|
|| Home | || Site Map | || Appointments | || Patient Support |
The Debate re Divisiveness in Homeopathy
[Backup text in case original website is not available]
[use your browser to go back to last page]
The Debate In Homeopathy
The “Against Divisiveness” letter from respected homeopaths was on a website that now seems to be disabled. These are some of the texts that were on that site. Perhaps they will be available again but in case not this is the record of their attempt to avoid monolithic control of homeopathy by a narrow-minded set of individuals.
A starting point would be: [www.grundlagen-praxis.de/debatte/englisch/preface.htm ]
A key quote from the Introduction below is:
…Just for the record, we do not consider this documentation as the end but rather as the starting point of a broad debate relating to the methodology and scientific character of homoeopathy as well as to ways of establishing the validity of homoeopathy. We do not advocate dogmatic thinking. Statements which contradict the Organon are not necessarily false. We greatly regret that time and time again every school attempts to base their founding elements on choice quotes from the Organon. It would be more scientific to ascertain the differences and to found them methodically in each case. What also should be included in this debate are developments of the last 200 years with regard to scientific theory, epistemology and criticism of methodology. The question regarding the objectivity of observation is generally accepted and legitimate and it should give us the incentive to look for means of establishing the validity of homoeopathy. It should not instigate us to take up the cudgels en route to arbitrariness.
|
International Discussion - Basics of Homoeopathy |
Concerning the present situation of homoeopathy
In recent decades we have seen homoeopathy spread on a wide scale - however, at the same time there has also been a considerable increase in "schools", in teachers and in attempts to develop homoeopathy. What is taught and practiced at different schools using the name of "homoeopathy" often does vary greatly with regard to content. Various trends have distanced themselves in different ways from Hahnemann's definitions and standards as they were explained in the Organon. The only thing they seem to have in common is that they all prescribe drugs which they refer to as being "homoeopathic".
There is a lack of orientation amongst many colleagues, if not confusion, when it comes to the right approach to homoeopathy.
One of the main questions is how certainty can be achieved in homoeopathic prescription. That is to say, which methods of attaining knowledge are scientific in homoeopathy and are able to stand the test of critical examination.
Hahnemann's starting point was prompted by his disappointment about the speculative methods of medicine in his time on which he turned his back. How to go about achieving certainty in the treatment of illness was what was at stake to him. In his day and age Hahnemann found a way to attain this certainty of cure by applying the method of pure observation, also referred to as pure empiricism. Of course, here it was a matter of certainty in the epistemological sense and not of certainty in the factual sense. In practice this meant that there was a good chance of setting a healing process in motion.
Achieving certainty in the treatment of disease was Hahnemann's lifelong first and foremost priority and yet, at the same time he had irreconcilable differences about going beyond the obvious, beyond that which was perceivable through our senses.
Disease consists only of perceptible signs and symptoms, known as phenomena and it is not the doctor's task to make statements about anything that lies "deeper" or "behind" the obvious phenomena. This is one of the key statements of the Organon and it goes through Hahnemann's entire works like a red line.
In "Spirit of the Homoeopathic Doctrine of Medicine" he demands: "Appreciable, distinctly appreciable to our senses must that be, which is to be removed in each disease in order to transform it into health, and right clearly must each remedy express what it can positively cure, if medical art shall cease to be a wanton game of hazard with human life, and shall commence to be the sure deliverer from diseases."
Pure observation, i.e. pure empiricism is the prerequisite so that we may set real against real when comparing the patient's symptoms with the drug symptoms, and not end up comparing constructs of the mind. It is only when we are comparing what is real with that which is real that we are standing on firm ground. Then and only then is there a high probability of achieving certainty of cure. It is only then that we may really have confidence in homoeopathy. Observation in its pure sense is a main issue in homoeopathy; it either makes or breaks the whole procedure. As soon as we go and abandon pure observation and start comparing constructs with each other, everything gets fuzzy because then we just do not know whether or not these constructs can be taken for real.
The background of this documentation
Is homoeopathy a defined field of medicine or can anyone teach and practice methods under the name of "homoeopathy" that are quite different from one another?
In December 2000 Julian Winston, editor of the North American journal "Homeopathy Today", published critical comments on modern developments in homoeopathy. Points of discussion were Rajan Sankaran's concept of central delusion, Jan Scholten's theories and/or hypotheses on groups of chemical elements in the periodic table and some new provings of drugs by means of which one sought to discover the "central theme" of a drug using the doctrine of signatures, dream provings and other meditation provings. The doctrine of signatures was criticized as an instrument being used to acquire reliable knowledge about a drug.
In particular empathic thinking and anthropomorphic speculation were criticized, i.e. means as they are applied in the doctrine of signatures. Also exposed to criticism was the attempt to assign human qualities to animals based on the empathic observation of these and to subsequently draw conclusions about the "central themes" of drugs.
As a direct result, 21 internationally well-known colleagues (amongst others Roger Morrison, Rajan Sankaran, Jonathan Shore, Nancy Herrick, Harry van der Zee and Deborah Collins) wrote a letter to the editor entitled "Against Divisiveness", in which they urged Julian Winston to resign from his job as editor ("Perhaps Mr. Winston no longer feels able to represent the homeopathic community?")
André Saine reacted to this with an article entitled "Homeopathy versus Speculative Medicine", which was followed by a lively debate on the principles of homoeopathy in North American homoeopathic journals.
It was then that we heard about this debate from André Saine and felt that the tone and style of the criticism towards Julian Winston was unwarranted.
These important questions should be and need to be addressed by as many participating homoeopaths as possible on an international level.
This gave rise to a "declaration" drawn up on our part which served the purpose of calling the fundamental principles of homoeopathy back to mind.
From April 2002 on into the year 2003 we collected comments and statements from renowned homoeopaths worldwide, we addressed approx. 150 to 200 colleagues from different countries, including the managing committeees of the German Association of Homoeopathic Physicians, the German Hahnemann Association, the editors of the German journals "Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie" and the "Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung", the members of the board and each individual president of the LIGA MEDICORUM HOMOEOPATHICA INTERNATIONALIS. We sent all of them documents of the discussion and made a request for comments or asked them alternatively to sign the "declaration". Our objective was to inform colleagues and to provide for the broadest international debate possible. This bilingual debate was published on the web site of "Grundlagen und Praxis" publishers (www.grundlagen-praxis.de). In total we have documented more than 100 statements, comments and articles from the past and present which are now available to you here.
Just for the record, we do not consider this documentation as the end but rather as the starting point of a broad debate relating to the methodology and scientific character of homoeopathy as well as to ways of establishing the validity of homoeopathy. We do not advocate dogmatic thinking. Statements which contradict the Organon are not necessarily false. We greatly regret that time and time again every school attempts to base their founding elements on choice quotes from the Organon. It would be more scientific to ascertain the differences and to found them methodically in each case. What also should be included in this debate are developments of the last 200 years with regard to scientific theory, epistemology and criticism of methodology. The question regarding the objectivity of observation is generally accepted and legitimate and it should give us the incentive to look for means of establishing the validity of homoeopathy. It should not instigate us to take up the cudgels en route to arbitrariness.
The articles read reveal a lot of very rational lines of thoughts and we learned a great deal from them. However, the naiveté of some articles and comments was frightful. Regrettably, we also had to take note of the passive attitude of some staff members of organizations we approached as well as that of the editorial staff of some journals. We hope this publication will set colleagues everywhere thinking independently about the fundamentals of homoeopathy. We are hopeful that our colleagues will be more critical when dealing with new ideas and speculations which often appear promising at the start, but unfortunately often do not lead to anymore certainty of cure in practice, simply because, from an epistemological point of view, they do not suit this purpose.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere thanks to everyone who has participated in compiling this extensive documentation and has contributed to its circulation with active help, donations, translations, the granting of unburocratic permission for publications or with their advice - first and foremost we would like to thank the publishing house "Grundlagen und Praxis" for their ever pleasant cooperation, their patience and great amount of technical support, as well as Dr. Shiela Mukerjee-Guzik for her unflagging effort in doing translations free of charge.
