Homeopathy vs allopathy.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr ____, I do not find the article submitted by you objectionable in any way. The writer has tried to understand the homeopathic principles, explained them, and comes to the conclusion that it is unscientific and defies common sense. All homeopaths in fact agree to the above, that homeopathy is beyond science and defies the commonly believed ideas of physics, chemistry and medicine. There is no quarrel with this. But what baffles both homeopaths as well as its detractors is that homeopathy works. In a recent symposium on homeopathy held at Kolkata, India, the mainstream doctors, while criticising homeopathy, conceded that it does work. They also expressed concern that homeopathy, if accepted, would result in rewriting the texts of physics and chemistry. The last objection seemed to trouble them the most. They do not obviously want to start from zero once again. Homeopathy is more than just theory. The 290 odd principles of homeopathy and its application, as well as the nature of disease, stands untouched till today simply because no one has come up with anything to merit a change. Even modern day homeopaths like Dr George Vithoulkas marvels at the infallibility of the organon of medicine as elucidated by Hahnemann. This is in stark contrast with allopathy where the principles change each day. This results in a lot of consternation as the patients (the educated ones), come to the conclusion, at the end of each passing day, that what was performed on them the previous day is proved false the next. The resultant frustration can well be imagined. Sometimes we are forced to laugh as different studies bring out different results leaving us puzzled as to which to adopt. Hahnemann studied man in his complete form of existence, also conceded by the

writer of your submitted article, and therefore came out with certain infallible rules. He rightly came to the conclusion that disease could not exist without a fertile ground which he termed miasm. And he then proceeded to attack the miasm and cure it so that disease would be both relieved and cured as the base on which it stood was destroyed. This approach has been advocated by mainstream doctors also, the earliest being Antoine Beuchamp MD, and is being increasing discussed amongst modern day doctors who are dealing with cancer and AIDS. Hahnemann also predicted the dynamics of disease. He could sense that disease proceeded from outward within and the body reacted by throwing it from within outwards. Thus we see that urine and faeces become full of disease matter as the disease products are thrown out. The skin also becomes active by throwing the toxins out in the form of skin ailments. Hahnemann also observed that the disease force gained tremendous encouragement if the external manifestations of disease was tinkered with instead of treating the underlying cause. He also percieved that the external disease states of syphillis or gonorrhoea devastated the body if the external symptoms were tackled allopathically. Mainstream doctors too have poercieved this and thus physicians and psychiatrists test the blood for VD when they come across symptoms that they think could have been caused by a case history of veneral diseases. This thus proves that sexual diseases do not go away entirely when the external lesions are destroyed. Hahneman's concept of the vital force is very similar to the prana shakti of the ayurveds and the chi or ki of chinese medicine. When the vital force is very strong allopathy can temporarily stave off the disease. But this action weakens the vital force as it goes against its

natural flow. Repeated such attempts weakens the patient and he becomes more and more sick and his internal organs give up one by one leading to his ultimate death. It always amazes me when reductionist doctors who feel that all organs and parts of the body function independantly of each other report at the end that the patient has died of "multiple organ failure". As the writer points out, there is much to learn from homeopathy. I too advocate that instead of reading homeopathic texts cursorily with a motive to malign them, the physicians would do well to study them sincerely, apply them in practice and test the results. This has to be done by discarding the reductionist principles they hold in their mind. Homoeopathy acts as per homeopathic principles and not by allopathic tinkering. The same goes for the other holistic therapies also. There are many mainstream practitioners who

have turned to holistic therapies in case of their own ailments, or for treating their family members and achieved results. In my own family too a distant grandmother was treated successfully of her paralysis by homeopathy despite being the mother of four doctors, one of whom heads the most popular govt medical college of Kolkata. This head too was relieved of her gyneacological problems by the eminent homeopath Dr Bholanath Chakroborty, attached to the President of India at that time. If the doctors can turn to holistic therapies while treating themselves and their own kith and kin, why do they not extend the same facilities to their patients, who go to them with great hope and pay them substantial amounts as fees and also look upon them as gods? I again reiterate that the doctors duty is to heal the patients and not advocate any particular mode of treatment. He should be well versed with all therapies and

apply them as the situation demands. Experimentations can continue on the hapless rats and monkeys while the human beings are treated with fool proof methods of treatment. You will also notice that I have struck out the "this article is purely for educational purposes....the reader should consult a (allopathic) physician..." introduced by you from the end as I believe doctors should do what is right to avoid legal suits and not escape by such declarations. They have a long way to go before they can win back the trust of their patients. Any delay will permanently cut them off from the mainstream. They should therefore initiate reforms without any further ado. Regards,Jagannath. @, "v..........." <v.............. wrote:>> I could not haqve said better than this article.> Please

read:> > http://www.tfn.net/HealthGazette/homeop.html> > The Health Gazette> Homeopathy> > Introduction> > Homeopathy is a discipline that has been around for over 100 years. > It was developed by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician who was > practicing medicine in the 18th century when bleeding and purging > were widely used in mainstream medicine. At that time, homeopathy > was warmly embraced by some U.S. practitioners as a more humane > alternative. The practice of homeopathy is based on the law of > similars. This means that what a substance can cause, it can cure. > Dr. Hahnemann proposed that "like cures like."> > Basic Tenets> > The basic tenet of homeopathy is that disease can be cured by giving > the patient minute amounts of a substance that can induce

similar > symptoms to the actual disease itself. This was felt to restore the > patient's vital force. Dr. Hahnemann gave volunteers numerous > different compounds and recorded the symptoms that these compounds > caused in great detail. He then recorded this information in a book > called 'Organon of Medicine' which is still used today to guide the > homeopathic doctor in which treatment to use. This book has been > used for years to treat numerous different ailments. The very > compound that was used to cause a particular condition was used in > extremely small doses to treat patients who presented with similar > symptoms. These drugs were diluted so many times they actually would > not contain any molecules of the actual substance that was initially > diluted. Interestingly, Dr. Hahnemann claimed the potency actually > increases as the drug becomes more and more dilute. The

