Monthly Archives: June 2014

Preface by Dr Donald MACFARLAN

Keynotes Of The Homoeopathic Materia Medica
by Dr. Adolph VON LIPPE

by Dr Donald MACFARLAN

Docteur Donald MACFARLAN

The I.H.M. will offer a comment on some of the statements presented here at a later date and compare them with Hahnemanns medical thinking for defined clarity.   

  One of the distinguishing features of homoeopathy is that the cure is accomplished by administering a medicine, the characteristic symptoms of which correspond with the characteristic symptoms of the patient. Within its distinctive sphere it is quite unfailing and immutable. Homeopathic medicines, following the analogy of nature, are all specific – definite agent with a definite purpose with power only for the fulfillment of its attainable object. Quite apart, however, from this viewpoint treatment is traditional theory and traditional practice which may be truly termed anti-pathic in application. The modus operandi may best be exemplified by example – a patient has pain, its opposite, opium is given. The malady is not cured, but stifled by stupor, only to awake with renewed violence with the wearing away of the effect of the drug and demanding augmented dosage for fugacious assuagement at each successive return. Homoeopathy, on the other hand, chooses a remedy capable of producing the same pain. It is directed solely to the part affected in minimal dose. From this action a cure results, for two similar diseases cannot exist in the same body at the same time.

          The effects of medicine can only be ascertained by provings on the healthy human and the symptoms which these medicines have produced constitute the bulk of the Homoepathic Materia Medica. In order to effectively cure, it is first necessary to ascertain the characteristic symptoms of the patient, as Hahnemann teaches in the “Organon,” and next, to find the medicine which corresponds in the characteristics with those of the patient, which is done by means of the Homeopathic Materia Medica.

          Characteristics symptoms show the peculiarities and differences of medicines, and have been ascertained by repeated verifications of symptoms obtained by provings on the healthy and cures on the sick. In one case the locality may be characteristic, as, for instance, under the apis mellifica, the right ovary, and under lachesis, the left ovary; in any case the sort of pain may be characterized as the burning-stinging pain of apis mellifica, or the burning-like-coal-of-fire pain under arsenicum album, or a gnawing pain under ruta. In another instance the conditions may be characteristic, as the ameliorations by heat under arsenicum, and the amelioration by cold under iodine and vice-versa; or conditionally the time of day, as under nux vomica, in the morning, lycopodium 4 P. M., arsenicum from 11 P. M. till 2 A. M., or in another instance the concomitant symptoms as cough with stitches in the small of the back (or rectum) under nitric acid, or cough with paleness of the face under cina. In some instances the mental symptoms may be characteristic, as convulsive and maniacal deliriousness with biting rage under belladonna, extreme mental excitability in association with pronounced sleeplessness under coffea cruda, or aggravated mental apathy with comatose states under arnica. Again the cause may be quite characteristic, as the effects from getting wet while in a perspiration, which comes under the pathogenesy of the rhus toxicodendron.

          From a casual observance of these views it will be at once seen that the fundamental doctrine in homoeopathic theraputics is the doctrine of individualization. Man becomes affected primarily in his internals, and by this is solely meant his affectional and intellectual spheres of consciousness, which in point of face, make up the man himself, for it is the will and understanding which form the real individual. Sickness it its essence is a derangement proceeding from the innermost which spreads towards the outermost and it is a realization of this fact which has made homeopathy a distinct science of theraputic law. Consequently the homoeopathic physician views pathological tissues as results or ultimates and tries to perceive how the entire man has been changed from first to last, from mind to external tissue. Each person qualifies illness, as it were, by his or her distinctive personality and that coined aberration, as it were, has its simillimum in the pathogenesy of some homoeopathic medicine. From this it will be seen how a sickened individual is congnate to a sick-making substance – a thoroughly proven drug of our Materia Medica. The sickened one stamps his or her individuality upon a case of sickness, making it quite different from every other case, whilst the latter also behaves in a similar manner, for while it affects man in health through and through – from the mind to the hair and nails – it has a strange and peculiar way of doing it, quite different from any other drug in the entire materia medica. What is it but the inner nature of the drug, almost resembling the will and understanding of man, that has made it quite a distinct entity?

          As regards potency, it may be stated that the suitable dynamization is best arrived at by practical experience. There is really no law of potency in one sense. Nevertheless all causes are in the simple substance which exists only in degrees of fineness, for a quantity can barely be predicated of it and as the innermost of the patient has similarly the series in degrees, the remedy to correspond to this must also be administered in potencies of various grades or degrees.

          The requisites for homeopathic prescribing are: (1) The law of cure, (2) The single remedy, (3) The minimum dose. All of these items must enter into every correct prescription. It is interesting also to recall that the order in which the above requirements are enumerated are exactly that followed in their development. Hahnemann developed, to its most marked extent, the law of similars. His experiments to obtain the pathogeneses or sick-making powers of drugs naturally led him to apply them singly in diseases, that he might approach as closely as possible the correct correspondence. Finally the adoption and recommendation of the minimum dose was the result of the oft-verified observation, that in order to avoid exacerbation and, at the same time, to expedite cure in a direct, rapid and permanent manner the drug must be adminstered in the smallest possible amount, duly commensurate with its power of exciting similar symptoms in the healthy. In this connection, the drug, if properly chosen, exhibits the power of exerting a correspondingly strong reaction of the vital forces in the direction of health. Such a system of theraputics, embracing, as it does, the most careful individualization of the case at hand, as to its origin in hygenic, psychic or medicinal (abuse of drugs) causes, cannot be any other than the broadest, most truly scientific, and all-inclusive system of healing known to the health seeker of the future.

