| · Asthma
· Homoeopathy
· Controlled drugs
· Compliance aids
· MURs
· Safety (2)
· Retention fees
· The Society (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Homoeopathy
Foundations still in good shape
From Mr L. N. Collin, MRPharmS
In responding to Richard
Schmidt’s letter (PJ, 19 August) I am
reminded that the homoeopathy debate can be relied upon to recur with
alarming regularity, somewhat like a bad case of malaria.
Dr Schmidt, having studied china officinalis in ‘Kent’s homoeopathic
repertory’, finds “3,800 conditions/ circumstances where
it might be prescribed”.
Most “provings” do yield myriads of symptoms and come from
both observations of accidental poisonings and those experienced by actual
provers. Thus, for example, ‘Hahnemann’s proving of arsenicum
album’,1 on eight healthy volunteers yielded 655 symptoms covering
the mind, head, eyes, ears, nose, teeth, mouth and throat, stomach and
abdomen, urinary and sexual organs — all meticulously recorded,
and that was merely the first half of the proving. From this mass of
symptoms, certain themes were evident which were strong in some individuals
or present in many others, and these were assigned greater significance
(shown in bold type or italics in ‘Kent’s repertory’).
For example, “Mind, restlessness, night” and “Mouth,
pain, burning” display striking keynotes of this remedy — strong
characteristics of both the remedy provings and accidental ingestion
of arsenic (possibly as a side effect of too much Fowler’s solution — liquor
arsenicalis, mentioned in the older pharmacopoeias). However, as Dr Schmidt
mentions in his letter, this does not itself constitute evidence of the
remedy’s effectiveness in a clinical situation. To address this
issue, the remedy is administered by reliable prescribers to sick people,
according to the symptoms generated in the proving. As clinical experience
grows, careful records are made of symptoms which are cured during the
process of a real cure of the patient. Eventually a complete picture
of the remedy emerges from all sources: toxicological literature, provings,
and clinical observations.2 It is this dynamic process which forms the
basis of the information in the repertories and ‘Materia medica’.
This does not, of course, cover the highly contentious issue of homoeopathic
prophylaxis. Hahnemann, again, was the first person to test the maxim
that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure when he discovered
that scarlet fever “found its preventative and curative means in
belladonna”.3 His skill was further tested successfully by the
Asian cholera epidemic when three main remedies (camphor, veratrum album
and cuprum)4 were used to prevent cholera in the healthy, as well as
treat the disease, depending on specificity of symptoms. Remedies chosen
by such a group picture are called the genus epidemicus, and represent
the essence of the disease. Interestingly, it was also found that people
working in copper mines at the time seemed to have a natural immunity
to cholera.
Finally, Dr Schmidt’s comment about the “implicit admission” by
the Faculty of Homoeopathy, “that homoeopathy is not effective
in either treating or preventing malaria” is incorrect. The statement
put out by the Faculty refers to prevention only (because no published
evidence can be cited) and not to treatment. The Faculty’s fact
sheet, “Homeopathy and immunisation” (PDF 50K),
states that “well chosen homoeopathic remedies prescribed by trained
practitioners, can successfully treat epidemics of infectious disease”.
Lawrence Collin
Westcliff on Sea,
Essex
References
1. Vithoulkas, G. The Science of Homeopathy. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers;
1993, pp 273–94.
2. Vithoulkas, G. The Science of Homeopathy. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers;
1993, p153.
3. Hahnemann, S. Organon of the medical art. Palo Alto, California: Birdcage
Books, 1997, p119.
4. Hahnemann, S. The Lesser writings of Samuel Hahnemann, Dudgeon edition.
New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers;1852, p755. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal