeopathy is more than psychosomatic:

Many homeopaths tend to relate disease or pathology in patients to some emotional parameter, almost always as cause and effect phenomenon. For example, diabetes due to stress in relationship or arthritis due to grief due to death of a loved one, etc. Psychosomatism is profoundly comprehended and valued in homeopathy; however, not necessarily as a causal phenomenon, but more as a part of the totality. There is no need to forcibly connect major emotions as the cause for development of every disease in all patients.

Homeopathy is not spiritual:

Since homeopathy is based on potentised (incredibly minute) dose of the physical substance, which cannot be measured with the current scientific methods, many have theorized and connected homeopathy with spirituality. It seems interesting to read some correlation between the two; however, it may be detrimental for the growth of homeopathy if taken away from science and towards spirituality. Comparing ‘vital force’ with ‘sole’ and miasms with ‘Buddhism’ will take homeopathy away from scientific growth.

Homeopathy is not-yet-fully-understood science, so, to some, it might look like some form of spirituality.

Homeopathy is not placebo therapy:

The skeptics have always criticized homeopathy as placebo therapy, due to lack of adequate research as per modern medicine guidelines. Since the results using homeopathic medicines are fairly reproducible, measurable and documentable, I would strongly say that homeopathy is far beyond placebo therapy.

Homeopathy is not faith healing:

Next label from skeptics is that homeopathy is nothing but faith healing. Homeopathy has worked million times for those who did not believe in it. Also, babies, domestic and wild animals, respond to homeopathy; proving homeopathy to be more than placebo therapy.

Cases of Hepatitis C, for example, where objective parameter such as drastic reduction in viral load after homeopathic medicines; is very hard to achieve with faith healing.

The skeptics should try out homeopathy, I suggest.

Homeopathy is not necessarily ‘single remedy’ magic:

The homeopathic professionals have been taught to be dogmatic about the use of ‘single remedy’ at a time, for all patients, all the time. It is very hard to break this fixity and evolve from this rigid shell; which even the father of homeopathy, Dr Hahnemann, could not outgrow in his time. The homeopaths tend to be either emotional when it comes to talking about the use of more remedies in a give case or shy away from discussing about it. The profession has yet to enter into a scientific discussion about so-called poly-pharmacy (multiple medicines).

No complex case be cured using a single remedy forever, barring only a few exceptions.

I deal with very severe pathologies such as Ulcerative colitis, Ankylosing spondylitis, Trigeminal Neuralgia, Nephrotic Syndrome, etc. where it is not possible to administer a single remedy and wait. Every delay could be detrimental and not justified.

Homeopathy is not just ‘single dose’ therapy:

‘Single remedy, single dose’ are the magic phrases found in homeopathic textbooks; no more relevant in today’s medical practice. I have practiced the said phrases very religiously for over a decade and half; and have evolved from the dogmatism.

Sticking to the idea of single remedy and single dose could even lead to criminal intransigence.

Homeopathy is not dream-based treatment:

Some teachings have led to create a cloud of delusion amongst some homeopaths, which believe that the practice of homeopathy can be based on the understanding of patient’s dreams. Study of dreams is one of the twenty odd parameters in homeopathy; one of the most unreliable, indeed. Its importance should not be over emphasized.

Most treatments do not lead to suppression:

Over importance to the theory of suppression of diseases in homeopathy is misleading, vey often. Yes, use of immunosuppressive medicines such as corticosteroids, etc. leads to suppression of immune system, eventually taking the disease to deeper levels. This is very well understood in homeopathic philosophy.

However, extension of the concept of suppression, whereby some believe that anti-fever (paracetamol, Tylenol), pain killers, antibiotics, always lead to suppression; and must always be avoided. This is not true, in my opinion. This calls for scientific debate.

Homeopathy is not that slow:

The proponents of homeopathy claim that homeopathy is not slow. Actually, this is partly true and partly not. Homeopathy is not slow in chronic diseases. It relatively slow in acute diseases and could be very slow in the treatment of critical diseases.

