|
Homeopathy
Translated from the book V. Schjelderup: “Nytt lys
på medisinen”, Cappelen, Oslo 1989, 235-260
Samuel
Hahnemann and his Medicine
Homeopathy these days is
flourishing, attracting ever more patients and practitioners. Most
medical doctors undoubtedly see this as a reaction away from science and
back to the superstitions of yesterday. This is however unjust. If we
look at homeopathy with impartial eyes, we find it is a thoroughly
empirical science based on experience and experiments that are analysed
and collected according to clear logical principles. In this respect
homeopathy may indeed be a more true science than much of what has been
taught in academic medicine.
When homeopathy got the name of
being unscientific, it is due to the fact that it was discovered at the
same time, around the year 1800, as chemistry got its modern scientific
basis in the theory of atoms and molecules. And because homeopathy
apparently is at odds with the fundamental laws of chemistry, it was not
taken seriously by academic science and was banished from scientific
medicine. When homeopathy has survived in spite of this, it is because
it has managed to maintain its reputation as a practical art of healing.
A science of healing, apparently
at odds with basic scientific laws, and yet confirmed through more than
200 years of medical experience: This is what makes homeopathy the
greatest and most controversial paradox in Western medicine. If there
really is something to homeopathy, it poses a greater challenge to
science than possibly any other development in medicine. Before we try
to tackle this problem, however, we better have a look at what
homeopathy is and how it came into being.
Homeopathy means a kind of
medicine based on the principle of similarity: a disease shall be
treated by a remedy which has similar properties as the disease. It was
Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, which gave it this name,
composed of the Greek word ‘homeios’ (equal) and ‘pathos’ (disease). In
contrast to homeopathy, ordinary medicine is called ‘allopathy’ (‘allo’
is the Greek word for different) because it as a rule tries to treat
diseases with means that counteract the symptoms and thus have different
properties from the disease.
The similarity principle is an
old principle in the history of medicine. Hippocrates formulated it
clearly 400 years B.C.: “Diseases are cured by what is equal and the
similar: if we give that to the patient he will gain from illness to
health. The fever is overcome by that which is causing it, and caused by
that which will cure it.” (1) And in the 16th century
Paracelsus formulated what later became the famous thesis of Hahnemann:
‘Similia similibus curentur’ – the similar will cure the similar.
Paracelsus explained how we shall search for the right remedies by
looking for similarities. But at the time of Hahnemann the principle of
similarity was almost forgotten in medicine. His rediscovery of the
principle of similarity and the new methodical basis he gave homeopathy,
was a completely new development in medicine.
Samuel Hahnemann deserves a
prominent place in the history of medicine regardless of what we may
think about homeopathy. He is one of the great pioneers who transformed
the uncritical, authoritarian attitude of 18th century
medicine to the searching, scientific spirit that marked the development
of modern medicine in the 19th century. Apart from the
creation of homeopathy, he reformed pharmacology, pioneered modern,
hygienic principles, worked for a more human treatment of psychiatric
patients and anticipated a microbiological explanation of epidemic
diseases.
Hahnemann was born in 1755 in
the German city of Meisen where his father worked in the famous
porcelain factory. He came from a good home, and his father is told to
have had extraordinary moral qualities. But it was a difficult time and
the economy of the family did not allow for giving the boy an education.
Luckily the principal of the high school in Meisen realized that the boy
was extraordinarily gifted. He managed to get grants for the boy, and
had him already from the age of 12 teach other pupils Greek. In this way
Hahnemann got a thorough classical education and learned to master
several languages, which in addition to Greek and Latin in time also
included English, French, Italian and Arabic. His main interest was,
however, science, and in 1775 he managed to enter the University of
Leipzig to study medicine.
Although the University of
Leipzig at that time was the most famous in Germany, the medical study
was only theoretical and did not include clinical training. For this
reason Hahnemann left for Vienna 2 years later. In Vienna he became the
pupil of Professor von Quarin who was the principal of the university,
physician to the emperor and doctor in charge of the largest medical
hospital in Europe at that time. Professor Quarin not only let the poor
student attend lectures without paying, but even let him follow him at
private sick calls. This close contact with Professor Quarin was very
important for the medical development of Hahnemann. It gave him an early
access to the highest level of medical knowledge and clinical insight in
European medicine. (2)
In 1779 Hahnemann got his
medical degree at the University of Erlangen and could start his medical
practice. At the same time, however, he followed up extensive studies
and started research in chemistry and pharmacology. In 1785 he published
a translation of a major textbook by the French chemist Demachy which he
improved through his own commentaries. This publication was very well
received, and Hahnemann was now recognized as a highly respected
authority in chemistry and pharmacology. During the years 1785-89 he
published no less than 2200 pages of original work and translations.
