Dare To Know

Homeopath Nicola Henriques argues that homeopathy has been distorted by pretended devotees, who misguide patients and threaten the integrity of our science and art.

The inspiration for this article comes from the following statements:

…Homeopathy is a perfectly simple system of medicine, remaining always fixed in its principles as in its practice, which, like the doctrine whereon it is based, if rightly apprehended will be found to be complete and therefore serviceable. What is clearly pure in doctrine and practice should be self-evident, and all backward sliding to the pernicious routinism of the old school, that is as much its antithesis as night is to day, should cease to praise itself with the honorable name of Homeopathy…’

Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, Author’s Preface, Organon of Medicine Sixth Final Revised Edition;

English translation, Dr. William Boericke.

…Homeopathy is now extensively disseminated over the world, but strange to say, by none are its doctrines so distorted as by many of its pretended devotees.”

Dr. James Tyler Kent, Preface to Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy

A mutilated homeopathy is a lame and crippled thing, compelled to sustain itself by crutches, splints and braces. An emasculated homeopathy is an impotent homeopathy, without the virility necessary to maintain or reproduce itself. Some shortsighted, superficial and weak-kneed individuals, actuated by their prejudices, or through their failure to comprehend the subject as a whole, have adopted an emasculated homeopathy for themselves and attempted to support their crippled eunuch as a candidate for general acceptance. Subjects such as the life force, the single remedy, potentiation, infinitesimals, the minimum dose and totality of the symptoms as a basis for the prescription they have characterized as unessential, ‘so long as the principle of similia was maintained.’ It is this which has brought homeopathy, as an institution, down to a point where its very existence is threatened.”

Dr. Stuart Close, The Genius of Homeopathy

 

Those statements give me the courage to speak out against the tendency to enshroud Homeopathy in mysticism, mystery, or magic; against the opinion that no one knows how Homeopathy works, no one needs to know how it works, you only need to believe it works; the contention that everyone is automatically entitled to use homeopathically prepared substances in what ever way they wish with impunity, and anyone may represent themselves as a homeopath, and should be encouraged to do so, otherwise Homeopathy will become extinct. These views held by many within the homeopathic community are as much to blame for exposing Homeopathy to ridicule as the actions of those calling for its abolition.

As a patient seeking Homeopathy and walking into my neighborhood homeopathic clinic for the first time, it would never occur to me that the person to whom I was entrusting my health might not be practicing Homeopathy as originally taught by Hahnemann, and might be practicing their own distorted variant version without disclosing that information.

In my ignorance I would assume that anyone using the name Homeopathy to describe their work, knew that Samuel Hahnemann had carefully chosen the name Homeopathy (similar suffering) because it accurately described and represented the art of curing, founded on resemblances; the theory and its practice that disease is cured by medicines which produce on a healthy individual effects similar to the symptoms of the complaint from which the individual suffers; that the name Homeopathy accurately described the results of his lengthy scientific experiments, which validated and verified the natural therapeutic Law of Similars:

A weaker dynamic affection is permanently extinguished in the living organism by a stronger one, if the latter (while differing in kind) is very similar to the former in its manifestations.” Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine, Sixth Final Edition, Aphorisms 25 & 26.

As a patient, student, practitioner and instructor of Homeopathy I know how wrong I would be to make such an assumption.

We all know the truth that dare not speak its name publicly. There is no agreement among the profession concerning what Homeopathy is and is not. Few practitioners know that to ensure effectiveness, Dr. Hahnemann set a high bar for knowledge and best practice of Homeopathy; that a true practitioner of Hahnemann’s healing art of Homeopathy understands each of the ten fixed fundamental principles of Homeopathy is an integral part of the whole system, and each principle as it were, represents the highest quality stones, materials that construct and underpin the homeopathic bridge from illness to recovery. If a doctrine or single principle is unknown, omitted, altered or misapplied, effectiveness of Homeopathy is in jeopardy.

The ten fixed fundamental principles Hahnemann established to govern the practice of Homeopathy, are mentioned in the Materia Medica Pura, the preface to the fourth volume of The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure and the Organon of Medicine, Sixth Final Edition.

Note: A summary of the 10 fixed principles Hahnemann established can be found at the author’s website here:

If all practitioners knew these principles existed, understood them and used them as the basis for each homeopathic prescription, homeopathy would be easier to practice effectively. If all practitioners united and stood firm under the fixed principles, anyone could walk into a Homeopathic clinic anywhere in the world and be confident that they would receive the same universal best practice Homeopathy.

Instead patients seeking Homeopathy to restore their health are unaware of the significant difference between individuals who conscientiously follow Hahnemann’s teaching concerning Homeopathy and pretended devotees who distort Homeopathy for their own glory.

