Hahnemann Institute

A request

for our ‘homœopathic’ organisations & teaching instuitutions

to pause, reflect &  re-evaluate what they are endorsing, under the name of Homœopathy

Kenneth D’Aran

Adv.D.Hom., MATMS, MAHA, AROH, AFIIAH

kdaran@bigpond.net.au

While I am aware this may appear too harsh, and whilst acknowledging all the voluntary work and good intentions of homœopathic organisations in general, I feel impelled to write this request expressing my concern.

Are our professional associations so ‘open’ that anything ‘feel good’, is OK, or that anything new is a sign of progress and an opportunity not to be missed? And is our membership so unknowledgable of the foundation principle of Homœopathy proper,[i]^,[ii] of its basis in inductive science and its requirement for critical thinking, that very few actually understand enough to voice a complaint? Or are they more concerned about being thought of as clutching to old ideas, of being unprogressive, a ‘dinosaur’? Or is it they are just easily influenced by the ‘spin’ and promise of ‘greater things,’ of ‘the mystical,’ ‘the cure’? etc.

And is it really Homœopathy, the science, which is to blame for our own lack of success in the clinical situation, as reasoned for their interest in pursuing these other ideas, often to the exclusion of traditional practice? Do we blame physics for the physicist’s miscalculation, or Medicine as a whole for the doctor’s blunder?

What can I say about these current practices mistakenly promulgated under the name of Homœopathy, yet which have no real connection except by inference, extrapolation, imagination, of similarity (and their use of potencies), and which consider one or more physical or chemical properties of a substance as a basis for prescribing – the colour, taste, odour, etc., as well their grouping according to one or other convenient taxonomy.[iii] All this, despite what Hahnemann has clearly stated: [iv]

“Perhaps, however, botanical affinity may allow us to infer a similarity of action ? This is far from being the case, as there are many examples of the opposite, or at least very different powers, in one and the same family of plants, and that in most of them. We shall take as a basis the most perfect natural system, that of Murray. … How varied are the medical properties of of all the members of the family ascyroideœ! And those of the dumosœ and those of the trihilatœ…. I am far from denying, however, that many important hints the natural system may afford to the philosophical student of the materia medica and to him who feels it is his duty to discover new medicinal agents; but these hints can only help to confirm and serve as a commentary to the facts already known, or in the case of untried plants they may give rise to hypthetical conjectures, which are, however, far from approaching even to probability.”

Then we see the absurdities which seem to have overrun our science, at least in the most vocal quarters:[v] the prescribing of eagle in cases who dream of birds; of lobster for those who report becoming as ‘red as a lobster’ when in the sun; of salmon for those complaining that life is an ‘uphill struggle’; of echidna for those with a ‘prickly nature’, etc., and all too often without regard for the actual pathology or other characteristic symptoms (totality) presented by the patient for the attention of the practitioner, and each such ‘remedy’ having no properly conducted provings or toxicological similarity.

And what of those who would prescribe upon a patient’s individual idiosyncrasies: the patient’s posturing, their likes & dislikes, their choice of colours in clothing, in music, or entertainment, or even their love of the ocean, mountains, forests,  their favourite animal (totemism), etc. or regressing the patient to recall their worse experiences & feelings associated with these past experiences & then assumming a causal ‘delusion’ or ‘sensation’ of somekind.[i] These normal traits & feelings in no way being pathological or indicative of illness, are nevertheless often ‘plucked out’ (through the use of what can be seen as free association psychological questioning techniques) of the patient in preference to actual symptoms of their suffering, and then used as a basis for the remedy selection, itself imagined to be capable of producing similar ‘effects’.[ii]

In Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine: from §6, we understand that ‘unprejudiced’ means free from forming any assumptions, pre-judgements, or speculative theories, metaphysical or otherwise, (‘transendental speculations’, as here termed by Hahnemann), on any disease presentation. Throughout this primary work we are instructed through numerous aphorisms ‘that the practitioner takes note of nothing but the changes in’: §6 continues;

“…the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him & observed by the physician…”

What is important is the change that is oberved by the patient, their attendants, or by the practitioner during their examination, noting without speculation, those which indicate a shift from one state to another, from health to disease.[iii] Here also a change of disposition along with the totality of the presenting condition – no pre-conceived hierachy between the emotions, mental function, & physical manifestations, just the unique order as they present.[iv] Nothing smart or sexy, just simply Homœopathy. Not classical, not modern, just Homœopathy. No assumptions on normal cultural variations, philosophical & other belief systems, just what are the changes from the former healthy state to the now diseased person.

The idea that one can change their normal habits & behavour (when not a part of the changes in disease)[v] with a medicine (remedy) is not within the scope of Homœopathy, as may be seen in Hahanemann’s own words (Organon, §224):

“If the mental disease be not quite developed, and if it be still somewhat doubtful whether it really arose from a corporeal affection, or did not rather result from faults of education, bad practices, corrupt morals, neglect of the mind, superstition or ignorance; the mode of deciding this point will be, that if it proceed from one or other of the latter causes it will diminish and be improved by sensible friendly exhortations, consolatory arguments, serious representations and sensible advice, whereas a real moral or mental malady, depending on bodily disease, would be speedily aggravated by such a course, the melancholic would become still more dejected, querulous, inconsolable and reserved, the spiteful maniac would thereby become still more exasperated, and the chattering fool would become manifestly more foolish.*

*. It would seem as though the mind, in these cases, felt with uneasiness and grief the truth of these rational representations and acted upon the body as if it wished to restore the lost harmony, but that the body, by means of its disease, reacted upon the organs of the mind and disposition and put them in still greater disorder by a fresh transference of its sufferings on to them.”

Having attended many seminars and myself applied most of the theories & systems we see around, I was predominately disppointed in the outcomes & later reflected on the illogic of what had been suggested by some well intentioned but mis-informed international or national “homœopaths”. [vi] For these reasons and from my own experience, I am not impressed with the increasing number of seminars wrongly held under the banner of Homœopathy – what appears certain is that these speakers are practicing some other therapy, one based on symbolism, mysticism, perceptionism, extrapolationism, realisationism, feelgoodism, etc., and would therefore more properly be termed Symbolopaths.[vii]

Definitions

Homœopathy, like any other distinct science and therapy, must reside between the confines of clear definition, and remain at all times tethered to its single foundation principle of similars. It’s not enough to just say look at the outcomes, it’s not about that – acupuncture, herbalism, flower remedies (& other energy exchange medicines), western medicine etc., etc. all claim and get results, and at times even ‘miracles’; yet we don’t teach these techniques under the banner of Homœopathy. Why? Because they are not based on ‘Like Cures Like’.

Teaching institutions & professional organisations

I identify the problem as arising from the fact that very few institutions teach students to study in a systematic way (with tutorials & lessons in critical thinking), the entire Organon of Medicine as well as related source texts. If we don’t take stock of this crisis & the teaching of Homœopathy isn’t corrected, in the near future, the system of Homœopathy (proper) will become even less recognisable, and the unsuspecting patient will have no proper point of reference, no ability to distinguish a homœopath proper, from those simply and ignorantly laying claim to such title whilst actually practicing a separate and unconnected symbolopathy. [viii] We are already seeng a dramatic reduction in the numbers of students studying Homœopathy in Western countries as well as attendences to proper Homœopathic seminars  declining, also the patient numbers at many personal clinics appears to be reducing. We are loosing our core strength, as our foundation, the law of similars, is being eroded by these practices wrongly admitted under the banner of Homœopathy.

The following are email correspondences to and from the self-proclaimed skeptics in Canada.

_________________

First email from George Dimitriadis on 20 January 2011

Centre for Inquiry Vancouver
Ethan Clow, Spokesperson,

Dear Sir,

Could you please provide the specific details, objectives, design, materials, controls, of the CFI experiment stated as having “…demonstrated the flaws of homeopathy …”.  I am a practicing homœopathic consultant, a medical sciences graduate from the University of NSW (in Sydney), and very familiar with the requirements of ‘scientificity’. Given my nearly 30 years of experience in this field, and my own demand for scientific rigor and evidence-based conclusions, I find it incredible to hear that CFI representatives could so quickly determine a position on this matter which is diametrically opposed to my own position set after such experience. The only conclusion I can imagine is that CFI representatives held a pre-position, a bias, with respect to this topic, and then set about to convince others of their pre-formed view. This is NOT science.  I therefore wish to examine your experiment, in detail, so that I can point out the flaws which I have no doubt will be obvious to any completely objective, non-prepositioned, review. I look forward to receiving your reply, along with the details requested.

Dr. George Dimitriadis, Director, Hahnemann Institute Sydney Australia

_________________

Reply from Ethan Clow, 19th January 2011

Dear Sir,

Thank you for ably pointing out how poor the science behind our demonstration was. As you so rightly note, it is not a true scientific experiment. There is no blinding, there were no controls, it was a small sample size, and the effects were not measured adequately. Also, as you note, the people conducting the experiment had a conclusion that was formed before the experiment – seeking to prove a point rather than test a claim. Considering that this is the standard of “evidence” that is used by homeopathy supporters to show that it works, I am glad to see that you are willing to join us in pointing out how poor the quality of science supporting such claims is. Please provide us with just a couple of examples of the surely hundreds of well-designed, blinded and controlled rigorous scientific studies that you use to support your practice.
Ethan Clow, Executive Director, Centre for Inquiry Vancouver, eclow@cficanada.ca

__________________________

Reply to Ethan Clow by G. Dimitriadis, 20th January 2011

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your reply and for acknowledging your misrepresentation of such antics (for I cannot call them otherwise) designed by your group and proposed as evidencing the implausibility (as you have already determined it without proper study) of Homœopathy.

Firstly, I believe any objective observer would agree it is inappropriate to offer such ‘proofs’ of your (pre-) position when you admit they are as unscientific as the claims you seek to ridicule. On the one hand, those homœopaths may be guilty, at worst, of misrepresentation borne of ignorance, yet on the other hand CFI sought to misrepresent, purposefully, their antics as proofs of their position, misrepresented as itself scientific. Our audience shall be the judge of which is the greater misconduct.

Secondly, you will understand that my purpose is not to teach or convince you of anything. To be clear, you possess no standing, display no knowledge, and warrant no attention in the field of Homœopathy, and through your own admittedly unscientific antics, deserve the reproof of scientists and true skeptics.

Irrespective, facts are facts independent of what you believe. Should we seek now to examine “science”, which term, although from the Latin (Scientia) for knowledge, actually stands for something different. For who cannot understand, even on a cursory consideration, that knowledge is developed and possessed in many pursuits which are yet not sciences (farming, boxing, surfing, writing, tree-felling, etc.). Science, in fact, represents not knowledge, but a methodological approach to discovery, which method demands, in the modern scientific (post-Baconian) era, four conditions be met, namely: induction, deduction, prediction, testing. Science demands nothing of comprehension (albeit that is a bonus when possible) and you should be aware of the thousands of accepted observations which are simply inexplicable – might I remind you that the force of attraction between two bodies of mass (Gravity) is itself inexplicable, yet this poses no problem in its general acceptance (the graviton has not been found, even though billions have been spent in looking over many years) and the observation may be used and applied, reproduced, even though not comprehended. That you cannot comprehend Homœopathy makes it no less an observable phænomenon.

But let me also remind you of something your organisation, as a self-proclaimed learned scientific body, surely already know, and that it that the basic requisites of “science” are often dismissed or ignored by scientists. Or are you not aware that Newton’s First Law of Motion is itself untestable, and therefore fails this basic requirement; and did you not already realise that whilst science demands reproducibility, modern quantum mechanics teaches that the observer has a profound influence on the observation itself, which can therefore never be precisely replicated. How many times must a person die for that death to be considered a fact? How many people must observe it? How many did it take to conceive and propose relativity theory? It is not the quantity, but the quality of an observation which is vital to any hint at truth – for how many people held the earth was flat? Of these things you, as ‘skeptics’ (and I use this term politely, as it is not borne of evidence presented to me so far) should be intimately familiar.

How many examples may be recruited here to point out that science, as it stands today, accepts mostly what seems reasonable, and sets about to prove the postulate correct, to verify, in complete contra-distinction to the accepted post-Baconian modern scientific induction model. Such is modern science, in practice, that it itself fails many basic parameters of scientificity. Therefrom we can see the impropriety of ‘scientists’ seeking to discredit and ridicule something of which they are ignorant and unstudied, based on hearsay and first impressions – precisely what your group has demonstrated. You have done discredit to science, with which I have a strong commitment, and betrayed your bias.

In the end, it must be clearly comprehended that science is not about truth, but about useful predictability, and the most important requirement, in direct opposition to the schools of sophistry and pure logic, is to put things to the test, without pre-determination. And you have the audacity in your reply to dictate conditions of ‘blinding’ and ‘rigour’, which same conditions your CFI readily dismissed in their recent staged antics now admittedly unscientific and worthless.

