Creating Waves of Awareness
Dr. P. Sankaran
For long time, some of us who are deeply interested in the advance of the science and art of Homeopathy have been feeling that in our various conferences and even in our seminars, our discussions are neither very pointed, nor very serious nor of high level, so that we as a group of professionals, have generally failed to highlight, pinpoint and face the vital problems confronting us. While in our discussions generally the sound and fury has been great, the actual substance which emerged out of these in terms of a solid new understanding has been rather poor.
We also started feeling that serious scientific discussions of basic problems and frank appraisals are not possible in front of a big audience because psychologically the atmosphere in big gatherings is not conducive for such deliberations. Further, if the audience is not of a high level of understanding there is every likelihood that our open and frank discussions may be misunderstood and misinterpreted and the listeners may come to the conclusion that there are serious differences of opinion among us, their leaders.
Therefore, taking into consideration all these factors, we decided and planned to hold such closed Core Discussions, as the one we are having today with selected persons who will come and examine closely various serious matters in an earnest mood and dispassionate manner. If we are really solemn and sincere, scientific minded and impersonal in our deliberations, our discussions will benefit our science. The summary of our discussions and or conclusions can be later released for the information of the profession at large in a suitably, easily assimilable form.
The subject of today was suggested by Dr Sarabhai Kapadia. You have received his explanation of the problem.* (see Appendix)
When we are practicing and teaching Homeopathy on a scientific level it is, of course, necessary for us to teach and practice homeopathy as expounded by Hahnemann following the principles and methods which he has enunciated, which have stood the test of time and which our repeated experiences have proven to be true and reliable. But we, as the leaders of homeopathic thought, have also to take note of and carefully consider all the developments, advances and discoveries of science that have followed after Hahnemann's time. And we have to see whether we can explain Homeopathy in the background of these established facts and discoveries of science. We have also to see if we can integrate all the definitely proved facts of science into our own concepts, to incorporate them in such a way that they further strengthen our approach, principles and methods so that while our principles and methods may continue to be the same they will be enriched with a newer understanding.
Here again, I think that if subsequent carefully conducted experiments and experiences repeatedly and definitely show that a slight modification our methods is possible and necessary for improving our results so that we can achieve more easily our objectives viz. the gentle, rapid and permanent restoration of health, we should not hesitate to consider this, merely because of our spirit of conservatism or because of our strong sense of loyalty to Hahnemann. And we should dispassionately consider all facts, not because our loyalty and admiration for Hahnemann is less but because it is more, because Hahnemann himself was open minded and scientific in outlook.
The fact is that even those of us who are strictly practicing homeopathy in the Hahnemannian way are no doubt accepting and adopting certain methods which were not necessarily discovered by Hahnemann. As example, I may refer to the use of Bowel nosodes recently discovered and so, an enlargement of the scope and field of homeopathy should not be considered anti-homeopathy simply because Hahnemann did not discover, expound or approve it.
At the same time we have to be most careful that under the impression of being progressive, we do not cast away hastily carefully worked-out, time-honored and reliable methods in favor of unproven new ones.
Epidemic Infectious Disease
Now I come to the actual problem of today. We have been tackling infectious diseases in our own way and with reasonable success. Formerly, we used to see large numbers of cases of infectious diseases. But with the introduction of antibiotics the situation has changed. I find that nowadays the infectious diseases are tackled easily by our allopathic friends so that we are called upon much less to help in such cases. So the question arises whether our method of tackling these diseases is better or whether the other method – their method is better.
To decide this matter, we will have to consider the whole question of infectious diseases especially our basic approach and attitude towards infections. It must be accepted that there has always been a fundamental difference in the approach towards infection between allopath and homeopath. The allopath generally considers the invading micro-organism as the cause of infections while the homeopaths concentrate on raising the bodily resistance giving less importance to the bacteria. Kent has gone to the extent of saying that the bacteria are only the results of disease; he calls them ‘scavengers’. John Paterson has demonstrated that the very same non-pathogenic bacteria present in normal healthy body may become pathogenic if there is any disturbance in the condition of the host.
We also know that the mere presence of bacteria in the body does not necessarily mean infection and further that infection does not necessarily mean disease. For the actual disease to occur, the body must participate more or less. Therefore our concept and approach are different and appear basically sound.
However, in actual practice we sometimes find the selection of a correct remedy which will revitalize the body, a difficult job or even a problem. So we may meet with failure on this account.
On the other hand, the allopath with his broad-spectrum antibiotics has in his hands a standard and reliable instrument which is easily applicable with fairly good results. Of course, they may produce side-effects. And further while they may help to overcome the present infection, they do not raise the level of resistance of the patient and prevent further infection.
Nevertheless, it is my impression that these antibiotics are able to help the patient to overcome the acute infection by acting on the bacteria, in whatever way they do. I shall give a practical example. I have treated several cases of typhoid. In spite of my best prescriptions, I have found the temperature continuing for over two weeks. Very often the relatives are not prepared to wait and if the temperature does not subside within 3 to 4 days they prefer to call in an allopathic doctor. The patient is put on Chloramphenicol and in 3 to 4 days time the temperature comes to normal. I have followed up these patients for many years and I have found them apparently in normal health.
Based on this experience, nowadays, if I am called upon to treat typhoid cases, I frankly tell the relatives that under my treatment the fever may continue for two weeks. I ask them if they have the necessary patience. On hearing this, most of them opt for allopathic treatment. Even the few who are disposed to start homeopathic treatment leave off my treatment within a week and opt for the other system. I know that Chloramphenicol has side effects in some cases but the percentage of these seem quite low.