We would also like to thank Ute Ahlquist, the editors of the "Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung", "Archibel S.A." (Belgium), Dr. Evelyn Asher, Uta Hadwig Bestmann, Dr. Carsten Brandt, Tanja Boehler, Dr. Walter Buschauer, Axel Camici, Sheilagh Creasy, Dr. Nicole Curé, Dr. Friedrich Dellmour, Dr. Henning Droege, Una Doherty, Dr. Heiner Frei, the "Gesellschaft homöopathischer Ärzte in Schleswig-Holstein und den Hansestädten", Svea Große, homoeopathic laboratory Brita Gudjons, Dr. George Guess, Dr. Klaus-Henning Gypser, Antje Hampel, Margarethe Harms, the Karl F. Haug publishing company, Frank Henrich, the editors of "Homoeopathic LINKS", Hermann Holstein, Dr. Alain Horvilleur, Dr. Ralf Jeutter, Dr. Jutta Hübner, Beatrix Klein, Christian Korn, "RADAR-service" Jochen Krahnefeld, Teresa Kramer, Dr. Johanna Laakmann, Dr. Pierre Lenthéric, Carsten Lienemann, Alste Lindner, Dr. Brent Mathieu, Wilhelm Maudrich publishers, Christian Meinhard, Roland Methner, Hedi Meusburger, Dr. Marcos Dias de Moraes, Gabriele Müller, Bernd Müller-Thederan, Dr. Stefan Ortfeld, Barbara Osawa, B.D. Patel, Irene Paulsen, Dr. Christa von der Planitz, Dr. Christine Recker, Thomas Recker, Dr. Klaus Rentrop, Dr. Agnes Riedel, Karin Rohloff, Ilse Rohwer, Dr. André Saine, Angelika Schmid, Dr. Monika Schmidt-Holtz, Dr. Alexandra Schulze-Rohr, Dr. Carsta Schumacher-Lüthge, the "Wolfgang-Schweitzer-Bibliothek" Hamburg, homoeopathic library of the German Association of Homoeopathic Physicians, Dr. Jean-Louis Smout, Dr. Michel de Sonnaville, Neil Tessler, Penelope Vogt, Judith Widderich, Dr. Ulrike Wiese, Julian Winston, Dr. Peter Wright, the editors of the "Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie", Dr. Lucia Zekorn and Gabriele Ziegeler-Botzet.
The Editors
Klaus Habich, Dr.Klaus.Habich@gmx.de
Curt Kösters, Curt.Koesters@hamburg.de
Jochen Rohwer, jochen.rohwer@t-online.de
Translation: Judith Widderich
Acknowledgement
Many thanks to all who have supported the extensive documentation of the discussion
with energetic help or donations till now:
Ute Ahlquist, Editors „Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung“, Dr. Evelyn Asher, Uta Hadwig
Bestmann, Dr. Carsten Brandt, Axel Camici, Sheilagh Creasy, Dr. Friedrich Dellmour, Dr.
Henning Droege, Una Doherty, Gesellschaft homöopathischer Ärzte in Schleswig-Holstein
und den Hansestädten e.V., Svea Große, Grundlagen und Praxis Publishing House, Dr.
George Guess, Antje Hampel, Margarethe Harms, Karl-F. Haug Publishing House, Frank
Henrich, Hermann Holstein, Dr. Alain Horvilleur, Dr. Ralf Jeutter, Editors “Homoeopathic
LINKS”, Dr. Jutta Hübner, Dr. Johanna Laakmann, Carsten Lienemann, Alste Lindner, Dr.
Brent Mathieu, Wilhelm Maudrich Publishing House, Gabriele Müller, Dr. Shiela Mukerjee-
Guzik, Bernd Müller-Thederan, Dr. Stefan Ortfeld, Barbara Osawa, Dr. Klaus Rentrop, Dr.
Agnes Riedel, Karin Rohloff, Dr. André Saine, Angelika Schmid, Dr. Monika Schmidt-Holtz,
Dr. Alexandra Schulze-Rohr, Dr. Carsta Schumacher-Lüthge, Neil Tessler; Penelope Vogt,
“Wolfgang-Schweitzer-Bibliothek Hamburg” - Homoeopathic Library of the “Deutscher
Zentralverein homöopathischer Ärzte e.V, Judith Widderich, Dr. Ulrike Wiese, Julian
Winston, Dr. Peter Wright, Dr. Lucia Zekorn, Gabriele Ziegeler-Botzet
------------------------
From Julian Winston, editor:
Julian Winston
The editor replies - May 2001
1
This article first appeared in 'Homeopathy Today' (2001, Vol 21 (5): 23-24), the
newsletter of the National Center for Homeopathy, Alexandria, VA, USA,
(www.homeopathic.org) edited by Julian Winston. It is presented here with kind
permission.
Answer to "Against Divisiveness" - letter of the 21 - Homeopathy Today (2001, May)
Julian Winston
The editor replies
Since the springboard for this letter appears to be my editorial in the December issue of
Homeopathy Today, I will attempt to clarify my position. The NCH Articles of Incorporation,
Article 4, state that one of the purposes of the NCH is to "promote the art of healing according
to the natural laws of cure from a strictly homeopathic standpoint," that is, "treatment
according to the Law of Similars, the Single Remedy proven on human beings, and the
Minimum Dose."
The word "homeopathy" describes a system which is based upon giving a remedy that can
cause "similar suffering" in a healthy person.
My view of the homeopathic community around us is based on that defining principle. I
attempt, at all times, to look critically at what we are doing and to ask if what we are seeing
fits the definition.
It does not matter if someone says they are a homeopath. The question is, "is what they are
doing consistent with the principles of homeopathy?" I will not deny that there are many ways
to heal. I have said that over and over again in these pages. But as the magazine of the
National Center for *Homeopathy* I believe that it is of great importance to reiterate the
basics over and over again.
I have never intentionally belittled, demeaned, or "attacked" anyone in these pages. If some
take my remarks as personal, I am truly sorry. I simply wish to look critically at all that which
is called homeopathy and bring the ideas forward for discussion. I am not the only one in the
world-wide homeopathic community who is doing so. My hope is that the discussion can take
place within the pages of Homeopathy Today.
I do not wish to have a mud-slinging match in these pages as has been seen in the last few
issues of the journal Links (published in the Netherlands), after George Vithoulkas spoke
(intemperately, in my view) about some of the same issues I have brought up in my editorial.
I simply suggest that we look critically at the concepts that are "current" these days-- doctrine
of signatures, analysis by kingdoms, anthropomorphic speculation, and all sorts of other
theoretical models-- and hold them up to the unchanging principles. Do they fall within the
model? Or do they fall outside? And, if they DO fall outside, there is nothing wrong with it,
nor does it mean they are not valuable, but it behooves us to question them.
As for the book reviews...
I would gladly welcome reviews of the latest books from anyone who wishes to submit them.
Usually, when I ask someone to review a book I am met with the lament, "Oh I'm so busy, I
don't have time, etc."
A few years ago a reader asked "how come Winston writes so much? Why can't we see other
authors?" The answer then was the same as now. I write because so few others do, and I have
40 pages to fill every month. Some articles do sit in the pile until I feel they are appropriate
(e.g., an essay about flu received at the height of the flu season in February could not see print
|
Page 2 |
Julian Winston
The editor replies - May 2001
2
till May or June--so I shelve it until the following flu season), or until I have enough room to
put them in--based upon the space left by the regular columns (bless those who write them!).
The only thing I ask of any review is that it look at the work critically. That does not mean
trying to find something bad-- just an analysis of the details of the work (e.g., what the author
was attempting to do by writing it, whether the work achieved what it set out to do, etc.).
A few details...
"He states that Jan Scholten's work is not homeopathy because there are no provings--thus
ignoring some dozen provings reported in Scholten's book. "
Yes. There are provings in the book. I am guilty of painting with a broad brush. To imply that
all of his work is not homeopathy was inaccurate. That does not change the fact, however,
that the book also contains much speculative information-- specifically about the nature of
synthetic remedies (combining two, like Lithium and Phosphorus to yield Lithium
phosphoricum-- a remedy that has had no provings).