Homeopathy is not very fast acting medicine:

Homeopathy is not very fast, either. Let me be honest. Homeopathy is neither very fast nor very slow. We need research to make homeopathy faster, I would say.

Homeopathy is not simply ‘constitutional medicine’:

Any contradiction to concept of the constitutional medicine is a potential trigger for third world war, amongst homeopaths at least. After twenty-five years of intense homeopathic practice, I believe that the ‘constitutional medicine’ is a hype created in the profession. It calls for a review and re-evaluation. It is a huge topic, cannot be discussed in length here.

In brief, I would say, all cases may not find a constitutional medicine and can still be treated with success.

Homeopathy is not suitable for all acute and critical diseases:

One school of thought is that homeopathy can cure each a every acute and critical disease such as cerebral malaria, bacterial meningitis, acute renal failure, severe pneumonia, acute myocardial infection (heart attack), and the like.

I strongly opine that it is not true. Homeopathy is a science having a limitation whereby severe acute and critical disease situations cannot be consistently treated with success. Please read the word ‘consistently’ with emphasis. Success with some cases, on some occasions, may not be enough. The results have to be comparable with the modern medicine; in order that we ethically claim success of homeopathy in severely acute and critical illnesses.

Every disease is not curable, even if the remedy is right

Many people and some homeopaths believe that if symptoms of the patient match with some medicines, every disease becomes curable. In other words, if the medicine selection is perfect, the cure is certain; irrespective of the nature of the disease. This is not true. The curability of any disease depends on several factors such as 1. Nature of the disease. For example, hepatitis (inflammation of liver) may be curable; while cirrhosis (scarring) of liver is not curable. 2. Extent of pathological change. For example, a fewer patches of Alopecia Areata (hair loss patches) are curable; but total hair loss (Alopecia totalis) is not curable. 3. Reversibility of the disease process and outcome. Inflammatory arthritis can be helped but Osteoarthritis (bony overgrowth) cannot be reversed. 4. Selection of the correct homeopathic remedies.

Homeopathy is not beyond the modern medical science:

The well-evolved medical knowledge acquired by medical science is very much required for the evolution of homeopathy. Homeopathy does not claim to be beyond the modern medical science. In fact, it is high time to understand that homeopathy and medical science are not distinctly different as far as the ‘medicine’ is concerned. They are not contrary but complementary and collaborating; belonging to the same medical science.

Homeopathy is not against the modern medicine:

Some may believe that ‘modern medicine’ and homeopathy against each other, contrary; kind of enemies! I have always wondered, how such concepts have grown in the minds of medicos, homeopaths and lay-people. Homeopathy is just a science; a part of medical science.

If we look at the evolution of engineering sciences, do we believe that computer engineering is contrary to the electronics; mechanical engineering opposing to electrical or civil engineering’s? Not really. They all are complementing each other. Why don’t we have maturity when it comes to medical sciences?

Homeopathy is not against surgery:

One of the myths among laypeople, modern medicos, as well as the surgeons is that homeopathy is against surgery. Surgery is a part of homeopathy. Surgery is a science and art by itself. Surgery is neither a property of modern medicines nor of homeopathy. It has to be understood that homeopathy is a therapeutic method of treating diseases in certain manner. Surgery is a method of treating diseases in a different manner, without medicines. Both are complementary to each other. Precisely, therefore, the homeopathic training in India trains every homeopath for basic surgery, at undergraduate level, as much as it trains a modern medico. Every qualified homeopath in India is a physician and a surgeon. This is not a case in the western world, though.

While evaluating what homeopathy is all about; it would be equally important to understand what homeopathy is not. I hope this piece of article will stimulate many.

Who did they think they were? Who do they think they are?

Guest article by homoeopathic researcher Errol Klinkerfuss. U.S.A.