So coming back to the main point, our remedies seem to act on the vital resistance of the patient and the antibiotics on the bacteria themselves, limiting their toxic action. So the action of these remedies though acting in different directions or opposite directions still could be complementary to each other; one improving the resistance and the other limiting the bacteria.
So we may consider here whether 1) in very serious infectious diseases where we are not able to select a proper remedy or 2) In serious infective diseases, where the seemingly indicated remedy does not act, we may permit the patient to be treated for a short period with antibiotics. Here I may mention a relevant experience.
Some years back we had a discussion with the superintendent of a tuberculosis hospital. This specialist, because of his long experience was generally able to predict in each case how many injections of Streptomycin would be required to cure. We then experimented in a number of cases by giving the patients Streptomycin and also a homeopathic remedy side by side, and then he gave out the conclusion that by the addition of the homeopathic remedy he found that the number of injections of Streptomycin required became halved. Even purely as an economic measure due to the saving of Streptomycin, he considered this a useful discovery.
Now I leave it to you, my colleagues, to discuss these and other points. Before concluding, I must make it clear one point. What I have done is only to give my impressions and experiences and do some loud thinking. I have not come to any conclusion so far. I have only provided some material for collective thinking. I am as eager as any one of you here to keep homeopathy in its pristine glory. But we should not become isolated from the main stream of medical thought and lock ourselves in an ivory tower. We have to take note of the facts of science, to the advances and changes going on around us all the time and take suitable steps if necessary to modify our thinking and methods.
If I have been frank, you will appreciate that frankness is most essential in such discussions. Of course, I have raised only one point viz, what should be our attitude towards antibiotics, whether we are deadly against their use or we shall tolerate their use under special circumstances. There are so many other aspects I have not touched upon which I hope others will deal with effectively.
Dr J.N. Kanjilal (Presidential remarks)
Dr Sankaran has explained well the object; scope and usefulness of these core discussions. Many of you who are attending scientific seminars which are being held every year know and realize the real necessity and scope for scientific discussions.
We thought of extending the idea further and taking up for discussion selected subjects esp., extremely controversial subjects. This can be done only in small closed gatherings esp., if we expect from the participants their frank views.
Later on our discussions can be released so that the profession at large can take advantage of that. Everything done must have scientific motive, not a commercial one.
Dr. Prakash Kumta
We get three types of cases after they are treated with antibiotics. 1. Cases treated with antibiotics but which have developed side effects e.g. G.I. disturbances. 2. Cases which fail to respond to antibiotics e.g. – Virus diseases. 3. Cases which fail to respond because bacteria have become immune to the antibiotics. In all these cases we are able to help.
In some cases like diphtheria, tuberculosis etc, the antibiotics are definitely able to help well than homeopathy. I direct such cases to allopathic doctors. I don`t feel shy to do so.
Dr. S. Karnad
I think that most of us are concentrating on bacteria as the only cause of disease. Homeopathy regards diseases from an evolutionary point of view. It has the biological concept of origin of diseases from which it naturally follows that there are multiple causes operating in the field for any particular disease phenomenon to occur. The topic, bacteriology and its impact on homeopathy deals with just one of the causes of disease whereas a disease process is generally the result of a number of causes. These causes may have a genetic basis or they could belong to socio-economic causes, or the emotional causes or they could be the outcome of some intellectual aberrations in man.
Personally I feel that by laying too much emphasis only on the bacteria as the cause of disease, we are drifting away from the homeopathic concept, which has taught us as a disease can only be perceived by reckoning the totality of the causes in operation at a given moment of time and by achieving a balanced integration of them.
This is one point I would like to make. What has happened to modern medicines today is that it has concentrated so much on the environmental causes of the disease that it has overlooked the importance of the host factor. The environment and the host must both be simultaneously taken into consideration for making a total concept of disease. The human system is not like a laboratory where, an alkali mixed with an acid to produce a predetermined result. In it, a cause and effect do not follow always in a set fashion. The cause gets considerably modified before it blooms in a full-fledged disease expression.
Unless we consider this aspect of the origin of disease, whatever concept we try to formulate, whether they belong to the immunological point of view or the therapeutic point of view, are bound to fail in our action. The lop-sided development of medicine which is observed today is on account of a disintegrated standard adopted to relate our new experiences in the field and a greater emphasis on a materialistic concepts of the origin of the diseases.
If bacteria are made the only cause of diseases and we start chasing them in every case, it will result in a wild goose chase. It can be illustrated by countless examples if we look around and are sensitive to what we observe and experience. One of the most fundamental attributes of all biological existence is self preservation. Where was the need for hunting a substitute for D.D.T. had it been the answer to fight the mosquito menace? Why do we have so many pesticides coming up each day to the market in the agricultural field, had pesticides been the answer to the problem? Similarly, there was no need for the innumerable, increasingly potent bactericidal drugs, had the bacteria not become immune to their use after some time.
A mad race goes on between the drugs and the bacteria, who know that someday it may prove that the remedies are more dangerous than the diseases since they have the potentiality to destroy cell life.
I concede the point that small pox has been eradicated from the globe by inoculation. But this cannot discount the fact that there are many ill effects of vaccination.
We have compiled systematically a lot of statistics on the first count. But have we compiled statistics to assess the harm vaccination does to man and whether it leads to some other kind of disease? We must have comparative statistically to conclude that our techniques are right. Or else, it may only mean that we have succeeded in removing one disease only to replace it with another.
As homeopaths do we not enquire of our patient vaccination history and we do not attribute it as one of the causes of many diseases? How many forms of diseases do we see that result from vaccination and try to correct them with the help of our remedies like Sulphur, Thuja, Silica etc? Vaccinosis is a recognized form of disease directly attributed to vaccination. We may argue that small pox is a ‘killer disease’ and hence it is better to protect from it even at the cost of incurring risk of suffering from some other form of disease.
I pose just one question which may be purely hypothetical but not illogical. How do we know that this vaccination does not produce another form of killer disease?
Talking about immunity, one can see that a grand fracture has occurred between the concepts and the techniques. Take the example of B.C.G. patients suspected to be suffering from Tuberculosis are tested by injecting Tuberculin in differing strengths, gradually increasing it from 1/1000 till 1/100 depending on patient`s susceptibility to react to the antigen. In prophylaxis however, every person receives the common dose. The argument is that it has been arrived at by observing the statistical norm? How has it been arrived at? Unless any particular strength has been tested under different conditions on all kinds of persons, of all ages, sexes and races, a statistical norm concept appears fallacious.
A small pox vaccine was introduced some time back. It was obtained from another country as a gift, it is said. When it was inoculated to Indian population a violent reaction was produced. Going in to the antecedents of the vaccine, it had been found to have been tried successfully on the robust constitutions of the people of the country from where it originated. But when given in the same dose to our people with their poor socio-economic background it resulted in disastrous repercussions. Why did such a phenomenon occur? It is because of the differing standards of norms applied between the two countries.
This raises another question, whether in our own system of therapeutics we have any substitute? Since homeopathic drugs have been proved extensively on all kinds of constitutions one can reasonably argue that they stand a better chance of withstanding the most rigorous tests applied for determining a statistical norm.
Further they are known to produce no harmful or untoward reactions. The only problem seems to be of fitting in the concept of mass immunization into homeopathy which is wedded to the concept of individualization. The problem is at the technical level.
Dr. Hahnemann showed us a way by which a genus epidemicus could be found out and administered as a protective measure. This has the only drawback that it is not possible to find out the prophylactic for a particular epidemic until it has already burst out.
Homeopaths have not given thought to the problem after Dr. Hahnemann left the scene. Any problem needs a hypothesis to begin with before it gets solved. Here is one. In homeopathy, we talk of susceptible constitutions. Certain types are recognized to have a predisposition to manifest into certain form of diseases. These depend on an individual`s hereditary plan and his mental dispositions. One might study those patterns carefully and succeed in finding the types that go in for a particular form of acute epidemic disease. Once a link of that kind has been established one could examine the possibilities of remedying the predisposition itself before it can manifest into a full bloomed disease expression. Should this method succeed, it will automatically obviate an epidemic itself. The suggestion may appear Utopian but that should not stand as a hurdle for making a careful investigation of a suggestion?
I have certain objections regarding the standards homeopathy is trying to set for itself by imitating other systems, of taking its results to the laboratory. Once homeopathy discards the concept of dynamic action of its drugs, which is too subtle and beyond the range of every available modern gadget of being detected, the system will very soon get uprooted in our country as it did in the United States of America some years ago.
We have been hearing so much of emphasis on Baptisia as a specific prophylactic remedy for Typhoid. My submission is why Baptisia alone should be chosen as the prophylactic for Typhoid? Do we have specific diseases and specific remedies in homeopathic therapeutics? When we make a claim about a specific anti-typhoid action of Baptisia, have we anything to substantiate our claims which are open for scientific scrutiny? Have we any results of fluoroscopic examination or immunoglobulin studies to prove the specificity of action of Baptisia? These are logical queries that come to our minds and have to be answered before we go ahead with our misadventure of evolving specificity of action of homeopathic drugs for specific disease conditions.
Standardization does not imply throwing away the fundamental principles of homeopathy. There is just one other thing I wish to add before I conclude. That is the question of advocating antibiotics in homeopathic practice. In certain conditions where the bacteria are the most proximate causes, quite a lot of damage can be caused to the physiological processes in the body and the entire physiological system may be thrown out of gear. In such cases homeopathy has little chance of being capable of helping a patient. Take the instance of Meningococcal septicemia, where the onset is so rapid that hemorrhages take place resulting in shock to the patient and there is a great danger to his life.
On such occasions, I don`t think a homeopath should stick to his dogmas and allow the patient to die. It is the moral obligation of every physician first to save the life of a patient and then question the standards followed.
Dr. M. M. Dutta
As far as bacteriology is concerned, it is accepted on all sides. So we have also to accept it. But we shall accept it from our own standpoint. There are some infectious diseases which we are not able to treat with supreme confidence e.g. Diphtheria. I send these cases to the allopathic doctors for allopathic treatment because they have got standard medicines,whereas, we have all the time to hunt for the proper medicine. Dr Harish has mentioned that many cases of diphtheria have been cured with homeopathic medicines. Surely this is quite true. But the question is whether our percentage of success is as good as the percentage of allopathic doctors. I do not feel any sense of shame in sending these patients to the allopathic doctors before their condition becomes very serious.
As regards typhoid, I think we have very good medicines, enough medicines to handle the cases successfully. Of course, Chloramphenicol may be very effective but it has got its own side effects.
Dr. S. P. Koppikar
The science of bacteriology has brought in two main useful procedures in the practice of internal medicine viz. the use of immunization and the use of antibacterial agents which are very specific in certain situations. The former is one which is based on homeopathic technique. The antibacterials agents have provided tools to tackle acute infections. Regarding bacteriology and homeopathy, the first thing we have to decide is whether we accept bacteriology
But unfortunately we have not decided that till today. We may say that bacteria are only one of the etiological factors like age, sex, etc. but this is not so. Suppose somebody proved that diphtheria affects only persons above the age of 30, then it cannot affect children. This is a question of age. If some one found that typhoid affects only Indians it is a question of race. It was Louis Pasteur who was the real father of bacteriology and immunization. And mind you, he was not a doctor. He has done immense benefit to mankind and is one of the greatest saviors of humanity, like Hahnemann. He set out to find why the sheep were dying of anthrax. He advised isolation of the affected sheep, and burning of the affected dead sheep and this prevented the spread of disease. Then he tried immunization for healthy sheep and saved the industry. He also applied the same principle in hydrophobia which was causing 100% mortality. His technique of vaccination to protect others is a standard even today. It was the most beautiful use of homeopathy by a non-homeopathic man and we are fools who have not followed it up till today. We are most useless people as homeopaths, because we do not want to take anything from outside. If Hahnemann says it, we accept
it. If anyone says it, we think he is a fool.
