Category Archives: Homeopathy

How confident are you? How confident should you be?

Vera Resnick.


On confidence:

How confident should we be as practitioners? This is a question which worried me greatly when I started out. I felt uncertain (not surprisingly as I was entering the world of sickness and health armed with a copy of Kent’s repertory – a copy of which a colleague justly through out of a window in a different continent – and some basic core delusions about Sankaran’s teaching.). I was qualified, I had the grades, supervised clinical work and diploma to prove it. And after all that training, I did not feel confident.

It will come, some said. The more patients you work with, the more confidence you’ll feel. Until a cold voice cut through the general internet babble, as a colleague (armed with a handbag full of plumbum crude – if you’re reading this, you know who you are) said sharply “if you’re not confident in what you’re doing, you shouldn’t be practicing.”

I see my own inner debate of that time reflected in many forums, where some few honest souls admit to worry and lack of confidence. With hindsight and its freedom of constraint, I see that confidence, for a homeopath, actually relates to at least two separate issues.

We must feel confident in our tools. If we do not feel confident in the principles of homoeopathy – not a blind faith but a clear understanding of the rationale of our practice, if we only know how to parrot “like cures like” without understanding what that means and more specifically, what that demands of us – we really should not be practicing. If we do not grasp that there is a quirk and a default in nature, whereby a stronger similar disease can annihilate a weaker one and will always do so unless something else is standing in the way of cure, whether it is a maintaining cause or a deeper inherited miasmatic taint – if we don’t get that then we really should not be practicing. We’re not talking about confidence in our ability. Here this is the confidence that our tools work. That “like cures like” is a prescribing principle, not a holistic “airy-fairy” slogan.

Personal confidence is another thing altogether. We have to get used to working with patients, to eliciting the information we need for prescribing, to listening to our patients without interrupting, to allow the picture of the disease to take shape before our eyes. We have to keep studying Organon, materia medica, provings, Hahnemann and Boenninghausen’s writings and works of similar value to keep our abilities honed and our homoeopathic knowledge checked and re-checked. We have to gain confidence in prescribing, in case-management, in effective follow-up.

Personal confidence is something every practitioner gains in time – in any field. But without confidence in our tools, that personal confidence is worthless. It’s worthless in the sense that if we are genuinely trying to work according to principle and don’t understand it, our confidence is a thin shell, a shiny veneer covering a world of insecurity in practice.

However, the worst expression of the worthlessness of personal confidence without true professional conviction is that those bumping up their levels of such personal confidence to overcome the lack of professional conviction are drawn to the new and the shiny, to developing their own new and shiny theories to astound the world.  As a result, they never investigate the tools properly, and learn to work faithfully and honestly to principle.

Something Hahnemann said in the Organon within a slightly different context seems an apt quote to close this post:

“A true homoeopathic physician, one who never acts without correct fundamental principles, never gambles with the life of the sick entrusted to him as in a lottery where the winner is in the ratio of 1 to 500 or 1000 (blanks here consisting of aggravation or death)…” (note to Aphorism 285).

Viewed through Proving: The Perfidious Poppy

red poppies

“It is much more difficult to estimate the action of opium than of almost any other drug.”

By Vera Resnick

You may already be familiar with my penchant for tables.  There’s a quote below which in usual unwieldy translation of originally unwieldy German is difficult to read.  Here’s the information in table form, and then read the quote: Continue reading

The decline of Homoeopathy

England has long been the model and a leader in the resurgence of homoeopathy in the West. Sadly, the concerted efforts by determined sceptics and the press, plus the almost compete ruination of the therapy by false practices like the Sensation method, have rendered in the main, the therapy ineffective.

We have started a Register to point patients in the direction of therapists who still adhere to the tried true and effective methods of practice as defined by Samuel Hahnemann.

The application to join the Register is here.

The following figure represents the ‘medical’ practitioners in the UK and approved non medical staff. However, a quick glance at the non medical Registers, will show a decline in members.

We have concentrated on the figures for the U.K. However a quick look at other European countries, the USA, Australia all show a major drop in student intake.

Until there is a return to the proper practice of the therapy, we will see it merged and become a branch of herbalism or naturopathy in the next few years.

England: The National Health figures.

  • In 1996 there were 170,000 homoeopathic prescriptions.
  • In 1996, £900,000 was spent on homoeopathy.
  • In 2012, a ten fold reduction to 1800 prescriptions.
  • In 2012, £130,000 was spent on Homoeopathy.
  • Private non medical teaching colleges all report a drop in student intake.




Dana Ullman and K.C. Chandran

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

Posted 25/09/2012 by Chandran K C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. What are the active principles of potentized drugs?

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

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

Homoeopathy works

Thoughts regarding drug delivery.

BKC College

Kolkata-700108, India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHMRC rule homeopathic remedies useless for human health


Homeopathic remedies useless for human health ... Professor Warwick Anderson, National He

Homeopathic remedies useless for human health … Professor Warwick Anderson, National Health and Medical Research Council CEO. Source: Supplied

AFTER a lengthy investigation the nation’s peak medical research body has delivered its verdict on homeopathic remedies — they are useless for human health.

The judgement is likely to influence a crucial government review which is deciding whether the 30 per cent tax rebate for private health insurance coverage of complementary therapies should continue.

Australians spend almost $4 billion a year on complementary therapies like vitamins and herbs and almost $10 million on homeopathic remedies.

Have homeopathic remedies worked for you? Leave your comment below

The National Health and Medical Research Council will today release a guide for doctors on how to talk to their patients about the lack of evidence for many such therapies. Doctors will also be told to warn patients of possible interactions between alternative and conventional medicines.

HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES: Homeopaths dispute critical leaked report

HEADACHE CURES: Painkillers versus natural remedies

The council has also produced a 300-page draft report that reviews the evidence for homoeopathy in treating 68 clinical conditions. It concludes “there is no reliable evidence that homoeopathy is effective for treating health conditions”.

Homoeopathy is a 200-year-old form of alternative medicine based on the principle that substances that produce symptoms in a healthy person can be used to treat similar symptoms in a sick person.

The theory is that homeopathic remedies stimulate the body’s ability to fight infection by using molecules in highly diluted substances that retain a ‘memory’ of the original substance.

Its worth has long been debated.

In 2009, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee released a report which argued “there has been enough testing of homoeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious” and that homeopathic products “perform no better than placebo”.

NHMRC chief Warwick Anderson said health care choices should be based on good evidence.

However, Australian Homeopathic Association spokesman Greg Cope said he was disappointed at the narrow evidence relied on by the NHMRC in its report.

“What they have looked at is systematic trials for named conditions when that is not how homoeopathy works,” he said.

Homoeopathy worked on the principle of improving a person’s overall health and wellness, and research such as a seven-year study conducted in Switzerland was a better measure of its usefulness, he said.

There are about 10,000 complementary medicine products sold in Australia but most consumers are unaware they are not evaluated by our medicines safety watchdog before they are allowed on the market.

Complementary medicine sceptic Professor Ken Harvey said the NHMRC’s ruling on homoeopathy was “not unexpected” and its implications could be wide ranging.

“One would conclude on the basis of this report a government committee revising whether natural therapies should continue to get private health insurance tax rebates would conclude it doesn’t warrant a private health insurance rebate,” he said.

The NHMRC report also raised questions about how colleges that provide homoeopathy training could continue to meet government training rules and regulations, he said.

What we know and what we don’t know.


By Vera Resnick

I’m writing this post in response to comments made on Gary’s post here:

There are homoeopaths who describe the process with a certainty as if they know everything.  Then there are homoeopaths, as in the comments, who state that they don’t know – that those who say they know are merely speaking from a deluded zeal of quasi-religious conviction.

Well, lets take a look at what Hahnemann knew and didn’t know, and where he knew it from.

And just because I like definitions – here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of EMPIRICAL: “originating in or based on observation or experience”

There is a natural law of similars – meaning, just as what goes up usually must come down, what produces a disease-like symptom picture in healthy people usually must cure a similar disease symptom-picture in sick people.
Sources:  Hippocrates, Paracelsus, Hahnemann’s writings
Hahnemann’s experiments on himself and others
Nature of the knowledge: empirical

Substances can be active even when highly diluted
Source:  Hahnemann’s experiments on himself and others, provings and treatments over 200 years
Nature of the knowledge: empirical

Succussion acts to increase the potency of remedies
Source:  Theory – Hahnemann’s Lesser Writings (see my article on the subject of potentisation)
Practice:  Hahnemann’s experiments on himself and others, further experimentation, provings and treatments over 200 years
Nature of the knowledge: empirical

Different substances produce different disease-like symptom pictures in healthy people
Source:  Hahnemann’s provings and those of others over 200 years, reports of poisonings
Nature of the knowledge: empirical

There are many other definitely, conclusively known factors involved in homoeopathic treatment, and the homoeopath must base treatment on the known – otherwise homoeopathy falls into the “hit-or-miss”, “trial-and-error” format that has more in common with allopathy than homoeopathy as originally formulated.