A pretended devotee of Homeopathy is an individualist who either failed to comprehend, ignored or opted to omit one or more of the fixed fundamental principles of Homeopathy. Having actively rendered Homeopathy ineffective, the pretended devotee veers away from Hahnemann’s original method of Homeopathy, and creates their own divergent distorted method. To retain an audience and following, the pretended devotee will often need to modify their variant version on an annual basis, encouraging further confusion.

Unless you have a basis of comparison between the original and new variant version, and you understand which fixed principles have been omitted or distorted, the work of pretended devotees of Homeopathy is difficult to identify. Although they do not practice authentic orthodox Homeopathy, they misuse the name Homeopathy to describe their non homeopathic practice. Usually they will say something like: I couldn’t make Homeopathy work, so I do it this way; or: I was bored by the philosophy, so I ignored it and it works better this way.

The pretended devotees insidious destruction of the integrity and purity of Homeopathy did not go unnoticed by Hahnemann. Fearing the public would mistake the false variant versions for original, orthodox Homoeopathy, Hahnemann repeatedly spoke out against the hijacking and misuse of the honorable name of Homeopathy to describe the divergences.

The individualists ignored Hahnemann’s impassioned pleas. The distortions mutate, proliferate without restraint; Hahnemann’s worst fear has come true; the public is utterly confused regarding the correct definition of Homeopathy. This confusion renders Homeopathy vulnerable to constant ridicule, and what is more serious, it renders innocent patients vulnerable to receiving something masquerading as Homeopathy without their informed consent.

This is an example of how one charismatic, influential pretended devotee successfully destroyed the purity of Hahnemann’s original Homeopathy by combining isopathy with Homeopathy and creating a variant version:

Isopathy is the treatment of diseases by their own exciting cause, aequalia aequilibus, according to the doctrine that the power of therapeutics is equal to that of the causes of disease. Isopathy is the system of medicine which undertakes to cure a disease by means of the virus of the same disease, or eating the analogous organ of a healthy animal.

Examples of Isopathic medicine would be: treatment of a scorpion bite by rubbing the dead scorpion on the wound; advising individuals bitten by a rabid animal to eat the liver of the rabid animal that bit them; those suffering from asthma would be advised to eat the lungs of foxes; those suffering roundworm would be advised to eat roasted earthworms; Galen recommended eating camel brains to cure epilepsy. Conferring artificial immunity from certain diseases by vaccinating individuals with the virus of a disease is isopathy.

It is difficult to fix the antiquity of the doctrine of isopathy; in one form or another it has existed almost as long as medicine has been practiced as an art. Ancient records of medicine contain traces of the system.

In contrast, we know that Homeopathy was originated by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, and that between 1811 and 1821 Hahnemann conducted experiments concerning the preparation of sixty natural substances and studied the pure effects of those substances on healthy humans, which he documented and published in 1830 in his monumental work: Materia Medica Pura.

Hahnemann knew about isopathy, the doctrine of signatures, and many other methods of healing. Along with allopathy he rejected them as hurtful and useless methods of healing.

Regarding the introduction of isopathy into the homeopathic school of medicine, in his Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homeopathy, Dr. R. E. Dudgeon states:

There is no doubt to whom belongs the honor of having introduced isopathic heresies into the homeopathic school. It was our transatlantic friend Dr. Constantine Hering,(1800-1880).

In 1830, Hering proposed treating hydrophobia with potentized saliva of a rabid dog; treating smallpox with matter from variolous pustules; psora with matter from the scabies vesicle (psorine). For treatment of cholera he recommended potentized watery excrement of cholera; for yellow fever, potentized black vomit of yellow fever; for scarlet fever potentized desquamated skin of malignant scarlet fever.

In 1833 Dr. Hering goes further. In a long paper he asserts that all morbid (unhealthy, diseased, abnormal) products of whatever kind, exert a powerful influence on the diseases that produce them, remedies should be made from those products and individuals suffering from diseases that produce those products should receive such remedies which he called Nosodes. Hering recommends administering nosode leucorrhoeal matter to cure leucorrhoea, nosode gleet-matter to cure gleet, nosode pthisine to cure phthisis, ascaridine to cure children’s vermicular diseases.

Hering contended that treatment of an illness with products of that illness did not deviate from Homeopathy, it was Homeopathy and was not Isopathy.”

In response to the Hering’s heresy Hahnemann stated

To attempt to cure by means of the very same morbific potency contradicts all normal human understanding and hence all experience…certain diseases peculiar to animals may give us remedies and medicinal potencies for very similar important human diseases and happily enlarge our stock. However, to use a human morbific matter, (a psorin taken from the itch in a human), as remedy for the same human itch, or for evils arising from that itch, is —–? Nothing can result from this but trouble and aggravation of the disease.”