Koch was the first man who initiated certain laws. He said that if some particular bacteria are the causes of a disease, then these bacteria must be present in every case of the disease. In every case of typhoid you must be able to demonstrate the presence of typhoid bacillus. You must also be able to grow the germ outside the laboratory and if you inject the germ in healthy body, it must produce the specific disease. Only then it is a specific infectious disease produced by that organism. There is no other question of etiological factors.
Dr. Hahnemann of course said that there must be something in the water that people drink and get cholera even though he could not see the cholera germs but when you can see the germs, you must boil the water in order to kill the germs which are the cause. I use the word ‘cause’ purposely because the cholera bacillus is the cause of cholera and not just one of the etiological factors.
Hahnemann did not say it in plain words. But unfortunately we homeopaths do not accept the cholera germ as the cause because Kent had said that it is only the result of disease, even though millions of people have died of that. I feel very sorry that Kent said like this, Kent who has done enormous service to homeopathy. Let me make it clear that my criticism has nothing to do with my faith. I am one of the staunchest followers and believer of homeopathy and my whole life has been devoted to it. But, I will be a fool if I think that only homeopathy should be used for all diseases under all circumstances. Let us settle that point today whether bacteria are the specific causes of infectious disease or not.
The next point you will immediately ask that all of us are all the time exposed to bacteria? But, we do not catch the disease. How is that? That is quite true. That is because our body is the most marvelous thing in the world and it is capable of swallowing millions of germs and still is resisting the disease.
When I travel, for instance, I drink any kind of water that is available while my friend Dr. Ramanathan always carries his boiled water. I drink ordinary water. Still, so far I have not succumbed to any infectious disease. But it is foolish on my part not to be protected against cholera and such diseases. The beautiful thing is that we have been able to overcome all sorts of enemies like tuberculosis, typhoid etc and remain quite healthy. Unfortunately all people may not have the same resistance owing to the sin of their parents or other causes.
Only when a man`s resistance is lowered due to whatever reason he gets infection or there may also be a massive invasion. In such a case, suppose we can get some extra help to kill our enemies in such a condition that should be most welcome provided we do not depend upon it entirely or all the them.
Hahnemann says, ‘learn to fight your battle yourself, get immunity yourself.” You have all seen how a man in a hypnotic trance is able to lift 10 times the weight he is normally able to lift. How is this? Because man has a tremendous amount of sub-conscious energy which he can bring into action when necessary. This sub-conscious power is tapped by homeopathy through the similar remedy. It triggers the resistance of the body in tremendous way.
I have seen my uncle curing in 5 minutes cases of cholera with Verat album put on the tongue. How did it happen? Where did the bacteria go? The body has suddenly been able to overcome the invader. Or if the body resistance is not quite adequate e can take temporary help from outside which will not disturb the constitution. I remember once Dr. Harish Chand saying that in worms, vermifuge medicine can be used. If we can give Stannum or any other remedy on no other indication except worms, what is the harm if Santonine is used? If we use Santonine it is called homeopathy. If anyone else gives, it is allopathy. Why?
Now we come to immunology. Immunology is the study of the total reaction of the body towards infections. In immunology the body may develop different techniques in different situations and the body will do this according to its necessity. The body tries to find out the best method of getting rid of the disease. Immunology is a vast subject but if it can be simplified, we homeopaths are somewhat better off when it comes to viruses. Till chemotherapy and antibiotics came, we were the masters of everything, diphtheria, typhoid etc. now in these conditions we are nowhere in the picture because they have found methods of getting rid of these scourges. But so far in viruses we are still stronger. Anyway, we have done wonderful work in virus diseases. Simple remedies like Thuja, Gelsemium and few more nosodes are all required to deal with he problems of viruses, as in influenza, polio etc. why should we bother whether it is Influenza A,B,C, or D, because the remedy need not be identical.
To sum up, let us accept and decide that infectious diseases are specific due to living organisms, whether bacteria, fungi or viruses. We have unnecessarily tried to even prevent future generations of Homeopaths from opening their eyes and minds by our dogmatic and blind assertions that all infection or disease is only in our vital force. Let us give honor to whom so ever it is due. Remember the brave men who actually got bitten by the yellow fever mosquitoes for experimental purposes and died of yellow fever. The science of bacteriology is too advanced to be just pooh-poohed by our ‘elder leaders’. I can assure you that acceptance of the role of bacteria in no way reduces the work or scope of homeopathy, either for curing or prevention.
Dr. M. P. Arya
I have a serious objection to the use of the word antibiotics. This terminology was used in the early part of century when the members of antibiotics group were very limited. Actually it is classified under chemotherapy. So we will have to discuss the effect of chemotherapy on homeopathic drugs. Broadly speaking the antibiotics could be grouped in two categories, the bacteriostatic and bacteriolytic. Some overlap and so they have limited use and limited action.