Samuel Hahnemann was an amazing man of great intellect and tireless industry. Besides being a physician, he was a renowned chemist who wrote almost seventy volumes on the subject.  A translator of English , French, Italian, Latin and Greek. A classical scholar and philologist, he had more than passing knowledge of botany, astronomy, meteorology, and geography. He proved 100 remedies on himself. Compiled The Materia Medica Pura and the Chronic Diseases. He  refined and developed a new and complete   system of medicine that he called homeopathy. The Organon, its manual of practice, went through 6 revised editions. This is only a part of what he accomplished. Who can he be compared to in the fields of medicine and science? No other man ever did as much as he did- creating a new science practically all by himself! And yet, why have so many people in the history of homeopathy felt that they knew more than he did about the science he developed?  It’s like a disease that follows homeopathy through time. From its earliest days, even while Hahnemann was still alive, arrogant, audacious  people  have distorted and deformed his science of homeopathy without  ever having learned how to properly practice it!
When you read about the contentious bickering and infighting from the early days of homeopathy to the present day, it makes one despair. But if you step back and look at who are  the most effective  homeopaths, it is always the people who humbly did  what Hahnemann said.    This proves he was right in insisting that people follow his method as closely as possible.  He had already made all the mistakes, corrected them, revised them, tested everything thoroughly. He spared no pains in his scientific research. This is why he said, “Do imitate me, but do it well and you shall see at each step the confirmation of my statements“. So why do so many feel they have to re-invent the wheel?
Boenninghausen is the name that towers over all through time. He is the most humble follower and the most able homeopath of all Hahnemann’s pupils. His writings and cases show a confidence and a calmness you rarely find in the homeopathic literature. His practice was like an island in the stormy seas  churned up by the warring  factions surrounding homeopathy.
There is a simple cure for all the strife and disagreements. With humility, learn to practice as exactly as possible like Hahnemann taught in the 6th edition of the Organon. Do that, and you will no longer be distracted by  presumptive, arrogant egotists who have never learned or cannot learn to “imitate him, and imitate him well.”

Thinking outside the box…

After hearing news about an exciting new treatment for incurable cancer using the measles virus, I couldn’t help but wonder whether it could potentially save the life of a young family member with end-stage leukemia. Other cancer patients and their loved ones are likely pondering the same question.

Mayo Clinic researchers published a report on Thursday detailing the first successful treatment of cancer using a genetically engineered measles virus administered at high doses. Two women with multiple myeloma — a rare cancer of white blood cells found in the bone marrow — were treated with a high dose of the virus, from a strain used in vaccines, after their cancers failed to respond to traditional treatments.One patient, a 65-year-old woman, had some tumor shrinkage from the treatment without a full remission of her cancer while the other, a 49-year-old woman, experienced dramatic benefits: She had a complete remission of her multiple tumors and remained cancer-free for nine months. Now 11 months after the treatment, she is doing well after a malignancy that returned on her forehead was successfully treated with radiation.

SO….. the patient was “free’ of cancer for 9 months. Is that a remission or a suppression?

It seems to me that perhaps a better approach to this problem, sadly it doesnt make $$, is to

  • see if a person is benefitted from actually having the measles as a child to boost the immune system.
  • see whether vaccines cause extra strain on the system and produce cancers.
  • accept that the results of this test do not have long term validity because of the return of the cancer.



Prostate cancer ‘may be a sexually transmitted disease’

trichomonas vaginalis

Prostate cancer may be a sexually transmitted disease caused by a common yet often silent infection passed on during intercourse, scientists say – but experts say proof is still lacking.

Although several cancers are caused by infections, Cancer Research UK says it is too early to add prostate cancer to this list.

The University of California scientists tested human prostate cells in the lab.

They found a sex infection called trichomoniasis aided cancer growth.

There are still no known lifestyle factors that seem to affect the risk of developing the disease – and no convincing evidence for a link with infection”

Nicola Smith Cancer Research UK

More research is now needed to confirm the link, they say in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Sex infection

Trichomoniasis is believed to infect some 275 million people worldwide and is the most common non-viral sexually transmitted infection.

Often, a person will have no symptoms and be unaware that they have it.

Men may feel itching or irritation inside the penis, burning after urination or ejaculation, or a white discharge from the penis.

Women may notice itching or soreness of the genitals, discomfort with urination, or a discharge with an unpleasant fishy smell.