( Dr. S. Hahnemann Organon of Medicine, Sixth Edition, Aphorism 56, Footnote 63)

Hahnemann’s conscientious followers vigorously rejected Hering’s assertion that Isopathy was still Homeopathy, and railed against his introduction of diseased substances called nosodes into the homeopathic pharmcopeia, because it contaminated Hahnemann’s previously pure homeopathic materia medica of natural healthy substances and violated the fundamental law of Homeopathy, the therapeutic Law of Similars,

If further evidence were needed that Isopathy is not Homeopathy, let us consider why it is that although Hahnemann knew about nosodes, he excludes nosodes from his discussion of The Chronic Diseases Their Peculiar Nature and their Homeopathic Cure, (published between 1828 and 1838) and elects not to undertake Provings of nosodes.

Hahnemann states:

The antipsoric medicines treated of in what follows, contain no so-called idiopathic medicines; their pure effect even those of the potentized miasma of itch psorin have not been proved enough by far, that a safe homeopathic use might be made of it.”

It could be argued that since Hahnemann, the effects of nosodes have been documented extensively. Nevertheless treatment of the manifestations of the miasms, sycosis, syphilis, psora using potentized disease products of gonorrhea, syphilis, scabies, or treating the manifestation of breast cancer using potentized products of human cancerous breast tissue, is isopathy and not Homeopathy.

Very importantly, to mix isopathy or any other therapy with Homeopathy raises a considerable obstacle to recovery, regarding accuracy of patient response assessment and case management protocols.

Isopathy and other therapies including the divergences, differ from Homeopathy. Therefore it is unsafe, illogical, improper and dereliction of duty towards the patient to apply protocols and guidelines established specifically to evaluate and manage patients who have received homeopathic medicine alone, to patients who have received isopathy or some other divergence in combination with Homeopathy.

None of this information is disclosed to patients.

Since 1830 and Hering’s heresy, the practice of Homeopathy as originated and taught by Hahnemann has became mired in Isopathy and buried under an avalanche of individualistic divergences and distortions.

Since the mid 1990s, as dissatisfied patients marched in droves away from allopathy towards alternative medicine, allopaths had to do something to staunch the flow of money away from their clinics. Almost overnight allopaths subsumed Homeopathy and other complementary medicine into the jack of all trades master of none field of Integrative Medicine, and started administering homeopathic medicines in the same way mainstream medicines are administered: take this medicine 4 times a day and report back in 6 months. That’s a long time to wait if the remedy selected did not induce a curative response.

To make matters worse, the pretended devotees of Homeopathy multiplied and renewed their campaign of persuading the ignorant that Hahnemann’s original Homeopathy was ineffective, outmoded and obsolete. To have their cake and eat it, the pretended devotees took a leaf from the allopaths Integrative Medicine book, and granted themselves the right to debase and subsume Homeopathy into the artfully named Homeotherapy.

Unknown to the public, pretended devotees of Homeopathy reign supreme. Instead of Hahnemann’s original principle-based Homeopathy being at the core of Homeopathy, it has been pushed to the periphery, marginalized. At conferences supposed to discuss Homeopathy, it is almost invisible.

So who cares? For the sake of patients, Hahnemann cared and I care.

If I entrust my most precious possession, the maintenance or restoration of my health, to someone professing to be a practitioner of Homeopathy, I am entitled to expect to receive genuine orthodox Homeopathy, practiced as it was taught by Hahnemann and his faithful, conscientious followers. I should not have something else foisted upon me without my permission. I assert that innocent members of the public should be similarly entitled.

In the midst of suffering, lacking adequate information regarding the existence of all the modifications, variations of Homeopathy, and lacking full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits pertaining to a particular variant form, how may I avoid falling foul of a pretended devotees of Homeopathy?

As an untutored patient, how am I to know that according to Dr. James Tyler Kent (Kent’s Minor Writings on Homeopathy):

As the practitioner’s view of illness varies, so varies the success. Some practitioners view cases from the pathological aspect; others view the patient’s temperament, color of eyes, hair or what star he was born under. Another will view it from keynote symptoms he can find in it. Another usually takes the set phrases of the patient with the opinions and wordings of tradition, or the opinion of some previous physician. In such a manner, a distorted view of the whole case is formed.”

In my ignorance, if I don’t what they are and how I might be affected, how can I give my informed consent to receive ‘eclectic’ or ‘resonance’ versus ‘revolutionary’ or ‘classical’ homeopathy; polypharmacy, ‘constitutional’ prescribing, ‘layers’ or ‘miasmatic’ prescribing; antihomotoxic therapy, homotoxicology; or other so called homeotherapies such as spagiric therapy, gemmotherapy, lithotherapy, tautopathy, etc.

Pretended devotees of Homeopathy demand the right and freedom to use homeopathically prepared substances in violation of the laws and doctrine and principles pertaining to Homeopathy. I contend they be required to disclose the truth and stop hiding their activities behind the name of Homeopathy.

That will not happen. It is so much easier to market Henriques Therapy to the ignorant, if it is called Homeopathy, because the name Homeopathy is well known worldwide and Henriques Therapy is completely unknown.