There are antibiotics which are specific to particular bacteria and there are antibiotics which are specific to a number of bacteria and therefore are termed as broad spectrum antibiotics. We should not summarily reject the use of chemotherapy as Dr. Karnad has very rightly put it, nor summarily accept it. It will depend on the case. If you go into the history of each antibiotic you will know that before it can come into market a tremendous amount of work is required in many stages with many pitfalls in each stage. We have to be careful in which case we should use chemotherapy. Dr. Harish Chand has already correctly mentioned that there are certain cases where we have to resort to modern medicines and should not dabble with homeopathic medicine. But as Dr Karnad said wherever there are physiological changes which are detrimental to body, we should switch over to antibiotics not by ourselves but hand over the cases to competent persons.
Dr. P. Sankaran
Someone raised a question about Diphtheria and homeopathic treatment. Recently when I was going through some old homeopathic journals, I was happily surprised to read that a doctor had treated successfully 86 consecutive cases of diphtheria with Mercurius Cynatus.
Dr. R.K. Desai
Dr. Sankaran has posed a question whether antibiotics can be used simultaneously with homeopathic medicines. In this connection I have to say that homeopathic medicines increase the resistance of the person while on the other side, the antibiotics may kill the germs, but they may also increase susceptibility and therefore the patients will get further infections. I have seen some families’ where some elder children go on taking allopathic treatment but the younger children take homeopathic treatment from me. I have observed that in the elder children there are frequent recurrences while the resistance of the children who are taking homeopathic treatment improves. In the longer run, the elder children are also entrusted to my care. So there is a difference in approach, one decreases the resistance while the other medicine increases the resistance. Then how both these systems of medicine can work together is very difficult to understand. At least, I cannot comprehend it. They cannot work together because they go in opposite directions. Therefore, it is not desirable that homeopathy and allopathy, that is antibiotics should be used on the same case.
Let the patients have Homeopathy or Allopathy but not both. Regarding bacteriology, we have to accept it because it is part of medicine. We cannot deny the existence of bacteria but we should not base our treatment on that aspect. But the question of bacteria does not come in when homeopathic treatment is concerned.
Dr. J.N. Kanjilal (concluding remarks)
In my experience, I have seen cases of typhoid in which after proper homeopathic medicine is given, the titre does rise. On the other side, I have seen many cases of typhoid in which chloromycetine gives dramatic relief, but there are relapses and also some cases, which are totally resistant to the drug.
Some of you had mentioned that you have not treated cases of diphtheria with homeopathic remedies, nor even seen such cases treated. I must tell you that I have treated numerous cases of Diphtheria, clinically diagnosed as such – I say clinically because I was practicing in a small town where facilities for bacteriological examination were not available – and I have treated such cases successfully with homeopathic medicines.
Dr. Sankaran mentioned that he had read a report of 86 consecutive cases of diphtheria treated with Merc Cynatus. I, however, find different remedies indicated. After coming to Calcutta, I am treating mostly chronic cases, but cases of Diphtheria do occur in those families and I certainly treat them with homeopathic medicines. In most of those cases, of course, the diagnosis was established bacteriologicaly. One of the most remarkable cases I have treated was that of my own son. This case also was bacteriologicaly established and was cured by Bacillinum, after failure of a number of apparently indicated remedies, only on the basis of frequently changing symptom picture and past history of eczema.
Regarding the idea that Merc Cynatus is the remedy for all cases of diphtheria, I cannot agree even if the statement comes from Hahnemann himself. My learned colleague Dr. Das has said that Merc sol should not be used in Diphtheria but only Merc Cynatus. He gives a very nice explanation saying that Diphtheria is a toxic condition and Merc Cynatus covers this better. Dr. Jahr has also expressed similar views in his therapeutic guide. However I must say many of my cases had been benefitted by Merc sol.
Whatever be the condition whether it is Diphtheria or Tuberculosis, Meningitis or Viral encephalitis or anything else, whatever be the name of the disease, Homeopathy will cure if the case is properly individualized and if the remedy is properly selected on the totality of symptoms. But, the problem is that in many cases we do not get the correct remedy. Fortunately or unfortunately, because I was practicing in a village, I had to take up and treat all kinds of serious conditions and acute infections and I was able to do so successfully with homeopathic medicine. Perhaps if I had been in a city like Calcutta these cases might have gone to some specialist or hospital. I have never seen a case of Typhoid cured by Baptisia unless there were indications for Baptisia. Because Baptisia has raised the titre it cannot become a specific for typhoid. Any remedy in homeopathy can raise the titre.
Regarding Bacteriology, I think it is approach in Homeopathy in a fumbling way. Dr Koppikar mentioned that Dr. Pasteur discovered the bacteria and therefore he was the father of Bacteriology. Dr. Koppikar surely knows that Hahnemann discovered the existence of bacteria much earlier and therefore he should be called Grandfather of Bacteriology.
Regarding Homeopathic prophylactics, I may quote for an example: a person was once bitten by a dog, came to me and asked me whether he should take Anti- rabies injections. I told him,’ I have seen more than 50 persons bitten by dogs (mad or otherwise) to whom I have given Hydrophobinum a good number of doses; I have even followed them up for 18 years and they have not developed Hydrophobia. But this number treated by me is too small for a definite conclusion. So, if you feel you are safer by taking the injections, certainly I allow you to take injections.’ In this matter, we have to be guided by our objective experience, not by hypothetical ideas of what Hahnemann would have done or would not have done if he was living today.
I think summing up our discussions we should say categorically, that as homeopaths we cannot permit the use of antibiotics. We are ready to tackle whatever may arise out of this. I now declare the session closed.
An Explanation of the problem
The science of bacteriology has brought in two main useful procedures in the practice of internal medicine. I.e. The techniques of immunization and the use of antibacterial agents – more and more refined and very specific in certain situations.
