An analysis of the theory of homeopathy

Hugo Arturo Aldana Quintero discusses research in electromagnetic radiation, intercellular communication and the theory of high dilutions, all of which help explain the mechanism of homeopathy. The relationship between the molecular paradigm of the disease and the medical treatment is based nowadays mainly on the conventional pharmacological approach.

An analysis of the theory of homeopathy

Dream of Islands, - Peter Morrell Ever since Hahnemann's time, homeopathy has been both a medical theory and a medical method. It is worth spending some time looking at these terms more closely. The methods of homeopathy are its corpus of techniques used to treat the sick.

Subscribe to the Homeopathy Zone Newsletter

It includes materia medica, dosage, pharmacy and a range of theories upon which practice is based. These include law of similars, minimum dose Hering's Law suppression and miasms. The theory content of homeopathy means its medical ideology or philosophy. As well as the above theories, it also embraces the meaning content, patterns and wider significance within the ideas, methods and clinical results.

The primary goal of homeopathic philosophy is not theoretical, but pragmatic - to deepen, enrich and guide good practice. While homeopathy is unquestionably a philosophical system in its own right - and has had a life of its own - that is not its primary quality or function.

It is primarily a clinical method aimed more at curing sick folks, than winning adherants to its creed.

An analysis of the theory of homeopathy

Thus theory should not dominate or smother method. Method always comes out top and should be the dominant force.

An analysis of the theory of homeopathy

That is one view. Although you could also argue that it does seek to gain converts as well as cure the sick. So it might be viewed as a twin-track approach. However, it is also true that theory cannot be ignored and is still a very important element.

It must be yoked in with method. Indeed, you can easily take the opposing view, that without an underlying philosophy, method is just shooting in the dark. Theory tends to keep method pure and 'on track'. If you ditch theory then method tends to degenerate into allopathised mongrel forms.

If you ditch method then theory tends to ossify into dogma. Both are necessary and complement each other. The ideology of homeopathy is highly relevant to its method, but the two work best together.

The main concepts of homeopathy are both theories and methods at the same time. For example, Hering's law, minimum dose, law of similars, potentisation and miasms - these are all at the same time both methods and theories about medicine. They exist happily at both levels within homeopathy and they enrich and support each other.

It mainly stems from the fact that homeopathy was based in its inception both upon ideas and upon observations. It is just as firmly rooted in methods, experiments and actions, as it is in theories and ideas.

Hahnemann makes this very clear. What he perhaps did not make so clear is that theory is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. It should always be slightly subordinate to method and should always be confirmed and enhanced through practice.

Theory is in fact a distillation of ideas derived from practice and confirmed and amended through practice. He did do that, but it came second. It is hard to say with absolute certainty, but his clinical experiments probably came first and these were then followed at a later stage by his theoretical rantings.

Important and much overlooked point: Thus he was never speaking from a purely theoretical level, but always based upon the sound bedrock of practice, of clinical experience. Ideas were amended through practice, revised, extended, embellished, corrected and altered only through practice.

Thus he provided, created and perfected chiefly a clinical method, but greatly enriched, underpinned and supplemented by theoretical writings.

This is a very important point: It also reflects an aspect of the man: In another sense you could argue that the ideas preceded the methods. And there is some truth in this. It is true of many areas of research and is often difficult to establish with any certainty whether the ideas or the experiments came first.

The probem is in trying to trace the origin of a system, part of which comes out of someone's head and their reading and thinking and part of which comes out of the experiments and observations they undertake on the practical level in the real world.In The Initial Homeopathic Intake I outlined what takes place the first time a patient meets a homeopath.

The aim of the entire initial-interview process is to distill the portrait of disease, which can be physical, psychological, or spiritual in nature. Dr.

According to this theory there are three miasms which are responsible for all human disease, and homeopathic remedies are directed towards treating these offending miasms. The goal of a homeopathic consultation is to find the “totality of symptoms,” physical, mental, and spiritual. Dr. Vijayakar’s ‘Theory of Suppression’ dwells on all these issues and gives much more to think. The book begins with an understanding that homeopathy medicines can suppress and a large number of homeopaths suppress their cases with ill selected similimums or combination medicines. The historical development of homeopathy was not an evolution according to Hahnemann's intentions. Even during his lifetime, some homeopathic doctors considered symptoms as the key to solving the case. This finally led to what we can describe now as 'Kentian' homeopathy, named after the main representative of this symptom orientated homeopathy.

Vijayakar’s ‘Theory of Suppression’ dwells on all these issues and gives much more to think. The book begins with an understanding that homeopathy medicines can suppress and a large number of homeopaths suppress their cases with ill selected similimums or combination medicines.

Two years later, Ernst [7] summarized the systematic reviews of homeopathy published in the wake of Linde’s first metaanalysis [2].

To support the view that homeopathy lacks effect, Ernst cited his own publications from and [5, 6]. Sep 26,  · For the last few weeks I was once again into an in-depth re-learning of ‘Chronic Diseases’. While carefully going through the initial paragraphs of that great text (Para 1 to 7), I was trying to follow the exact thought process of Dr.

Samuel Hahnemann through which he finally arrived at his theory of ‘chronic diseases and miasms’. Hahnemann's miasm theory remains disputed and controversial within homeopathy even in modern times.

The theory of miasms has been criticized as an explanation developed by Hahnemann to preserve the system of homeopathy in the face of treatment failures, and for being inadequate to cover the many hundreds of sorts of diseases, as well as for failing to explain disease predispositions, as well as .

The theory content of homeopathy means its medical ideology or philosophy. As well as the above theories, it also embraces the meaning content, patterns and wider significance within the ideas, methods and clinical results.

Homeopathic Methodology | Theory and Practice of Homeopathy