          For valuable considerations given me in the compilation of this little work I wish to thank Dr. Wm. H Yaeger and Dr. Wm B. Griggs for proof-reading and suggestions germane to the form of presentation of the notes themselves and to Dr. E. P. Anshutz and John A. Borneman, Ph. D., for valuable suggestions. To my friend, Dr. G. Harlan Wells, I wish to extend many thanks for his kindness in publishing many of these characteristics in our state organ The Hahnemannian Monthly.

Donald Macfarlan.
1805 Chestnut St.

Q: What do you think were the reasons for the decline of homeopathy in America and all over the rest of the world over the last 100 years?

comments by Andre Saine.

A.S.: I have followed the evolution of homeopathy very carefully and I can tell you when the “downward” movement started specifically in America. We can date its beginning in 1845 with Julius Hempel’s first translation of Hahnemann’s works. His mistranslation and interpretations of Hahnemann’s texts, as well as his general teachings, led to confusion and he was responsible for introducing into homeopathy a more reductionist and allopathic way of thinking.

That was where it started, but that movement was not very strong until 1870, when Carroll Dunham made his famous speech before the American Institute of Homœopathy called “Liberty of Medical Opinion and Action: a Vital Necessity and a Great Responsibility.” In fact this speech provided license to the pseudo-homeopaths to practice their eclecticism.

Four years later in 1874, the word homeopathy was stricken off as a requirement for membership in the American Institute of Homœopathy. Dunham’s original motive was perhaps noble but later shown to be naïve. He said, “let them practice as they judge best, and in the long term they will be convinced that pure homœopathy is the only way to practice.” Lippe in answer to Dunham’s speech asked whether the homeopaths should be governed by principles or by opinion like the allopaths. He said because similia similibus curantur is a law, we do not have the freedom to practice contrarily to the law if we call ourselves homeopaths.

What eventually happened was that the pseudo-homeopaths had greater freedom to call homeopathy what they practiced, taught and wrote about. As predicted by Lippe it weakened the societies and the colleges. The survival of pure homeopathy was in danger. The decline continued further. Take for example in 1885 when T. F. Allen, then President of the American Institute of Homœopathy and Dean of a New York Homeopathic Medical College, said that there had been no proof of the power of infinitesimal, it was but dogma. Now the majority of members of the American Institute of Homœopathy who were pseudo-homeopaths were just one step short of joining the “regulars”: the allopaths.

In the societies and the colleges, the fundamental principles of homeopathy were not even taught. The quality of education in the colleges in North America went way down. It was now but a question of time for the decline and disappearance of its institutions. Homeopathy had become very popular in North America during its early years due to its amazing successes obtained by the “old guard” during the epidemics—epidemics of diphtheria, scarlet fever, cholera, malaria, yellow fever—especially yellow fever; the death rate for that was 55% when allopathic treatment was used, but less than 5% in cases with homeopathic treatment; and it was the same for cholera. It is here with the “old guard” that homeopathy obtained its golden letters. So homeopathy became very popular, with the public as well as with the politicians. For a physician, it was often better to be known to be practicing homeopathy than allopathy.

In 1880’s there were about fifteen different homeopathic colleges with more being founded as the demand for homeopathic doctors rose. But very few physicians were trained in pure homeopathy and able to practice it properly. So most of them practiced “mixed” homeopathy with allopathy. So when we hear that at the turn of the century, there were 15,000 homeopaths in the United States, this simply is not true; there were probably less than two hundred trying to practice pure homeopathy. The rest were “mixers” or physicians who had degrees from homeopathic colleges, but did not attempt to practice pure homeopathy. Such a degree did not mean that you had been trained in homeopathy. Just to give you an example: Nash, whom we all admire for his “Leaders” said that when he attended the Western College of Homeopathic Medicine in Cleveland during the 1860’s, not only had he never read the Organon, but he had never heard of its existence.

By 1880 there were about 6000 homeopathic practitioners in America, of which 4800 were graduates from homeopathic colleges. Do you know how many copies of the Organon had been sold by that time since the first American edition of the Organon had been published in 1836? About 600 copies had been sold—total! Moreover, quite a large number of these Organons had been bought by laymen, because physicians like Lippe had their patients read the Organon. So you could say that less than ten percent of the graduates of homeopathic medical schools owned a copy of the Organon! Many of them had never even heard of it. The real problem, of course, was one of education.

You see, homeopathy becomes an extremely difficult science to learn and practice successfully when rigor in teaching it is missing. During a meeting on homeopathic education, I was once sitting at a table with about twelve other physicians, most of them had also specialized in various fields. As far as I remember there were two psychiatrists, one neurologist, one cardiologist, two internists and one radiologist—they all had done long years of study in difficult and demanding fields, but all of them said that their attempt to learn homeopathy had definitely been the most difficult. Yet none of them had gone through a training that would have taught them homeopathy like they had for learning their specialty, from A to Z.

For their homeopathic training they all had to collect bits and pieces, here and there. And that has always been the problem—the lack of good quality education in homeopathy. And why? Because we do not have people who have mastered the subject enough to teach it well. There was no lack of institutions in America, but how could one expect to receive adequate education if none of the teachers themselves had mastered their discipline? We have to start somewhere. Otherwise we are dealing with a vicious cycle, a downward spiral. This has always been the problem in the history of homeopathy.