The former one is basically a homeopathic technique but more clearly specified. Anti-bacterial agents have for the modern doctor provided tools to deal with ‘acute infections’ with much greater ease and certainty. Success of such measures in Tuberculosis and Leprosy is of such proportions that it needs our recognition as a reality of great significance. The anti bacterials have enabled surgery to reach into the inner most recesses of the body.
Immuno-suppressive drugs enable a person to retain a suitable transplanted organ longer. It is suggested to consider the above facts in the light of our doctrines, mainly in the context of practice.
Pasteur put medicine on the wrong foot and it has not made a single step forward since. The idea that Kent did a disservice to homoeopathy by saying that bacetria are scavengers is a misnomer. It is diminishing Kent's observation as apparently faulty. However, we should observe, as Hahnemann said, and draw the right conclusions. This observation includes the following:
I think that Pasteur’s performance in the identification of disease caused by germs was rather notable scientific vaudeville. That is, if we acquit him of the charge of seriousness. They excommunicate beforehand
any other explanation. They bury the data alive. It is as irreconcilable
with the modern non-system of dogmas as once were geological strata or
the vermiform appendix, to which they still have not been able to allot a
function. In regards to disease, if Goldstein cannot get in as
Goldstein, he will come in as Jackson.
Science, though usually thought of so specifically or in its own local
terms – generally supposed to be prying into some old bones, bugs and
unsavoury messes – is an expression of this one spirit. If science could
absolutely exclude all data but its own present data or that which is
assimilable with the present quasi-organisation it will be a real
system, with positively defined outlines. Its seeming consistency,
stability and system is only sustained and sustainable by damning the
Similarly, for modern medicine, disease must come from a virus or other germ, whereas the mentality, environmental factors and iatrogenesis are ignored. If fish falls from the sky, a fishmonger did it, without any
exception. Similarly, if a disease attacks man, a germ did it, also
without any exception.
Science is the attempt to awaken to realness and reality. Bugs and
disease and chemical messes – they are only quasi-real. Of them, there
is nothing real to know, besides the reality of the suffering of the
patient. Their systemisation of pseudo-data read from a machine is their
closest approximation to reality and real things.
There could be real science if there were anything to be scientific
about. They are inimical to all data discordant with their non-system
that does not include them. Science is supposed to be inclusive, but
they have turned it into an exclusive club; not to add knowledge, but to
systematise. Over and over again, we see the universal delusion. Hope
and despair that there can be real criteria or distinct characteristics
of anything. They suffer from a disease even homeopathy is almost
powerless against – deliberate ignorance.
Similarly, the Pasteurian aberration known as the germ theory has replaced other theories on the origin of diseases, but is as faulty as the one it replaced. After all, the viruses and bacteria are noted as an
end result of disease, since they are abundant in full-blown cases.
Since result and cause are eternally different, it is at once clear that
the germ theory is a faulty piece of reasoning.
Sufficient adulation of the substitute – that is the virus or bacterium –
has become the aim of the researcher. Ignoring the existence of the
real thing – or even its possibility – is as effective for practical
purposes as if it was not there. That is tantamount to saying it does
Let us look at the virus or germ theory a little closer. It is but an
assumption that germs cause disease. They say their evidence is
presented in the fact that when they kill the bacteria or viruses, the
disease is soon gone as well. The germs become active from some outside
trigger – generally an invasion of those same germs. They attack the
living cells and destroy them, in the process using the cell-DNA to
multiply. A virus is really nothing more than a string of RNA-messenger
cells, which need the cell’s DNA, to complete them and divide. If this
is allowed to continue unabated, the body will succumb under the
onslaught and the victim will die. That sounds like the correct view, is
it not? After all, Pasteur already proved this more than 150 years ago,
is the argument.
Pasteur made a few assumptions, which we shall scrutinise further, to
discover whether they stroke with the facts or not. The first is the
assumption that germs cause disease. When a disease is full-blown, what
is the picture of the blood? A so-called ‘viral disease’ is
characterised by a high level of viruses in the blood of victims of
full-blown cases. This is – and we should note this well – invariably
the case with all viral diseases. Invariably this is noted only in
full-blown cases. If we examine the blood of any healthy person, we may
find the virus in some cases, but never in disproportionate amounts. In
the sick, everyone has a very high count. When normally it may be one
per million, in disease it is one per three cells.
Careful Observation of the Cornucopia
What is important, we must consider carefully what we observe. In a
full-blown case of disease, we are looking at the disease ultimate. It
is an end-result. From the moment we entered primary school, we are
taught that results are always different from causes, and this is
In viral diseases, they throw this scientific principle out the window
and declare that cause and result are one and the same thing. This is
unscientific, to say the least. It has no place in any scientific
discussion, least of all medicine, where lives are dependent on thorough
scientific principles and procedures. Why then does that not count for
Germs are the exception to the rule, they say. That makes for many
exceptions to the rule, for there are many different germs associated
with disease. Several gut bacteria, such as salmonella and escheria coli
to name but a few, totalling more than thirty different ones. Most of
them are used as the bowel nosodes by homoeopaths. There is more than a
just a handful of viruses, quite a few bacilli and microbes and then we
do not even count the ones they have not yet discovered. Together, this
veritable cornucopia of creatures makes for over 100 exceptions to the
rule. That is exceptional by itself. It is therefore complete nonsense
and subsequently thoroughly unscientific.
Then how come that when they are killed the disease also is finished?
Because these drugs are suppressing the disease, which will reappear
soon enough. The function of the germs is different from what Pasteur
presented and that is why they cannot be exceptions to the rule and
therefore do not cause disease. If the medical scientists paid attention
to what they see they would have noticed that viruses attack only cells
with receptors to which they can react. Healthy cells do not have those
markers, so the virus cannot attack them. Why else are we not
Bad Cleaner Syndrome
Disease can also be compared to a spring clean up. Disease must be
eliminated from the body, to truly disappear. The doctors merely hide
it, as a bad cleaning lady sweeps the dirt under the mat. Now if you
have a cleaning lady that sweeps the dirt under the mat, you fire her!
