Homeopathy v. Allopathy: A Comparative Analysis
Samual Hahnemann (1755-1843) was a trained allopathic physician, a linguist who translated medical texts, a medical historian, and a scientific revolutionary who devised his method for homeopathic art after becoming disenchanted by the allopathic methods utilized and taught at the time (O’Reilly 2001). Hahnemann’s discovery of the homeopathic arts was made after deciding that the methods that allopathic doctors were taught were dangerous and “ruinous” as a healing art. (O’Reilly, 2001). He began to translate texts rather than practicing allopathic medicine (O’Reilly, 2001). While translating William Cullen’s Materia Medica, Hahnemann came across the treatment for malaria derived from the poisonous bark of a Peruvian tree (Cinchona) by noticing that its curative powers may come from the symptoms (that would occur in a healthy person) matching the malaria symptoms (O’Reilly, 2001). This is basic to homeopathic thought. Homeopathy and allopathy would seem to differ wildly based on the general understanding of the public. Perhaps the most basic opposition is that homeopathy aims to heal through bolstering the body’s vital force versus the allopathic idea of bombarding the symptoms, through suppression of those symptoms, thus the vital force, in order to heal (O’Reilly 2001, Vithoulkas 1986). In homeopathy, the remedy picture should match the picture of the individual’s disease symptoms (Choudhury 2019, O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Acute ailments (ailments that are self limiting and have a short duration in which the disease either runs its course or the patient dies), chronic disease (diseases that are longer in duration than acute and are slow to develop, but can last indefinitely) and constitutional concerns (fundamental truths about a person whether mental or physical) can all be treated homeopathically or allopathically (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Homeopathy goes even further with the concept of Miasmic treatment (Choudhury 2019, O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Miasms can be “inherited, acquired, or acute” and consist of Psora, Sycosis, Syphylis, and Tuberculinum (Choudhury 2019, O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). All homeopathic treatments hinge on minimum dose and potency compounded by the dynamic succussion of the remedies (Choudhury 2019, O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021).
The word homeopathy comes from the Greek meaning the same or similar (homeos) suffering (pathos). (Coulter 1993, O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021) Hahnemann identified his method through the discernible natural law, The Law of Similars (Coulter 1993, O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). He believed that the only curative law that conformed to nature was similia similibus curentur (let similars be cured by similars) (Coulter 1993, O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Further, he thought that cure should be rapid, gentle, and permanent according to a minimum dose and minimum, proper potency of a remedy. The proper remedy matches the spectrum of symptoms artificially produced by the remedy to symptoms of the patient’s disease through simillimum (Coulter 1993, O’Reilly 2001, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). “As has been shown in § 24-27, all of a medicine’s curative power lies in its power to alter the human condition; this is illuminated from observation of the human condition” (O’Reilly, 2001). In short, Hahnemann thought that medicines should be matched to the individual’s symptoms AND those remedies would cause these symptoms in a well person, known as proving a remedy (Coulter 1993, O’Reilly 2001, Vithoulkas 1986). The remedies should JUST exceed the morbific effects of the disease (O’Reilly 2001, Vithoulkas 1986). An example of simillimum would be a common cold with symptoms being hot, watering eyes and nose being treated with Allium Cepa (red onion) which would CREATE those symptoms in a well person (Clarke 2012, Murphy 2006).
Hering’s Law, Direction of Cure, was pivotal to the framework used by Hahnemann for disease and cure “describes the movements of the vital force in the transition from acute to chronic disease and from chronic back to acute” (Coulter 1993). According to Andre Saine (cited in Coulter 1993), the Law has four parts and “…the one most encountered in the curative process is: symptoms in the reverse order of appearance. Next is: symptoms move from more important organs to less important organs. Third is: symptoms moving from within outwards. Fourth in importance is : symptoms moving from above downwards.” In short, disease cure moves in reverse order of appearance, from important organs to less important organs, from within outward, and from above downwards (Coulter 1993, O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Therefore, Hahnemann thought that suppression of symptoms would push symptoms deeper, thus creating further suffering by turning the acute to the chronic (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Coulter cites Hahnemann (p.282), explaining how suppression forces disease deeper through the suppression of eczema, thus resulting in allergies and further suppression expressing as asthma. This meaning that if symptoms of eczema are suppressed long enough they will transmute into allergy symptoms, and further suppression will bring about an asthmatic state (Coulter 1993).
Homeopathic remedies are created and strengthened through the potentization of material substances through dilution and succussion according to a specific, almost ritualistic, mixing, dilution, and succussion of a substance thereby strengthening it energetically to an increasingly more refined, energetic substance that becomes more and more individualized through further succussions with each dose administered (O’Reilly 1996). Potencies include X (decimal scale or 1 to 10 dilution rate), C (centesimal scale or 1 to 100 dilution rate), LM or Q (50-millesimal so an LM would be equal to a 50,000C), (Kayne & Kayne 2017). Potencies are utilized based on whether the case is acute, chronic or constitutional, generally (Clarke 1972, O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 2022).
The homeopathic practitioner takes the case, whether acute, chronic, or constitutional, and finds a symptom picture illustrating a totality of symptoms, and match those symptoms to the appropriate remedy picture (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986). Therefore, JUST surpassing the morbific rate of the disease with the matching created, artificial disease (remedy), the Vital Force will react in kind, raising itself to meet and surpass the disease (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986). This match in intensity creates the perfect environment for the body to heal because two similar diseases of the same frequency CANNOT exist in the same organism at one time (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986). In essence, they cancel one another out and return the body to balance through simillimum, Law of Cure, minimum dose and potency ideally bringing about a rapid, gentle, and permanent cure (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986). Hahnemann thought this art superior to the allopath and antipathic methods, though he did find the acute need for antipathic methods (opposite action) (Yasgur 2021). True allopathy was little more to him than adding insult to injury at best, and at worst making the situation worse by suppressing symptoms to the point of creating a worse disease from that suppression (O’Reilly 1996). True allopathy is treating a disease with medication in which the action is different to the disease being treated and have no connection to the symptoms of the disease being treated (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Antipathy or enantiopathic is treating with medicines contrary or opposite to the the disease symptoms or contraria contrarii (Coulter 1993, O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Allopathic and antipathic treatments have merged, basically, into one as allopathic medicine has evolved since Hahnemann’s time (Yasgur 2021).