Few people mastered the subject sufficiently to teach it so that the graduates would be able to apply the principles of homeopathy successfully. At the same time, impostors such as Hempel took up chairs of instruction, so that the blind was leading the blind. Today, it is not too different. History is only repeating itself.


This is a repost of an article from last year. If you search on the internet or youtube for homeopathy…. all you get is the sensation method referenced. Wake up people! Our practice is becoming extinct.

There is a great need for humility in the practice of Homoeopathy. So many of our colleagues who are medical Doctors, display an unmerited high estimation of their homoeopathic prowess with very little REAL understanding of the therapy they espouse to believe in. At the same time, many non medical practitioners show disdain for medical knowledge and rely on a faulty school taught methodology that is fraught with inaccuracy and dangerous practices.

This Institute and its entire faculty, would like to offer the following advice to any student or practitioner who practices under the title “homoeopath” today.

  • Do NOT rely on a thematic concept of Materia Medica. This also applies to Essences. Apply all your reasoned intellect to a real study of the symptoms of the Materia Medica as extracted under proper proving conditions by the Masters of Old. If you do this, it will be made clear to you that the essences and themes you so heavily rely on in practice, do not exist as taught to you, and are responsible for a lot of the failures in practice that have been experienced.
  • Keynote prescribing will NOT replace accurate comparison of the patients exhibited Symptoms and the matching of symptoms produced by a medicine.

Many who have been taught and practice Essence prescribing, have little or NO knowledge of the reality of proved Symptoms as recorded in the Materia Medica. In our experience, Essence prescribing is based on very poor psychology which denigrate both Mental Medicine and Homeopathic principles.

  • Ignoring physical symptoms of necessity, and relying on the latest new fad of mentalising the patients problems, is dangerous and borders on criminal behavior when dealing with health issues. A homoeopath cannot ignore the basics of the therapy as outlined in the writings of Hahnemann.
  • If a practitioner uses the title “Homoeopath” and has not studied his medicines, or relies solely a one sided understanding of homoeopathy, it becomes difficult to accept them into the ranks of being a homoeopathic Physician.

To place a person that lays claim to the title homoeopath (who does not have a basic understanding of Hahnemanninan homeopathy) and put them into a local medical clinic, you will witness the actions of an individual who cannot differentiate between Chronic and Acute illness, between a state of pathology and a functional disorder, between a miasmatic (infectious) problem and a non infectious problem. To compound this, a lack of knowledge of similar and dissimilar disease states, miasmatic merged diseases or one sided disease, a good similar remedy, or a partially indicated remedy, and a total inability to comprehend a medicinal aggravation versus a worsening of the case.

And the most frightening thing of all is that the individual involved will tell you with all sincerity that the fragmented form of bastardized homoeopathy that he or she practices, is of the highest calibre.

I have witnessed individuals looking for a deeply hidden psychological central delusion state to match with a medicine. After noting the type of medicines that are chosen for these core delusion interpretive forms of treatment, it has to be concluded that they are nothing more than an inverted form of the doctrine of signatures, something which Hahnemann exposed as being less that useful or scientifically plausible over 200 years ago!  The main problem with this method, is that it totally overlooks the “full picture of the disease state” by ignoring obvious signs and symptoms on a physical level which are right in front of the physician eyes and do not require anything else but careful observance to see.


re: The sensation method.


I have read the method in all the books published by Sankaran so far as also
attended his seminars. It is the very enchanting video presentations at the seminars and the captivating material presented in his books that prompted me to use it  side by side with the age old traditional hahnemannian method for some time. I concluded  after thorough study that the theoretical basis on which this entire method is based is flawed. But such is the orchestrated hype about this method in US and Europe that it is hard to get anything published against this method and prove to be a useless exercise that ends up in frustration.

Unfortunately we have not evolved benchmarks to judge any method being propagated  as homeopathy and as a first step we should do it.

The very basis on which Hahnemann founded homeopathy was his discovery :

1. that any medicinal substance is capable of inducing a field force to distort the vital  force of healthy human beings; the nature of distortion presents a recognizable field pattern and it is as true as the law of gravity or any other natural laws.

2. that the same medicine is capable of nullifying any disease force that establishes  a similar distortion of vital force in a human being.

The SIMILARITY of the disorted picture or pattern of the vital force induced by the  medicinal substance in a healthy human being and that created by the natural disease  is essential for curative action to occur.

If Sankaran can prove that the vital sensation can be induced by a medicinal substance in healthy human beings and then prove the correspondences of this artificially  induced vital sensation to the one present in the cured patient – then and then only it qualifies to be a homeopathic method.

I hate to waste any more time discussing this method of madness, an aberration of an otherwise super genius whose convoluted thinking process reflects of a major portion of his brain cells gone awry….alas…


Dana Ullman and K.C. Chandran

Dana Ullman- Foremost Spokesman Of Pseudo-scientific ‘Energy Medicine’ Theories of Homeopathy

Posted 25/09/2012 by Chandran K C

in his  eagerness to defend  his most cherished latest craze  ‘nanopharmacology’ concept, and to utilize it to provide a scientific glare to his pseudoscientific  ‘energy medicine’ theories, respected Dana Ullman now gives a new twist to nanoparticle theory of IIT scientists.