"He states that there are insufficient cases of Ms. Herrick's remedies to place them in the
repertory."
I did not say that in the book review. I said that the remedies should not be given more than a
plain type entry until there is sufficient clinical data to give them a higher grade.
"Do provings become valid simply because they are old?"
No. Provings become valid because they can consistently be used to lead to cures based upon
the law of similars.
"Why do numerous plant remedies have their aggravations at the exact hour when the species
opens its flower (Pulsatilla at sunset, etc.). Why are so many of our remedies made from
creeping plants found to have dreams or desire to travel?"
This is an unsupported "doctrine of signatures" argument. Pulsatilla flowers (at least the ones
I have observed) open and close with the sun. When I took a photo of the plant for my slide
show, the flower was fully open at 9:30 in the morning. There is only one climber /creeper in
the repertory which has desire to travel--Curare. Of the other climbers/creepers (Gelsemium,
Cocculus, Clematis, Hedera, Ipomoea, Passiflora, Piper nigrum)--none have desire to travel in
their provings.
"We hope we are wrong in supposing that all of these articles indicate a strong editorial
conviction against and intolerance to hearing new concepts."
I have no problem with hearing new concepts. The history of homeopathy is FILLED with
new concepts. And, if you take a look at the pages of Homeopathy Today, you'll find plenty
of articles and seminar reviews that focus on or refer to such new concepts. It is only when
esoterica is elevated to the level of "ultimate truth" that I begin to have questions.
"It would be a shame to allow this newsletter to devolve into partisanship and divisiveness
which will only wound the community it exists to serve."
It will move in that direction only if people do not take part in the process.
I am always accessible. My e-mail is listed in each issue. That people who know me
(including many of those who signed the letter) cannot take "pen in hand" (as it were) and
communicate directly to me or write, as individuals, to Homeopathy Today disturbs me.
I was deeply dismayed by this letter-- both by the tone and by the fact that a number of those
who signed it live overseas, do not subscribe to Homeopathy Today, have no idea of the
|
Page 3 |
Julian Winston
The editor replies - May 2001
3
general content of the magazine, and apparently signed it based only upon seeing a copy of
the editorial in question.
I believe if something is to be called "homeopathy" then the process should be anchored
firmly in the homeopathic principles. It is as simple as that.
JW
---------------------
A contributor makes this observation:
There was a link to the full text but it has been rendered inoperative.
Moskowitz, Richard
HANP-website; AJHM (2002, Summer)
By means of this article Dr. Moskowitz reacts as one of the signers of the letter “Against Divisiveness” to the answer of André Saine titled “Homeopathy versus Speculative Medicine”. He explains which parts of the teachings of Sankaran, Scholten and Mangialavori he values as useful, and that similar developments can be found already since the time of Farrington. He discusses, to which extent these approaches are speculative and how far they correspond to the principles of homeopathy according to Hahnemann. The fact is explained, that these disputes concerning the purity of the doctrine represent a recurring theme in the history of homeopathy since Hahnemann.
A Reply to Julian Winston’s essay:
Brent Mathieu / Peter Wright
Letters – Winter 2001
1
The following two letters appeared in 'Simillimum' (Winter 2001, Vol.XIV, No.4, 6-
14)), the Journal of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians
(www.healthy.net/library/journals/simillimum) edited by Barbara Osawa and Peter
Wright. They are presented here with kind permission.
The following two letters were a reply to André Saine's Article "Homeopathy versus
speculative Medicine":
Brent Mathieu, president of the board of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians
(HANP), asks whether we should rather try new approaches in homeopathy instead of renouncing
them. The point of question is, if Hahnemann had been unfailing or if he had not only given a
fundament which should be developed further. The inductive way of thinking is not the only way, there
are also other methods. In spite of the reliability of the principles of homeopathy it is also adequate to
doubt her immutability and infallibility.
Peter Wright, also a member of the board of the HANP, contradicts Brent Mathieu and emphasises
the immutability of the fundamental principles of homeopathy. Every innovation developed in
homeopathy must orient by these principles; only a supplement without a change of the fundamentals
is to be permitted. Recent innovations partly don`t base on the principles but ignore them.
Brent Mathieu
A reply to André Saine’s “Homeopathy vs. Speculative Medicine”
Dear editor,
Dr. Saine, in his treatise “Homeopathy versus Speculative Medicine, A Call to Action”
(Simillimum Fall 2001), points out the “responsibility [that] belongs to everyone in a position
of authority.” As president of the board of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic
Physicians, I am compelled to action.
First, I want to commend Dr. Saine on a scholarly presentation of Hahnemann, Lippe, Lee,
and Dunham’s views on the importance of pure sources of Materia Medica in order to
preserve the effectiveness of Homeopathy as a healing art. This history is a valuable
instruction about the principles of Homeopathy, and the roots of past and present differences
among its practitioners. The quotes in the article helped clarify my understanding of the
issues underlying the concerns expressed by the 21 signers of a letter published in
Homeopathy Today (May, 2001), and from individuals in private communications to the
HANP Board.
It has been distressing to witness the participants in this difference of thought polarizing into
“us vs. them” camps. A number of prominent DHANPs and homeopaths have dropped their
subscriptions to Simillimum in protest because of the standards for author guidelines in that
publication, controversy about presentations at the last HANP Case Conference, and the tone
and content of recent issues. Individuals from both sides have used inflammatory and
divisive terms such as “fundamentalism” to describe the positions of advocates of pure
Hahnemannian Homeopathy, and the avant-garde teachings charged as being “false doctrines”
that are “speculative” and “misrepresentations.”
After reading Dr. Saine’s essay, it is apparent much of this divisiveness stems from the
attitudes of Hahnemann and his disciples. Hahnemann is quoted denouncing “false doctrines”
as “treachery and degeneracy” that must be “branded and avoided.” Lippe speaks of
Homeopathy guided by “fundamental and infallible” and “fixed, immutable principles.” Such
words set the historical stage for our present drama. They document Hahnemann’s
intolerance of dissent and departure from the principles he delineated in the Organon, and the
fervor of his disciples in defending his ideas as sacrosanct.
One wonders whether
Hahnemann and Lippe, if they were alive today, would burn the books by Scholten,
|
Page 2 |
Brent Mathieu / Peter Wright
Letters – Winter 2001
2
Vithoulkas, Morrison, and Sankaran on materia medica for their alleged impurity? Or would
they be engaged in scientific inquiry to either verify or negate their hypotheses? Is it our duty
as Hahnemannian homeopaths to “denounce their misrepresentation and false teachings” as
Dr. Saine states, and perhaps censor their articles and boycott their books and seminars, or
rather should we experiment and test what is true and effective in Homeopathy today?
Lippe’s scorn for “the advocates of unlimited liberty” that “pervert Homeopathy into
Eclecticism” stings especially. The Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians is the
child of the marriage of Homeopathy and naturopathic medicine that descended historically
from the Eclectic Medicine of the late 1800s. Our diplomates graduate from naturopathic
medical schools where they are trained to integrate Homeopathy with other therapies that
respect and work with the vital force. Some of us, myself included, have a confusion of
identity about whether we are homeopaths or naturopaths, and whether we can be both. To
protect the reputation and purity of Homeopathy, shall we propose that the HANP require
from its DHANPs a pledge of allegiance to pure, Classical Homeopathy, signed in blood?
Dr. Saine questions whether the 21 signers of a letter are “promoting a false doctrine.”
Rather, let us as homeopaths debate the core question of how do we “know” the medicinal
action of homeopathic drugs. In other words, let us ask ourselves as physicians and scientists,
what is reliable and “pure” materia medica? Hahnemann’s assertion is that only materia
medica derived from experimentation on healthy humans is pure, and may be relied upon to
treat the sick. To abbreviate and paraphrase one of Hahnemann’s quotes from Dr. Saine’s
article: “The homeopathic healing art administers no medicine before testing experimentally
their pure effects. Thus alone can the power of medicines on human health be known.” Other
methods are speculative, in Hahnemann’s opinion. Is he correct? Is it ethical for us to
prescribe a relatively unproven remedy based on theory or intuition?