This latest research is not the first to suggest a link between trichomoniasis and prostate cancer. A study in 2009 found a quarter of men with prostate cancer showed signs of trichomoniasis, and these men were more likely to have advanced tumours.

The PNAS study suggests how the sexually transmitted infection might make men more vulnerable to prostate cancer, although it is not definitive proof of such a link.

Prof Patricia Johnson and colleagues found the parasite that causes trichomoniasis – Trichomonas vaginalis – secretes a protein that causes inflammation and increased growth and invasion of benign and cancerous prostate cells.

They say more studies should now follow to further explore this finding – particularly since we still do not know what causes prostate cancer.

Nicola Smith, health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: “This study suggests a possible way the parasite Trichomonas vaginalis could encourage prostate cancer cells to grow and develop more quickly.

“But the research was only done in the lab, and previous evidence in patients failed to show a clear link between prostate cancer and this common sexually transmitted infection.

“There’s been a lot of research into prostate cancer risk and we’re working hard to piece together the puzzle.

“But there are still no known lifestyle factors that seem to affect the risk of developing the disease – and no convincing evidence for a link with infection.

“The risk of prostate cancer is known to increase with age.”

Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer in men in the UK – about one in nine men will get it at some point in their lives.

It is more common in men over 70, and there appears to be some genetic risk since the disease can run in families.

The Real Danger to Homeopathy: Pseudo-Homeopathy

November 1999, Homeopathy Today
by Luc De Schepper, MD, PhD, DIHom

At the dawn of a new millennium, homeopathy is in a unique position, with the power to rescue our current medical system from its morass of high-tech, suppressive, alienating and exorbitantly expensive measures. There is a groundswell of interest and involvement in alternative medicine in general and homeopathy in particular among both patients and allopathic practitioners. The most recent study by Dr. David Eisenberg of Harvard Medical School shows 70% of Americans seeking alternative treatment (and spending billions to pay for it out-of-pocket), while in another recent survey 49% of primary care physicians stated that homeopathy was the alternative modality they most wanted to learn about. Insurance companies are beginning to reimburse for alternative treatments like homeopathy, recognizing the long-term savings involved.

At this point the greatest threat to homeopathy comes not from allopathic practitioners or pharmaceutical companies but from self-professed homeopaths who do not follow the immortal laws and principles laid down by Hahnemann. Whether out of ignorance or laziness, or the desire to impress their patients with their gimmicks so that they can charge more money, these pseudo-homeopaths violate the most basic principle of homeopathy: to give a single remedy which covers the totality of the symptom picture. Some give three or four remedies within a single week; others give mixtures of several or even a dozen remedies at once. In so doing they harm the patient, which is bad enough, but worse still, they harm the profession and the reputation of homeopathy.

We are accustomed to patients treating homeopathy as the last resort; they often come to us after the harmful, suppressive, and invasive measures of allopathic medicine. In my own practice I find myself in the unenviable position of the absolute last resort: patients come to me after being mistreated by other homeopaths. Or other homeopaths refer patients to me when they are honest enough to admit that they can no longer follow a case. I have seen hundreds of such patients over the years who have suffered from bad homeopathy. In addition, I have heard about hundreds more from my patients. Like typical homeopathy patients, they become missionaries who zealously try to convince their families and friends of homeopathy, but too often they come back to me with sad stories of these people who have had bad experiences at the hands of homeopaths who did not know the most basic principles of homeopathy.

Typically these patients suffer aggravations lasting weeks or months while the homeopath offers no succor and even refuses to return phone calls. In other cases the homeopath actually suppresses the symptoms with the remedy and fails to recognize that the case is going in the wrong direction, thus setting the patient up for more suffering later on. In still other cases, superficial physical symptoms disappear, to be replaced by mental/emotional ones. Many of these people have suffered so much that they adamantly refuse to consider consulting another homeopath, and they warn others away from homeopathy. I am just one practitioner; if I have encountered so many of these patients, how many more must there be in this country?

With Hahnemann giving us such clear guidance, I am honestly puzzled at how people practicing in his name can deviate so far from his direction.