Yet they demand that doctors, who also sweep the dirt under the mat,
should be kept on as bad cleaning ladies. Why should we allow them so
much more leeway? What privilege or merit do we think they possess to be
treated differently? Personally, I think none.
At the clean up, the body opens an outlet from which the dirt is
released, be it pus, rashes, cancerous growths, warts or purging,
whatever. Their orthodox treatment closes the door, by using medicines,
creams, chemo-therapy, radiation or surgery, whatever takes their fancy.
Metastasis means nothing less than the body seeking a new outlet. You
close the door? The body will open the windows. You also close the
windows? It will, if necessary, blow off the roof. But it will never
disappear till you have brought it back to its original outlet or have
buried the victim.
Let me quote to you again James Tyler Kent, a nineteenth century
homoeopath, who pointed out what was wrong in his time and which is
still the same today.
'Anything that looks away from exactitude is unscientific. The physician
must be classical; everything must be methodical. Science ceases to be
scientific, when disorderly application of the law is made.’
(Kent. Lectures on the philosophy)
Here is another quote, by the same Dr Kent.
'Most doctors have gone crazy over the ‘vicious microbe’ as being the
cause of disease and think the little fellows exceedingly dangerous. As a
matter of fact the microbes are scavengers. I wonder if scientists
reflect when they make statements about bacteria. Naturally they would
say that the more bacteria the more dan-ger, but this is not so. It is
well known that shortly after death a prick from the scalpel is a
serious matter. This is due to the ptomaines of the corpse; but when the
cadaver has become green and filled with bacteria, it is comparatively
harmless. The microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be
carried away by these idle allopathic dreams and vain imaginations, but
should correct the vital force. The bacterium is an innocent fellow and
if he carries disease, he carries the simple substance, which causes
disease, just as an elephant would.'
(Kent Lesser Writings)
So if we follow the reasoning that viruses cause disease, then we have to shoot all the elephants?
As soon as the ease of life is gone, that is dis-ease. Where does that
show itself, other than in your mind, your emotions and in your body?
Not anywhere else is it found. Therefore, how can they say that disease
comes from germs? Or alternatively, as they now like to fancy that
disease is coming from the genes? That is the fabrication of a couple of
Yet they want us to believe it is a certain reality, or alternatively a
real certainty, although derived from indirect signs that really point
in another direction.
This naive scenario is sold to the public as factual scientific
discovery and on the most clownesque story to ever come out of a
scientific education institute, whole university departments gobble up
gigantic sums of taxpayers' money. To explain away the anomalous,
medical scientists invoke the elusive and mythological germ, especially
as nobody seems to have the faintest idea what germs exactly entail.
Among themselves, they have not the faintest clue and so they have to
mythologise the entire paradigm. This of course helps them to reinforce
it again and again.
False Conjectures & Fictions of the Imagination
Their causes consist solely on false conjectures and fictions of the
imagination. For it is a false conjecture to say the disease is in the
antibodies or the viral load. Cause and result remain different
eternally, regardless their insistence they are the same. Nobody can
experience the viral load as such, for he cannot even know it is there,
until their tests reveal it. It is a figment of the imagination to
assign causal power to a concomitant and end-result of disease; the
It is moreover a fiction – another myth – that with the death of the
so-called disease cause – in casu the germ – the disease has been
conquered. Their entire non-system is mythological and shows itself to
be imaginary on so many counts; I wonder why such is allowed. Confidence
tricksters are generally put in jail, when they are exposed.
Furthermore, to call someone cured when he is still suffering the
effects of medicine is not only self-delusion, but also deception of the
patient. He seldom believes the doctor anyway just because he still
feels sick, I can guarantee you.
The microbe community is a veritable slime city, with all kinds of
inhabitants, such as merchants, workers, farmers garbage collectors,
expensive restaurants and so on, with several types of police, as well
as an army, highrisers, highways and diverse transport systems. Some
digest food, others are scavengers. Another one has the capacity to
digest what is indigestible to others. Some members in that community
learn to digest the antibiotics and so ‘resistance’ comes about. It is
not that the virus becomes resistant, but that the antibioticum never
reaches them again – other germs digest it first. Thus, it violates the
orthodox parameters for treatment, which say that ‘the medicine used
must be able to reach the seat of infection’. This is the way they paint
the picture; I am quoting their pharmacopoeia.
Even if the viruses and other germs look different, they are also not
mutations, but merely different members of the incredibly large
community of microbes. That community has been studied – in the form of
single microbes in isolation. It has never been studied as a whole, an
entirety. They have no idea how many different members it has or what
the function of each member is within the context of the whole. They
would pretend they do from the few they studied in isolation.
I also do not know every member, but have studied it as a whole.
Immunity is extended to the whole body in the context of a co-operative
society. The conclusion is obvious and denial does not make it go away.
Only the totality gives you an idea of the goings on in Slime City and
that microbes or other germs help a virus or that germs have a
In this day of everybody’s suspicions against circumstantial evidence,
just what is not generally realised is that orthodox medicine is founded
upon nothing but circumstantial evidence. Morons for the most part can
be the most useful citizens, considering a great deal of the valuable
work done by such mentally deficient persons. One cannot offend anybody
with any statement that is interpreted as applying to everybody else. To
then ridicule my findings is what I call an instance of the
David Bohm made the following remark about knowledge: ‘One is no longer
able to describe or even think about any well defined connections
between phenomena at a given time and those of an earlier time.’