Among his own publications was a handbook how to tell if medicines had
been falsified which soon became indispensable for pharmacists, and a
major thesis on poisoning by arsenic. The test he developed to decide
whether wine has been falsified, is still in use in Germany. And new
laws he proposed to regulate the sale and handling of poisons were later
enacted. In his scientific books he gives evidence of extensive and
profound knowledge in several fields. In his scientific evaluation of
known ways to treat arsenic poisoning he brings no less than 861
citations from 389 different authors.
It is amazing how Hahnemann
managed to follow up his extensive scientific and literary work in
addition to his clinical practice and care for an increasing family. He
had an enormous capacity for work. From his youth on he kept going with
a work day of 18 hours and kept himself in a good physical condition by
regular exercises.
A brilliant scientific career
seemed ahead. Due to his research in chemistry he was in 1791 elected
member of the Academy of Science in Mayence. His ‘Dictionary for
Pharmacists’ became a standard textbook, and he was elected to
standardise the German synopsis of medical remedies.
His clinical experience and
scientific research made him, however, ever more critical towards his
contemporary medicine. He reached the conclusion that “medicine in vain
had searched for effective remedies during the twenty two centuries that
had passed since Hippocrates without being able to take a real step
forwards”. Physicians prescribed poisonous medicines, and often in
composite preparations, without real knowledge how these preparations
affected the living organism. Other methods of treatment, like strong
laxatives and bleeding by venous puncture or leeches, were equally
harmful for the patients and often deprived them of the vitality
necessary to survive. Hygienic conditions were bad and medical
understanding of the significance of proper hygiene was actually poorer
than it had been in Antiquity.
Driven by indefatigable energy
Hahnemann took up all these matters and without compromise he pointed
out which forms of practice that were contrary to health. His merciless
criticism of his contemporary medicine soon made him many enemies. And
when he started making his own medicines, the pharmacists saw this as a
threat to their privileges and closed the ranks against him. Soon he was
the most controversial medical doctor in Germany, locked into bitter
conflicts.
Hygiene and Preventive Medicine
Having realized that
contemporary medicine could achieve very little in the fight against
diseases, Hahnemann started to advocate hygiene and preventive medicine
for his patients. He recommended fresh air, physical exercises and a
reasonable diet. He also engaged himself for a more human treatment of
psychiatric patients, better care for ill people and proper training and
care of children. Through books like ‘The Friend of Health’, ‘The
Mother’s Book’ and ‘Handbook for Mothers and the Principles for the
Early Upbringing of Children’ he reached out to ordinary people and made
a contribution to improve general
hygiene.
In the book ‘The Friend of
Health’ he takes up questions of social hygiene. Hahnemann demanded that
patients suffering from contagious diseases should be isolated, that
objects they had been in contact with, should be disinfected, and that
they should be treated in light and airy rooms. He was aware that areas
with very poor sanitary conditions acted as reservoirs of diseases and
thus were a continuous threat to public health. Accordingly he
recommended that the old quarters of the poor should be dismantled and
be replaced by new dwellings with proper sanitary conditions. For the
same reason he recommended that also prisoners should be kept under
proper hygienic conditions.
The significance of Hahnemann as
one of the great pioneers in hygiene and preventive medicine has largely
been forgotten due to the controversy about homeopathy. To day we may
more easily evaluate his contribution in these areas. We now know that
the great improvements in general health and longevity that has happened
during these last two centuries, in the main is due to improvements in
hygiene and conditions of living, and that the development of medical
therapies play only a minor part in this. One of the most important
revolutions in the history of medicine was the discovery of Semmelweiss
at the end of the 1840’s, that puerperal fever could be prevented by
having doctors disinfect their hands before they examined women giving
birth. The violent attacks that met Semmelweiss and probably caused his
later psychosis, give us an idea how tough and sometimes ungrateful the
fight for such necessary reforms in medicine have been. We, therefore,
may not wonder that Hahnemann had become a controversial man with many
bitter enemies already before he raised the question of homeopathy.
Hahnemann was preoccupied with
the question of health in all its aspects. What he was looking for was a
health oriented medicine. To day we are, in spite of the enormous
development that has happened in medicine in the meantime, in a similar
situation. Many people are to day disillusioned about our modern
medicine and are looking for a more health oriented and holistic
medicine. We are thus more open to evaluate the contribution of
Hahnemann and how he created the basis for a total revolution in medical
thought.