Another question: because of Hahnemann’s great genius, brilliant scientific experimentation
and inductive reasoning, are the principles for healing in the Organon infallible and
immutable, free from error for all time? Or are they a firm foundation and a sure guide for
further inquiry and progress, as in the case of Newtonian physics leading to quantum
mechanics and string theory? How shall we advance and progress our science of healing?
Dr. Saine in his essay admirably outlines one course. Does this mean we must reject and
denounce the premises of Electroacupuncture by Voll, radionics, medical psychics, Jung,
Whitmont, shamans, and Rife as folly and quackery? Or can these aid us to deepen our
understanding of vital force, susceptibility, miasms and the curative action of drugs beyond
Hahnemann’s conclusions?
Dr. Saine quotes Hahnemann’s admission, “...it is certain that the materia medica can and
must be the daughter of experience,” tempered with his warning about it giving way to
“dreamy hypotheses.” Materia medicas such as Lectures on the Homeopathic Materia
Medica, The Soul of Remedies, Materia Medica Viva, and The Desktop Guide to Keynote
Prescribing, are based on their authors’ extensive clinical experience.
Hahnemann is quoted in Dr. Saine’s article as asserting “...it is impossible to divine the
healing powers of medicines according to a chemical hypothesis,” thus discounting the value
of chemistry in homeopathic pharmacodynamics, not to mention quantum physics. Yet in
many published cases as demonstrated by Scholten and Sankaran, successful prescriptions
were made of a combination salt such as Natrum arsenicum based on the indications of its
constituent elements, rather than its recorded provings. How is this not inductive reasoning
similar to that of Hahnemann? Nature, the order of the universe, is a great teacher and
revealer of the essential qualities of substances. Inductive reasoning is one valid way of
knowledge. It is not the only one.
|
Page 3 |
Brent Mathieu / Peter Wright
Letters – Winter 2001
3
Hahnemann indeed provided us a true compass to find our way in healing humanity. Though
the principles of Homeopathy he expounded are not broken and are still reliable, it is
appropriate to question their immutability and infallibility. Our understanding of the
principles of healing, and the reliability of our materia medica and repertories, can be
improved through scientific inquiry and innovation. We must be able to question
Hahnemann’s authority, and go beyond his work in a search for truth, and our mission to heal
the sick.
I thank Dr. Saine for his provocative paper, and join him in the call for reflection and action
on the direction of Homeopathy.
Julian Winston, editor of Homeopathy Today, quoted the poet Rilke in its September 2001
issue: “Community is held together by the power of the grace of great things.” May the grace
and power of Homeopathy bless our community to hold together, even as we disagree.
Tolerance in the search for truth needs to balance the vigilance required to preserve liberty
and science.
Brent Mathieu ND, DHANP
Peter Wright responds:
I appreciate the good intentions in Dr. Mathieu’s letter, and as a fellow HANP board member
I very much appreciate his fine work for the organization. With the permission of Dr. Saine
and Simillimum executive editor Barbara Osawa, I would like to respond in a collegial spirit
to some of the points he has raised.
Dr. Mathieu’s letter is very welcome in continuing the exchange, and I expect that the
concerns he brings up are widely shared. I want to emphasize, as André did in his message,
that there are absolutely no issues of malice, disrespect, or moral judgement involved here.
This is a discussion of principles, not personalities.
We need to talk
The existence of differing views, and the sometimes abrasive tone of the discussion, seems to
concern Dr. Mathieu as much as the issues themselves, and yet the language of his letter risks
heightening the polarization that he deplores. I would suggest that forthright dialogue about
essential issues should not be cause for alarm or distress.
He speaks of book-burning, censorship, boycotts, intolerance, quackery, and blood oaths.
Totalitarian dictators and dogmatic priests claim the authority to burn books and prevent the
dissemination of ideas they condemn. Clinicians, scholars, and scientists selectively
challenge, test, confirm, verify, disprove, criticize, or ignore publications in their fields,
depending on how they rate the merits of the work. As editors, teachers, readers, and
prescribers, we must all make choices, based on our assessment of the value of each offering.
This is not the same as intolerance, censorship, or boycotts. When old ideas which are
antithetical to Homeopathy (as defined by its founder) are promoted as the latest
developments in the art, leaders like Dr. Saine may well feel obliged to speak up.
He wonders, “...rather should we experiment and test what is true and effective in
Homeopathy today?” I can’t resist responding to this question with another question: has
something about disease and healing so fundamentally changed that today’s Homeopathy
must be different from that of previous eras? What was this event, when did the change
occur, and how must Homeopathy therefore change?
He asks, “how do we ‘know’ the medicinal action of homeopathic drugs?” and whether the
Organon’s principles remain verifiably true. Dr. Mathieu seems to be unclear about the
|
Page 4 |
Brent Mathieu / Peter Wright
Letters – Winter 2001
4
meaning and importance of Hahnemann’s inductive logic, relative to “other ways of
knowledge.” The implication is that these principles are simply one man’s ideas, to be tested
and improved in the course of time, along with the ideas of many other theorists and thinkers.
I would respectfully suggest that these concerns show a failure to grasp the true stature of this
man and his work, and the extent to which recorded experience has long since verified his
teachings.
Inductive logic makes Homeopathy unique
Inductive methods are indeed valued over others in Homeopathy, due to Hahnemann’s
awareness of the long history of false hopes and dead ends in medical approaches which
relied on other sources of knowledge such as deduction and intuition. The very relentlessness
that makes his chastisements sound so harsh also drove him to painstakingly work out an
inductive approach to healing which differs in logical type from any other before or since.
This fundamental distinction is the basis of its superiority over the standard medicine of his
day (and of our own), and the reason that repeated attempts to amend it, lacking the inductive
foundation, have never been acceptable as extensions of his work.
Dr. Mathieu asks whether “...we must reject and denounce the premises of
Electroacupuncture by Voll, radionics, medical psychics, Jung, Whitmont, shamans, and Rife
as folly and quackery?” I think the best response here is to quote Jesus: “By their fruits ye
shall know them.” Many traditions and individuals have touched on certain aspects of the
territory, and of course conventional medicine has accumulated masses of fragmentary data.
Homeopathy, however, offers us something qualitatively unique: a comprehensive map
including a system of principles that illuminates the energetic basis of disease and health, sets
out an effective method of removing illness, provides a way to understand the process, and
applies to every curable case.
200 years after Hahnemann’s discoveries, persistent and skillful application of homeopathic
principles will still lead to genuine cures. If we know and understand the value of this
system, if our work is Homeopathy, we are ethically obliged to rely on the principles, and on
trustworthy information derived from them, rather than on intuition or hypothesis. Judges are
bound to follow the law and the principles of justice, navigators must use the compass and
map, and homeopaths must apply the truths of the
Organon
The “advances” and “innovations” in question do not build on the principles, but ignore and
contradict them. Hahnemann was well-acquainted with the medical hypotheses of his day,
which included the doctrine of signatures and the use of compound chemical medicines
chosen for the presumed activity of their constituents. He clearly repudiated both of these
ideas as clinically unreliable and logically inconsistent with the empirical foundations of
Homeopathy. This is not string theory, nor rocket science—it is more like trying to use mud
and thatch to build a new wing onto a structure made of marble and granite.
“...in many published cases as demonstrated by Scholten and Sankaran, successful
prescriptions were made of a combination salt such as Natrum arsenicum based on the
indications of its constituent elements, rather than its recorded provings. How is this not
inductive reasoning similar to that of Hahnemann?” This is an example, rather, of
deduction—attempting to deduce the properties an unknown remedy from those of two others
which have been proven, rather than building step by step on observation, from the ground up,
as required by the inductive method Hahnemann taught. For instance, Calcarea sulphuricum
and Hepar sulph. are both remedies containing sulphur and calcium; we know about their
respective medicinal properties only through provings. “Synthetic prescribing” was unsound
|
Page 5 |
Brent Mathieu / Peter Wright
Letters – Winter 2001
5
when Kent proposed it 100 years ago, and it is still an instance of putting the theoretical cart
before the empirical horse.