If a divergent method is founded on validation and verification of a hypothesis through experiment, why doesn’t its originator proudly and honestly proclaim it as a distinct form of healing, separate from Homeopathy. Why must it be recognized and accepted as Homeopathy if it diverges from Homeopathy?

For the sake of suffering human and animal kind, it’s time for each of us claiming to serve the sick as practitioners of Homeopathy, to examine our conscience regarding how we administer homeopathic medicines.

Can every professional health care provider using homeopathically prepared substances, hand on heart, truthfully declare to the public that we faithfully practice orthodox Homeopathy according to the fixed fundamental principles governing the practice of Homeopathy established by Hahnemann, or are we pretended devotees, practicing something else and masquerading as homeopaths?

To heal crippled Homeopathy, will we have the courage to accept Hahemann’s invitation: Aude Sapere – Dare to Know? Will pretended devotees of Homeopathy dare to stop misidentifying their activities with the name Homeopathy? Will we all dare to tell the public what is orthodox Homeopathy and what is not? To preserve Homeopathy for generations to come, will we all dare to unite under Hahnemann’s fixed fundamental principles governing the practice of Homeopathy?

Experience indicates that I am whistling in the wind, and I shouldn’t hold my breath. If I do not collude with the pretended devotees fallacies, I can go to my grave knowing I had the courage to speak up in defense of Hahnemann and his masterpiece, Homeopathy; and when our spirits meet after my death I will be able to say: hand on heart, “Dr. Hahnemann, I always did it your way Sir”.

©Copyright Nicola Henriques June 2012 – All rights reserved

About the author

Nicola Henriques

Nicola Henriques

Nicola Henriques (LicLCCH, CHE, MBRCP) is a British-American writer, homeopathic medicine practitioner, and honors graduate of the London College of Classical Homeopathy. She practices exclusively according to Dr. Samuel Hahnemann’s teachings concerning Homeopathy. Through clinical practice and instruction, Henriques has passed Hahnemann’s original unadulterated method of Homoeopathy to hundreds of patients, and students including nurses, physicians, veterinarians, etc.  In 2000, Henriques testified on standards of homeopathic education and training to the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy. Her books include Crossroads To Cure – The Homoeopaths Guide to Second Prescription, which sold more than 30,000 copies.  A new revised edition will be published soon. 

27 Comments

  • I always wonder where the true followers of Hahnemann are and where they can be found. thank you for speaking out.
    I am happy for people to practice isopathy or any other pathy, I am just not happy that they call it homeopathy and borrow on its strength to justify their path.

    Different views is a healthy expression, but when “subsumed” under the name of homeopathy it is a deep pathology.

    Are you whistling in the wind, no; occasionally someone stands up for Hahnemannian homeopathy and more should identify themselves and unite. Unity is difficult to find in the Homeopathic community, even from its earliest beginnings, except on the lowest common denominator – that whatever we are doing we do it professionally!! Being professional doesn’t make one a homeopath, having principles and acting according to them allows one to be called a homeopath.

    Only when danger is apparent will homeopaths unite around a common cause ie in UK when access to medicines is threatened, all conflicts are put aside and unity of purpose appears – thank God, but let’s have the unity of purpose Hahnemann’s Organon and Chronic Disease.

    On that subject I think many come to the Organon and Chronic Disease and have points in it which are difficult to understand and then rather than struggle to understand Hahnemann’s meaning they replace it with their own false understanding of life, rather than struggle to understand what Hahnemann really meant. Often he states things which conflict with our own view of life and we will not dare to know and examine deeply what Hahnemann proposes and there are few who can guide the student to a better understanding, instead, as Nicola says, they are led into bad habits, the only result of which is inabilty to cure, or fooling themselves that a cure has occurred just because symptoms have disappeared.

    Julian Winston caused a stir when he suggested that some were practising under the banner of Homeopathy, whilst not following faithfully the principles laid out for us by Hahnemann. From this came a number of excellent articles which can still be found on :

    http://www.grundlagen-praxis.de/index.html?vw=info&ec=detail&mnid=1&mnpt=1&id=13

  • Thank you Nicola for your excellent article and Jamie for your useful comments. There have been efforts in the past to bring together the homeopaths who stick to the core principles…but there have been disagreements between them too. However, we should continue our efforts to educate our young students so that they are not led astray.

  • The debate that just won’t go away. I remember contributing to such a discussion in the late 1980s, and it both saddens me that it is necessary to visit it again here, and encourages me that there are such committed and strong adherents, Nicola. So important not to loose the purity and strength of Hahnemann’s discoveries (which are still in the process of being understood) with newer so-called ‘improvements’. I’ve seen similar debates / arguments / paradigm wars in other disciplines too (noticeably counselling) and it seems to me that so much wisdom (not to mention practical effectiveness) is lost when the originality and vision of the earlier originators are subsumed within ‘eclecticism’ or brushed up into brand-new (?) all-singing all-dancing approaches. I’m retired from homeopathy practice and teaching now, but was moved to comment here.