Similarly, they do not see the connections between what they discover
today and what they caused before. Instead, they invent an imaginary
cause, which will remain the cause for as long as they like.
This is the admittance of arbitrariness as a determining factor, rather
than letting the observable facts determine events. It tells us that
imagination is the supreme deciding factor in the ‘understanding’ of
medicine and the treatment of disease.
I begin to suspect that the trouble with me is that I am too
simpleminded. My antagonists, whom I call conventionalists, are subtler
than I am and prefer their views because mine are so obvious. Their
standardised explanation is perforated with omissions. They see what
they want to see – when they do see – and they see to it that the public
sees as they see.
All science is in need of sound scientific principles, to follow fixed
laws and operate with sound reasoning and logic. So far, we have seen no
foundation of law and principle and thus no discernible reason and
logic-following super-structure. We see quicksand foundations without
law or principle and loose-straw superstructures without rhyme or
reason. That is the impression modern medicine leaves behind.
Therefore, we should reject the germ-theory as a faulty notion and correct the vital force. It is unrealistic to expect we can save everyone - some people will die, which is part of the web of life. We should not "save" the patient and ruin his health to the point where even homoeopathy can do little to restore it. That is delusional, because it subjects the patient to a life of hardship and if we allow that, what have we saved, other than our own reputation?
Dear Esteemed Colleagues,
I have not been about the practice of Homoeopathy for a long time, and as such am certainly no Master. However, I come from a place of having studied "Bacteriology" and "Immunology" quite in depth, so I have a few thoughts of my own.
Although I was thoroughly and rigorously taught to acknowledge the "germ theory" model of disease, I have come to reject it rather soundly for its many faulty assumptions and lack of relative evidence. As Kaviraj has mentioned, the cause and result of a disease cannot be the same. He is also quite correct in asserting that the "slime city" is never viewed in its totality, but rather as isolated individuals. In fact, it is the goal of a Bacteriologist to separate the bugs from one another, to "Isolate" them and to be able to ascertain from a mixed culture, that which is the "pathogenic" organism, rather than considering the community as a whole. The "good" contributors are never even acknowledged at all by allopathy, since they do not "Cause" disease. However, antibiotics have very little specificity, they are the equivalent of an atomic bomb to the biological community.
Since the advent of antibiotics (and vaccines) we observe much less "acute" disease process. Therefore, we have become much less adequate as physicians in dealing with it, as we are somewhat out of practice, whereas our ancestor Homoeopaths were quite excellent at it. Have we forgotten our history of great success in some of the world's largest and most virulent epidemics? Since the emergence of antibiotics (which can be classified as chemotherapy on every level, as they are but poisons which eradicate living organisms) and vaccines we as Homoeopaths are now faced with a VAST amount of chronic and debilitating disease, which is but a MORE DEEPLY ENTRENCHED VERSION OF THE ORIGINAL ACUTE MANIFESTATION, HAVING BEEN BOUND TO THE ORGANISM AT A MORE PROFOUND AND MORE DISTURBING LEVEL. Often bound at such a deep level, that the disease has been "inherited". This is why we are finding it more and more necessary to resort to the nosodes prepared from such acute disease processes in the past, because these processes WERE NEVER RESOLVED, and have become so deeply entrenched in the body as "disease fragments" that the body is no longer able to recognize them as APART from Self, and thereby mount a defense. There are multitudes of these types of manifestations, given various names as new diseases audaciously by the very branch of medicine which CREATED them. How many times have we observed, upon commencing the treatment of a chronic and old disease process, a "never well since" presentation, that with the appropriate selection of remedy, an acute disease process will arise? This is not an "aggravation", this is a "return of symptoms", which will require the proper "acute intercurrent", which is really a misnomer, because if the disease had been treated appropriately IN the acute phase, there would be no development of the chronic at all. EW Hubbard talks of this.
Yes, we are plugging the "vents" which the body utilizes to purge itself of that which is no longer helpful or useful, a very necessary part of our successful evolution as a race, for certainly we experience disease somewhat collectively as well as individuals. Modern industry has played a very large role in accelerating disease, with all its foul byproducts and poisonings, all for the financial advancement of a few corrupt and greedy families, who virtually control our entire world. In fact, it has been this way since the beginning of human history. Allopathy are but the pawns of industry, the group of "scientists" that are enlisted in order to misdirect our understanding of what is truly causing "dis-ease", divert attention away from the real predators with its "discovery" of ever newer and more exotic "mercenaries". And humans are always willing to be easily diverted, because diversion is MUCH EASIER than facing the truth of a situation and therefore being compelled to DO something about it, even when our very humanity and biology itself is the victim when we fail to act.
In fact, the system has such great power that when we as humans choose to address the real problem and use our common healing powers and instinct to rectify a situation and life is "lost", the "perpetrators" of such a crime are quite often prosecuted and imprisoned as a result. We have seen this happen to fellow Homoeopaths, so tight is the grip of industry and allopathy. SO we must be brave when we practice our Art, and highly skilled as well, for our successes go largely unrecognized or are attributed to some other vehicle, while our "Failures" are eagerly pounced upon and demonized by those who are heavily invested in seeing the status quo continue, as it is a VERY PROFITABLE economic system which confers great power to those who sit at its pinnacle. Do not be misled into thinking that allopathy is merely flawed in its approach, that the motive is one of goodness. This misdirection of disease is DELIBERATE AND CONTRIVED PURPOSEFULLY TO SUPPORT THE GAIN OF POWER. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Healing.
Pray for the Goodness which exists in the Heart of Man to RISE AND CRUSH the venomous snake. There has been enough darkness cast upon our People. Pray for Love.