“Hahnemann indeed provided us a true compass to find our way in healing humanity.
Though the principles of Homeopathy he expounded are not broken and are still reliable, it is
appropriate to question their immutability and infallibility.” This passage strikes me as
contradictory. Either the principles are reliable and fully proven, or not. How does one see
it—“broke,” or “don’t need fixing”? Does the compass need to be verified again at each use,
or can we count on it tomorrow, as we did yesterday?
The lure of novelty
Why has Homeopathy’s history been so marked by recurring conflicts between strict
Hahnemannians and those who wish to redefine and transform the discipline? I suspect that
there are three major factors which motivate the advocates of transformation: the search for
short cuts, the creative urge, and self-promotion. None of these motivations are evil or
unusual, but each puts “the physician’s high and only mission” at grave risk. Better education
for homeopaths, grounded in the principles and promoting critical thinking and high
standards, is urgently needed to act as a restraining influence on these natural tendencies.
As a culture, we are entranced with newness. We confuse novelty with significance,
knowledge and cleverness with understanding. We expect constant updates and revisions, the
periodic appearance of revolutionary new paradigms replacing all that came before. The
impact of this obsession is at least as problematic for Homeopathy as for other areas of
science, technology, and the arts.
While the data of Homeopathy will continue to be updated and revised, its foundation of
essential principles is deeply rooted in the bedrock of Creation. The law of similars, proving
of medicines, potentization, single remedy, minimum dose, hierarchy of symptoms,
miasmatic basis of disease—there’s very little need to revisit these points. We can count on
them.
André’s article on Aloe, the second part of which appears in this issue, is an excellent
example of a contribution to the data which is fully informed by the principles. Adding to the
edifice of Homeopathy in this manner is far humbler than setting out to renovate the entire
structure or add a fancy new tower, but the quality of the material and the attention to detail
ensure its usefulness and durability.
Necessary distinctions
There is an essential conflict here over the meaning and ownership of a word. The uses of
potentized substances are many and varied, and some people seriously argue that they are all
varieties of something very broad and nebulous called Homeopathy. The truth is that
Hahnemann meant something very specific by the term: a system that he discovered and
developed as a complete, coherent method through the exercise of incredibly rigorous logic
and inspiration. His challenge to the physicians of his own day still stands—to either use and
refine the amazing instrument he named Homeopathy, or to pursue other paths based on other
models of healing, and to call them by other names.
For instance, in the early part of the 20th century, Rudolph Steiner developed a system he
named Anthroposophical Medicine. Practitioners of this method often use potentized
medicines, frequently the same remedies as homeopaths prescribe. They analyze cases and
prescribe medicines (including many we are quite familiar with) in a way that is quite unlike
Homeopathy. There is no controversy I know of between them and homeopaths, however,
because they do not call their work Homeopathy.
|
Page 6 |
Brent Mathieu / Peter Wright
Letters – Winter 2001
6
The ferocity of Hahnemann and his followers, in responding to those who would innovate in
the name of Homeopathy without retaining the rigor of the original work, may often strike us
as harsh. We are too accustomed to a bland, postmodern, neutral discourse of “niceness” and
mutual back-scratching. We may see our community of nonconventional medical
practitioners as being so marginalized that we can’t risk open conflict and strongly expressed
opinions. We may assume that objectivity means “looking at both sides of the question,”
regardless of the issue. We are more comfortable with the idea of closing our eyes and
submerging our differences in a nice smooshy New Age hug.
This kind of tolerance is appropriate for a polite discussion of religion, where verification is
not readily available, or necessary. It is not satisfactory for matters where standards of logic
and proof are applicable, and where real suffering can result from our choices.
Naturopath, homeopath, or both?
The anxiety about confronting our differences is especially characteristic of naturopathic
physicians. We are exposed to many methods and concepts in school. We can’t practice all
of them; we certainly can’t become expert in all of them; logically, we can’t really even
accept all of them together, as they often contradict each other if examined closely. We
maintain a semblance of unity as a profession by overlooking these contradictions, and
individually finding a method (or a combination or synthesis of methods) that we wish to
pursue. If we don’t criticize the work of our peers, they won’t criticize ours, and we can all
share the legal umbrella of our professional affiliation.
We overlook our differences not just for the sake of unity, but because the field of
naturopathy is broad, nebulous, and inclusive from its very inception. The name itself betrays
the nature of the profession as a fusion, a sort of chimera. The vitalistic rhetoric of
naturopathy was largely borrowed from Homeopathy in the first place, and is reflected very
inconsistently in the treatments included in the ND’s array.
The premises of many “natural therapies” are entirely allopathic. Today’s naturopathy, as the
heir to Eclecticism, employs some of the same botanical pharmacy as the 19th century
Eclectics, but little of their rationale for prescribing the herbs. As in conventional medicine,
there are no real Eclectic or naturopathic principles to compare with the principles of
Homeopathy, only tactics for specific diseases—“whatever works,” which is not a principle
at all. One settles for defining clinical success simply as short-term improvement in the
disease diagnosis, without regard to the whole person, the long term, or the consequences of
suppression.
Wholism, uniformed by a unifying model like Hahnemann’s, usually just means offering
multiple treatments for multiple problems. While naturopathy is multiple and diverse by
nature (appropriate for the successor to Eclecticism), and by definition excludes only what is
“unnatural,” Homeopathy, by contrast, is a well-defined and internally consistent system.
Yes, we can certainly be both naturopaths and homeopaths! We each make choices about
what we want to do for our patients, based on our predilections and preferences, as well as our
clinical experience. We needn’t adopt every practice on the list, or attempt to revive
Eclecticism, to be “real naturopaths.” Choosing to specialize principally or exclusively in
Homeopathy is a perfectly valid option. No one need feel “stung” when homeopaths
distinguish between their art and other approaches within the ND’s scope of practice. All
therapies, natural or otherwise, are not equal.
|
Page 7 |
Brent Mathieu / Peter Wright
Letters – Winter 2001
7
History: learn or repeat
I urge my colleagues to reread and consider well the implications of the history André cites.
Despite the fierce defense of Homeopathy’s integrity by Hahnemann, Lippe, and others, the
neglect of fundamental principles in homeopathic education was the primary factor which
brought Homeopathy to the very brink of oblivion in the US, within several decades of its
introduction here. As extreme as Hahnemann’s attacks on the “half-homeopaths” may now
appear to our tolerant eyes, his concern for the purity of the art proved to be all too well-
founded.
The real dynamite in André’s article, perhaps, is his statement that some teachers “have gone
as far as falsifying follow-ups, to demonstrate the cleverness of their prescribing.” This
indicates an alarmingly advanced pathology affecting our community, one which threatens to
seriously undermine the integrity of the essential data base we share. Hygienic treatment is
needed—the sunshine, fresh air, and cleansing effects of close scrutiny and vigorous
discussion. It is time to fearlessly confront fantasy, pretense, self-promotion, wishful
thinking, and falsehood in all forms.
In view of the history, it is appropriate and important to rectify our language, to insist on
calling a spade a spade. There are few boundaries in naturopathy and wholistic healing; one
must rely on personal judgement. Practitioners are free to use symbolism, omens, astrology,
blood types, Voll machines, aura reading, etc., to guide their prescriptions. Natural medicine
offers many options for ways to practice, many areas for creative innovation, many
opportunities to market products, services, and ideas. But let those who part ways with
Hahnemann be honest enough to call their work something else—naturopathy, energy
healing, archetype therapy—any term that doesn’t already have a distinct meaning assigned
to it. I believe that it’s entirely fair to reserve the term Homeopathy for the methods of
Hahnemann and his direct successors, and to maintain the original vision of the HANP as an
organization for NDs practicing Hahnemann’s art.
---------------
Further evidence of the divisiveness and fear or reprisals:
Morrison, Roger.