He says: “It doesn’t necessarily assert that it is the nanoparticles that have ALL of the impact. It could also mean that the nanoparticles change the entire sovent (the water medium)”

This is really a new contribution from dana ulman to nanoparticle theory. But it makes the whole puzzle more mysterious and complex, which is the actual intention of dana. By this statement, he is trying to utilize the ‘nanoparticle theory for justifying the most pseudoscientific ‘energy medicine theories’ in homeopathy’, of which he is a prominent proponent along with his CAM counterparts.

By this statement, he is trying to say that nanoparticles are not the real active principles of potentized drugs that makes “all impacts”, but they ‘change the whole solvent’ by inducing it to ‘vibrate’ exactly similar to ‘vibrations of drug substance’, and that these ‘immaterial dynamic vibrations’ are the active principles of potentized drugs! He would also say, these ‘vibrations’ will act upon ‘vital force’ in a ‘dynamic way’ by ‘resonance’ and produce cure!

Dana ullman ‘supports’ nanoparticle discovery of IIT scientists, and will not tolerate any questions being asked regarding this ‘scientific evidence’! But he is not interested in proposing a biological mechanism by which nanoparticles act as therapeutic agents when applied on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

On the contrary, he proposes “it doesn’t necessarily assert that it is the nanoparticles that have ALL of the impact. It could also mean that the nanoparticles change the entire sovent (the water medium)”. That means, he do not want to establish nanoparticles as active principles of potentized drugs. He theorizes ‘whole medium’ is changed by the ‘traces’ of nanoparticles which the scientists detected ‘floating in the upper layers’ of potentized drugs. What change is made to medium? He is not bothered to explain. It is implied that ‘whole medium’ is ‘changed’ in such a way that ‘vibrations’ of drug substances are ‘transferred’ to the ‘medium’, and it is these ‘vibrations’ that ‘resonate’ with ‘vibrations’ of ‘vital force’, thereby effecting a cure!

SEE how cleverly the ‘energy medicine’ proponents twist and hijack the nanoparticle theory proposed by IIT scientists in a way fitting to their pseudoscientific ‘dynamic energy- vibration-resonance-vital force’ frame work!!

His statement makes it very much obvious that dana ulmann and his ‘energy medicine’ friends are ‘supporting’ nanoparticle theory not to rationally resolve the riddles of homeopathy and make it more scientific, but hoping to utilize it to provide a ‘scientific’ glare to their nonsense ‘vibration’ theories.

This hijacking of  nanoparticle concepts proposed by IIT scientists into ‘energy medicine’ path becomes a serious issue since it is done by a person like Dana Ullman. He is not an ‘ordinary’ man. Not a ‘small fish’ like me, but a ‘big shark’ ruling the vast oceans of international homeopathy. Dana himself claims: “My reputation is high and wide because of my body of positive work on homeopathy”. Positive or negative, he is ‘working’ a lot ‘for’ homeopathy. For making homeopathy a piece of mockery before the scientific community. Not only Skeptics and scientific community, but a good number of homeopaths consider Dana’s  writings as ‘authentic’ representation of homeopathy. When he talks nonsense theories, scientific people with will think homeopathy is that much nonsense, and homeopaths are idiots! His “reputation is high and wide”!

Dana Ullman, who is claimed to be described by TIME magazine as “the Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” and ABC News touted as “Homeopathy’s Foremost Spokesman”, is a prominent proponent of ‘ultra-scientific’ ‘energy medicine’ theories in homeopathy that severely discredit the scientific credentials of homeopathy.

Please read his articles on his site and try to understand what he says about the mechanism of homeopathic drug action. He has no opinion of his own. He will quote many others, and say ‘it is said’, ‘it is believed’. He never commits to any theory. Same time, all  articles of Dana Ulman have an undercurrent of ‘energy medicine’ theories.

Energy medicine theory is the greatest enemy of scientific homeopathy. Scientific community will never accept homeopathy as a medical science, if we go on talking ‘energy medicine’. We have to use the paradigms of science, language of science, concepts of science, terms of science, methods of science. We should explain homeopathy as a science, fitting to modern biochemistry, molecular biology and pathology.

Dana Ulmann would be the first person to write articles supporting any emerging theories or new research reports appearing in homeopathy. As I already said, he instantly ‘supports’ every new theories, but commits to nothing. If you ‘accept’ a theory in its real sense, you will have to discard and disown its contradicting theories. Ulmann will ‘support’ molecular imprints, next day he will write an article supporting ‘energy medicine’ theories. Next day he will support nanoparticle theory. The moment the IIT B research report appeared in media, he wrote an article declaring ‘homeopathy is nanopharmacology’, same time adding that ‘nanopaticles’ act by ‘vibrations’ and ‘resonance’! It is a wonderful exercise. He never goes into the depth of any theory. He only quote others. His all articles always contains ‘it is said’ and ‘it is believed’. He ‘says’ nothing specific. He never antagonize any theory directly, but very cleverly utilize every new ‘researches’ to justify the ‘energy medicine concepts.

The flag-ship article of his website  “Why Homeopathy Makes Sense and Works-A Great Introductory Article for Advocates OR Skeptics of Homeopathy” clearly shows that he is is totally blank on “How Homeopathy Works”.

