The Homeopathy Vs Allopathy Debate
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 increasingly 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 percieved 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.