Category Archives: Admin Comment
Recently a close colleague and friend refered a patient to me. I dont think he felt confident in his abilities to deal with the issue. I totally refute this erroneous notion but once I looked at the scans supplied of the patients disorder, I understood why. I was filled with sadness and dismay. Rarely have I seen such an infiltration of tumours in organs. I knew we were dealing with a small time frame in which to attempt to get get the body to heal itself if at all possible.
We talked on the phone and as I took the symptoms as felt by the patient, I was struck by the determination to overcome the problem, yet I also felt that the patient knew how difficult a position they were in. I was not asked for a prognosis, because between us in the short time we knew each other, only one hour, there was an openess and honesty present. We both knew what we were dealing with.
We got the core of the issue quickly. I believe our conversation allowed the patient to accept some things about life and let go of troublesome feelings. Relaxation was heard in the voice.
My mind had formulated a symptomatic choice of remedy, yet I wanted to be sure so as to not make a mistake. We talked on the Friday and I said that I would contact again on the Sunday with the remedy choice and protocol for taking.
24 hours later, the patients life ended due to being overwhelmed with the disease.
Im not a person to cry easily. I am a person to be affected deeply though by emotions. Death is so final. It is the culmination of life. Where there is hope and a quality of life to be had, I expend all my efforts to try and make it happen. I trust my therapy as the best one generally to facilitate that.
I cannot carry this experience as a failure on my part simply because I didnt get to initiate treatment. I am however grateful that I had the chance to talk with the patient and had the chance to extend support and kindness and human love in the hour of need. No promises, no false hopes, just a sharing.
There is no one to blame. It is the results of human biology and hereditary and environmental situations.
Would homoeopathy have helped? Who knows. Sometimes the human body will not respond depending on the maintaining causes, and sometimes a gentle persuasive touch from the similar remedy alters everything towards health.
I know the law of similars is the only real chance a living body has… so I keep going.
Im sorry I wasnt there earlier for you.
A lot of reflective thinking today. If disease development follows infection along a pathway, for example Tuberculosis, there is a known pathology in the aetiology. We expect a singular disease expression. However, Hahnemann opened the concept that all non venereal disease could be linked in some way. He attributed it to skin ailments which could cause internal problems, and of course has had thousands of years to modify.
Here is where I am with it all. Its my thoughts and I take full responsibility if Im wrong…
There is nothing to prevent mankind from being susceptible to all things that affect mankind. Some diseases will overcome the immune system without mercy. SOME individuals will escape the effects but generally, mankind per se will be affected.
In real terms, we as Earths inhabitants, get sick, locally and globally. Some diseases affect nations of certain ethnic characteristics more than another and some nations have no immunity to other nations diseases at all. Yet in this day and age, the world is pretty much an open field as far as disease is concerned.
I postulate the theory that humans to a lesser or greater degree, carry genetically and biologically, the capacity to develop ANY disease as we are predisposed to them, and as such ALL disease share a link. There is no such thing as a PSORA infection. There however is the ability to contage an infection from someone who carries bacteria, or a virus, or a fungus which is PART of the connected worldwide disease source which is classified as Psora. Genetically, I am sure we pass on susceptibility which is triggered when we get infected.
Hahnemann stated that he himself never had Psora. Which logically means that he never contaged a connected disease, but was susceptible to annual acute diseases of no deeper connection.
This allows for people to stop looking for the missing infection of Psora… It is not there. IT never has been. Once infected with certain disease causations, we are open to everything, dependent on our immunity and level of health.
I welcome thoughts on this topic.
……….It is due, let us say, to psora, but we have no clear conception of What psora is.
Psora needs to be split up into its component parts, no easy task; it roots in the vague, its trunk and boughs run away into anywhere.
The Psora of the homoeopaths seems somehow true, but it has no proper beginning, no definite course, and ends in pathological chaos. Perhaps we study it in Hahnemann, and in the best writers on the subject, and after doing our best to master it, we rise from our studies with no clear idea, and we finally decide to abandon psora as an intangible myth, and then we proceed with our clinical work; but, before long, we stumble against a very tangible something, and on looking at the stumbling block, we find writ large upon it the word Psora! Have I then hit upon a solution of the psora-problem? No; but if we cannot break the
whole faggot, we may perchance break one stick of it.
Translated from the Spanish. Original Post here: https://institutodemedicinahomoeopaticaamericalatina.wordpress.com/por-que-boenninghausen/
By Dr. Guillermo Zamora, Surgeon UAG, Dhom. Lic. For the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.
The story begins about 14 years ago, when I was a little dissatisfied with the results of the method I was taught in the postgraduate school (the Kentian), I began to investigate other possibilities of obtaining a more exact remedy in my prescriptions.
At that time, one of our teachers, who taught the aforementioned method, alluded to a small book of medical matter that she held in her hand, and affirmed that her father (the founder of the school) was very successful in his prescriptions thanks to that work. At that time I paid close attention to that book and wrote down all the details of the reference on a small piece of blank sheet. Time later, I began to read it and I realized that it was a medical matter that contained symptoms that were called “Keynotes” (Key symptoms) … something completely removed from the logic of Kent.
Once I graduated, I decided to create a flowchart, which I organized based on the information contained in this work and some others that contained Keynotes symptoms. I arranged in different divisions corresponding for example to the locations, circumstances, Mentals, Sensations, Modalities, and many others. It took more than a year to finish ordering ALL the symptoms in this work.
While I was doing the work I was impregnated with the keynote symptoms of this little book which I read and reread no less than 6 or 7 times, while my effectiveness rate improved day after day. It drew my attention that at some point the author quoted a certain Boenninghausen, at that time someone unknown to me, but as I divided my flow chart I began to realize that Keynotes were nothing other than COMBINATIONS of one location + one modality, or of a sensation with a modality, or even in some occasions, of a location with a sensation. For this reason, a little later I decided to get a copy of the Therapeutic Pocket Book (TPB), version 1846 of Boenninghausen.
During the time I tried to use this copy, an English version, the truth is that I was very confused to use it; I did not have a clear idea of how to use it, and I was not familiar with it either. Most of the time, I used my flow chart, and to a lesser extent Kent’s repertoire to consult some rubric. However, although the effectiveness rate had increased markedly (say 20 to 50-60%), I still felt dissatisfied with the result.
One day, there comes one of those moments that you think you are not going to touch, and one of my children begins to get sick of the skin (Dermatitis), coming to present on one occasion Ritter syndrome (a disease caused by golden Staphylococcus) . Despite all my efforts, both in my diagram and through the use of Kent ‘s repertoire, only Rhus – T was thrown at me , which was in accordance with the recommendation of several international homeopaths whom I had asked for an interconsultation. If anything, the recommendation was made to use Sulfur as an alternative. Anyway, frustratingly these remedies did not give the desired result.
It is then, that after having read some of his dissertations, and astonished by the content of them, appears on the scene Dr. Gary Weaver, President of the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine, who selflessly and making use of his knowledge and expertise in The TPB, helped me with my son’s case. He told me that my conclusion of Rhus-T through my tools was logical and even close to the diagnosis, but that in reality the remedy was Sepia . Little convinced of his diagnosis, I followed every step in his prescription. The result that would come shortly after would be surprising; and a couple of remedy changes along the way would be enough to solve the case completely.
Thus through this excellent homeopath I acquired knowledge really Hahnemannian method and I realized the great favors a good tool offers ( e s for this reason that translated the TPB of Polony & Weaver Spanish ). Today, Dr. Gary Weaver is still the person to whom I consult when I have problems in the family. Recently, another of my loved ones almost died (literally) from a kidney problem, and once I learned that when emotions are mixed, it is better to consult a colleague, he gave me an example of the success obtained when using a good tool in the correct way.
During this learning process, I understood that in those combinations that I observed during the construction of my flow chart, the Keynote symptom was always made up of a part that was very consistent in the proving, and of another that was shared by few remedies ( as I now know that Guernsey claimed), and that most came from the Therapeutic Pocket Book of Boenninghausen. But I also realized that the TPB is built by the abstraction of symptoms from the provings and that it has the quality of being able to be used in order to recombine by analogysymptoms to obtain an infinity of combinations that have never even been seen before in a proving. That’s why we can deduce, that many combinations were out of those Keynotes. Therefore, it is also important to mention that this process of abstraction and recombination during the taking of a case has a specific methodology, which makes this repertoire a unique and indispensable work.
Nowadays I use the Boenninghausen repertoire most of the time in my daily practice (95%), sometimes I consult my flow chart (4%) and very rarely (Kent’s repertoire) (1%). My effectiveness rate has been increasing, from 85-95%.