He admits “precisely how homeopathic medicines work remains a mystery according to present scientific thinking”. If it is a mystery, how could he claim it is “nano-pharmacology”?

In this article, he says homeopathy uses “nanodoses” of medicinal substances. Either he has no idea about what “nano” means, or he is not aware that drugs potentized above 12c or avogadro number cannot contain a single drug molecule. How can something that does not contain a ‘single’ molecule be ‘nano-doses’ of drug substance? To be “nano-doses”, there should be drug molecules present!

In the same article, Ulmann says Homeopathy works on the basis of ‘hormesis’. Hormesis is all about the biological actions of ‘small’ quantities of drugs. How could Ullman talk about hormesis knowing well that potentized drugs contain no drug substance? If you accept homeopathy as hormesis, you are obviously discarding the principles of homeopathic potentization. Homeopathy is not SMALL doses- it is NO doses!

DANA ULLMAN SAYS:  “One metaphor that may help us understand how and why extremely small doses of medicinal agents may work derives from present knowledge of modern submarine radio communications. Normal radio waves simply do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low frequency radio wave. However, the terms “extremely low” are inadequate to describe this specific situation because radio waves used by submarines to penetrate water are so low that a single wavelength is typically several miles long! If one considers that the human body is 70-80% water, perhaps the best way to provide pharmacological information to the body and into intercellular fluids is with nanodoses. Like the above mentioned extremely low frequency radio waves, it may be necessary to use extremely low (and activated) doses as used in homeopathic medicines, in order for a person to receive the medicinal effect.”

SEE ANOTHER ‘METAPHOR’:  “It is commonly known that certain species of moths can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles in distance. It is no simple coincidence that species only sense pheromones from those in the same species who emit them (akin to the homeopathic principle of similars), as though they have developed exquisite and specific receptor sites for what they need to survive and to propagate their species. Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at distances, and when one considers the volume of water in the ocean, it becomes obvious that sharks, like all living creatures, develop extreme hypersensitivity for whatever will help ensure their survival. It is therefore not surprising that renowned astronomer Johann Kepler once said, “Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

These are a very ‘funny’ metaphors only ‘Ulmanian logic’ can decipher relating with ‘how homeopathy works’.!

In the article “Nobel Prize-Winning Virologist’s New Research Gives Significant Support to Homeopathic Pharmacology” Ullman claims that Luc Montaigner’s researches using ‘aqueous dilutions’ of bacterial DNA supports homeopathic potentization, even though “homeopathy is not mentioned anywhere” by Montaigner. But Ullman conveniently ignores the fact that Montaigner never used dilutions above 12x, which is very much lower to avogadro limit. Upto 23x, there is always chance for original molecules to be present. Montaigner even said he could not detect any ‘electromagnetic signals’ above 18x. How can Ullman claim Montaigner proved the efficacy of ‘high dilutions’ used in homeopathy?

For my appraisal of Montaigner’s observations, go to this link:

Dana is never bothered or does not notice the fact that Montaigner’s ‘ghost dna’ theory and nanoparticle theory of IIT-B team contradict each other!. He ‘supports’ both theories!. That is a very special quality of Dana- he can support and promote any number of contradicting theories same time, without any ‘partiality’.  He commits to nothing. He would connect any contradicting theories using his ‘energy medicine’ theories of ‘electromagnetic radiations’ and ‘biomagnetic resonance’!  According to him, homeopathic medicines act by ‘resonance’, nanoparticles act by ‘resonance’, ‘ghost dna’ act by ‘resonance’. Life is ‘resonance’, disease is lack of ‘resonance’, cure is re-establishment of ‘resonance’. Everything could fit well into this ‘resonance’ theory- let it be homeopathy, faith healing, distant healing, radionics, dowsing, drug transmission or any occult practice. ‘Resonance’ and ‘radiations’ is the answer.

In his article “Homeopathic Medicine is Nanopharmacology”, Dana Ullman answers the question “How does homeopathy work” as follows:

“How homeopathic medicines work is presently a mystery. And yet, nature is replete with striking examples of the powerful effects of extremely small doses of active agents.

It is commonly known that certain species of moths can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles away. Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at large distances.

I stress again that nanopharmacological doses will not have any effect unless the person is hypersensitive to the specific medicinal substance. Hypersensitivity is created when there is some type of resonance between the medicine and the person. Because the system of homeopathy bases its selection of the medicine on its ability to cause in overdose the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing, homeopathy’s “law of similars,” as it is called, is simply a practical method of finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive.

The homeopathic principle of similars makes further sense when one considers that physiologists and pathologists now recognize that disease is not simply the result of breakdown or surrender of the body but that symptoms are instead representative of the body’s efforts to fight infection or adapt to stress. Fever, inflammation, pain, discharge, and even high blood pressure are but a small number of the common symptoms that the organism creates in order to defend and to try to heal itself.

Over 200 years of experience by homeopathic physicians hav found that a homeopathic medicine acts longer and deeper when it is more potentized. Although no one knows precisely why this happens, it is conjectured that highly potentized nanopharmacological doses can more deeply penetrate cells and the blood-brain barrier than less potentized medicines. Although there is no consensus on why these ultramolecular doses work more deeply, there is consensus from users of these natural medicines that they do.

One cannot help but sense the potential treasure-trove of knowledge that further research in homeopathy and nanopharmacology will bring in this new millennium.”



