I came across this snippet in a journal.
Prejudice has always Been prevalent
At the beginning of December of last year we had the opportunity here in Seville to receive a course of clinic with Dr. Gary Weaver, whom we already knew for having given months before a course in Seville on the methodology of work of Boenninghausen based on the Work of Hahnemann.
If the first course was very interesting to me, the latter has been for my clarifier how to apply the method in practice with real cases taken from the daily clinic itself.
I, like almost all my fellow homeopaths around here, have been trained in kentiana homeopathy, with all that this entails in terms of taking clinical history, symptom assessment, hierarchizing, and repertorization of the case, and In the ultimate application of “what must be cured” in each particular patient.
The reason for approaching the method of Boenninghausen has been due to a couple of motivations, the first of them, the dissatisfaction in the clinical result of the application of the kentiana vision, without doubt that personally I think I have helped many patients to However, I was not completely satisfied with the results I was getting and I do not think it was because of lack of study and dedication, I felt that there was something that did not fit completely with what Until now he had been practicing; The second motivation, and not least, is the complication of the Kentian method of working at the time of the patient’s clinical approach and the insecure terrain in which we see ourselves when we give the highest hierarchical value to mental symptoms,
The method of Boenninghausen, as Dr. Gary has explained to me, has represented a return to “sanity” within classical homeopathy, a return to the purest Hahnemanian sources, especially nowadays where the New currents called homeopathic remedies are moving away from the true spirit of classical homeopathy by entering into the realms of metaphysics and elucidation rather than the rational medicine itself brought to us by Hahnemann.
The method of Boenninghausen catches my attention for its simplicity, its effectiveness and its coherence with Hahnemannian homeopathy, and the two seminars, one practical and another theoretical one of Dr. Gary, have served me to learn the “a, b, c” Of this new, but old way of doing homeopathy, I recognize that we have a long and arduous way ahead to familiarize ourselves with it, with its way of taking the clinical history, its symptomatological hierarchy, its repertoire, etc., but what is important, And I think it is a feeling, that we share several doctors here, is that we are on the right path, in the way that Hahnemann and his best disciple Boenninghausen developed.
If these personal reflections serve for other homeopathic doctors to enter into this method, I would therefore be satisfied and I encourage from now on that other colleagues “recover” the true rigor in the application of homeopathy following the methodology of work proposed by Boenninghausen. And I also agree that it is fair to recognize Dr. Gary’s work to recover this Hahnemannian homeopathy in a homeopathic world that goes in a diametrically opposed sense, his work I hope will bear fruit in the future of our homeopathy.
Author: Dr. Manuel Gutiérrez Ontiveros. Homeopath Physician.
Most of us are very familiar with Pulsatilla as a remedy with wandering symptoms, when the patient says that the pains keep moving from place to place. But Pulsatilla is also a remedy with alternating symptoms. Even though it did not appear as one of the specific examples presented in Aphorism 251 of the Organon, the proving of Pulsatilla in the Materia Medica Pura is full of examples presenting the alternating nature of the remedy.
So what are alternating symptoms? Here’s Hahnemann, explaining in the Organon:
Among these symptoms, there occur in the case of some medicines not a few which are partially, or under certain conditions, directly opposite to other symptoms that have previously or subsequently appeared, but which are not therefore to be regarded as actual secondary action or the mere reaction of the vital force, but which only represent the alternating state of the various paroxysms of the primary action; they are termed alternating actions.
Within the context of provings, it is particularly important to understand whether the prover is exhibiting symptoms that are the first or secondary actions, or whether they are alternating symptoms that can be produced by the remedy.
If, however, in order to ascertain anything at all, the same medicine must be given to the same person to test for several successive days in ever increasing doses, we thereby learn, no doubt, the various morbid states this medicine is capable of producing in a general manner, but we do not ascertain their order of succession; and the subsequent dose often removes, curatively, some one or other of the symptoms caused by the previous dose, or develops in its stead an opposite state; such symptoms should be enclosed in brackets, to mark their ambiguity, until subsequent purer experiments show whether they are the reaction of the organism and secondary action or an alternating action of this medicine
Just to round things off – here is Aphorism 251, quoted above:
There are some medicines (e.g., ignatia, also bryonia and rhus, and sometimes belladonna) whose power of altering man’s health consists chiefly in alternating actions – a kind of primary-action symptoms that are in part opposed to each other.