The
Discovery of Homeopathy
In spite of his preoccupation
with hygiene and preventive medicine, Hahnemann did not give up his
search for more effective medicines. He discovered homeopathy step by
step. In 1789 he anticipated a homeopathic explanation in his discussion
of the therapeutic effect of mercury in syphilis. Next year, while
translating a book by Professor Cullen of the University of London, he
made an experiment which impressed him deeply.
Professor Cullen had given an
extensive review of the pharmaceutical effects of the South-American
cinchona bark from which we extract the medicine quinine. Quinine is an
effective medicine against malaria and fever in general, but Cullen had
no other explanation for this than the bitter taste and its effect on
the stomach. What did strike Hahnemann was that the same cinchona bark
taken in an overdose would give the symptom of fever as a sign of
poisoning. He thought this strange and decided to make an experiment on
himself. The result of this experiment was decisive to him: Quinine
which is an effective remedy for fever, when taken in an overdose,
produces all the symptoms of fever as a sign of poisoning. Through this
simple experiment on himself Hahnemann had rediscovered the principle of
similarity in medicine.
Like all great scientists
Hahnemann was not satisfied by a single observation. He made several
similar experiments on himself with other medications. Repeatedly he
found the principle of similarity confirmed. In this research he
followed a simple rule which he never left and which has become a basic
rule in homeopathy: Never to test a remedy on a sick person before it
had been tested in a larger dosage on a healthy person, and all its
different effects had been carefully described.
Hahnemann now started using
remedies chosen on the basis of the principle of similarity in the
treatment of his patients. Repeatedly he observed positive results
telling him he was on the right track. But before they experienced the
positive effect and improved, they got worse. This was to be expected.
As the medicine was chosen on the basis of the principle of similarity,
its poisonous effect would add to the symptoms of the patient and cause
a temporary impairment. Hahnemann thus learned to distinguish between
two different, and usually opposite, effects of medicines: a primary
effect due to the poisonous effect of the medicine on the organism, and
a secondary effect due to the reaction of the organism in its attempt to
neutralize this harmful effect. It was this secondary effect which was
therapeutic, while the initial, primary effect was a complication it
would be better to avoid. (3)
To avoid this primary poisonous
effect Hahnemann diluted the medicine to the tenth of its usual dosage.
He still got a therapeutic effect, and now the primary, unwanted effect
was much milder. When he tried to eliminate the poisonous effect by
further dilution, this, however, failed because he now reached a
dilution where the therapeutic effect was lost. If the medicine was not
sufficiently strong to give an initial, poisonous effect, it was neither
strong enough to give a therapeutic effect.
The problem was how to make
remedies that give the secondary, therapeutic effect, but not the
primary, poisonous effect. It was at this point Hahnemann made the
second great discovery which constitutes the basis of homeopathy. He
started to prepare his dilutions in a special way. Each time he made a
dilution he gave it a series of strong shakings, or succussions, to make
the material he was diluting thoroughly impregnate into the medium of
dilution. Making the dilutions this way he discovered that the remedy
not lost its therapeutic effect, but actually in a strange way seemed to
gain in therapeutic power through successive dilutions.
This way Hahnemann discovered
the second basic principle of homeopathy, the principle of minimal
dosage – or perhaps we should rather call it the principle of
potentiation, because it is the method of dilution, shaking it
thoroughly at each step of progressive dilution, which is of decisive
significance.
Hahnemann had now solved the
problem of making homeopathic remedies that are free from poisonous side
effects. This method of potentiation, where each successive dilution is
made with a thorough shaking so as to impregnate the matter to be
diluted into the medium of dilution, forms the basis for producing
homeopathic remedies. These are produced in series of progressive
dilutions or potencies, usually with a diluting factor of one to ten
(decimal potencies) or one to hundred (centesimal potencies). As media
of solutions Hahnemann chose water, alcohol and lactose considering
these to be neutral in a medical sense.
In 1796 Hahnemann published a
preliminary report about this new homeopathic method in a medical
journal. In 1800 he wrote a small booklet about the treatment of scarlet
fever, including the use of homeopathic preparations of belladonna. This
caused violent criticism from other medical doctors. And this storm
became even more violent when it turned out that
ahnemann’s prescription did not work
Hahnemann
Hahnemann’s prescription did not
work during a new epidemic. It was no use that he claimed that this new
epidemic was due to rubella and not scarlet fever, and that belladonna
was not the right homeopathic remedy for this disease. In 1837, however,
the Prussian government recommended doctors to treat scarlet fever with
tiny dosages of belladonna.