Allopathy comes from other (allos) and suffering (pathos), making this the medical model of suppression of symptoms through a medicine of opposite action (i.e. opiates to suppress the pain of an injury) (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Conventional medicine does not take the morbid away but rather suppresses or palliates the unwanted symptoms so that they may be indiscernible or simply tolerable (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Suppressive therapies do not address the cause (generally) but aim to remove the discomfort or hinderance (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). The disease is not cured but rather managed through repetitive doses of medications based on doses measured by more medicine being more medicine (i.e. 20mg>10mg) (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). This is opposed to the homeopathic dosing and potency methods stipulating that a higher potency is actually MORE diluted thereby becoming more energy than detectible medicinal material i.e. LM1 (Q1) is more dilute than 30C, but LM (Q) potency is HIGHER than 1C (centesimal 1 drop of Mother tincture in the case of plant material to 99 drops of water, succussed 100 times and topped off with a high alcohol content alcohol and water) (Kayne and Kayne 2017, O’Reilly 2001, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021).
Much of modern medicine is based on science that is measurable in empirical ways, which Hahnemann also used, though differently (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Whereas modern medicine would employ a double blind placebo study in which patients are split into control and placebo groups, neither the patient nor researcher knows which group is which and is considered the “gold standard” of trials (Dellwo 2022) Hahnemannian practice would observe every person under the same circumstances taking the same remedies in order to “prove” the remedy by exposing the symptoms of the remedy by giving it to a well person (O’Reilly 1996). He thought that all people would express some, even many, remedy picture symptoms and “prove” that through simillimum said remedy could treat THOSE symptoms in an unwell person exhibiting them in their disease (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021). Modern medicine is concerned less with the Vital Force and the dynamic nature of disease and focuses mainly on the expression rather than the whole (O’Reilly 1996). It palliates and suppresses through opposite action (O’Reilly 1996, Vithoulkas 1986, Yasgur 2021).
Homeopathic treatment can palliate as allopathic medicine can (O’Reilly 1996). That was not the model that Hahnemann envisioned for his medical art (O’Reilly 1996). We can see the differences between homeopathic treatments and allopathic treatments in as much as the holistic nature of homeopathy, and as minute a thing as minimum dose and potency. It would seem preferable to alleviate symptoms through addressing the cause rather than suppress them into more and deeper dis-ease. It also seems far less dire for patients to use homeopathic treatments to palliate, when possible, rather than using more and more pharmaceutical interventions creating an iatrogenic situation. Though Hahnemann believed even a homeopathic aggravation was unnecessary suffering, he may well have come to realize that homeopathic provings and aggravations preferable to modern, medically induced chronic disease. It would also seem that Hahnemann was ahead of his time, and perhaps even modern times with his belief that the terrain of the body is paramount to true health. Béchamp didn’t introduce his terrain theory for several more decades.
Word Count 1547
Bibliography and Reference List
Boger, C. M., 2022. Synoptic key of the materia medica: A treatise for homeopathic students: Rearranged & augmented edition. New Delhi, India: B Jain.
Brown, P., Fall 2020. Teaching Kids Homeopathy, Lesson 2. Homeopathy Today, 26–31.
Choudhury, H., 2019. Indications of Miasm: 2Nd Edition. New Delhi, India: B Jain.
Clarke, J. H., 1972. The prescriber: A dictionary of the new therapeutics. London: Rider.
Clarke, J. H., 2012. A dictionary of practical materia medica. New Delhi, India: B Jain.
Coulter, H. L., 1993. Divided legacy vol IV. Berkeley, CA, USA: North Atlantic Books.
Dellwo, A., 2008. Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial Basics [online]. Verywell Health. Available from: https://www.verywellhealth.com/double-blind-placebo-controlled-clinical-trial-715861 [Accessed 25 Oct 2022].
Gascoigne, S., 1995. The manual of conventional medicine for alternative practitioners. Co. Cork, Ireland: Jigme Press.
Kayne, S. B. and Kayne, L., 2017. Homeopathic Prescribing. 2nd ed. Glasgow: Saltire Books.
Murphy, R., 2006. Nature’s materia medica: 1,400 homeopathic and herbal remedies. Blacksburg, VA: Lotus Health Institute.
Murphy, R. R., 2018. Homeopathic medical repertory: A modern alphabetical repertory. Hahnemann Academy of North America.
O’Reilly, W. B., 2001. Organon of medical arts. 6th ed. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Birdcage Press.
Prakash, S., 2022. Allopathy Vs. Homeopathy, Discuss [online]. Available from: civilserviceindia.com-Allopathy%20Vs%20Homeopathy%20Discuss.pdf [Accessed 28 Oct 2022].
Vithoulkas, G., 1986. The Science of Homoeopathy. London: Thorsons.
Vithoulkas, G., 2019. Levels of Health. North Sporades, Greece: International Academy of Classical Homeopathy.
Vithoulkas, G., 2022. Techniques for successful repertorization [online]. Wholehealthnow.com. Available from: https://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_pro/techniques.html [Accessed 20 Oct 2022].
Watson, I., 2004. A guide to the methodologies of homeopathy. 2nd ed. Kendal: Cutting Edge Publications.
Commentaires