So does that mean we have to see an alternation of symptoms in order to prescribe Pulsatilla? It seems to me that although alternating symptoms would be a good reason to look carefully at the remedy for prescribing, what may more frequently happen is that in the process of a Pulsatilla case, we will observe symptoms switching from one modality to the opposite, from one state to the other. In other cases we may see this as curative action – but where the patient has been given Pulsatilla (and other remedies including Bryonia, Rhus-T, Belladonna, Ignatia etc. as mentioned by Hahnemann) we may be seeing case progression – but not necessarily directly curative action.
From the material it appears that while we may see the symptoms alternating, we also may see one or the other state prevalent in the patient. Each practitioner has to observe carefully in every individual case.
What are some of the alternating symptoms in the proving of Pulsatilla? Some may be surprising:
Pulsatilla is always better for open air, correct? Not exactly.
895. The symptoms are ameliorated IN THE OPEN AIR (895, 897, 898. Three alternating symptoms of Pulsatilla, the first of which is the most important, i.e. the most frequent and most severe.) (aft. 1/2 h.).
And these are perhaps less frequent, less severe, but they were observed in the proving.
897. He longs for the open air, and yet the abdominal pain and inclination to vomit in particular, are aggravated in the open air (aft. 10 h.).
898. Sufferings from open air; he dreads it (aft. 6 to 8 h.).
We’re usually familiar with the “wet” Pulsatilla cough, and when the patient “dries up” we may think Pulsatilla’s work is done.
618. Dry cough, with difficult expectoration (618. 620. 621. These and the preceding symptoms of dry cough seem to be in alternation with the symptoms of copious expectoration with the cough (625-627. 629-632), but the latter seem to be the principal symptoms, so that diseases, which in other respects are suitable for pulsatilla are removed more readily and permanently when the cough is attended by copious expectoration than those with dry cough. In 624 the chief alternating action with copious expectoration occurred only after dry cough, which is rarer.) (aft. several h.).
And here’s symptom 624:
624. First, for half a day dry cough, and then for several days mucus constantly in the anterior part of the trachea which can be expectorated in quantity by voluntary coughing.
What about the mental state?
The following alternating example that Hahnemann notes in the proving does not sound exactly like the “mild and yielding” temperament he mentions in his introduction to this proving::
1142. Everything disgusts him; everything is repugnant to him. (1142, 1144, 1154, alternating states.)
1144. He is not indifferent to external things, but he has no respect for them (aft. 1 h.).
1154. Extraordinarily whimsical and cross with everything, even with himself.
Alternating symptoms raise questions in treatment. We don’t always see the full alternation, but even if what is considered the “rarer” side of the symptom is all we see, and all other symptoms point to Pulsatilla, this remedy should be in focus for prescription..
The IHM is releasing the English version of the P&W Boenninghausen TPB today. Retail Price is $85 + postage. The first 100 purchasers can obtain the book for $55+ postage.
63 books remaining at the $55 price. (26-October 2015 at 11:43 GMT.)
Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for PAYPAL invoice.
The delivery company require that we have your phone number. PLEASE SUPPLY THIS WHEN PLACING ORDER BEFORE WE INVOICE YOU.
In the last few weeks we have received several requests to sign petitions on behalf of homeopathic projects. One petition received (requested from several sources), was to ask the United Nations to recognise world homoeopathy day. Another one was to support a petition in France to prevent the banning of homeopathic medicines. Yet another was to support a project in Africa, and another was to support a charity clinic.
On the face of it these would seem reasonable requests and quite innocuous. Yet a little reflection opened up a whole can of worms in a moral and ethical sense.
Firstly, in the West the majority of the current new graduate practitioners do not practice homeopathy in accord with the tenets of Samuel Hahnemann’s directions. I would go further and state that the majority of practitioners who have been through the private schools and colleges have not been taught Hahnemannian homoeopathy. In vogue today is the practice of the Sensation method as promoted by Rajan Sankaran and personality prescribing according to the Greek school. Both of these methods are based on the incorrect Kentian/Swedenborgian philosophy that is in direct conflict with the medical practice as defined by Hahnemann.
The Sensation method is a hodgepodge of crude psychology, bad medicine, interpretive analysis of scientific results in the materia Medica, and use of the doctrine of signatures.