You may ask: Is it possible to succeed using Kent’s repertoire? The answer is YES, but with a certain margin of error, and as long as we have an acceptable knowledge of Pure Materia Medica (and EC), we know what rubrics to use and what is the true method to take a case according to the Hahnemann guidelines. , who until now has only been misinterpreted and little investigated by most of the schools, even those that advertise themselves as very “Hahnemannian”. On the contrary, it is rare school that comes to support a seminar like ours, unique in its kind. What has happened is similar to the game of the “decomposed telephone” where a message that is given at the origin arrives completely distorted to the last receiver. By then, when we arrive with an apparently “new” message, but that simply was NOT taken into account (or was not known about it), interests are affected (school programs, homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc. ) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science was a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc.) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc.) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and really researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. or in the most measured of commentaries it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and really investigated. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home.
In the case of the teachers of the IMH none will teach a personal opinion, nor will teach philosophy, much less dare to tell you that they discovered the black thread or that they are the black thread as many modern gurus who are out there wanting self-proclaimed and that really AFFECT what is most important for a conscious homeopath; to his patients. The IMH teachers will only teach you genuine Homeopathy, as Hahnemann taught it and with which he cured tuberculosis, syphilis, pneumonia, psychosis, diarrhea, etc. etc. etc.
Now; returning to the best homeopath in history (after Hahnemann), Dr. Boenninghausen; I know that what I can say, being a little known person, may not have much value, but it is the same Hahnemann who bears witness to the sagacity of Boenninghausen. Hahnemann considered the work of Boenninghausen as one of the best works as we can see in the footnote number 109 of paragraph 153 in the Organon 6th. Edition:
“Dr. Von Boenninghausen, for the publication of the characteristic symptoms of homeopathic medicines and for his Repertory, has rendered a great service to Homeopathy …”
This repertoire fell into disuse given the popularity of Kent’s repertoire. However, thanks to the research of the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine team on the original works and materials, it has been possible to elucidate that the Boenninghausen repertoire, specifically the Therapeutic Pocket Book version 1846, leads to the methodology established by Hahnemann himself; this repertoire is in itself, a SYNOPSIS of everything that constitutes case-taking and follow-up. This is reflected in the following testimony of Hahnemann:
“… .Bon von Bönninghausen of Münster has studied and captured my homeopathic treatment system so completely that as a homeopath it deserves to be given full confidence, and if I fell ill and could not help myself, I would not be entrusted to any other doctor . “
… Haehl, R .: Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, 1922, 2 volumes, Indian edition, BJain, New Delhi, 1985, vol.2, p.483.
Only a few schools have made the decision to make a change in teaching, and only a handful of homeopaths have taken the decision in a personal and independent way to align themselves with the instructions proposed by Hahnemann by virtue of compliance with the principle of similar.
Is it too late to restore what has been destroyed?
Its 4:53am. I am awake and my mind is thinking back to my childhood My mother would treat all our minor illnesses with different ‘natural’ products. My hay fever was ‘cured’ with a polypharmacy over the counter homoeopathic product. I grew up having a great respect for non mainstream medicines, but conversely would use the doctor when something non resolvable occurred. It was at this point in my late teens that I observed a difference in ‘alternative medicine’ ie herbal, and a medical treatment following a defined curative path, like acupuncture and homoeopathy.
Therein lies the dichotomy and the answer to mankinds choice. Modern medicine has decreed that it is the ONLY solution to all disease and is squeezing out everything that does not follow the allopathic mode. They point to ‘lifesaving’ medicines and treatments, ignoring the fact that the patient might be on a suppressive regime of medicines to quell the symptoms of whatever ails the patient for the remainder of their shortened life, only to succumb to an iatrogenic ending.
The strange thing is that medicine per se comes down to, not as one would expect, medicines, but to a choice of protocols. One involves a natural law and the other does not.
Hahnemann, in his monumental works, The Organon of Medicine, and the Chronic Diseases, gives a completely researched and science based observation of how living Organisms function in health and disease. I find it sad that this work which actually outlines the theory of modern disease processes is the most attacked medical practice today. Maybe its accuracy yet individualised treatment of a person is the root of the discontent felt by medical professionals. These professionals who believe that a blanket approach to drug therapy for the disease in question is the required response. It is a an easy solution. To treat a named disease instead of the individualised reaction to a named disease.