I have tried to find out the rationale for these practices of mixing and alternating remedies. Many practitioners delude themselves that there is no danger in these practices because the remedies are “harmless.” Apparently they think that since the remedies contain not one molecule of the original substance there cannot be any harm in giving several at once, and perhaps they follow the American belief that “more is better.” I know other such practitioners who are trying to create for themselves the prestige and status of allopathic physicians, imitating the lab coats and stethoscopes as well as the polypharmacy of allopathy.

But polypharmacy (giving many prescriptions at once) is harmful in homeopathy as well as in allopathy. Remember that the remedies bear a powerful force. If they can consistently cure the so-called “incurable diseases,” they must be highly active agents. Each remedy delivers an energetic “punch” to the Vital Force, and it is the secondary response of the Vital Force which acts against the illness and heals the patient. Giving too many remedies at once can leave the Vital Force punched down like a boxer staggering to his knees. In fact I have seen patients who have been given so many remedies by previous homeopaths that their Vital Force no longer responds to the single well-chosen remedy, which could have cured their case in the first place before they were rendered incurable by bad homeopathy.

The well-chosen remedy, the simillimum, delivers an energetic impact which exactly matches the symptom picture of the patient. Any other remedy will not be a perfect match, that is, it will have symptoms in its symptom picture which do not match the patient’s. These aspects of the remedy can stimulate the Vital Force to create new symptoms, called accessory symptoms of the remedy. It is only logical that if more than one remedy is given at once or in close succession, only one can be the simillimum and the others are likely to create accessory symptoms. For example, I have seen a mixture labeled “Grief” which has every grief remedy under the sun, from Pulsatilla to Nat mur. There is no way that one patient can need both these remedies; they cannot be both the weepy, needy, consolation-seeking Pulsatilla and the stiff-upper-lip, leave-me-alone Nat mur.

The result of these mixtures can be a tangled mess of symptoms which make it impossible for the homeopath to follow the case. I have seen these patients too. It is bad enough that we have to sort out the patient’s true symptoms from those induced by their allopathic medications. We should not have to sort out symptoms induced by our own colleagues! Speaking of difficulties following the case, mixtures and alternation of remedies bring about another problem which we see in allopathic medicine all the time. I have seen allopathic physicians give my patients several drugs, one of which might “cure” the case but all of which have serious side effects. The mixture achieves the desired effect (suppressing the symptoms, which they call a cure). Then the physician does not know which medication “worked” and which ones can be discontinued. As a result the patient is kept on the dangerous drug cocktail indefinitely, with drug interactions compounding the side effects of the single drugs. When remedies are mixed the same problems arise. If the patient aggravates it is difficult to tell which remedy caused the problem; if the patient is improving slightly, which remedy should be re-administered in a higher potency?

And just as in allopathic medicine, the interactions among the remedies can bring about harmful effects which the single remedies would not create. This can even happen when the remedies are alternated. Each remedy has a long duration of action, usually lasting weeks or months. Giving several remedies within a single week creates all the bad results of mixing remedies because their effects will overlap.

To make the problems arising from mixtures more clear, consider remedies made from chemical compounds containing more than one element, like our old friend Nat mur. If it were possible to remove the Natrum (sodium) element from the muriaticum (chloride), the proving results of each one separately would be entirely different from the combination. It stands to reason that adding further elements would change the proving picture again. Another justification for mixing remedies stems from a confusion over existing remedies like China sulphuricum or Calcarea silicata which seem to be mixtures. But these remedies were proven as such. Their indications are not invented by adding the symptom picture of China with that of Sulphur, or that of Calcarea with that of Silica. Provings were done on the compound itself so that it can be prescribed confidently according to Hahnemann’s principles. This type of proved compound in no way justifies creating new, unknown and unproven mixtures.