    Ian Townsend, Lancashire, UK

  • Dear Nicola Henrique

    I would like to welcome you to our group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/302151859854069/

    This group has chosen to bring out and publish what homeopathy is and how it’s applied. We think, that the way forward is accurate information, so that anyone who seeks to practice homeopathy can become fully acquainted with its principles and rules and thereby see for him / herself where a lot of therapists deviated.

    This quote comes from your 10 fixed principles article.

    >>In Homeopathy, the patient examination centers on eliciting THE TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS: every mental emotional and physical symptom, sign and experience of suffering must be considered to form the unique portrait of the individual’s Vital Force in distress. For the cure of every disease, the totality of symptoms must be removed; the symptom totality indicates the correct symptom-similar homeopathic medicine for that purpose.<<

    You will find, that above quoted view is not within homeopathic rules and principles.

    Regards,
    Hans Weitbrecht

    • Dear Reader,
      The existence of the fundamental principle of Symptom Totality mentioned on my website is confirmed by Dr. Hahnemann in the following aphorisms of his Organon of Medicine, Sixth Final Revision, (Boericke English Translation) :
      6-19, 22, 70, 92, 95, 104-155, 164, 169, 173, 179, 189, 192, 207, 209, 212-213, 217,258.

      • dear reader, dear Nicola henriques

        If the “symptom totality” above relates to all symptoms of the patient –present and past, then this “symptom totality” is not referred to by Hahnemann in the Organon as the basis for the correct selection of the remedy.

        If however, this “symptom totality”is identical with the “disease-symptom-picture”, then we have understood Hahnemann correctly.

        Explanation in detail:

        For Hahnemann the “disease symptom picture”and the “totality of symptoms” as related to by American homeopathy of the 19th, century is not the same.

        According to Hahnemann,

        Only such changes in the mood which have come along with the disease, ie. have not been there before the onset of the disease form part of the disease-symptom–picture.

        In practical terms:
        if a patient has been anxious almost all his live, and since the onset of the disease, this anxiety has not changed, then anxiety does NOT form part of the disease-syptom-picture.
        If the patient has not been anxious in previous healthy days, but along with the disease has become extremely anxious, then Anxiety forms part of the disease-symptom-picture (as anxiety is a concommitant to the disease here)

        There is a fundamental difference in thinking between Hahnemann and the later american homeopaths. For Hahnemann, throughout the Organon he treated diseases, — which had a clearly defined start, and made themselves known by disease-symptoms and signs.

        In american homeoapthy this has been replaced by the totality of the persons symptoms, which often leads to great confusion, as following this basic idea, each and every symptom (may it be disease related or not) of present or past forms part of the idications for a suitable remedy.

        Bearing this in mind above quote as it stands does not reflect Hahnemann’s homeopathy, but rather reflects 19th, century american thinking.

        We belief the way forward is to study what Hahnemann passed on by going back to the Organon and case books. This is what I did.
        there have been numerous mistranslations in the Broderick translation.

        You are welcome to join us on above group.

        • in paragraph 258 hahnemann have clearified the meaning of totality of symptoms by saying TOTALITY OF CHARACTERISTIC SYMPTOMS .Aso compare 153

      • Reference:
        organon:
        S. Hahnemann / Organon der Heilkunst
        Textkritische Ausgabe der 6. Auflage
        Bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Josef M. Schmidt
        Haug 1992

        Cases:
        Krankenjournal DF 5 (1837 – 1842)
        Haug / 1992

  • As the view varies, so varies success !! Every word that Dr. Hahnemann penned is pregnant with meaningful wisdom and to fathom the meaning one has to dive deep into the essence of its expression. This debate of pseudo verses Hahnemannian will go on but it is important that all those who follow the Master speak out in an illustrative and meaningful way. We feel illustration simplifies the understanding of the law, the rules and the principles and if these are ingrained at an early formative age of initiation it helps immensely on the onward journey. This voice is too soft to be heard above the cacophony of the singing and dancing approaches. Happy to have met, Nichola, Manish, Ian, Jamie and all those who work for our Masters cause.
    Yours in Homoeopathy,
    Dr. Prasad and Dr. Falguni.

  • Dear Nicola Henriques,

    Although I am not prepared (yet!) to choose among so varied views of homeopathy and its practice, I got agreeably touched by the way you finished you article: “… when our spirits meet after my death I will be able to say: hand on heart, “Dr. Hahnemann, I always did it your way Sir”.

    I assure you that I can “see” it and feel all of the emotion involved.

