Creating Waves of Awareness
Homeopathy Of Tomorrow: Introduction
Dr. M. A. Usmani
Revelation belongs to science. Progress of science is a revealing journey about the secrets of the universe. It is like the torch of the Olympics that is handed over from one generation (or host) to the next generation (or host) to keep the progress going unabated. There are no inroads or intrusion from beliefs and faiths. The facts of science are not permanent. They are always in flux. Today’s facts may be tomorrow’s falsehood. Affirmations and denials are the milestones along the path of science. What is affirmed is affirmed on the basis of proofs, and what is denied is denied on the basis of proofs. What cannot be proved can never become knowledge. What were sacred secrets yesterday are today’s banal truths.
A man is lying with his wife, who has 8 months belly; he would be fondling and kissing her belly, and trying to talk, sotto voce, with the child that is in the belly. He wants to address it, but he is nonplussed how to proceed, for he does not know whether it is John or Mary, Sadhna or Ramlal, Kashif or Ayesha. He doesn’t know the gender of the baby. But he is complacent about his limit of knowledge. He says it is God’s territory. It is only He who knows such secrets. But—and this is a formidable BUT—we know that we now are enabled to fully know not only this, but along with this, many more and quite abstruse facts. Not only about the gender of the child, we can now know about the normal or abnormal development of the fetus—weather the fetus is a normal human or a brute. Should we continue with it or terminate the pregnancy? Many more tests can be performed specifically to investigate the health of the fetus to determine the soundness of its post-natal possibilities. Vistas of knowledge and progress open up only when you have broken the idols of sacred and profane. You will witness that the territory of sacred secrets is shrinking with astounding rapidity. Sudden elemental onslaughts, as e.g. cyclones, that used to take scores of lives of the inhabitants, along with general devastation, now can be predicted with increasing accuracy to save the population from uninformed disaster. The more precise the science becomes the more accurate the prediction will become.
Similarly the medical sciences are galloping with great strides, especially the pathology and the diagnostic sciences. Whosoever would not keep pace with them will miserably lag behind. It is axiomatic that the more precise these sciences become, to that extent their therapeutic application will become precise. Our aphorisms and edicts were all in order and effective and applicable. But they were in/for the 19th century when there was a total vacuum as far as diagnostic sciences and technology is concerned. Even such an ordinary gadget as stethoscope was unknown. Diagnostic use of X-rays or magnetic imaging and ultrasound and scores of other sophisticated tests were not even conceived. A symptom was defined as the abnormal sensation felt by the patient and externally witnessed by him or by other people, as for example by the doctor. According to the modern knowledge this is inadequate and miserably deficient definition. A chance x-rays or an ultrasound may reveal quite a sizable stone in the kidney which has been creating no sensation or discomfort, hence no symptoms. A patient comes with edema pedum or general anasarca. His symptoms that he relates lead you nowhere. Ultrasound tells you that the patient has only one kidney, and the blood reports tell that the singular kidney that he has is also in the process of dissolution or failure. Modern research methods show that there can be numerous pathologies and diseases without any tangible symptoms; or very casual and dubious symptoms.
So we should shed our ideas that ‘when there are no symptoms, there is no disease’; or that ‘when there are left no symptoms, there is no disease left’. It is tantamount to total ignorance. Recurrent complaints being settled by homeopathy every time, their very recurrence is a sufficient warning and exhortation to go for a detailed medical checkup. Such checkups could not ever be thought of two centuries back. A solid knowledge of pathology with a sound and all-inclusive awareness of diagnostic methodologies and techniques are essential provisos for every medical practitioner, either a doctor, a homeopath or a herbalist. Without these he is incomplete just like a motor mechanic who can unbolt many parts of the engine but is quite at loss how to re-assemble them back. A humpty-Dumpty fallen by such a quack, then ‘all the king’s horses and all the king’s men’ would not be able ‘to put him back again.’ Without diagnostic knowledge and means pathology is rudderless, and without pathology therapeutic is blind.
‘Without pathology therapeutic is blind’ is very true. Take for example ‘diabetes’. In the original homeopathic literature ‘sugar in urine’ expression was used. And quantity of sugar was determined in the urine only; and expressed by one, two, three and four pluses. Four times ++++ was the highest. According to the pathogenetic symptoms of the materia medicas sugar was referred as ‘glycosuria’, that is ‘sugar in the urine’. Even in allopathy of yore only quantity in urine was determined, by the Benedict Solution. Now it is seldom that a urine report is asked for determining whether a patient is diabetic. Now all the tests for sugar are done on the blood serum. And now we homeopaths have nothing to do with these tests, except to measure the modicum of success or failure of the treatment, which is perhaps always illusory.