Another reason I hear for mixing and alternating goes like this: “The modern era, with its more complicated diseases, requires more than one remedy to cover the case.” Again, this answer betrays an ignorance of Hahnemann’s principles so beautifully and clearly laid out in Chronic Diseases and the Organon. He has given us powerful tools which enable us to clearly analyze even the most complicated case. True, we see more effects of medical suppression in modern times: allopathic medicine has much more powerful tools at its disposal, including antibiotics, chemotherapy, and radiation. And it is true that the miasms have become increasingly more powerful; sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) have become pandemic because of changes in sexual mores and because of the world wars, among other causes. At the same time STDs have become more effectively suppressed by antibiotics, thereby creating new miasmatic cases, while existing miasms are fueled by factors like mandatory vaccinations.

This does not stop us from a clear analysis of our patients’ cases, however. If we search the patient’s past medical history and family medical history to find the active miasm, we can give one of the remedies most strongly active against that miasm, thereby ensuring good results every time. If we have the patient create a timeline, marking different traumatic events as well as surgeries and medically-suppressive interventions and correlating these with the first appearance of different symptoms, we can determine which are the most recently-created symptoms and therefore which ones need to be addressed first.

I might mention an error I see even among my true colleagues, the real classical homeopaths who give a single remedy at a time. Too often they lump all the patient’s symptoms together, even those created by a long-ago grief or other trauma, and attempt the impossible task of finding a single remedy to cover the patient’s entire life. This is not what Hahnemann meant by the totality of symptoms. We must address the totality of current symptoms in the current layer, those created by the most recent trauma or suppressive act, before retaking the case and finding a different match for the previous layer (as Hahnemann explains in the Organon).

A final argument I hear is that we do not need to limit ourselves to Hahnemann’s principles because he was senile at the end of his life. I only wish that these Hahnemann-bashers could read Hahnemann’s Paris case books, as I have. They would see for themselves that far from floundering in the dark, as the Hahnemann-bashers claim, he was constantly experimenting to perfect and refine his system within the framework of the basic principles which he had so brilliantly laid down.

It was in the last years of his life that he experimented with the higher potencies (far beyond the 30C which many people claim was his limit) and he developed the LM potency, the crown jewel of his method. Those who read the Paris case books for themselves will also debunk the myth that alternation of remedies is acceptable because Hahnemann himself did it. Hahnemann had earlier experimented with alternating remedies, but discarded the practice. He did give some of his Paris patients two remedies, but only because they had traveled a great distance and he anticipated that at some point they would need to switch from one to the other.

I look forward to the time when Hahnemann’s case books will be available in English for all to read. In the meantime, all those who claim to be homeopaths should read and re-read, study and re-study, Chronic Diseases and the 6th edition of the Organon. I am shocked that whenever I talk to professional colleagues at conferences, I find that the great majority have never read the Organon even once! Each time I study this masterpiece I am astounded at how Hahnemann was able to anticipate the medical concerns of our modern world. On each re-reading I gain new insights which help me in my practice.

I also encourage my colleagues, all those who sincerely aspire to deserve the title of “homeopath,” to read the old masters—Kent, Hering, von Boenninghausen, Lippe—and the masters from the earlier part of this century—Farrington, Wright-Hubbard, Pierre Schmidt, Tyler, Compton-Burnett. Few if any homeopaths in the world today have the stature of our great predecessors. By studying their works, we find that they always adhered to Hahnemann’s principles. In everything they did they harked back to the master, never questioning his guidance and never accusing him of being senile. We also find that there is nothing new under the sun: the old masters and Hahnemann himself lamented the pseudo-homeopaths of their day, who were harming patients and ruining the reputation of our profession with their mixtures and alternations.

As practitioners we must remember, as I always tell my students, that we are not repairing refrigerators. We have our patients’ lives and health in our hands. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves in the laws and principles of homeopathy: we must know how to give a single well-chosen remedy, chosen by the totality of the symptoms, based on the proving picture of the remedy. We must educate our patients and the public that anyone who does not follow these laws does not deserve the title of homeopath. They may call themselves eclectics or anything else they want, but not homeopaths. In the words of Constantine Hering, one of our most revered masters, “If our school ever gives up the strict inductive method of Hahnemann, we are lost and deserve only to be mentioned as a caricature in the history of medicine.”