  • Ian you are right , I remember the 80s and the 70s, the debate can be read about at intervals throughout the history of homeopathy, it reflects humanity. However, I always believe it is better to join with the Hahnemannians rather than fight with the allopaths. We all know who wins. Living in England it is good to hear of Hahnemannians throughout the world
    Manish, yes you are right, in the UK we began with one society which has split and split until we have 12 societies/associations etc and I am sure such as are will continue to split. A certain level of health is needed for people not just to escape to a new society to cover their own beliefs but to persevere over a long time until the Hahnemannian approach is achieved.
    In the UK it was suggested we rallied around the flag of “classical”, but then one gentleman said he could immediately give us 25 different definitions of what it was to be “classical”. And so ad infinitum……..
    One of the main points about linking with like-minded people is that there is a common to discuss, but if we all use the same title, homeopath, we cannot discern whether we are like-minded just by the title. We then spar until we realise our common ground or not.
    Distortions will persist until the apparent miracle of a homeopathic cure is experienced, nothing compares with this, and until such time it is a matter of striving……..

  • Dear Nicola,
    I enjoyed your article and saw the logic to your argument but would like to take issue with it. I am a retired GP and seven years ago was diagnosed with, for all intents and purposes untreatable, lung cancer. I was given the obligatory six months to live and out of blind fear turned to a Homoeopath recommended by a neighbour of mine. According to your article he could not be described as a pure Homoeopath. He gave me numerous bottles of pills and potions which i dutifully took and after nearly seven years from diagnosis I am still alive,. I still have the tumour but I LIVE with it.
    The point is I chose this practioner because he called himself a Homoeopath. Had he called himself any other kind of Path I would not have gone near him and who knows what might have happened.
    The practice of medicine in all its forms moves on with the times. Some GPs still use leeches while others use only the most up to date drugs. All forms of medicine have merits and downfalls and quite often it is the individual practitioner who determines the success/failure of his/her art. In my practice I was an excellent GP for some, mediocre for others and a waste of time for a few.
    I am sure, Niclola , you are superb at your art but so was my man. I know these are the ramblings of an old man much closer to the coffin than the womb but I fear that if Homoeopathy were to unite under one single banner and methodology it would die and the teachings of Hahnemann lost in a world of modern medicine governed by greedy avaricious pharmaceutical companies.

    • Dear Pete,
      Glad to know about the results you got from homeopathy. It would be a learning experience to know what kind of homeopathic remedies you were put on. A single remedy or a single remedy with mother tinctures or several therapeutically indicated medicines or complex remedies or ramakrishnan protocol? Do you know? Can you ask your homeopath?

      • Dear Manish,
        Thankyou for your comments and I shall be glad to assist in any learning process. I am a patient of Homoeopathy and as such am relatively unaware of all its different approaches ( the ramakrishnan protocol being one of them). However being an x-GP I have recorded everything given to me.
        My Homoeopath was classically trained in Hahnemannian Homoeopathy but in my case he used the ‘Ptrittam Singh’ approach. For example my first treatments were:
        Day One – Psorinum30 (am) Psorinum 12 (midday) Psorinum 6 (pm).
        Day Two – same procedure only using the remedy Hepar-Sulph.
        Days 5 to 14 – Phosphorus 12 (am) and Berberis 6 (pm).

        The above is an example or his treatment methods. I shall not bore you with every single detail and remedy. I will mention though that he used a lot of Phosporus and Tuberculinum and one called simply Lung.
        The most important part of the treatment for me is not , strangely , the fact that I’m still alive but what I have learned about myself. It has in fact been a journey. I set out to battle my cancer – to declare war on it. Instead I have declare peace on my illness and by extension, for the first time in nearly 90 years I feel comfortable in my old skin. That didnt come from my Homoeopath. His bedside manner leaves a lot to be desired (partly why I like him). It was something very deep I felt after taking the very first remedy. It was instant. It wasnt euphoria but deep contentment.

        My eyes are tiring now so I’ll sign off. Hope this has been helpful.

        • Hi Pete, thanks for sharing this info. As a person who created this portal Hpathy.com and as an editor of Homeopathy 4 Everyone since last 9 years, there is very little homeopathic info that escapes me. However, I must say that I have never heard of prittam singh approach before!

          I ended up searching online and found just this:

          Dr Susan Lawrence in her article describes with a case illustration as to how the use of Carcinosin according to Pritam Singh’s method is helpful in cancer cases. Dr Pritam Singh’s method of treatment is to address the miasms at the start of the treatment. He gave Psorinum, and then Hepar-sulph followed by another nosode. Again Hepar-sulph is repeated and these remedies prepared the body for the action of the indicated constitutional remedy. In this case of lung cancer, she started the treatment as under:

          Ignatia 200/wait for 5 days
          Psorinum 200, 30 – an hour apart on descending potency/wait for one day
          Hepar-sulph 200/30 wait one day
          Tuberculinum 200, 30 wait one day
          Hepar-sulph 18/ wait three days
          Carcinosin 30, 12/wait for 5 days
          Nux -vomica 30/wait for one day
          Sepia 200 /wait 5 days
          Sulphur 30/wait 5 days
          Calendula 6 / one dose every day for 6 days
          Under Pritam Singh’s method, outstanding mental symptoms should be addressed first. As the patient was very emotional, treatment was started with Ignatia. Psorinum and Hepar-sulph were constant in Pritam Singh’s formula while the choice of second nosode is to be based on outstanding miasm in the patient. By this approach the patient is reported to have responded well and was followed up for over 3 years. Since treating this case the doctor has used this method in other cancer cases with good results, whether or not they have been operated on. Calendula was quite often used while Conium was prescribed in breast and prostate cases. Dysentery co was found to be complementary nosode as a follow up at some stage [see also Dr Ramakrishnan’s experience referred to earlier]

          • I have read that book a few times. Thought I’d try to understand what my Homoeopath was doing.

  • Dear Nicola,

    Thank you for your article. As we say in the US, “the devil is in the details”. While it’s easy to distinguish strong departures from homeopathic practice, some argue that Kent or even Vithoulkas are not classical homeopaths, and in-fighting between homeopaths certainly played a role in its early 20th century demise in the US. Homeopaths can hold strong convictions about classical homeopathy, other homeopaths, what is best for the profession and what works best for one’s clients, but Alistair Gray’s recent books “Method” and “Case-taking” show how nuanced this debate can be. As much as we might like to believe homeopathic principles can or should exist in a vacuum, the reality is that every practitioner will apply classical principles according to their own gifts and perceptual styles, and these styles are inescapably informed by our world and advances in other disciplines over the past 200 years. There’s a balance between practicing according to the fundamental principles articulated by Hahnemann– and when we’re stymied in spite of those principles–considering how the boundaries are conservatively stretched through the same spirit of Hahnemannian inquiry and sincere intention to help others. Our tolerance for slight differences in style will, in my opinion, allow the varied strengths of different homeopathic practitioners to refine and grow, and the profession will be stronger as well.

    Here’s an example of “stretching” from the 1800’s:
    https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/synthetic-remedies-%e2%80%93true-homeopathy-or-heresy/

  • Dear David Johnson,

    You are absolutely right when you suggest that homoeopathic principles cannot exist in a vaccuum and that ‘every practitioner will apply classical principles according to their own gifts and perceptual styles, and these styles are inescapably informed by our world and advances in other disciplines over the past 200 years’.

    There is- in fact there must be- a role for intuition in any healing discipline, for it is only by the full integration of anything within us that there can be any chance of mastery. That said, I am struck by the results of the old time masters who were often dealing with life or death situations. I remember reading that one of the great masters- I believe it was Lippe- stated towards the end of a long and very illustrious career that he had read The Organon several times a year and felt he was finally beginning to understand it.

    When the CORH process was instigated here in the UK, I was very much against it, but my teacher shocked me by his response for he said he had hoped that CORH would weed out the bad colleges. He explained that some colleges didn’t teach The Organon. That proved a shocking revelation. How could a person, having qualified as a homoeopath claim to be one having failed to study the central exposition of our healing doctrine? At the time of CORH, the world of homoeopathy in the UK was awash with ‘CPD’ courses on all matter of subjects, but few of those were on the central subject of homoeopathic philosophy. It seemed to me then, as it does now, that if all that effort were to be spent studying Hahnemann, finding out what he actually said, and working out how to make what he said relevant to today’s conditions, then homoeopathy as a healing doctrine would be all the stronger.

    It is clear to me that there have been many deviations from the central tenets of homoeopathy, and for many reasons, some perhaps excusable, some less so. Some revisionists come from the central tradition, are highly knowledgeable on issues such as homoeopathic philosophy and materia medica and have added to that their insights on our remedies in such a way that they are able to conduct their consultations in a very different manner from the methods elucidated by Hahnemann. One believes, one most certainly hopes, that their insights are still informed by considerable understanding of and respect for The Organon.

    Others, one suspects, having once been highly respected teachers but who have now lost their way, often having taken on board half digested new age ideas, spout many new maxims, the most fearful to me being, ‘you can give anyone high potencies because the vital force only takes what it needs’, which ignores warnings from Hahnemann onwards that our remedies if administered injudiciously, in some cases are capable of great harm.

    In the first example, we find a practioner who after years of studying and practice is able to harness both considerable critical thinking and intuition in order to develop new understandings. The real problem lies not with them but with those who follow them, for one fears that at some point, their followers will see no good reason to incorporate much or any of Hahnemann into their new homoeopathy, and the real danger is that for some this will become an excuse for sloppy thinking, harm to patients. As for the second example, I would argue that there is no hope for those who follow them. In this ‘anything goes’ version of homoeopathy there are many dangers.