Now homeopathy, by the grace of God, is treating all and every incurable disease under the sun, thanks to the nostrums mongers—a good chunk of the professionals in homeopathy. I have talked about this issue in my article: Rock Solid Facts about Homeopathy. We have no quarrel with these unprincipled people, as they are not homeopaths, nor what they do is homeopathy. They are like the man in the fable who was cutting the branch of the tree on the far end of which he was sitting. When warned by a passer- by of a possible fall on his bottom, he jeered at him. Yes, they’ll definitely fall—it is destined—but homeopathy would also suffer a disgrace, as non-discerning people take their practice as sacrosanct homeopathy
Our real argument is with the classical breed of homeopathy—leaving that faction of the classical who did not outgrow the first phase of homeopathy, before the induction of the Theory of Miasms by the Master. And it is a logico-scientific argument. Unless they take pathology with its diagnostic sciences in their full control, their prescribing will remain flimsy and tenuous. Basing their prescriptions exclusively on mind and modality symptoms, is like committing the fallacy of putting the cart before the horse. They should shed their prejudice against pathology. I’ve surfeited myself talking about this limitation of the classical stalwarts: their inborn hatred of pathology. Hahnemann had a definite drift towards pathology. When he announced the prescription for the epidemic of Asiatic cholera, when the disease had not yet touched the soil of Europe, it was ipso facto a pathologic prescription. There was no mention of mental symptoms and modalities.
Hahnemann’s induction of miasmatic theory was, in fact, because of his bitter realization of the basic status of pathology in therapeutics. This theme has been discussed amply throughout this book.
My conviction is that the future belongs to those homeopaths who understand diseases with reference to pathology; and understand ‘pathology’ with reference to miasms. And the prescription will go from general to particular: i.e. from miasm to pathology of the sick person. That is, search will proceed from particular person (the patient) to the general, (that is, first pathology then the miasm), and the remedy selection will proceed from general to the particular, the ‘particular’ being the sick individual.
If a patient’s remedy is very clear and definite, naturally that should be given. But the better way is to give a related nosode (if indicated), first alone, and see its response for few weeks or a month, and decide accordingly. But if the nosode does not create any impact, then the indicated miasmatic remedy should be given.
Nosodes are of two kinds:
In fact all nosodes are ultimately pathologic. But some nosodes have gotten a more generalized status and have thus attained identification with the Hahnemannian miasms. The other pathologic nosodes are of definite diseases and are exclusively identified with them—as Typhoidinum for cleansing the residual effluvia of typhoid; or Pertussin for the residue of whooping cough, and parotodinum for mumps. So, therefore they have limited action. Let’s call the first as Miasmatic nosodes, and categorize the others as ‘simple nosodes’.
For beginning a chronic case, nosodes should, if possible, be our first line of attack. That is, we should be wary of selecting other than the pathologic or the miasmatic nosodes. The nosodes wash away much o the impedimenta, dirt and effluvia from the system. They smoothen the case and take it towards resolution in one sweep. Moreover I feel that nosodes, like vaccine, can create a lifelong immunity from the relevant strain of the disease. They seem to create antibodies or destroy the tendency to contract that disease that they used to contract in particular circumstances. The patients get a sort of resistance to slip down the beaten track after consuming the known irritants. Proof of this will be provided by asking the patients to take or consume the same food or irritant, and see them escape without the usual results. And if at all they get a semblance of the usual complaints, don’t worry, give them placebo and enjoy the scene of their soon getting their sufferings redressed without any further medication.
After the nosode has done its work now is the time for searching the miasmatic remedy (or the constitutional remedy, if the miasm has already been wiped away). This remedy, you will see, will have a smooth flow, as it often occurs after the course of drainage remedies.
Knowledge is not static, and what is static is not knowledge—or science. If after two centuries of cataclysmic advancement in medical sciences, the percepts and the concepts of the therapeutic did not change an iota, then verily it is dogma not science.
Hahnemann gave us science. Like science he kept changing and advancing his whole life. His companions, who could not keep pace with him, kept on dropping. He did not care. Sloth or inertia was not his mode of living. He gave surprise after surprise to his companions. [First postulating pathology as the basis of sickness, by inducting the Theory of Miasms; then instructing daily repetition of doses in the garb of 50-Millessimal potencies, etc.] The worshippers were dismayed, and the disciples admired and felt elated and enlightened. The worshippers are still worshippers; and became classical homeopaths. The admirers are still knowledge thirsty, and keep on drenching on the Master’s fountain. The door of homeopathy was kept ajar by the great Master to let the beam of new light always coming in, with a whiff of fresh air.
The great disciple, in the true spirit of the Master, in the second generation, was the great James Compton Burnett (1840-1901). He brought tons of insights to the homeopathic therapeutic. We can say in spirit he was the second Hahnemann. Homeopathy to remain visible on the globe and flourish must adapt the ways and methodology of the great Burnett. I have dedicated this book to him: the great and enlightened iconoclast of the last century.