Vol. 21 No. 5 November 2001

Metro magazine, in its heyday, used to give an editorial sneer to writers of letters to the editor expressing views it did not favour by putting headings on these letters like “A middle-aged whinger”, “A malcontent writes”, “A misanthropic view”. I was reminded of this as I set out to write this editorial piece, and wondered whether it merited a similar heading. I say this because so much has happened in the world of homœopathy, here and abroad, that has disturbed me, yea, even stirred me to wrath, that I feel impelled to communicate my discontent.The most frequent, and widespread, trigger of my disequilibrium is exposure to people who claim they have discovered something that is a vast improvement on what may be called traditional homœopathy. A common example is the mixtures of remedies marketed with a name on the bottle that implies a therapeutic use – for example Antiflat, a treatment for flatulence. (I’ve made this name up; if it gives a manufacturer an idea for a market niche to be filled I am very sorry). Or, if not mixtures, kits of three or four bottles implying that this small number of remedies is pretty much all anyone is likely to need for, say, asthma.

The shelf in the pharmacy labelled in big letters “Homœopathics”, but really holding anthroposophical medicines, upsets me. As do anthroposophical doctors who refer to themselves as homœopaths, for that matter. An Australian entrepreneur who makes forays to New Zealand promoting a simplistic system for allegedly treating miasms with quinquagintamillesimal (Q) potencies is no good for my peace of mind. A recent visit offered a “Certificate Course in Clinical Homœopathy” – the course being about 12 hours long.

People who see themselves as professional homœopaths but who do nothing to support the New Zealand Homœopathic Society or the New Zealand Council of Homœopaths, even in various ways undermine these organisations, vex me. Why do so few professionals attend the society’s monthly meetings which are intended to be discussion evenings where experience is shared?

The near-worship of homœopaths from overseas visiting this country to purvey idiosyncratic concepts barely qualifying as homœopathy are a problem to me. These people would not worry me if they were happy to have their theories debated, or even if after they left there was intelligent discussion and analysis taking place. But no, for ages after such a visit I hear all kinds of daft stuff introduced with reference to the globe-trotting guru’s name as if such a figure saying something ensured it was true beyond question, in fact it would be downright blasphemous to question anything heard at the seminar. (“It was expensive, so it must be good.”) All-in-all I see a sorry decline in the kind of homœopathy that I am interested in – the kind that gets lots of sick folk well quickly, safely and cheaply.

Bruce Barwell