The Greek school has adhered closely to the protocols as defined by James Tyler Kent, and in doing so has made personalities of medicines to define characteristics of people as opposed to using the materia Medica for collecting and matching symptoms of the nature of the disease as opposed to the person.
For us to support a petition for a world homoeopathy day, it would mean a support for the majority who practice homeopathy in the West in an incorrect manner, and therefore to the detriment of the patients that they claim to serve.
For us to support a petition to save the manufacture of remedies in France, firstly, we would like to address the issue of why France predominantly practices polypharmacy. We would also like to know why the largest supplier of homeopathic preparations Boiron is not at the forefront of this issue. Whilst it is very obvious that any ban on remedies would affect us as well, I still wonder if the availability of them is of benefit in the hands of non-Hahnemannian homoeopaths to any great extent.
As for supporting external projects or charities, a quick look at the persons involved and their leaning towards practices as mentioned above would preclude us from offering financial support. Homoeopathy is based on the law of similars, and is very forgiving even in the hands of poorly trained individuals but who managed to give a medicine capable of producing a similar reaction in the person and thus elicit a curative response from time to time.
Sadly, as those people deviate more and more from the Hahnemannian principles and into the interpretive type of homeopathic case taking, even these cures become part of a distant memory.
We also face the very real problem of homeopathic practice being regulated by individuals and groups who have seized power and been made into a quasi legal body acceptable to governments and thusly regulated by them according to their own tenets of operation. On this basis in the United States and Israel, a graduate cannot get onto the register of homoeopaths without passing an exam which contains questions pertaining to the Sensation method approach. Also in joining a Register a potential member is required to accept that there are many methods of practising homoeopathy and must support the right of any other member to practice as they see fit.
For all the above reasons the IHM generally do not offer financial or moral support to “homoeopathy”as practised today. We very clearly see that the profession has degenerated to the exact same position of false practice and lack of ethics and adherence to the proper principles of practice as in the beginning of the 20th century when it all but disappeared from mainstream usage. There has always been antipathy from medical bodies and the pharmaceutical industry but that is no excuse for practitioners to abandon the very clear instructions and methodology outlined for the practice.
One of the first double-blind and placebo-controlled trials ever conducted for a governmental agency (England’s Ministry of Home Security) tested homeopathic treatments during World War II and was conducted in 1941-42 on volunteers whose skin was burned with mustard gas. The Glasgow trial included 40 volunteers, and the London trial included 240 volunteers. A more recent analysis of the data further substantiated the statistical significance of this study (Owen and Ives, 1982), and even more recently, it was described in detail in the famed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (Dean, 2014).
In the Glasgow experiments, only Mustard Gas 30C was used, given moments before getting exposed to mustard gas. The first experiment found that none of the first 12 patients receiving homeopathic treatment experienced deep lesions after exposure to mustard gas, while all (!) of those volunteers who received a placebo experienced deep lesions. Of the next 28 volunteers who received the homeopathic medicine, 12 had superficial wounds and two had deep lesions after the homeopathic treatment. In comparison, those volunteers who were given a placebo, two experienced superficial lesions and 12 had deep lesions.
In London, two experiments were conducted. The first experiment included 139 volunteers who were assigned to take one of several homeopathic medicines known to treat burns, including Rhus tox, Kali bich, Opium, Cantharis, and Mustard Gas (all in 30C). A second experiment was conducted with 101 volunteers, in which they were either given a placebo or a specific protocol of Variolinum 30C and Rhus tox 30C, taken after exposure, as well as Mustard Gas 30C and Rhus tox 30C given 14 days before exposure.
The results of the London experiments were sent for “independent analysis. A report determined that “there is certainly an indication of beneficial effects of the drugs in general.”
A recent review of this study acknowledged that despite the remarkable results at two locations, the Ministry of Home Security still rejected the results on the grounds that the experimental technique must have been flawed, despite the fact that the Ministry helped in the design of the trial that included the use of placebo controls, blind outcome assessment, and independent statistical testing. The Ministry of Home Security never provided any evidence that these studies were flawed, but considering the positive outcome of the studies, they simply assumed that something was wrong with them.
Dean, Michael Emmans. The Mustard Gas Experiments Done by the British Homoeopathic Society for the Ministry of Home Security, 1941-1942. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2014 107(11)453-455. DOI: 10.1177/0141076814521937.