Homeopathy Today (2002, Apr)
Reach for the olive branch
In his short answer to A.Saine’s
article „Drawing a Line in the Sand“ R.Morrison rejects especially A.Saine’s
critic of Sankaran’s concepts and explains his wish to finalize this debate and
coming back to a peaceful community.
A republication of this article on this website was forbidden by Dr.
Morrison, with the statement: I do not wish to be included in this devisive
debate ". We regret this, because we think that his writings are an important
part of this debate, which we find more clearing than divisive. It might have
been better, to think about the sense and character of this debate before
publishing "Against divisiveness", which is a quite sharp answer to some
critical remarks of Julian
Winston and the main starting point of this discussion. A copy of
this article you can order from any homeopathic library e.g. the
Homöopathische Bibliothek Hamburg - Von Melle Park 3 – D-20146 Hamburg"
-------------------
Jan Scholten
Dogmatism in homeopathy - Spring 2002
1
This article first appeared in 'Homoeopathic Links' (Spring 2002, Vol.15, p.1), edited
by Corrie Hiwat and Harry van der Zee (www.antenna.nl/homeolinks).
It is presented here with kind permission.
In this article Jan Scholten argues against dogmatism and sticking to authorities
(“Hahnemann said…”) in Homoeopathy. Clinical symptoms were as important
components of the Materia medica as proving symptoms, partly clinical symptoms
could differ extremely from the proving symptoms. He contradicts the statement of
Hahnemann in § 21 of the Organon, that the curative power of remedies could only
be observed by their action on healthy human beings.
Jan Scholten
Dogmatism in homeopathy
In the homeopathic literature and discussion we often encounter strong dogmatic features.
The recent discussions in Homeopathic Links has given many examples. Sometimes it looks
like religious fanaticism. In order to base one’s statement one often finds “Hahnemann has
said….”. Open discussion is made difficult this way. Science has to do with arguments and
facts, not so much with authorities. Following one example of such a viewpoint, we can
make the situation more clear.
Only proving symptoms
It’s often said that the source of our Materia Medica are provings and only provings. We can
find this idea already in § 21 of the Organon (Hahnemann): “Now, as it is undeniable that the
curative principle in medicines is not in itself perceptible, and as in pure experiments with
medicines conducted by the most accurate observers, nothing can be observed that can
constitute them medicines or remedies except that power of causing distinct alterations in the
state of health of the human body, and particularly in that of the healthy individual, and of
exciting in him various definite morbid symptoms; so it follows that when medicines act as
remedies, they can only bring their curative property into play by means of this their power of
altering man's state of health by the production of peculiar symptoms; and that, therefore, we
have only to rely on the morbid phenomena which the medicines produce in the healthy body
as the sole possible revelation of their in - dwelling curative power, in order to learn what
disease - producing power, and at the same time what disease - curing power, each individual
medicine possesses.” Put in more modern language this paragraph looks like: “The curative
power of remedies can only be observed by their action on human beings; therefore that
curative power can only be learned from their action on healthy humans; this means
provings”. It’s clear from this paragraph that Hahnemann means that only provings
symptoms are the source of our Materia Medica. We can conclude from the use of “only” and
“sole”.
This statement of Hahnemann is often repeated in homeopathy. Julian Winston writes: ”All of
Scholten’s work, no matter how interesting and no matter how useful, is not, at this point
homeopathy because we have no provings – only some clinical data”. Heudens repeats this
statement often in her seminars. Vithoulkas seems to promote the same idea: “That means you
don’t prove a substance. If you prove a substance correctly, I have no problem at all”.
Practice
What is the practice in homeopathy. This is best illustrated with an example. The example is
taken from the “Essence of Materia Medica” (Vithoulkas). These essences are used by many
|
Page 2 |
Jan Scholten
Dogmatism in homeopathy - Spring 2002
2
homeopaths with great satisfaction and have become a kind of standard of the essence of
remedies. Lycopodium is just taken by chance. When we check which symptoms from this
essence are found in the povings, we find the following results:
Symptoms not found (particularly not in the proving of Hahnemann): coward, inadequate,
responsibility, image, friendly, courage, sexual gratification, one night stand, averse marriage,
superficial sex, competent, premature ejaculation, intelligent, intellectual, priest, lawyer,
teacher, politician, bluff, inferiority, exaggerate, bloating ego, compensate, admiration, prove,
loner, spinster, celibacy, spiritual, obsessed, dictatorial, tyrannical, passive, bolster, lies, fear
dark, fear ghost, fear dog, imbecility, senility, emaciation face, emaciation neck, emaciation
chest, wrinkled face, wrinkles, hair gray, flapping alae nasi, frigidity, nephritis, stomach ulcer,
hemorrhoids, indulgence.
Symptoms found: impotency, stomach pain, bloating abdomen, timid, fear alone,
hypochondriasis, confusion, memory weak, flatulence, desire sweets, desire oyster, empty,
liver.
So 52 symptoms cannot be found back in the provings, 13 symptoms are found. This means
that 80% of the symptoms of Vithoulkas’s essence are not found in the provings. This is quite
annoying when homeopathy has to be based on proving. Some of the 52 unfound symptoms
can be found in the repertory of Kent. But they cannot be traced back to provings as Kent has
put a lot of clinical data in his repertory. The conclusion must be that the basic Materia
Medica is far away from the provings. General keynotes can even be in contradiction with the
provings. The word left is more prominent in the proving of Lycopodium of Hahnemann,
whereas the remedy is known as a right sided remedy.
This is of course only one example. But the same procedure can be done for many other
remedies and for many other Materia Medica’s. It’s a common experience that most
homeopaths have pictures in mind quite different from the provings. So most homeopaths
won’t recognize provings read to them. When I read the first page of the proving of
Lycopodium to the audience of the ECCH conference in Trömso, no one of the 400
homeopaths recognized it. The same happened in 2 other seminars. This can be attributed to
the fact that provings are long listings of symptoms. But the fact that no one recognizes it,
means that those listings are far away from the pictures those homeopaths have in mind.
Law of Similars states the efficiency of clinical data
We can also look at the statement of § 21 from a theoretical point of view. The law of similars
says: a remedy can cure what it can produce. A proving shows what a remedy can produce.
Hence provings will show us what a remedy can cure. So proving symptoms and pictures can
be used as a Materia Medica.
But the opposite is just as true: a remedy can produce what it can cure. So cured symptoms
and pictures can tell us the proving picture. This means that clinical information, curative
information is just as valuable for our Materia Medica as provings. This is inherent in the law
of Similars. But the conclusion of § 21 is contradiction with it.
§ 21 in contradiction with Law of Similars
It’s even the case that Hahnemann used clinical information to deduce the Law of Similars.
He used the information of the curative power of China and compared that with his own
proving of China. From the similarity between the two he concluded the Law of Similars.
Hahnemann needed both the information of the curative power of China and the proving
power of China to derive the Law of Similars. It’s one step further to state that the law of
Similars can only be deduced by also using clinical curative powers. Without comparing
|
Page 3 |
Jan Scholten
Dogmatism in homeopathy - Spring 2002
3
proving pictures with cured pictures the Law of Similars cannot be deduced (it would be more
correct to use the concept of induction instead of deduction; deduction is a logical derivation
from laws and axioms: induction is the generalization from a group of events). So the law of
Similars cannot be derived without using clinical data. The ultimate conclusion of this way of
reasoning must be that homeopaths who are adhering to § 21 of the Organon are in
contradiction with the basic law of homeopathy. This is so because § 21 in itself is in
contradiction with the law of Similars.
How then did Hahnemann reach his conclusion of § 21. His assumption was: “The curative
power of remedies can only be observed by their action on human beings”. From this
assumption he deduced the conclusion: “therefore that curative power can only be learned
from their action on healthy humans; this means provings”. In his assumption he speaks about
the action on human beings, but in his conclusion he writes of the action on “healthy” human
beings. So Hahnemann introduces a limitation of the action, first it was on all human beings,
later only on healthy human beings. The limitation is introduced suddenly and without
explanation. It’s not backed up. Hence the deduction is incorrect, the “therefore” isn’t
justified. It’s a mistake in logic. The conclusion must be that the way of reasoning in § 21 is
incorrect.
