Vol. 23 No. 3 June 2003

Ever wondered what causes tides, the rise and fall of the ocean? The phenomena are created by animals very like seals, but much, much bigger, getting out of the water and going on to land for a while twice a day. Those unusual tides, when the water goes out a long, long way and then comes in so far it laps the cliffs are made when all the animals get out of the water at once, or when they all return to the ocean.Giant waves, tsunami and the like, are created when huge numbers of these animals (leviathans) jump into the water at once. No one believes this, do they? The real cause of tidal movement is the gravitational pull of the moon and sun. This is beyond dispute. But many homoeopaths, maybe most homoeopaths, taking a global view, cling to explanations of disease and the modus operandi of potentised medicines every bit as fanciful as the leviathan story.

They still believe things that the agile mind of Samuel Hahnemann invented to explain things the science of his day did not understand, and they believe things of even quainter nature which later homoe- opaths concocted. I am referring particularly to theories dependent on the varied concepts of chronic miasms, which have sprouted and continue to grow, from distortions of Hahnemann’s explanations.

Today’s miasmatologists seem to seriously believe that the effect of an illness, such as tuberculosis, which afflicted someone in 1901, contributes to the asthmatic state of a small child today. This asthma is a manifestation of the tubercular miasm, some homceopaths will say even going so far as to give Tuberculinum. Any resultant benefit from the remedy is taken as proof of this wacky theory. To believe this sort of stuff is as bad as believing the leviathan theory of tidal movement when another, beyond doubt true, explanation is available.

Most living things are susceptible to the development of specific disorders. Laboratory mice and rats can be purchased from suppliers with the knowledge that identified strains of rodent will become obese, or diabetic, or blind, or develop kidney failure, etc. This happens not because an ancestor contracted an illness, it is because of defects in their genetic material. Who would disagree with that? But when it comes to homceopathy there is a well developed cult of believing something else. Why? Why can’t a particular human family have a tendency to develop a range of respiratory system defects? When it was possible to contract tuberculosis easily, such people got TB; when petro-chemicals and smog polluted the atmosphere they got emphysema; when a too-clean environment primed them for developing allergies this affected their lungs rather than their skin. Where is the need for a bizarre explanation? How can it be acceptable that when pushed for an explanation for clinging to this fanciful miasm theory the best retort is saying, “It’s a metaphor”? Let us demytholagise homoeopathy, free it from the irrational trappings that make it seem a loony cult and do not contribute to getting sick folk well any better than a rational concept.

In over 30 years of contact with homoeopathy I have not known one case where, beyond doubt, the patient got better because the prescriber subscribed to the chronic miasm theory and there was no lucky coincidence with rational prescribing. At time of going to press with the last Homoeopathica the Listener had run no letters countering the bad Noel O’Hare page of 1 March. However, the thought of Press Council involvement, and several increasingly emphatic letters from me, and Julian Winston, may have provided the necessary stimulus, and a few have appeared, though the printing of a few Letters to the Editor will do little to remedy the harm of a whole headlined page.

A point I made in correspondence with the Listener was that articles headed “Free-range eggs Salmonella risk” or “Dentists source of hepatitis” based on misinterpretation of scientific reports would get impressive retractions and apologies; but saying falsely “Homceopaths’ medicines useless” appeared to be viewed as something quite different that did not warrant more than a token gesture.

The articles on pages 12 and 18 follow on from last issue’s “The baby that looked close to death” by Elizabeth Wright Hubbard. In the discussion after the cases were related, Dr Lucy Clark tells how useful Dr Hubbard’s report on prescribing for an infant with marasmus had been.

Bruce Barwell