Only thing I got is he explains “law of similars,” as “simply a practical method of finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive”, and this “hypersensitivity is created when there is some type of resonance between the medicine and the person”. According to Dana that is how homeopathy works- “resonance between medicine and person”! He pretends to be talking science by saying ‘homeopathy is nanopharmacology’, whereas his ‘nano-pharmocology’ has nothing to do with modern nanotechnology or pharmacology.  His ‘nano pharmacology’ acts by resonance!

That is the wonderful quality of Dana Ullman’s writings. He talks a lot, he writes a lot- of course in a very knowledgeable and ‘scientific’ language. But nobody gets nothing from him. Everything begins in mystery and ends in mystery.

And you should know, he is “the Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” and “Homeopathy’s Foremost Spokesman” in western world”!

My request to Dan Ullman is, he should be a little more cautious and consistent  while explaining homeopathy. Being the most noted  “Foremost Spokesman” of homeopathy, he should be more responsible. While saying homeopathy is ‘hormesis’, ‘small doses’ and ‘nanopharmacology’, he should be aware that he is contradicting the concept of homeopathic potentization. He should try to explain how potentized drugs, even without a single drug molecule contained them, act therapeutically on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. Any reasonable theory about homeopathy should explain what actually happens during potentization, what are the active principles of potentized drugs, and what is the exact molecular mechanism by which these active principles produces a therapeutic effect. We should explain potentization and similia similibus curentur in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge. Most importantly, we should be consistent in our explanation, whatever it be.

Dana Ullman should always remember, there is an elite and skeptic  scientific community keeping watchful eyes on whatever he says. He should be cautious not to provide new arms and ammunition to them to attack homeopathy, by making inconsistent and self-contradicting statements and promoting obviously unscientific theories about homeopathy.

I would expect Dana Ulman to provide specific answers to following direct questions, if he is serious in his inquiry ‘how homeopathy works’

1. What exactly happens during potentization? What is the exact process involved?

2. What are the active principles of potentized drugs?

3. What is the exact process by which these active principles of potentized drugs interact with the organism and produce a therapeutic effect?

4. How would you explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ in the light of your understanding of potentization and therapeutic action of potentized drugs?

Adolph Lippe 1812 – 1888


Adolph Lippe 1812 – 1888 was a singular homeopath and one of the first graduates of homeopathy in America. Lippe taught alongside Constantine Hering at the Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia and wrote several very influential books which are still standard textbooks today for modern homeopaths. Lippe also translated many important homeopathic texts, thus enriching American homeopathy.

Adolph Lippe taught Thomas Lindsley Bradford and many others.

Lippe was a founding member of the International Hahnemannian Association and he was a colleague of James Tyler Kent, Henry Newell Guernsey, Carroll Dunham and many other famous homeopaths.

Lippe was a fastidious prescriber, often spending hours on a case to get the correct remedy, and he was an advocate high potencies and a staunch defender of Hahnemann’s principles of practicing homeopathy.

Timothy Field Allen compiled the Encyclopedia of Pure Materia Medica over the course of 10 years. It is a comprehensive record of all the provings of homeopathic medicines recorded up to that point…. Constantine Hering, Carroll Dunham, Adolph Lippe, and Richard Hughes all contributed to this monumental work…

Adolph Lippe edited the Organon Journal with Thomas Skinner, Samuel Swan and Edward William Berridge in 1878- 1881.

Adolph Graf zur Lippe-Weissenfield was born May 11, 1812 near Goerlitz, in Prussia, and died on January 23, 1888 in Pennsylvania. Dr. Lippe was educated in Berlin and came to the United States in 1838. He first settled in Reading (Berks County), PA and set up practice.

Lippe was the son of Count Ludwig and Countess Augusta zur Lippe, scions of an old and illustrious family, whose estate lay near the town of Goerlitz, Prussia. Here Lippe was born on May 11, 1812.

His parents tried to persuade him to study law, but he had made up his mind to become a homeopathic physician. He received his medical education in Berlin and shortly after his graduation in 1837, he sailed for America and matriculated in the Allentown Academy, the only homeopathic college then in existence.

To further his knowledge, in the fall of 1838 Lippe registered in the first and only homeopathic medical college in the world, the North American Academy of the Homeopathic Healing Art in Allentown, Pennsylvania, also known as the Allentown Academy.

On August 28, 1841 Lippe passed his final examination in front of Drs. Wesselhoeft, Henry Detweiller, Freytag and Romig and graduated with a Doctorate in Homeopathic Medicine. Lippe said that “the possession of an Allentown diploma is an honor to its holder, as it was only obtained by worthy applicants. Many who tried to pass were rejected as incapable.” The Allentown Academy closed soon after this and Lippe was their last graduate.

After this rigorous training, Lippe moved from Reading to Pottsville, PA in 1841 where he practiced with success and growing ability until 1844 when called to a larger field in Carlisle, PA.

J. C Guernsey, the son of H. N. Guernsey, wrote in his rendering of the history of homeopathy in Pennsylvania that “by Dr. Lippe’s labors in Carlisle and the neighboring counties where homeopathy was unknown, he opened a large field for our school.”

Throughout this time, Dr. Lippe made a name for himself with his treatment of various epidemics common in the Cumberland Valley. Then in 1850 Lippe moved permanently to Philadelphia and took two gentlemen from Carlisle with him to pursue the study of homeopathy.