Of course there had to be something wrong in § 21. The conclusion in it is incorrect as we’ve
seen before. Hence the assumption or deduction of Hahnemann have to be incorrect.
Organon contains contradictions
So § 21 of the Organon contains an illogical derivation and a statement in contradiction with
the basic law of Similars. When the Organon would be just a historical document that
wouldn’t be a big problem. But the Organon is often seen as the basic text of homeopathy. It’s
often taught in homeopathic schools as the basic homeopathic theory. The Organon is often
treated as a bible.
Some examples can make this clear. Thielens writes: “Men who follow law should recognize
Hahnemann’s Organon as the fixed and settled authority, and the opinion of one or many as
of little value”. Stuart Close wrote (Saravan*): “He only is ‘The Master’ to whom the first
great revelation of truth was made and by whom it was first developed and proclaimed”.
Saravan* writes: “The only hero is Hahnemann. Loyalty is to the science and its only
Master.”. From these statements a picture emerges as Homeopathy being a religion and
Hahnemann being it’s prophet. These statements are sectarian, not scientific. A science has no
masters, only promoters and developers.
Hahnemann
So Hahnemann is fallible, not a holy person that couldn’t make mistakes, cannot be criticized.
I often encounter situations that I have to defend myself when I criticize Hahnemann. But for
me criticizing doesn’t mean that I don’t admire Hahnemann. I see Hahnemann as the Newton
of medicine. He was the first to give medicine a firm ground and some basic laws whereas
before that there were only scattered facts without theory. The same was the situation with
Newton, he gave physics a firm basis with his laws of mechanics. But even with the enormous
admiration for Newton in physics, no student in physics reads the original works of Newton
anymore. There are far better accounts of the ideas of Newton, with far better ways of
displaying his ideas and mathematics. It would even be an insult to stick to the exact writings
and reasoning of Newton.
Some biologists, talking to a colleague homeopath, were astonished that homeopathy was still
using books of two centuries ago as text books. How is it possible that homeopathy still uses
those books as the Organon? It is as if Homeopathy hasn’t developed since it’s start. The
|
Page 4 |
Jan Scholten
Dogmatism in homeopathy - Spring 2002
4
biologists asked themselves and us how a science didn’t evolve in two centuries still using the
same books. Winston sees the adherence to the Organon as a criterion of “good” homeopathy:
“Vithoulkas did not spend much time discussing philosophy or the Organon in his in-person
lectures”. But how can we adhere to a book like the Organon as our basic text book, when
already in one paragraph there are violations of logic and of the basic law of homeopathy.
That won’t promote a lot of confidence in scientist and the public.
When we like to see homeopathy as a science then we have to hold to scientific principles. In
science persons have no argument value. Facts and ways of reasoning are the basic statements
and arguments. Dogma’s of authorities, whether they are Hahnemann or Kent or whoever,
have no place in science.
Literature:
Hahnemann S., Organon of medicine, Edition 6B, New Delhi, 1985.
Heudens, seminar notes.
Saravan*, Letters to the editor (p.191), Homoeopathic Links, Volume 13, Number 4, 2000.
Thielens E., Letter to the editor (p.71-72), Homoeopathic Links, Volume 13, Number 2, 2000.
Vithoulkas G., The Essences of Materia Medica, New Delhi, 1991.
Vithoulkas G., A man with a mission, Interview with George Vithoulkas, (p.202-210), Homoeopathic Links,
Volume 12, Number 4, 1999.
Winston J., Homeopathy Today, Editorial, 2000.
* meant is the indian colleague K.S. Srinivasan, whose name was wrong written in Homoeopathic Links [Note
by K.Habich]
-----------------
One of many pages, showing the deep intellectual commitment of homeopaths to seek grounding for theory and practice:
Lucia Cantar
Why bother with provings? - Dec 2000
1
This letter first appeared in Homeopathy Today (2000, Vol 20, December: 25), the
newsletter of the National Center for Homeopathy, Alexandria, VA, USA,
(www.homeopathic.org) edited by Julian Winston. It is presented here with kind
permission.
Lucia Cantar in her letter to the editor asks, if conclusions from patients back to the
Materia Medica are possible.
" ... is he really saying that there are people walking around who are EXACTLY (not
similar to) Arsenicum sulphuratum flavus?"
Lucia Cantar
Why bother with provings?
Dear editor,
in the October issue Steve Hayes reviewed a seminar with Massimo Mangialavori. Hayes
states that Mangialavori "encouraged the participants to rely more on their own experiences
and to use their patients to study materia medica. If you find yourself with a good case of
Arsenicum sulphuratum flavum, it is better to study your patient who represents the 'real thing'
rather than books on materia medica ... Massimo's wariness of books as a source of
knowledge contrasts sharply with his estimation of experience grounded in inductive
investigation." He further states that Mangialavori is "redescribing the materia medica of
remedies through the results of his inductive experiences with his cured cases."
I don't get it. I thought that what set homeopathy apart as a true science was that homeopaths
rely on provings; that is, a prover proves a substance (remedy), those provings become the
basis for the materia medica, and then that remedy may be given to people with similar
sicknesses. It seems illogical to me that it could also work the other way - is he really saying
that there are people walking around who are EXACTLY (not similar to) Arsenicum
sulphuratum flavus? And so we should study everything about them in order to learn the
materia medica of the remedy Arsenicum sulphuratum flavus? This seems backwards to me
and more like deductive reasoning than Hahnemann's inductive reasoning (provings). If it is
so, why bother with provings at all?
What am I missing? Can you shed any light on this subject?
Sincerely,
Lucia Cantar
New York, NY
Answer of the editor:
I think there is a piece being left out. If he has never used a remedy before, how does
Massimo find the remedy in the first place? The answer would be through the study of the
materia medica.
The Materia Medica (as seen in the provings) is undoubtedly incomplete. You cannot expect a
small group of people, when given a substance to prove, to be able to prove every symptom
the remedy is capable of inducing.
Our Materia Medica is made up of provings AND of our observations of patients that have
been given the remedies. Some of our classic "keynotes" (the 4 p.m. aggravation of
|
Page 2 |
Lucia Cantar
Why bother with provings? - Dec 2000
2
Lycopodium, the desire to stick their feet out from under the covers of Sulphur) were seen in
only a few provers. They became "keynotes" after the symptoms were observed to be cured in
patients.
When Massimo says, "If you find yourself with a good case of Arsenicum sulphuratum
flavum, it is better to study your patient who represents the 'real thing' rather than books on
materia medica," the first thing to understand is that the remedy was selected by looking in
the books. But since it is such a little used remedy, our information about it (from both the
proving and clinical observations) is not very complete. Finding that the remedy WAS
helpful, one can "backtrack" and try to get a "gestalt" of what this patient was like.
This is exactly what George Vithoulkas did to obtain his "essences." When he says, "Sepia is
like this...." he is making that generalization from having observed hundreds of cases that
responded to Sepia.
In the same way, Catherine Coulter developed her "portraits" by noticing those small details.
It takes many cases where Nat mur is prescribed (based on the symptoms presented) and
found curative before the smaller details are noticed-- that a good number of those patients
has a certain "something" in their smile. And it is that "something" which might clue the
perceptive prescriber into considering one remedy over another.
What Massimo is asking is that we observe our patients. When we see Arsenicum
sulphuratum flavum act curatively in a patient, it is worth noting more about that patient.
Hering suggested that we can grow by "accumulating most careful observations and
contributing them to the general fund of knowledge."
It seems that is what Massimo is asking us to do.
-JW
-----------------
|
International Discussion - Basics of Homoeopathy |
From now on you can take part in the discussion. |
|
Start | Introduction | Table of contents | Forum | Diskussion auf Deutsch |
|
|
Acknowledgement |
|
||
|
|
To think about |
|
||
|
Adams, R. A., et al. (142 signers) |
Declaration of homoeopathic principles |
The Organon (1878, Apr) |
||
|
Anonym |
Letter to the editor |
Simillimum (2001, Winter) |
||
|
Baur, Jacques |
Letter to André Saine |
(2001, Jan) |
||
|
Bridger, Michael |
Meditational Provings |
Magazin of the Contemporary College of Homeopathy (2000, June) |
||
|
Bridger, Mike |
Up The Swanee To Atlantis |
The Homoeopath (1998, Winter) |
||
|
Buschauer, Walter |
Homoeopathy and Homoeopaths |
-1988 |
||
|
Buschauer, Walter |
The authentic interpretation of homoeopathy... |
1983 |
||
|
Cantar, Lucia |
Why bother with provings? |
Homeopathy Today (2000, Dec) |
||
|
Dellmour, Friedrich |
C4-trituration |
Dokumenta Homeopathica (1998) |
||
|
Dellmour, Friedrich |
The similia principle - its historical and scientific roots |
-2001 |
||
|
Dimitriadis, George |
The Scientificity of Homoeopathy Some Essays on Homœopathy |
-1989 |
||
|
Dimitriadis, George |
Pure Observation |
AJHM (2002, Autumn) |
||
|
Diverse Signers |
International declaration |
(2003, May) |
||
|
Fäh, Lukas |
Concern about Homeopathy |
(2000, Jan) |
||
|
Fuckert, Kösters, Schreier |
Clinical symptoms |
(2002, May) |
||
|
Guess, George |
Editorial Preface |
AJHM (2002, Summer) |
||
|
Gypser, Klaus-Henning |
Concluding remarks |
(2003, Sept) |
||
|
Habich, K. / C. Kösters / J. Rohwer |
Magic or Science? |
AHZ (2003, May) |
||
|
Habich, Klaus |
Samuel Hahnemann’s Reply |
|
||
|
Hahnemann, Samuel |
Essay on a new principle.... |
-1796 |
||
|
Hahnemann, Samuel |
Speculative systems of medicine |
-1808 |
||
|
Hahnemann, Samuel |
Examination of the sources... |
-1825 |
||
|
Hahnemann, Samuel |
The medical observer |
-1825 |
||
|
Hahnemann, Samuel |
Spirit of the homoeopathic doctrine of medicine |
-1833 |
||
|
Hampel, A. / C. Kösters |
Annotations to „Why Bothering with provings“ |
|
||
|
HANP |
Official Statement |
2003, May |
||
|
Hayes, Steve |
Retraining with Massimo Mangialavori |
Homeopathy Today (2000, Oct) |
||
|
Heron, Krista |
Answer to André Saine |
Simillimum (2002, Spring) |
||
|
Hershoff, Asa |
Healing Plants: The Undiscovered Country |
Homeopathy Today (2000, Jan) |
||
|
Jacobs, Jennifer |
Lets Agree to Disagree - with Respect |
AJHM (2002, Summer) |
||
|
Jansen, Jean-Pierre / Barbara Osawa |
Correspondence |
Simillimum (2002, Spring) |
||
|
Kaiser, Daniel |
Why no one wants to become a homeopath any more |
(2002, June) |
||
|
Knott, A. B. |
Clinical experiences |
Proceedings ... (1887) |
||
|
Levine, Jeffrey / Peter Wright |
Correspondence |
Simillimum (2002, Spring) |
||
|
Lippe, Adolph |
Liberty of Medical Opinion and Action |
Hahnemannian Monthly (1870) |
||
|
Mathieu, Brent / Peter Wright |
A reply to André Saine |
Simillimum (2001, Winter) |
||
|
McLaren, D. C. |
A Chapter of Reminiscences |
-1928 |
||
|
Meinhard, Christian |
Organon §21 (sixth edition) |
(2003, Nov) |
||
|
More than 40 homoeopaths from all over the world |
Short statements |
(2002/2003) |
||
|
Morrison, Roger et al. |
Against Divisiveness (letter of the 21) |
Homeopathy Today (2001, May) |
||
|
Morrison, Roger |
On experimentation, signatures, ... |
Homeopathy Today (2002, Apr) |
||
|
Morrison, Roger |
A Final Response |
AJHM (2002, Summer) |
||
|
Morrison, Roger / Steven Olsen |
The doctrine of signatures, revisited |
Homeopathy Today (2002, August) |
||
|
Morrison, Roger. |
Reach for the olive branch |
Homeopathy Today (2002, Apr) |
||
|
Moskowitz, Richard |
The Fundamentalist Backlash |
HANP-website; AJHM (2002, Summer) |
||
|
Mukerjee-Guzik, Shiela |
Aude Sapere"?" |
-2003 |
||
|
Mundy, David |
The Art and Science of Homeopathy |
Simillimum (2002, Fall) |
||
|
Olsen, Steve |
The doctrine of signatures |
Homeopathy Today (2000, Dec) |
||
|
Osawa B. / P. Wright |
Guidelines for authors |
Simillimum (2000, Winter) |
||
|
Patel, B.D. |
Modern Trends in Homoeopathy |
Homoeopathic Links (1998, Summer) |
||
|
Pitcairn, Richard |
Positron and MobilePhone |
(2002, June) |
||
|
Pitcairn, Richard H. |
Ethics |
-2002 |
||
|
Plate, Uwe |
Homoeopathy or fictitious humbug |
(2003, Sept) |
||
|
Reichenberg-Ullman, Judyth |
Letter to the editor concerning the guidelines |
Simillimum (2001, Summer) |
||
|
Robinson, Karl |
Homeopathy, a phenomenal Medicine |
Homeopathy Today (2001, Dec) |
||
|
Rohrer, Anton |
Certainty in finding the right remedy |
(2001, Mai) |
||
|
Saine, André |
Pure Homeopathy: Our Legacy ... |
(2001, May) |
||
|
Saine, André |
Homeopathy without Hahnemann? |
Homeopathy Today (2001, June) |
||
|
Saine, André |
Homeopathy versus Speculative Medicine |
Simillimum (2001, Fall) |
||
|
Saine, André |
Drawing a Line in the Sand |
www.homeopathy.ca |
||
|
Saine, André |
Homeopathy Has Nothing to Do with Eclecticism |
Simillimum (2002, Summer) |
||
|
Sankaran, Rajan |
Reply |
AJHM (2002, Summer) |
||
|
Scholten, Jan |
Dogmatism in homeopathy |
Homoeopathic Links (2002, Spring) |
||
|
Shepperd, Joel |
Reply to Dr. Moskowitz |
Simillimum (2002, Summer) |
||
|
Shepperd, Joel |
A call for common ground |
Homeopathy Today (2001, May) |
||
|
Shepperd, Joel |
Two Ways of Seeing |
AJHM (2002, Winter) |
||
|
Srinivasan, K.S. |
Letter to the editor |
(2002, Summer) |
||
|
Tessler, Neil |
We must find a new way |
Simillimum (2003, Fall) |
||
|
Tessler, Neil |
A Question of Balance |
Simillimum (2002, Fall) |
||
|
Tessler, Neil |
Divya Chhabra Interview |
Simillimum (2002, Winter) |
||
|
Wichmann, Jörg |
Defining a different tradition for homeopathy |
Homoeopatic Links (Winter 2001) |
||
|
Winston, Julian |
From the editor |
Homeopathy Today (2000, Dec) |
||
|
Winston, Julian |
Cracking open a can of worms... |
Homeopathy Today (2002, Aug) |
||
|
Winston, Julian |
The editor replies |
Homeopathy Today (2001, May) |
||
|
Winston, Julian |
Book review |
Homeopathy Today (2000, Dec) |
||
|
Winston, Julian |
But is it Homeopathy? |
Homeopathy Today (2002, Dec) |
||
|
Wischner, Matthias |
Homeopathy can a priori not be aprioristic |
(2003, June) |
||
|
Wright, Peter |
Toward Clarity |
Simillimum (2002, Spring) |
||
|
Zirkind, Givon |
Reinventing the wheel |
Simillimum (2002, Spring) |
||