With the passing of years and growth in experience Hahnemann came upon to regard man more as an organism than as a machine. A machine is composed of many parts, originally separate. Once these parts are put together, its manifoldncss becomes unity. Like the human individual, it is assembled for a specific purpose.
It is both simple and complex. A machine is primarily complex and secondarily simple. However to the contrary, man is primarily simple and secondarily complex. He originates from a single cell. His growth means multiplication and self-differentiation of the primitive cell to form diverse tissues and organs. Thus an organism is not artificially made, but grows, not put together by the force from the outside, but develops from the centre to the periphery or from the whole to the parts.
In disease, we find the disturbance located in the ‘central like mechanism’ which is manifested through perceptible sensory and functional changes of the body as a whole; here nosology fails to be applied as the symptoms do not refer to any particular organ or tissue; and the man, though showing deviations from the perfectly healthy state, is not termed as specifically diseased.
This is the stage of Latent Psora. (INFECTION) In course of time the disharmony of the whole or central life is reflected on to the disharmony of life in the tissues or organs; and the disorder is manifested more on the functional plane related to tissues or organs. This is the stage of secondary psora (INFECTION DEVELOPMENT) when the disease is predominantly functional in nature without proportionate structural changes in the tissues and organs. This is followed by the tertiary stage of psora (DISEASE MANIFESTATION) where the gross structural changes in the tissues or organs appear—the domain of pathology proper and nosology. Central functional changes.
- functional changes of individual tissues or organs.
- gross anatomical/pathological changes of individual tissues or organs.
this seems to be the order of progression in chronic diseases. Here the disease process starts in a simple way and ultimately develops into multilateral directions accordingly as different tissues or organs (though originating from a primordial cell) are affected simultaneously or successively in course of time.
Hahnemann contends that the miasms (INFECTIONS) responsible for psora, syphilis and sycosis are of such a nature as they attack the central life-force at the outset and the primary derangement of the central life-force thus produced, makes the organism susceptible to many other agents to develop functional and structural changes in individual tissues or organs, thus providing occasions for diverse naming or labeling of diseased conditions corresponding to diverse tissues or organs damaged. So in Chronic. cases the central life-force is primarily disturbed.
As there is a central life mechanism corresponding to the whole, there is life in the parts, tissues or organs and there is life in every cell. Life is a scale of energy forming a sort of hierarchy from cell-life to collective or central life. Disease is disorder in any plane—material, vital or mental—as a whole or as a part constituting or conforming to the whole. In acute diseases, the disorder starts from lower scale of life in the tissues or organs and this disorder acts on the whole or central life, here the disease process is the resultant of the action of the part and the reaction of the whole to it. Here the disease process seems to start from outside to within or in the ascending order in the hierarchy of life. The central life mechanism is disturbed eventually but the change is of more a superficial nature analogous somewhat to the condition of “induced magnetism”.
In chronic cases, the whole or central life is attacked and disturbed first by some morbific agent of a miasmatic (INFECTIOUS) nature; this central disturbance leads to disturbance in the life of tissues, organs or cells.
Here the disease process seems to start from within outwards or in the descending hierarchy of life. That is why, in chronic diseases, constitutional symptoms (i.e., symptoms indicative of the disturbance of the central life mechanism) are more marked; whereas in acute cases, structural and functional changes of the tissues and organism overshadow the constitutional symptoms. Herein we get clues for evaluation of symptoms in case-taking to treat patients homoeopathically.
As is patently obvious, a person does not have to accept any of the above. Modern medicine accepts its own version and perception and stays within the bounds of its own concepts.
One thing I am sure of, the terminology gives it away. A ‘curative response’ comes from the organism and not from a medicine. Ergo a medicine CANNOT cure, it can only stimulate an organism to cure itself. If it does not follow this protocol, it is suppression.
But not all will be pulled from the market, yet. Action Alert!
The policy comes in the form of a guidance document, which lays out the FDA’s current position on the regulation of homeopathic drugs.
In the guidance, the FDA says:
- Any homeopathic drug that has not been considered “generally recognized as safe and effective” (GRAS/E) is considered a new drug;
- FDA has not determined that any homeopathic drugs are GRAS/E;
- A new drug cannot be marketed unless it goes through the FDA’s approval process;
- No homeopathic drugs have gone through FDA approval nor can any producer afford to take them through the approval process.