    I would argue that whilst it is totally appropriate to question Hahnemann, doing so should be from the basis of at least some understanding of what he actually said. This is not helped by the fact that much of what has been taught in UK colleges has been based on what Hahnemann was saying in the fourth edition of The Organon, not even the fifth, whilst from the start of homoeopathy’s revival in the UK his philosophy was being mixed with some new age ideas that have little part in what Hahnemann actually said. And if colleges here in the UK have produced homoeopathic practitioners who haven’t studied Hahnemann at all, we must be aware that those students could become easy prey to new age corruptions of many kinds.

    The fact that the illustrious Adolph von Lippe could claim to have finally understood Hahnemann after a lifetime spent studying him, rather suggests that we introduce new theories into the corpus of homoeopathic philosophy at our potential peril.

    A final thought: I have no illusions about those who are ranged against homoepathy. But I do fear that those who constantly rant against ‘big pharma’ are doing us and our discipline a great disservice. It can be disheartening hearing the frequent slander that homoeopathy faces, especially in the English speaking world. But I see in this constant harping on about the weaknesses of allopathy a real danger that it will induce in many of us a perverse complacency and a lack of critical thinking about our own weaknesses. Hahnemann set us an extremely high standard to try and match. I really believe whingeing should have no part in that standard.

  • Dear Readers,

    As my article initiated these comments, therefore I feel I must bear some responsibility for the information being disseminated, and where necessary correct information errors.

    Regarding the examples of divergences from Hahnemann’s teaching concerning Homeopathy mentioned above:

    It is important that the public be alerted to this divergence. For the sake of patient safety, on my hands and knees I beg anyone contemplating using homeopathically prepared substances according to these divergences, reflect very carefully before doing so.

    Consider the part of the Hippocratic Oath that states, ‘first do no harm’ then consider Hahnemann’s directions and his logical reasons for NOT doing what the creators and promoters of these particular divergences recommend.

    Heed Hahnemann’s warning. As a courtesy to your patients, at the very least allow your patients to read this information so that they may have full knowledge of the possible consequences and risks involved before they consent to this method of treatment.

    “In no case under treatment is it necessary and therefore not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time. It is inconceivable how the slightest doubt could exist regarding whether it was more consistent with nature and more rational to prescribe a single, simple medicine at one time in a disease or a mixture of several differently acting drugs. It is absolutely not allowed in homoeopathy, the one true, simple, and natural art of healing, to give the patient at one time two different medicinal substances.”
    Dr. S. Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine, §273

    “It is impractical to repeat the same unchanged dose of a remedy once, not to mention its frequent repetition and at short intervals, in order not to delay the cure. The vital principle does not accept such unchanged doses without resistance, that is, without other symptoms of the medicine manifesting themselves, than those similar to the disease to be cured; because the former (first) dose has already accomplished the expected change in the vital principle, and a second dynamically wholly similar, unchanged dose of the same medicine, no longer finds the vital force in the same condition. By receiving other such unchanged doses, the patient may indeed be made sick in another way, made even sicker than he was, for now only those symptoms of the given remedy which were not homeopathic to the original disease, remain active, hence no step towards cure can follow, only a true aggravation of the condition of the patient.
    Dr. S. Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine, §247

    “After selecting the proper remedy we must not forget that it is of prime importance to give it in proper dose and not to change too soon or repeat too frequently. Never change a remedy unless the changed symptoms call for another; never repeat the dose or change the remedy when the patient is improving.”

    Dr. James Tyler Kent, An address to Fellow Members of the International Hahnemannian Society,
    reported in Dr. W. W. Sherwood’s, Kent’s Lesser Writings

    Respectfully,
    Nicola Henriques

  • Dear readers

    This is a fruitful debate and it is my wish, that such a debate be based on Hahnemann’s HOMEOPATHY, as he was teaching it and as he practiced it at the end of his live.

    In particular the last stages before his death need close inspection, in the Organon 6th, ed. as well as his journals DF1 to DF14.

    From this information it is clear, which innovation is within the rules and principles. It is the therapists choice to treat homeopathic-ally or not.

    There have been many therapists throughout the years using some ideas from homeopathy but not fulfilling all the requirements. For clarity I propose to name them different.

    We could name them after their inventor such as SAnkaran , Scholten, or some therapists gave them individual names such as the”tissue salts”, or the “BAch flower remedies”.

    They are therapists and therapies in their own right.

    Another source of missconceptions is the English translation of the Organon 6ed. We found several words, phrases, though technically possible, but not accurate in the context of the ORIGINAL.

    We should bear in mind, that Kent did not have the 6th, edition of the Organon. Seen from the 6th, ed. many things Kent said are outdated and inaccurate.

    Above quote misleads the user of Q-potencies introduced with the 6th, edition.
    BTW, there is no mentioning of the C-potencies anymore.

    To treat according Kent’s instructions therefore does not automatically rectify the claim to treat purely Hahnemannian.

    Anyone interested in the ongoing research and exchange on this level is welcome to have a look / join our facebook group:

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/302151859854069/

    Hans Weitbrecht
    Consultant Homeopath

Leave a Comment