Now, for the sake of those who would read these words in answer to your own comments, I add the following brief commentary on Homœopathy:

Firstly, much of what is represented as Homœopathy is largely completely unrelated, except by way of a claim to title, with Homœopathy proper. From this, we cannot expect favour from those unlearned in the field (as CFI), who rightly question the often absurd statements of ‘homœopaths’ (and I use this term loosely) – there is overwhelming evidence that as much harm issues from their own ignorance and pre-positioning as from those outside our profession seeking to attack in ignorance.

Yet, you are supposedly, skeptics, which term, from the Greek (skepsis), means thought. From this we must expect you to think, to ponder, to consider, and this requires you undertake a reasonable and objective evaluation of the field you seek to investigate and evaluate. It is not difficult to accept that we can have confidence in astronomy (the pursuit), but not necessarily astronomers (the pursuers); physics not physicists; engineering not engineers, medicine not doctors, etc. The same is true of Homœopathy, as it is of skepticism and self-proclaimed skeptics (I do not believe there is anywhere offered an undergraduate degree in skepticism (e.g. B.Skept.?).

What I expect is that you do not believe. I expect only you consider, weigh the evidence, and seek to falsify. The way of science, since the inductive model of Bacon, is falsifiability testing. I expect you know this, even though you evidence ignorance from the antics your group designed and employed the other day.

Now, it is reasonable and well known to any researcher, that the first requirement of any undertaking is to collect evidence from what has been written beforehand – to study the information to date – thoroughly. It is known the best way to do this is historically, not with reference to the most vociferous and prolific expressions available freely on the internet for anyone of a cursory mind disposed to ready conclusion to misunderstand and even accept as true, especially when it suits their pre-formed opinion (as with your CFI), but with reference to germinal or formative literature, abundantly available. I would expect a thorough seeking and study of the original source material, pushing aside the acquired pre-conceptions in favour of objectivity. I would expect you to understand the materials and methods of these original experiments, and seek to falsify by replication of the precise experiment – not merely dispel by spurious argument and logic (let me remind you gravity is not logical, it is merely factual). This is not an easy task for anyone who has undertaken it, for it is far easier to learn than to unlearn.

This is precisely what CFI have not done, else you would have found many similar antics as yours, and the answers from thousands of well educated physicians, physicists, educated men of various scientific disciplines, etc., and from that, you would have, perhaps, if objectivity was allowed to present itself against the tide of bias, comprehend the history, development, and definition of what constitutes Homœopathy proper. I should provide the following quotation, from Samuel Hahnemann, founder of this system of medicine (1827 – perhaps you will find the specific reference for yourself, or your entire group of learned skeptics?):

“If a drop of such highly attenuated medicine,” so they talk, “can still act, then the water of the lake of Geneva, into which a drop of some strong medicine has fallen, must display as much curative power in each of its separate drops, indeed much more, seeing that in the homœopathic attenuations a much greater proportion of attenuating fluid is used.”

Does this sound familiar? And yet you are simply unread and unaware of such things, otherwise you would surely have drawn upon them, and many other similar ones, in support of your own position. With comprehension, you could yourself design a proper test or experiment, one which would satisfy every scientific requirement, and then see the outcome, which must surely be acceptable to all on-lookers trained in objectivity.

In short, you confound Homœopathy with ultra-dilute or infinitesimal doses, even though the title itself has no connection with dose. Had your Greek been even rudimentary, then perhaps you would have realised your basic misunderstanding, instead of trusting in the hearsay of other sources, themselves equally unlearned in this area.

What is clear, however, from this play-acting of CFI representatives, is that their bias outweighs their objectivity, and their foolishness is more evident than their skepsis, and from this, I take the liberty of pronouncing them askeptics.

If you can bear all this annoyance, rightly deserved from your admitted ascientific irresponsibility in action and misrepresentation, and if you would admit publically your actions as such (before I make these correspondences available), and if, subsequently, you desire to investigate the matter properly, without ridicule, without expectation of a determination along a pre-formed path, then, perhaps, I would be inclined to offer my assistance in such endeavour, so that you may at least understand the matter before you seek to offer any opinion or pronouncement as to its scientificity (or lack of).

Sincerely and with certainty,

Dr. George Dimitriadis, Homœopathic consultant, Director Hahnemann Institute Sydney