So what don’t we know?

Not known:  how cure through similars takes place inside the organism

In Aphorism 28 of the Organon, Hahnemann states (bold text from original):

“As this natural law of cure manifests itself in every pure experiment and every true observation in the world, the fact is consequently established; it matters little what may be the scientific explanation of how it takes place; and I do not attach much importance to the attempts made to explain it.  But the following view seems to commend itself as the most probable one, as it is founded on premises derived from experience.”

The “following view” referred to is Hahnemann’s assessment of how homeopathically prescribed medicines effect cure in the organism – something he developed from his experience with the method and observations resulting from this process.  This is what is presented in the Organon from aphorism 29 onwards – Hahnemann’s self-stated theory which he saw actualized in practice.  Since the whole Organon is an invitation to try the method out, it is also an invitation to examine the validity of his theory.  But he himself defines it as “the most probable one”.  Please note – not exactly the same as a religious epiphany or commandment…

Hahnemann stated frequently that the actual internal mechanism is not known.  See also the note to Aphorism 12

“How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is how it produces disease, it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed from him.. “

Some have assumed that Hahnemann, when referring to the unknown, intangible or immeasurable, is referring to the spiritual – but he states categorically that this is not the case.  In the footnote to aphorism 31, he states:

“when I call disease a derangement of man’s state of health, I am far from wishing thereby to give a hyperphysical explanation of the internal nature of diseases generally, or of any case of disease in particular.  It is only intended by this expression to intimate, what it can be proved diseases are not and cannot be, that they are not mechanical or chemical alterations of the material substance of the body, and not dependent on a material morbific substance, but that they are merely spirit-like (conceptual) dynamic derangements of the life.”

My personal favourite quote of Hahnemann’s acknowledgement that he does not know “how it works” appears in a footnote towards the end of the theoretical part of Chronic Diseases.  Here Hahnemann states categorically (bold is religiously mine…):

“this true theorem is not to be reckoned among those which should be comprehended, nor among those for which I ask a blind faith.  I demand no faith at all, and do not demand that anybody should comprehend it.  Neither do I comprehend it; it is enough that it is a fact and nothing else.  Experience alone declares it, and I believe more in experience than in my own intelligence.

For the full quote, click here.

Many prescriptions today are based on assumptions of “how it works”, rather than based on the known information, whether about the method, the remedies, and the patient’s case itself.  In addition, many remedies are prescribed based on assumptions of what symptoms they can cure, often based more on the Doctrine of Signatures rather than anything else.  That is not a known.  Homeopathy today is often misunderstood to be based on these and other assumptions – rather than on the empirically based method developed by Hahnemann.  Hahnemann presented the Organon as a method of how to work based on the known – with what he felt was a probable explanation of how the cure is effected.  His “most probable” explanation forms a small part of the Organon – the bulk of which deals with intensely practical instructions on how to work based on the known, rather than preoccupation with the speculative.  It is a sign of the times that in many courses offered today the Organon is referred to as the basis for homoeopathic philosophy and taught as such – whereas it really is the Users Manual for homoeopathic practice.

Personally, I find it difficult to agree that knowing the exact nature of how the organism effects the cure would not help.  The greatest difficulty homeopaths experience in treatment is often not the prescriptions themselves, but the case-management and understanding the significance of each response to remedies along the path in order to determine the next steps.  Having said that, many many times difficulties in case-management can be traced back to unreported obstacles to cure, to incomplete or ineffective case-taking, to lifestyle and allopathic interventions and medications.

This post is inevitably a short “out-take” of a much larger picture.  However some elements are clear:

  1.  The Law of Similars is empirically known, and is the basis of the homoeopathic method.
  2. Use of remedies based on the Law of Similars is empirically known.
  3. Hahnemann has presented a picture of how cure takes place in the organism based on his observations – although initially theoretical, eventually empirically demonstrated, especially when compounded with  200 years of experience.
  4. Prescription of remedies not based on the Law of Similars is not based on the homoeopathically known.  (this does not invalidate clinical experience, merely defines that it cannot be a certain starting point for the homoeopath working based on the known foundations of homoeopathy as a medical therapeutic)
  5. Assessment of how homeopathically prescribed remedies effect cure in the organism is essentially theoretical, possibly empirically demonstrated, but ultimately not known.

Homoeopathy today, Part 2

We at the I.H.M. often have the allegation hurled at us that we hinder progress in the field of homoeopathy, and are stuck in the 1800s with Samuel Hahnemanns antiquated views regarding medicine. Some even go as far as to accuse us of being elitist or arrogant towards others in practice.

