Creating Waves of Awareness
Survival of Homeopathy
Dr. M. A. Usmani
(Author: HOMEOPATHY of TOMORROW)
It is a true to say that the survival of a science lies in science: in more and more scientificity of every aspect of knowledge; bolstered up by logic and uncontroversial facts, shedding all the overtones of belief and hearsay, peeling all the superfluous layers of faith and mysticism from over the face of the reality.
The survival of homeopathy depends, by the same token, on its being a pure therapeutic medical science, based on hard pathological facts, not on poppy cock tales, of a person’s being valorous or timid, brave or chicken-heated, meek of heart or belligerent, social or asocial, industrious or careless or carefree.
Remedies should be studied with reference to the pathologies they create in the ‘provers,’ to determine the full scope and extent of their generating symptoms, with their intensity and malignancy; and specificity of the seat of their main action, i.e. their organ affinities.
Mental and temperamental traits, psychological and behavioural trends are not fixed as the pathological facts. They’re mostly relevant to the extent of prevailing situations and socioeconomic circumstances. A person can be brave or valorous in one set of circumstances and timid or chicken-hearted in other circumstances; may be wanton in one situation and very considerate in the other set of circumstances.
Psychological traits are not fixed and are mostly transient, by virtue of which therapeutics cannot be based on them. Changeable and transient symptoms cannot provide a solid basis for a pathological science, determinable in laboratory findings and are fixed as permanent complaints.
Some medicines or herbs have inherent tendency to influence certain particular organs. They are said to have specificity of actions on those organs. After Honheim in history, Rademacher gathered a specialized knowledge of such remedies, which the homeopaths all over the world exploit in their practice. These remedies which later on were called ‘organ remedies,’ i.e. specific to the particular organs: stimulating, either thwarting or invigorating those organs.
The second original thinker after Hahnemann, Dr. J. C. Burnette made the versatile and creative use of these remedies. He made such a unique use of these remedies that one feels ascribing the discovery of these remedies to him. He himself also was the discoverer and inventor of many remedies enriching the homeopathy Materia Medica. His main prestigious contributions are: Bacillinum, Levico, Jaborandi, Urtica Urens, Jugulans Cinerea, etc. He has given these medicine an established background and methodology. They are popular additions to the homeopathic Materia Medica.
Previous to Burnette, a sentiment was pervasive among the contemporaries of Hahnemann—among whom were his learned colleagues and dedicated provers—to know and delineate the therapeutic scope of every remedy. Many of them tried to write monographs on the subject. They were scientific documents on therapeutics. Dr. Hering and Jhar’s manuscripts stood out conspicuously. Dr. Jhar’s ’40 Years’ Practice’ became the Vade Mecum for coming generations.
These attempts to construct scientific therapeutics, and in fact, to write even full Materia Medicas on the therapeutic bases, continued throughout the whole history of homeopathy till today. There were many great souls, among them the bright stars are: Dr. Farrington, Cowperthwait; Dr. Clarke’s 3 volumes of Materia Medica, in which therapeutic scope of every single remedy is given in the beginning. In addition to this he also wrote a Clinical Repertory. There are scores of other authors who have written Materia Medicas on therapeutic basis and tried to establish homeopathy sternly on purely scientific basis. They were the torch-bearers of scientific therapeutics of homeopathy.
About 90% of daily practice can be dealt successfully with these books. Only 10% cases and those of the chronic nature will need “higher” homeopathy. And about 95% of this 10% chronic cases will be dealt with nosodes with total and non-controvertible success. For a pathology that can be corroborated by laboratory checking and analyses, the aim of the prescribing Homeopath is to treat the diseases to alleviate or cure the pathology.
If In such situations more than one remedies stand out as indicated, from among which one is selected on the basis of maximum similarity: including some personal traits of the patient. Sometimes the similarity of a single symptom decides the remedy. This happens when a very peculiar symptom of a remedy is strikingly found in the patient. For example, if in a rheumatic patient, you find that the patient can predict a coming spell of bad (wet) weather, may it be still a hundreds of miles away from the patient’s residence. This is a confirmed symptom of a homeopathic remedy “Rhododendron”. This single symptom will suffice for its selection as a true Similimum.
Unless the patient comes for a psychological problem, there is a rare need for asking and discussing psychological issues. Prying into the psychological complexes unless the case falls among the 10% cases, that we have discussed above, is uncalled for. In the science of behaviour or psychology there is no absolute. These are fluid traits or symptoms. There is no person absolutely timid or absolutely brave. Sometimes timidity can be sagacious, and bravery foolish.
The 10% cases, that we have eulogized as chronic ones, felling the Miasmatic barrier sometimes suffices to lay bare the Similimum. But even the need of knowing the Similimum is, many times, obviated or rendered unnecessary – ‘the case is cured’ lock, stock and barrel.
When the Simlimum does not work or works impermanently try to find the Miasm - there lies the salvation!