Dr. Lippe held the position of Chair of Materia Medica at the Homeopathic Medical College of Pennsylvania from 1864-1869. He helped launch several of the best homeopathic journals ever to be published, including the Organon, the Hahnemannian Monthly, and the Homeopathic Physician. His unswerving commitment to pure homeopathy was unparalleled, even in his day!

Considered by many to be one of the most clinically successful homeopathic physicians in our great legacy, Dr. Lippe’s multitudinous publications provide a blueprint for homeopathic practice. From his suggestions on how to study Materia Medica to his exposition of Hahnemannian homeopathy, Dr. Lippe gives us incontrovertible evidence of a highly successful homeopathic method.

Emigrating to the United States in 1839 he presented himself to the sole school of the homeopathic practice in this country – the old Allentown Academy of the Homoeopathic Healing Art. After assiduous application he was granted his diploma from Dr. Constantine Hering, as President of the institution, on July 27, 1841.

Removing to Pottsville, Dr. von Lippe practiced with success and growing ability until called to a larger field, at Carlisle. Here the prevalent epidemics of the Cumberland Valley gave him a new distinction, by means of which he was, six years later, induced to settle in Philadelphia. Here he speedily attained a marked distinction in the most fashionable practice of his day.

Aside, however, from his strictly professional labors, Dr. von Lippe had been a regular contributor to homeopathic literature and an active correspondent with his confreres in foreign parts, and more especially with David Wilson in London and Rocco Rubini in Naples.

The correspondence, now turned yellow with the lapse of years, is both interesting and instructive and quite fully attests the warm friendship of many admirers. Rocco Rubini‘s original pamphlet in Italian, introducing the Cactus Grandiflorus, is particularly valuable.

Dr. von Lippe filled the Chair of Materia Medica in the Homoeopathic College of Pennsylvania from 1863 to 1868 and with distinguished success. He also translated valuable Italian, German, and French Homoeopathic essays and treatises, that are now standard.

He augmented and improved the homeopathic meteria medica, and by his clinical reports has shown how this may be rendered practically available and utilized in the application of homoeopathic knowledge and principles.

Adopting homoeopathy after careful examination, when qualified to institute and conduct it; believing it to be progressive rather than stagnant, and having devoted the best years of a prosperous life to establishing its claims in this country, he absolutely rejected all claims and solicitations that would have recalled him to Germany.

Adolph wrote Key to the Materia Medica Or, Comparative Pharmacodynamic, Keynotes of the Homoeopathic Materia Medica, Text Book of Materia Medica, Key notes & red line symptoms of the materia medica, Valedictory Address Delivered at the Eighteenth Annual Commencement of the … , Who is a Homoeopathician?: A Lecture Delivered Before the Hahnemannian … , Cholera; Its Treatment by Homoeopathy, Cholera: Lecture Delivered at the Homœopathic Medical College of Pennsylvania, What is Homœopathy: A Lecture, the preface to Samuel Hahnemann‘s The Genius of the Homœopathic Healing Art: Preface to the Second Volume of … , The Healing Art. A Higher Medical Education. A Reply to Prof. William Pepper … , A Reply to Prof. William Pepper’s Insult to the Homoeopathic School of … .

Constantine Lippe 1840-1885 was Adolph’s son and he was also a homeopath. He died as a result of wounds received during the American Civil War, when he suffered a shattered fracture of his tibia and refused amputation. Constantine graduated alongside notable homeopaths such as Ernest Albert Farrington, Thomas Lindsley Bradford, Edward William Berridge and Walter James, all of which contributed in major ways to the profession.

In June of 1876, Dr. Adolph Lippe gave a dinner party at which were assembled Dr. Edward Bayard, Dr. Henry N. Guernsey, Dr. Constantine Lippe, Dr. Samuel Swan, two or three others whose names it is impossible now to recall, and the writer …

Constantine Lippe wrote Repertory to the More Characteristic Symptoms of the Materia Medica.

Little Known Historical Facts about Homeopathy

I would like to point out some little known historical facts concerning homeopathy.

Firstly, provision for homeopathic medicine in Britain has always been part of the National Health Service since it began in 1948, there currently being 5 homeopathic hospitals under the NHS.

The practice of homeopathic medicine flourished in both Europe and the US during the late 1800s and early 1900s and was spectacularly popular with European royalty and British aristocracy, American entrepreneurs, literary giants, and religious leaders. It is also practised nowadays in countries in South America and is especially popular in India with one hundred (four year) homeopathic medical schools and more than 220,000 homeopathic doctors.

In the United States in the early 1900s there were 22 homeopathic medical schools and over 100 homeopathic hospitals, 60 orphanages and old people’s homes and 1,000+ homeopathic pharmacies. Members of the American Medical Association had great animosity towards homeopathy after its formation in 1847 and it was decided to purge all local medical societies of physicians who were homeopaths. This purge was successful in every state except Massachusetts because homoepathy was so strong among the elite of Boston.

The AMA wanted to keep homoepaths out of their societies and discourage any type of association with homeopaths. In 1855 the AMA established a code of ethics which stated that orthodox physicians would lose their membership if they even consulted with a homeopath. If a physician lost his membership, it meant that in some States he no longer had a licence to practice medicine.

Drug companies were antagonistic towards homeopathy, collectively trying to suppress it. The medical journals they published were used as mouthpieces against homeopathy and in support of orthodox medicine.