To set the record straight. We view ourselves  in the same vein as specialist car engineers working on a single manufacturer vehicle. We follow the designers recommendations for diagnosis, for analysis and for remedial and corrective measures for faults found. We individually and collectively have spent many years reading and researching the original material and writings, and then spent inordinate amounts of time working through thousands of case histories of various practitioners since Hahnemanns time to see the methodology employed for curative results. The I.H. M. does NOT teach individual belief structures or personal viewpoints in seminars. Each lecturer in the I.H.M. works within a framework, a loose structure with other teachers so as to be sure the core teachings are firmly rooted in Provings, in medicine and mostly and taken from original writings and directions that have been tested and deemed correct for application of the therapeutics.

The I.H.M. also use the P&W Therapeutic Pocket Book for case analysis. It was translated by Vladimir Polony and Gary Weaver several years ago, in the knowledge that it would not be a commercial undertaking or bring huge revenues from sales. The two decided to do it simply because it IS the most useful and reliable of all repertorial processes for indication of the correct remedies to check out for a prescription. It is used by all I.H.M. staff from choice…….. the results are evident to see in the clinic. We see more interest in the T.P.B. these days as more and more people are disillusioned with the results they are getting from the methodology that they have been taught.

A repertorial work will NEVER replace the practitioners abilities to ascertain the correct symptoms for using to have a case for prescribing for. It will however guide the practitioner to find the medicines that contain the collective totality of the symptom picture before them, and suggest which to view in the Materia Medica for choosing the closest similar in the circumstances that require remedial help. For the I.H.M.. the TPB is an essential guide along with the Materia Medica Pura, Chronic Diseases and the Organon.

Dealing with disease states, which have been complicated by modern living, chemicals, vaccines, certain heroic forms of allopathic treatments, requires that the homoeopathic practitioner be aware of the tried and tested methods of stimulating the immune system to heal the disorder presented. No drug cures, only the body does that. Drug action works antipathically or homoeopathically, and we have to work within tried and tested boundaries for the patients wellbeing.

Go back and read the Organon without a teachers voices in your head. Just read the words and cross relate to the theory of Chronic diseases and see where your training digresses from Hahnemanns, and realise that success comes from being a good student and emulator. Be the best you can.

Homoeopathy today. Part 1.

                                                                                                                                                    Examining the contents of my mail, and the expressed views within, I am struck by the singular thread running through the comments offered.  I see people do not know that they do not know.

Homoeopathy, the therapy, is suffering from a lack of scientifically minded, medicine oriented practitioners who have schooling in the knowledge of what homoeopathy really is, or have an overall concept of HOW to apply the therapeutics to a case, how to manage a case and how to determine the progression of a case of disease and ascertain the value of treatment given.

Sadly, the application of the medicines in the hands of medically trained personnel, suffers EXACTLY the same fate. What a homoeopath views as a disease state, does not depend on the named collection of symptoms that are tagged with a descriptor. Although these symptoms are examined in depth, a true Hahnemann trained homoeopath will look for the expression of the disease as it AFFECTS THE PATIENT INDIVIDUALLY. This does not ignore the symptoms that are displayed that fall under a tagged named disease, but within the confines of the general named disease state, a homoeopath looks for the singular and peculiar and characteristic symptoms that the patient displays, that are present and persisting and peculiarise a single medicine that is capable of producing the symptoms.

We must not look for a central delusion or core feeling. We must look for the characteristic of HOW the disease is presented.

Disease cannot exist without a living organism. There is no disease where there is not a host. Dis-ease affects LIFE. To this obvious truth must be added that all infecting agents do not produce the exact same results every time in individuals. If an organism is capable of assimilating an infecting agent, and produce albeit, a similar pattern of progression of the disease state that is formed from the infecting agent, and MODIFY it in an attempt to rid the organism of the problem, then each individual, endowed with genetic, inherited, nutritional, tolerance and immunity to certain elements, that is peculiar to that person, then it stands to reason that there is only the singular and peculiar response to the infection from that INDIVIDUAL that requires treatment.

Homoeopathy, the therapy as defined by Samuel Hahnemann meets these requires and succeeded in being effective where a curative response could be facilitated by the organism, as long as the protocols were met in every case.

Homoeopathy proper, is one of the most powerful branches of medicine that we have at our disposal, and one of the most badly taught disciplines ever witnessed. Until the schools clear the false teachings and stop treating it as a spiritual quasi psychological subject, and get rid of all the teachers that do not know their subject…….. the profession does not have a future that is meaningful to patient wellbeing.