Vol. 19 No. 1 February 1999

In the last couple of months I have read some interesting editorials, and expressions of opinion by homœopaths and other medical professionals.Let’s start with something written by the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association, 11 November 1998. Dr George Lundberg writes: “There is no alternative medicine. There is only one scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data . . . [and there is] unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking…

“While acknowledging that many therapies used in conventional medical practice also have not been as rigorously evaluated as they should, we agree that most alternative medicine has not been scientifically tested . . . the lack of convincing and compelling evidence on efficacy, safety, and outcomes is unacceptable and deeply troubling.”

Speaking on a theme somewhat parallel to that of Dr Lundberg, the homœopath Sheila Creasey, a strong voice at the Society of Homœopaths conference in October 1998, said there was no alternative homœopathy, only genuine Hahnemannian homœopathy and pseudo-homœopathy often “presented by narcissistic demigods who come and go, each trying to refurbish Hahnemann. New repertories, overloaded with inventive additions, new Materia Medicas endorsed with a surfeit of opinions and imaginative psychological interpretations of symptoms and rubrics.

“Let the ‘stylist’ eliminate story-telling, childish fantasies, transcendental speculations, conjectures and various hypotheses- as we see only too frequently in archtypal prescribing… “Following the depth and understanding of the principles is growth. This is the evolution of genuine Hahnemannian and classical homœopathy and the development of homœopathy, not into diversity but into a unity.”

Dr André Sàine, writing in The Journal of the Canadian Academy of Homœopathy, echoes Sheila Creasey with the observation that “the future of homœopathy is extremely bright for those who will understand its basic principles and be able to further its growth.” But unlike her he does not believe that sticking to fundamental principles means slavish belief in Hahnemann’s attempts at explaining how homœopathy works.

He says: “We cannot freeze homœopathy to the work of Hahnemann, otherwise it will cease to be a science. Like any other natural science, homœopathy must continue to grow. “There are two keys to furthering the growth of homœopathy- education and research.
“Rare are the ones who have fully mastered the art and science of homœopathy greatly, because our institutions have been unable, with rare exceptions, to put together a competent faculty of master homœopaths . . . .

“The second key to ensuring the continuous growth of homœopathy is research . . . . Anything that is not the result of observation should be rigorously challenged. Examples of this are Hahnemann’s theory of chronic diseases, which as a whole did not withstand new knowledge in genetics, immunology and microbiology, and Hering’s ‘Law’ which was a pure invention of Kent . . . . “It is up to each of us to honour the incredible gift received from the ‘old guard’, those dedicated individuals, by making homœopathy better so it can provide its full promise to the ones in need.” To put my own thread around this picking of the flowers of others’ thoughts I agree with elements of all three writers; for homœopathy to be recognised as a branch of medicine, and not an “alternative” in the worst use of the term, it must come up with scientifically proven, evidence-based confirmation of its basic principles, and it must be prepared to shed its discredited and irrational elements like the theory of miasms and the vital force concept.

This is not a novel idea; various homœopaths have expressed the same agenda. One succinct presentation was a lecture by Anthony Campbell printed in the British Homœopathic Journal of January 1985. In his Richard Hughes Memorial Lecture in 1984 Dr Campbell said: “Hughes was always attempting to build bridges between homœopathy and orthodox doctors to bring their scientific knowledge and expertise to bear on homœopathy.”

In his The Principles and Practice of Homœopathy, published in London in 1902, Hughes has this remarkable passage: “Do our brethren know what would be the result of such generous policy? We should at once cease to exist as a separate body [Campbell’s italics]. Our name would remain only as a technical term to designate our doctrine; while ‘homœopathic’ journals, societies, hospitals, dispensaries, pharmacopœias, directories under such title, would lose their raison d’être and cease to be. The rivalry between ‘homœopathic’ and ‘allopathic’ practitioners would no longer embitter doctors and perplex patients.”

Campbell goes on to say that such a rational, scientific view became swamped by the metaphysical stance of the followers of James Tyler Kent, who soon represented the homœopathic norm in Britain.
“. . . Many homœopaths of the day seemed positively to rejoice in the differences between themselves and their orthodox colleagues. It is easy to understand how strongly they would have disagreed with the sentiments expressed by Hughes in the passage quoted.”

He concludes this line of thought with a credo of what might be called the neo-Hughesian position:

The principle of similars is not a law of nature but a rule of thumb which frequently works in practice.
Vitalism, the miasms, and other metaphysical ideas are not an essential part of homœopathy.
The potency idea must be investigated scientifically before much can be said about it.
Modern medical and scientific knowledge should be incorporated into homœopathy and where relevant, which may entail a reappraisal of the materia medica, including provings.
Personally speaking this is very close to my own view: homœopathy is a branch of medicine (like, say, physiotherapy or anæsthesiology); it can be subject to scientific scrutiny; much of what is widely understood to be essential aspects of homœopathy is superstitious claptrap.

In a nutshell, homœopathy is in dire need of demythologising, but this is not the current trend.

Bruce Barwell