At an AMA meeting, a respected orthodox physician said: ‘We must admit that we never fought the homeopath on matters of principles; we fought him because he came into the community and got the business.’ Economic issues played a major role in what was allowed to be practised.

Homeopathy attracted support from many of the most respected members of society in the US, such as William James, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Louisa M. Alcott, Mark Twain and in Britain among its supporters were Charles Dickens, W.B. Yeats, William Thackarey, Benjamin Disraeli, Yehudi Menuhin. Other famous supporters were Dostoevsky, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Mahatma Ghandi.

The aristocratic patronage of homeopathy in the UK extending well into the 1940’s and beyond can be easily demonstrated. In the Homeopathic Medical Directories there are lists of patrons of the dispensaries and hospitals. They read like an extract from Burkes or Debretts.

John D. Rockefeller referred to it as ‘a progressive and aggressive step in medicine’ and was under homeopathic care throughout the latter part of his life living to 99 years of age. A strong advocate of homeopathy, major grants of between $300-$400 million he intended for homeopathic institutions were instead used for orthodox medical institutions in the early 1900s, under pressure from his son and his financial advisor, Frederick Gates.

Seminar Musings

We are approaching the time for the first Spanish Seminar of the year, and have been busy working on the presentations.

The seminar has been designed as a continuous flow from

  • an overview of the development of Homoeopathy and the Repertory,
  • how to read the writings of Hahnemann,
  • comparisons of modern day techniques with the scientific approach of the originator,
  • a look at the model of miasms in case taking and whether it has value in case analysis.
  • looking at Characteristic symptoms and Essential symptoms and understanding the difference via on screen case presentations.
  • discussing rubric use and what a symptom is.
  • A look at how to use the Materia Medica.
  • A look at LM potencies.

Dr Guillermo Zamora, the director of I.H.M. Mexico, kindly translated a lot of the screen presentations into Spanish for our colleagues in Zaragoza.

The language issues have been dissipated by having my favourite translator for seminars present. Nadia has studied homoeopathic medicine in Spain and is familiar with all the terminology.

Nadia Martin




We look forward to seeing you at the Seminar in Zaragoza.


Thoughts on ‘Subtle Energy’ and The Vithoulkas model.

Dr Chandran K.C. is a person of uncompromising views. We present another article by him for consideration.

What ever sophisticated scientific vocabulary he uses, George Vithoulkas, considered by some homeopaths as a ‘living legend of homeopathy’, is basically a staunch proponent of the most unscientific ‘energy medicine’ theories about homeopathy, as demonstrated by his writings.

 According to Vithoulkas, what happens during potentization, by which medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to potentizing medium? Did he ever explain it in scientific terms?

  According to Vithoulkas, what are the active principles of potentized drugs? Did he ever explain it in scientific terms?

  According to Vithoulkas, what is the biological mechanism of action of potentized drugs? Did he ever explain it in scientific terms?

  According to the NEW MODEL of Vithoulkas:

  “1. Unless we understand the functioning of the human organism in its subtle levels we cannot hope to unravel the laws and principles governing human intelligence, human emotionality and the human physical body as well as their interconnection and interdependence.

  2. Such universal laws should be searched for in an area far beyond the physico-chemical structure of the human body – this area, this realm that can be called a substratum of subtle formulative energies.”

  He is trying to explain the ” human intelligence, human emotionality and the human physical body as well as their interconnection and interdependence” using a concept of “subtle formulative energies”! He has all rights to do that, if he stop claiming he is talking SCIENCE! There is nothing scientific in his “subtle energy”. We have been hearing about this “subtle energy” from all sorts of occult practitioners and spiritual healers. Nobody can make homeopathy ‘scientific’, by talking theories of “subtle energy”.

   The specific statement “Epigrammatically I could say that the time for an Energy Medicine has arrived”, very clearly shows that George Vithoulkas is least interested in making homeopathy a SCIENTIFIC MEDICINE.

  See how the NEW MODEL of Vithoulkas defines DISEASE:

  “A disease (process of degeneration) will only take place if the vibrational frequencies of the stimulus (disease producing agent) and the organism (predispositions) coincide. Diseases are nothing else but the activation of the existing predispositions.”

  Did you notice? Disease happens only when “vibrational frequency” of “disease producing agent” COINCIDES with the “vibrational frequency” of “predispositions of organism”. For him, DISEASE is all about COINCIDING of “vibrational frequencies”!

  In his NEW MODEL, there is no role for biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, genetics or any such knowledge- only “subtle energy” that is “communicated principally through the smallest particle-energy bodies that have not been defined yet”!

 His views about the active principles of potentized drugs as ‘subtle energy’,  and his ‘new model’ for disease and cure based on ‘resonance’ are basically contradicting all the modern scientific knowledge system.

   It is very frustrating to see that he drags “prana, bioplasma, orgon, etc., etc.” into his NEW MODEL as a “substratum” for the activities of “subtle energy”, thereby alienating homeopathy completely away from the framework and paradigms of modern scientific knowledge system.

  Due to his obsession with the ‘resonace model’, he is totally incapable of even thinking about a scientific model for the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure. Biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, molecular pathology and such modern scientific knowledge have no place in his ‘energy medicine’ theories.

  I strongly disagree with his ‘energy medicine’ approach to homeopathy, even though personally I have great respects for his comparatively rational approach towards most of the nonsense concepts and methods propagated by modern day ‘gurus’.

College discussions