Homeopath: the definition
The question then arises: what can we call a homeopath? Is there a definition, given that everyone seems to practise homeopathy as they see fit, and even claim complete therapeutic freedom? We have just spoken of the proportion of those who resist; we must now consider that of the geniuses. If we look at Hahnemann’s century, which names stand out? A handful, such as Newton, Goethe, Mozart and D’Alembert, out of a population of around one billion people on the planet at the time. I therefore prefer not to do the maths but to remain pragmatic, choosing instead to study first what a genius has to say to us.
How many people before Newton had seen an apple fall before some genius realised that a force must necessarily be applied to it for it to fall?
How many doctors since Hippocrates have observed that one illness can cure another, provided their symptoms coincide? We have thus seen numerous cases of chronic orchitis cured following mumps, of which it is a classic complication. There are countless examples; Hahnemann cites hundreds drawn from the allopathic observations of his time. Even today, we are still «surprised» to find that a particular condition listed among the «adverse» effects of an allopathic drug has, in fact, been cured by that very same drug…
It was Hahnemann alone who wondered whether there might be a general law here – which we call the Law of Similars – and sought to explore this experimentally. It was only after 55 years of research that he set out the following in §26:
26.— Experience thus shows that all medicines, without exception, cure illnesses whose symptoms resemble those of their [artificial illness], and that none of them can resist them.[1]
This is based on the natural law of homeopathy, a law which has sometimes been intuited but has remained little understood until now, even though it has always been the foundation of all true healing, namely that:
In a living organism, a weaker dynamic condition is permanently suppressed by a stronger one, provided that the latter (whilst belonging to a different species) is nevertheless very similar to the former in its manifestation (a). [See §45]
Can homeopathy be reduced, as many practitioners claim, to the law of similars? The answer is obviously no, and, more importantly, it is not to be put in those terms. That would be to believe that rubber is the same thing as the sap of the rubber tree, when in fact there is a world of difference between the two.
As some pioneers before Hahnemann had observed, there are many pitfalls awaiting those who follow the path of similars, even though it is the only possible route to a cure. The major problem one encounters first is the patient’s excessive reaction when administered a remedy capable of mimicking their condition. As might be expected, a dramatic aggravation inevitably occurs and prevents a favourable outcome. In seeking to overcome this drawback, the Founder discovered potentisation. He writes:
269.— Homeopathic medicine has developed, for its own specific purposes, a completely novel process—one which had never been tried before—that extracts and releases the immaterial medicinal properties inherent in raw substances. It is only through this process that these substances acquire medicinal properties and an immeasurably penetrating efficacy (a), even those which, in their raw state, show not the slightest sign of medicinal action on the human body.
…
This remarkable transformation of the qualities of natural substances brings to the fore latent dynamic powers which, until now, had gone unnoticed, as if they were lying dormant in a potential state (b), yet capable of influencing the vital force and altering the well-being of animal life (c) [See §11]. This process is known as dynamisation, «potentialisation» (the development of medicinal potency), and its products are dynamisations (d) or potencies obtained at various degrees.
Whilst homeopathy cannot be reduced to the Law of Similars, nor can it be reduced to the prescription of potentised substances. Only through careful study and adherence to all the aphorisms of the Organon can one become a true homeopath.
Absolute Laws and the Principle of Relativity
The Organon does not function as a closed system made up of rigid rules; quite the opposite, in fact: each aphorism marks the beginning of a new horizon of knowledge. Each new reading propels us a little higher, towards the discovery of new peaks. I must confess that even the slightest passage in the Organon sends shivers down my spine. No doubt this is partly due to an exaggerated sensitivity, honed by thirty years of training in listening to patients. And yet, it is not just that, and even less a case of idolatry on my part after having spent so many years trying to find fault with Hahnemann. No, these shivers stem from the sense of wonder one feels upon discovering a reality that transcends us, in the face of that mathematical beauty which Einstein attributes to the presence of God.
Take, for example, the Principia Newton’s. In his immortal work, published in 1687, the scientist sets out all the equations that are still needed today to understand the motion of celestial bodies, place a satellite into orbit, or land a probe on the surface of Titan. Although it is more than three centuries old, the book has not aged a day. Why? Because it describes laws that were patiently deduced from observation, and contains no speculation or interpretation on the part of the scientist.