That’s right: in one fell swoop, the FDA has declared that virtually every single homeopathic drug on the market is being sold illegally. The guidance explains that the agency will apply a risk-based regulatory approach that will prioritize enforcement actions against:
- products with reported safety concerns;
- products that contain or claim to contain ingredients associated with potentially significant safety concerns, e.g., belladonna or strychnine;
- products for routes of administration other than oral and topical, e.g., injectable and ophthalmic products;
- products intended to be used for the prevention or treatment of serious and/or life-threatening diseases and conditions, e.g., cancer, heart disease and opioid addition;
- products for vulnerable populations, e.g., children; and
- products that are deemed adulterated under FDC Act § 501, e.g., do not meet standards of quality, strength or purity as required under the law.
The FDA also says that it recognizes that many homeopathic drugs fall outside of these categories and does not intend to take action against such products at this time, but the writing is on the wall. If it wants to, the FDA could go after any homeopathic drug currently on the market.
Is this level of regulatory scrutiny necessary? No. Although prior to the release of FDA’s guidance document homeopathic drugs did not need to go through the New Drug Approval process, they underwent a different kind of pre-market approval. Homeopathic drugs traditionally required a monograph from the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS), which involves clinical verification of the efficacy of the substance.
FDA’s process started two years ago, when the agency held a public hearing to evaluate its enforcement policies for homeopathic products. We suspected the agency was planning to tighten its grip on homeopathy, which, after all, competes with the pharmaceutical drugs that fund the FDA.
Many homoeopaths hold the viewpoint that diagnosis of a ‘disease’ is not important. By disease, I mean the descriptive name for a collection of symptoms that individualise a known condition, ie pneumonia, measles, eczema etc.
The reality is, and always has been, as taught by Hahnemann, to treat the DISEASE that the has destabilised the health of an individual. We do not take the collective totality of the personality, the likes and dislikes of the person, we take only the altered state CAUSED by the disease and expressed by the individual affected person.
The two single most useful Aphorisms in case taking are ~5 and ~6. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss in detail, if truth be told it requires time in a seminar to expand the writings and demonstrate fully so as to inculcate the understanding to reach the heart of a practitioner. If assimilated incorrectly, you will find that a lot of misprescriptions will be made based on faulty comprehension of Hahnemanns words.
This leads me to my next point. I ask a question: Are you a real homoeopath?
Firstly, after many years of thinking on this question, I realise that the question is incorrect. It should be: Are you a real believer in the law of similars?
The scope and sphere of Homoeopathy must be clearly expressed. In a wider sense, Homoeopathy, in the first place, means a method of scientific study and therapeutic practice; in the second place, it means the facts discovered by this method; and thirdly it signifies the theories that have been propounded to explain and correlate these facts. In other words, Homoeopathy implies a particular way of applying drugs to diseases according to a specific principle viz., “Similia Similibus Curentur”, and of potentitiation (dynamisation) of drugs. In a narrower and stricter sense, Homoeopathy means a specialised system of drug therapy, nothing more or nothing less.
As Homoeopathy looks upon diseases as an altered condition of the life principal of a living being, Homoeopathy, as a therapeutic method, is concerned primarily with the morbid vital processes in the living organism which are perceptibly represented by the symptoms irrespective of what caused them. Homoeopathy then is concerned only with dis-eases, per se in its primary functional or dynamical aspect.
With the morbific agents themselves Homoeopathy has no more to do than it has with the tangible products or ultimates of disease. It is taken for granted that the physician acting in another capacity than that of a prescriber of Homoeopathic medicines will remove the causes of the disease and the obstacle to cure as far as possible before he addresses himself to the task of selecting and administering the remedy which is homoeopathic to the symptoms of the case by which the cure is to be effected. Thus Homoeopathy deals directly with disease itself, morbid vital processes manifested by perceptible symptoms in the functional side of disease. In fact, Homoeopathy might well be defined as the science of vital dynamics.
It is confined to and operative only in the sphere of vital dynamics.
As Homoeopathy is primarily and pre eminently a specialised system of drug therapy, it is not a complete system of medicine (in the wide sense of the term); but it might legitimately claim itself to be a complete system of therapeutic medication.
It is supreme within its legitimate sphere because it is a method of therapeutic medication which is based on a fixed and definite law of nature. The time has come for defining the scope and limits of Homoeopathy. Wide as its scope is, it has its limitations as well and we have to be cognisant of this fact.