Paterson, J. Report on Mustard Gas Experiments, Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1944, 37:47-50, 88-92.
Owen, RMM, and Ives, G. The Mustard Gas Experiments of the British Homeopathic Society: 1941-1942, Proceedings of the 35th International Homeopathic Congress, 1982,
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. http://ihmregister.wix.com/irhhp
The application to join the Register is here. https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.wordpress.com/register-application-form/
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.
32 Delegates from the Zaragoza Association and independent homoeopaths joined together to discuss the practice of homoeopathy as defined by Hahnemann.
The viewpoint of Hahnemann was illustrated through the Organanon and his other writings in respect to casetaking, characteristic symptoms and what to prescribe for. Time was spent correcting erroneous viewpoints endemic in homoeopathy and pointing out the correct understanding again from sourced references.
We took a long hard look at miasms and stated Hahnemanns viewpoint and definition of what they were.
numerous case presentations underlined all the principles to cement the reliability of the practice.
The I.H.M.would like to state our gratefulness for the genuine caring and minding of the speaker in every respect. Dr Juan was the perfect host for attending to every need and requirement.
Dr Juan and his wife after picking me up from the airport.
Typical Lunch time menu for Spanish Delegates….. rows of us.
Sections: 1 | 2
The previous 4 installments in this series have addressed the characterizing dimensions of symptoms. Last month’s article investigated Boenninghausen’s generalization of modalities and sensations, and the use of modalities and sensations by analogy in reconstructing complex symptoms. I’d like to turn attention now to investigating the dimension of Locality.
The characterizing value of Locality is often underrated by contemporary homeopathic practitioners. This may stem from a confusion between how we look at Local disease (as described in aphorisms 185-203 in Hahnemann’s Organon), versus how we can look at Locality as a characterizing dimension of complex symptomatology. The observation that we can generalize modalities and sensations and apply them by analogy across localities, along with the central importance of the mental/emotional state suggested by Hahnemann’s aphorisms 210-213, the writings of Kent, and the teachings of many contemporary lecturers, has sadly placed Locality somewhere in the background of our attention.
Yet Boenninghausen, in his grand essay A Contribution to the Judgement Concerning the Characteristic Value of Symptoms, reminds us:
” The seat of the disease … deserves to be more particularly emphasized, as it frequently furnishes a characteristic symptom, since almost every medicine acts more and also more decidedly on certain particular parts of the living organism.”
Perhaps no other name is as closely related to the topic of Locality, as that of James Compton Burnett (1840-1901). Burnett was born in Redlynch, England in 1840. He attended medical school in Vienna in 1865, where he remained 2 additional years studying anatomy, receiving a gold metal for his accomplishments in that field. He graduated from Glasgow in 1872, and completed an internship for his MD degree at Barnhill Parochial Hospital and Asylum in Glasgow in 1876.
Burnett was converted to homeopathy during his internship, by his friend and colleague Alfred Hawkes. He was contemporary with Richard Hughes (A Manual of Therapeutics, A Cyclopaedia of Drug Pathogenesy, A Manual of Pharmacodynamics), RE Dudgeon (Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homoeopathy, and translator of many of Hahnemann’s works into English), and JH Clarke (Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica and many other writings).
In addition to the influence of homeopathy in his work, Burnett was highly inspired by a contemporary of Hahnemann’s, Johann Gottfried Rademacher (1772-1850, in Goch, northwestern Germany). Rademacher published his 1600-page Erfahrungsheillehre (empiric medical practice) in 1841, giving birth to the practice of Organopathy. (The full title of his work was Rechtfertigung der von den Gelehrten misskannten, verstandes rechten Erfahringsheillehre der alten scheidenkunstigen Geheimarzte, und treue Mittheilung des Ergebnisses einer 25-jahrigen Erprobung dieser Lehre am Krankenbette – “Justification of the empiric medical practice of the old alchemistic physician, misjudged by the learned, yet perfectly rational, …”). Rademacher based his work on his own empirical observations, which he supported on the writings of Theophrastus Bombast von Hohenheim (Paracelesus), the 16th-century Swiss alchemist/physician. Many of Rademacher’s remedies were introduced to homeopathic practice, or saw homeopathic applications inspired by their organopathic uses, via Burnett.