What Newton achieved for physics, Hahnemann achieved for medicine. That is why the *Organon* has not become outdated either. His account of the understanding of pathological phenomena and the reactions to any active substance introduced into a living organism will remain eternally true.
And what a delight it is to lose oneself in this book, where every word is carefully chosen, every turn of phrase so logical and complete that it would be difficult to alter even a single punctuation mark for fear of distorting the depth of its meaning and diminishing its impact, much like a score by Mozart.
The key point to remember is that’There is no single proposition that holds true in an absolute sense; rather, there are only relative propositions that make sense when considered as a whole.. The Organon only enables one to become a homeopath when applied in its entirety; it may be supplemented, but nothing may be omitted from it.
The patient presents a similar reality: he cannot be reduced to a diseased organ, and the only way to address the problem is through the totality of his symptoms, which indirectly characterise the invisible interior of the organism. It is this totality that defines the case; it is the concept of ‘signifying totality’.[2]
Nor can the properties of medicines ever be reduced to a single symptom, theme or idea. It is indeed a set of signs that have emerged experimentally and been confirmed clinically that gives us an idea of a medicine’s particular nature, its effect on the body, and its ability to produce a certain artificial disease. Similarly, a disease can only be defined by a specific syndrome, a set of signs and symptoms.
This concept of relativity, introduced by Hahnemann into medicine, is reminiscent of the absence of an absolute frame of reference which led Poincaré to formulate the theory of relativity – an idea that was subsequently appropriated by Einstein. Even the existence of prime numbers – which are divisible only by themselves or by 1 – seems to confirm that the universe cannot be reduced to a single law at all.
Thus, a few certainties can be identified, confirmed by 200 years of the existence of pure homeopathy,
- It is not possible to elevate a relative concept to an absolute one. Nor will it be possible to formulate a theory of everything, or to reduce the universe to a single «magic» formula.»
- It follows that, since the patient’s condition is expressed through a totality of symptoms, it is a mere figment of the imagination to focus solely on an arbitrary subset of symptoms (allopathy), or to reduce it to a single «essential» symptom ’ (deviations from homeopathy).
- Consequently, the only viable therapeutic approach is one that incorporates points 1 and 2. This is known as homeopathy… we shall discuss further on (see Sequential Therapy) the paradox between an absolute law of healing and its application through a set of relative rules.
- All deviations from homeopathy will be characterised by their focus on a fact of relative value that has been elevated to the status of an absolute. So much for ‘research’ and other speculations surrounding the supposed ‘essence’ of a remedy; this is no more real than the essence of homeopathy or of a patient… So much for conventional medicine, but also for all those who devise systems by seizing upon a tiny fragment of homeopathy—which they have never studied—to elevate that fragment to the status of a system and establish a school of thought.
Only a philosophical approach can safeguard us against such errors, to which even the most eminent scientists fall prey, just as much as humble practitioners do. The aim is to broaden our awareness so as to prevent us from succumbing to such dogmatism. It is a constant struggle we must wage against our own nature, which urges us to cling to what is already known, to what has already worked.
The philosopher-philanthropist***
However, merely philosophising is not enough in medicine. It is one thing to try to think clearly and identify our own blind spots; we must also take action to help the sick. Here is what the Master says in §285:
A homeopath is, above all, a philanthropist; he does not act like so many of his colleagues from the Official School who prescribe remedies whose beneficial effects on healthy people they are unaware of, and about which they have merely heard «that it has helped with this or that illness » [such as the publications and other so-called scientific studies produced by the major laboratories, animal studies, etc.]
The true homeopath is therefore a lover of humankind; he places humanity at the very top of his list of priorities. This mindset is reflected in practice by the fact that the homeopath does everything in his power to improve the lot of humankind. And this is precisely what Hahnemann demands from the very first paragraph of the Organon:
1 — The highest, and indeed the sole, vocation of a doctor is to restore the health of sick people (a); this is what is known as healing.
(a) Its purpose is not to devise so-called systems by combining hollow ideas and hypotheses about the innermost nature of the life process and the origin of diseases within the invisible depths of the body (an ambition that causes so many doctors to waste their energy and time).