Homoeopathy may have many gaps which need be filled; may have many points of obscurity which need illumination and clarification and may imply many directions in which researches can be carried out—but it is and will continue to be a distinct system of healing art; it is uncompromising with regard to following items which can be claimed as specialities for itself. The most important speciality of Homoeopathy lies in the distinctive mode of approach to the study of diseases and drug actions. It is a clinical method of approach and the art of individualising patients and drug-actions.
The clinical phenomena are those which render themselves perceptible to our senses as a resultant of the actions and reactions of forces, physico-chemical, vital and psychological operating in and through the diseased human organism.
Homoeopathy disregards all the hypothetical and ever-changing explanations of physiology and pathology and uses this plane of clinical phenomena as a guide to reach the unseen activities operating below the surface.
The second speciality is with regard to classification of diseases. The dominant school of medicine follows the system of classificatory sciences of botany and zoology. It classifies diseases into genus and species. But Homoeopathy goes further and concentrates its attention on individuals—so it is closer to factual concrete reality. The “Totality of symptoms” is taken to be a guide for individualisation.
The third speciality is with regard to this: The essential question in Homoeopathy is not what the patient is suffering from, but in what kind of way he reacts.
Diagnosis in Homoeopathy does not mean the labelling of the patient with the name of a disease and then treating that nominal entity, but diagnosing the patient in terms of drug reaction, which would restore his vital equilibrium. The patient is to be diagnosed in terms of treatment. This is Homoeopathy in a nut shell.
But “it is a shell which some find hard to crack, but when cracked it is found to be packed full of sweet and wholesome meat with no worms in it”—as Stuart Close points out in his book ‘Lecture on Homoeopathic Philosophy”.
The selection and administration of remedies constitute the science of therapeutics, as the investigation of the properties of drugs constitutes the science of Materia Medica. It is impossible to conceive of a science i.e., systematized knowledge, which is not based on some fundamental principle correlating the series of phenomena concerning any particular branch of study. The therapeutic branch of medical knowledge consists of a study of disease phenomena on the one hand and that of positive effects of drugs on the healthy human beings on the other. Hence any therapeutic study is incomplete and unscientific if a general law be not discovered between a natural disease-condition and the action of a drug that will be curative. Homoeopathy supplies such a law—though the orthodox school of medicine apparently denies the necessity for such a general therapeutic law and relies only on unmethodized experience and fallacious reasoning and presumes to claim utter scientificity for itself by borrowing from chemico-physical sciences.
The therapeutic law of Similia Similibus Curentur is a scientific law as justified by the following considerations:
- It is based on observation, correct logical principles of induction, deduction and experimental verification.
- It is based on no hypothesis or speculation but it is just a statement of inter-relation between two series of phenomena viz-, the natural disease and drug-action.
- Like any other scientific law it is made use of in the matter of predicting future results.
- Like any other scientific law it does not attempt to explain the “how or why” of drugs curing diseases but rests contented with giving a clear indication of what drug would be curative in which disease condition.
This therapeutic law of cure, as discovered in Homoeopathy, as regards the treatment of diseases by drugs which, when proved on healthy human beings, possess the power to produce symptoms similar to those found in persons suffering from natural diseases—pursues at its every step the scientific methods of observation, classification, comparison of phenomena perceptible to our senses and does not attempt to enter into the misty realm of metaphysical speculation to divine the essential secrets of nature viz-, life, mind and body and their nature of inter-relationship and the “modus operandi” of drugs in producing symptoms in healthy human beings or curing disease conditions brought on by natural causes.
This law takes into account only the clinical phenomena (i.e.,perceptible alterations of sensations, functions and of tissues) in patients and drug provers—which hold good so long as observations are correct and complete and which are not liable to be changed with every altered biological conception, newer medical terminologies or newer discoveries in physiological and pathological sciences. The clinical symptoms are facts—they do not change but may be added to.
With the help of this Law of cure the study of therapeutic branch of medicine has been raised to an independent status having a life of its own. While deriving its sustenance from truths and conceptions of other sciences auxiliary to medicine it possesses freedom from whatever new knowledge might be acquired in those sciences in course of time.
On comparison with other therapeutic systems (with or without any basic law underlying) the Law of Simile stands out boldest and most free from uncertainties, imperfections and irrationality inherent in others.