solution > used to dilute the drug could be either water, alcohol or a > combination of both. The process of repetitively diluting a drug is > call potentiation. Each time a dilution takes place, the solution is > vigorously shaken in order to evenly distribute the molecules in the > solution. Homeopathic physicians will freely admit that their most > potent medications do not contain any molecules of the initial drug > that was diluted. The mechanism of action of this medicine has never > been explained scientifically. There has been some speculation that > the diluent supposedly remembers, or in some way fingerprints, the > initial drug that was diluted.> > Another tenet of homeopathy is that you are treating the patient > rather than a particular disease or organ system. The homeopathic > medicine is given with hopes that the vital forces of the patient > will be

reestablished. In his book, 'Organon of Medicine', Hahnemann > suggests that the essence of illness is a disorder in the vital > forces. Because of this disorder, people are susceptible to > different disease entities. By restoring the vital forces, the body > is able to rid itself of the disease.> > Another tenet of homeopathy is that patients must allow enough time > for the homeopathic remedy to work. They are to avoid caffeine or > other medications that may interfere with treatment.> > The Problems With Homeopathy> > Homeopathy is not presently accepted by traditional medicine in the > United States. Although there are a few health caregivers that > to homeopathy, they are few and far between. One of the > basic problems with homeopathy is that it was founded before the > principles of modern science were developed. Homeopathy was >

developed before the dramatic advances of chemistry and physics in > the 1900s. Dr. Hahnemann had no idea what the molecular structure of > a substance was. Unfortunately, as science progressed, homeopathy > did not attempt to incorporate any of the basic scientific > principles into its basic tenets. Certainly, modern medicine treats > numerous diseases with medication and the mechanism of action is > unknown, even though the treatment is successful. The problem with > homeopathy is that it is totally unscientific and it runs counter to > the basic laws of chemistry, physics and common sense.> > Studies of Homeopathy> > There have been numerous studies that have attempted to prove or > disprove the effectiveness of homeopathy. One such study by C. Hill > and F. Doyon was a review of randomized trials of homeopathy. This > was published in 1990. The review covers 40

published randomized > trials in which the results of homeopathy treatment were compared to > those of standard treatment, placebo, or no treatment at all. Most > of the studies were double blinded. This means that neither the > patient nor the physician knew if the patient was getting a placebo, > a conventional treatment, or a homeopathic remedy. The authors > concluded that the results do not provide acceptable evidence that > homeopathic treatments are effective. Another study was performed on > 175 children with frequently recurring upper respiratory tract > infections. Approximately half were given homeopathic medicines and > the other half were given a placebo. The children were followed for > 1 year to see if there was a decrease in the number of colds, > tonsillectomies, adenoidectomies, and the necessity of antibiotic > therapy. The authors concluded that homeopathic

medicines seemed to > add little to careful counseling of children with recurrent upper > respiratory tract infections. There was no significant difference in > reducing the daily burden of symptoms, use of antibiotics, or the > need for adenoidectomy and tonsillectomy. Interestingly, both groups > had a decrease in the amount of antibiotic usage as well as surgery. > This was explained on the basis of education of both groups > concerning when to seek medical care, as well as just basic > counseling on upper respiratory infections.> > Conclusions> > Homeopathy has no scientific basis whatsoever, and the concept of > potentiation by dilutions is absurd when modern basic scientific > principles are considered. The argument has been made that > homeopathy works by some, yet unexplained, mechanism. This certainly > could be true, but it would be easier to accept if

clinical trials > could consistently show a difference between homeopathy and placebo.> > On the other hand, homeopathy does have some good principles that I > believe modern medicine could benefit from. The first is that given > time, most disease processes will resolve spontaneously without > treatment. This is certainly true of colds and viral infections. > Please refer to the article "The Truth About Viruses" previously > reported in the Health Gazette. Homeopathic doctors believe that > antibiotics are harmful and, indeed, sometimes they are. Our society > as a whole would be better off if we would avoid the tendency to put > everyone on antibiotics for simple colds. Homeopathy also attempts > to treat the whole patient rather than a specific disease. I believe > that many times physicians have a tendency to focus on the disease > or malfunctioning organ rather than

listening to the patient and > considering other factors that may be involved. Fortunately, > residency programs are actually emphasizing a more holistic approach > to the patient than was advocated in the past. Although, science is > an integral part of modern medicine, the art of medicine is still > exceedingly important.> > References> > # 1. Dooley TR. Homeopathy: Beyond Flat Earth Medicine. Timing > Publications, 4095 Jackdaw Street, San Diego, CA 92103.> # 2. Walach H. Does a highly diluted homeopathic drug act as a > placebo in healthy volunteers? Experimental study of Belladonna 30C > in double-blind crossover design-a pilot study. J Psychosom Res 1993 > Dec;37(8):851-60.> # 3. Hill C; Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy.> # Rev Epidemo Dante Publique 1990:38(2):139-47.> # 4. Jarvis WT. Quackery: a national scandal. Clin Chem 1992

Aug;38> (8b Pt 2):1574-86.> # 5. Perez CB: Tomsko PL. Homeopathy and the treatment of mental > illness in the 19th century. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1994 Oct:45> (10):1030-3.> # 6. De Lange de Klerk ES, et al. Effect of homeopathic medicines on > daily burden of symptoms in children with recurrent upper > respiratory tract infections. BMJ 1994 Nov 19;309(6965):1329-32. "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail Beta.