Nor is its purpose to attempt, through countless attempts, to explain pathological phenomena and the immediate causes of diseases, etc., which have always remained hidden from them.
Nor is its aim to indulge in unintelligible words and a jumble of vague and pompous expressions, intended to appear erudite in order to astonish the uninformed, whilst the sick cry out in vain for help!
We have had enough of these scholarly musings known as ‘theoretical medicine’ – for which special chairs have even been established – and it is high time that those who call themselves doctors stopped deceiving poor people with their gibberish and finally began to take action, that is to say, to actually help and heal.
A splendid structure based on thesis and antithesis, as is often the case in the *Organon*. Hahnemann reminds us of our duty, which is to heal, and then goes on to explain the most common shortcomings encountered amongst doctors:
- Creating so-called systems. Having taken the corpse as its model of health since Vesalius, conventional medicine is itself now nothing more than a vast, arbitrary system that breaks down, like a kaleidoscope, into various systems, each treated according to its own pathophysiological theories. In homeopathy, these systems proliferate like parasites to the point where true homeopathy is soon no longer discernible. As we have seen, these systems elevate a purely relative truth to the status of an absolute concept. Dazzling and attractive in their early days, like any fashion, they never outlive their inventor…
- Endless explanations. It is common practice to justify deviant behaviour by invoking official science; it is, in a way, the medical equivalent of UFO-related delusions. The authors gain some credibility by using a new scientific discovery as their starting point (preferably one that is currently in vogue, i.e. one that has a certain following amongst the general public) and then distorting it to suit their own fancies. One often comes across phrases such as «we now know that», which allows them to use any new discovery in the hard sciences to claim they are applying it to medicine. Alongside these charlatan practices, we might also include conventional medicine, which persists in basing its treatments on theories, invariably with the same lack of success. Yet it would have been enough simply to observe nature in order to attempt to deduce the laws governing phenomena, as in all other sciences. Here, Hahnemann criticises the reductionist approach, which cannot never to be of service in biology.
- Vague and pompous expressions. To achieve point 2, it will very often involve throwing around trendy buzzwords. Let’s take an amused look at «quantum therapy», the «sensation method», and so on. Among hundreds of such gems: «The energetic action used in quantum therapy is similar to nature’s electromagnetic radiation and is intended to coherently influence the functions of the cells, tissues and organs of the whole individual.»
A homeopath is therefore someone who thinks clearly and acts to provide relief. They must necessarily A philosopher and philanthropist: he thinks and he acts.
It must be admitted that few doctors live up to this ideal. If that were the case, our sole source of pride would be curing patients, rather than the need to distinguish ourselves by prescribing an extremely rare medicine. Having attended many conferences, one cannot help but regret that most of these prescribers have not read *Les Précieuses ridicules*!
With a great deal of fanfare, there is a strong push to provide training in all these new «approaches», which takes us back to the level of allopathic medicine governed by passing fads. With each new generation of homeopaths, standards slip a little further. Prescribers who have never studied the Organon practise and promote a caricature of homeopathy that is increasingly distorted, oversimplified and far removed from the original. As the results fail to materialise, few people have the courage to admit their intellectual failure and return to the roots of this genius. New fads and theories are then devised, and standards continue to decline, now verging on quackery.[3] Ultimately, «homeopathy» is played down and reduced to just one prescribing technique amongst hundreds of others. It is a dreadful downward spiral of declining standards, which makes it easy to foresee the collapse of so-called homeopathic schools that are now concerned only with riding the trend to attract customers.
I continue to hope that there are still people of good will and common sense among us who can turn this trend around before it proves fatal.
[1] That is to say, when a comparison of the effects of a remedy with those of a disease reveals a high degree of homeopathic similarity, as determined according to the criteria set out in §153, and the case meets the requirements of §279.
[2] I cannot go into detail here about the concept of Gestalt, or the recognition of an overall form. For instance, to recognise a tree, we do not examine the bark under a microscope, nor do we count and examine every leaf and every branch.
[3] We’ve now reached the point where we’re prescribing drugs that have never been tested, based on the recommendations of astrologers!