Theophrastus is often credited with a pre-Hahnemannian understanding of the phenomenon of cure by similars, but there are important differences between Hahnemann’s homeopathy and Theophrastus’ appreciation and use of the principle of similars. Theophrastus emphasized a relationship between microcosm and macrocosm, a bringing of “the external lung” to “the internal lung” – the organ of the remedial substance to the organ of the person. Theophrastus’ similitude was based not on the detailed investigation of the totality of symptoms that characterized Hahnemann’s work, but rather on a gestalt that included empirical observations along with information from arcane sources such as astrology and the discernment of remedy signatures.
Rademacher’s Organopathy – drawing on Paracelsus to rationally support his empirical observations – posited the physical organs as the seat of disease, often creating symptoms seen & felt elsewhere in the body “through sympathetic affections of the strangest nature”. As with Hahnemann, Rademacher did not seek the nature of these diseases in the “invisible interior of the organism,” but rather identified them by similitude to their remedial substance – a Celandine liver disease, a Carduus Mariae liver disease, etc.
Remedies were selected on the basis of their affinity for the organ in which the disease was felt to reside, and differentiated further on the basis of the “genus” of the disease – a concept less well defined than Hahnemann’s totality of symptoms, and based on empiricism and considerations arcane to the practice.
It is immediately apparent how such a system would entice the anatomist in Burnett – author of Diseases of the Spleen, Diseases of the Liver, Enlarged Tonsils, Cataract, Consumptom, On Fistula, Gout, Diseases of the Skin, On Neuralgia, Tumours, Tumours of the Breast, Diseases of the Veins, et.al. (n.b. – Organopathy survives today principally through its vestiges in the “drainage” school of homeopathy in France, based on the teachings of Nebel and Vannier in the early 1900’s).
It would be superficially easy to disregard Burnett as a fringe-homeopath, mixing homeopathy inelegantly with an eclectic medical tradition, or to identify him more closely with the contemporary “drainage” practitioners, were it not for his close association with JH Clarke. Clarke references Burnett 140 times in his Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica. Clarke and Burnett met over dinner weekly for many years, as part of the “Cooper Club;” Clarke described Burnett as one of “the three most potent influences on the evolution of British Homeopathy … during the last twenty years Burnett has been the most powerful, the most fruitful, the most original force in homeopathy.”
Following Burnett’s death, Clarke devoted himself to writing Burnett’s biography, The Life and Work of James Compton Burnett. Margaret Tyler, a later member of the London-based “Cooper Club,” described Burnett as having “a genius for grasping [remedy] idiosyncrasies and possibilities and employing them with success for the patients that besieged him”.
Although Burnett initially cut his teeth on the writings of Richard Hughes, he came to regard Hughes’ work as “homoeopathic milk for allopathic babes” and fell in with the less allopathically-oriented group of Clarke, Cooper, and Thomas Skinner. Early on in his homeopathic career, he attended the clinic of Dr. John Drysdale at Liverpoole, along with Alfred Hawkes and JH Clarke. Drysdale came at the matter of Locality from a direction that must have touched closely on Burnett’s fascination with Organopathy. Of this, Richard Hughes wrote, in A Manual of Pharmacodynamics:
“Dr. Drysdale also has laid much stress on what he calls “specificity of seat,” connecting it with the special irritability displayed by the various parts for their natural stimuli and for causes of disease, and extending it to the minutest localities or nerve-branches which have anything independent and special about them.”
Burnett adopted Drysdale’s concept of “specificity of seat,” and used this term and concept liberally in his writings.
This concept of “specificity of seat” of a remedy, and Burnett’s borrowed Organopathic concept of organ-specific remedies for diseases “of the organs,” seem to stand in conflict with the homoeopathic understanding of disease originating in the dynamic plane, and of remedies acting on the dynamis, rather than on specific tissues of the body. Burnett fuels this seeming contradiction with his assertion (in Diseases of the Liver):
“That the organ in the organism does indeed possess not only autonomy but hegemony, i.e. the organ is an independent state in itself and in and on the organism exercises an important influence
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: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/luc-montagniers-observations-of-ultra-dilutions-and-its-implications-on-homeopathy/
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.”
I GOT NOTHING. DID DANA ANYWHERE PROVIDE ANY STRAIGHT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ‘HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS? ANYBODY GOT ANY IDEA?
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?