A
Science of Healing
While the controversy around him
steadily increased, Hahnemann in 1803 and 1806 published more extensive
reports about his new homeopathic method. And in 1810 he published his
main work ‘Organon der Heilkunde’ where he gave a more complete and
concise exposition of his new medical theory. This book is still the
most central work in homeopathy. Hahnemann revised it several times
during his later life. The 6th and last edition was published
when he was 86 years old.
The first paragraph of ‘Organon’
reads like this: “The high and only task of the physician is to make ill
people healthy, what is called to heal.”
This paragraph is essential if
we are to understand what homeopathy is about. The task of the physician
is to heal, and medicine is the knowledge and insight that may help him
to solve this task. Everything else is inessential. Hahnemann makes this
unrelentingly clear in his commentary to this paragraph, cutting away
everything he had found was obstructing medicine from fulfilling this
task:
“His task is, however, not
to create so called systems, weaving together empty speculations and
hypotheses regarding the internal, essential nature of the life
processes and how diseases arise in the invisible interior of the
organism (what so many doctors so far have wasted their gifts and time
trying to do); neither is it to try to give innumerable explanations of
the phenomena of diseases and their causes (which for ever will remain
hidden), clothed in strange, artificial, abstract words that seem to
give an aura of learnedness to stupefy the ignorant – while suffering
humanity is sighing for help…. “
Galilei and Descartes had
utilized the method of reductionism radically to rid physics of
metaphysical speculations. Hahnemann takes an equally radical stance in
medicine, trying to free it from everything that may prevent doctors
from solving their real task. Through his reductionist criticism
Hahnemann did in fact something radically new: He established medicine
as an independent science free from all non-medical suppositions. This
approach to medicine was too radical to be accepted by his time. To day
we have better possibilities to evaluate him as the truly great
scientific innovator he was. And perhaps we may truly wonder whether he
in his scientific scrutiny was indeed two hundred years ahead of his
time. From the point of view of scientific methodology Hahnemann founded
homeopathy as a strictly empirical science based on clear logical
principles. Contrary to the common view, homeopathy has survived due to
its strictly scientific structure.
According to Hahnemann, it is
not the task of medical doctors to search for knowledge per se, but in
order to heal the ill. He defines medicine as an operational science, a
science which serves a practical aim. And as this aim is health,
homeopathy is the science of how to achieve health, or as we may say, a
science of healing. At this basic and essential point homeopathy is in
contrast to the predominant development in Western medicine. During the
19th century Western medicine increasingly got focused on the
concept of pathology and thus developed into a medicine focused on
disease, while homeopathy focused on healing. And because health and
healing are holistic concepts, while pathology became ever more
analytical, we got the contrast between homeopathy as a holistic
medicine and academic medicine as an analytical medicine where the
organism is divided into organ systems and ever smaller parts. This has
had enormous consequences for how modern medicine is structured in
society and how it forms our attitudes. The conflict between homeopathy
and modern scientific medicine, based on a predominately biochemical
theory of man, has therefore even more fundamental aspects than whether
homeopathic remedies have medical effects or not. As Hahnemann
formulated it, it has to do with the very aim and meaning of medicine.
In the next paragraphs of
‘Organon’ Hahnemann specifies the task of medicine: “The ideal of
medical therapy is a fast and permanent restoration of health free from
complications …. in the simplest, most reliable and least harmful way
according to rational principles.” Preventive medicine is emphasised:
“He is equally a preserver of health if he knows what breaks down health
and causes disease and knows how to remove these from healthy people.”
The central question in medicine
is how we define the concept of ‘disease’. It is here we find the very
basis for the radical reformulation of medicine Hahnemann made. He did
not accept diseases as entities in themselves: “There are no diseases –
only sick people”, as he formulated it in a famous sentence. On the
basis of his clinical observations he had reached the conclusion that
all cases of disease are different, they all have an individual
character. This had given him the insight that the patterns of disease
do not mirror different disease categories in themselves, but rather the
struggle of the organism to maintain and re-establish its living
integrity. The symptoms are actually the reactions of the organism to
something wrong, they form a natural language through which the ill
organism expresses itself.
In ‘Organon’ he defines diseases
as “disturbances of health”. They can only be identified on a purely
empirical basis: “The unbiased observer …. in each case of disease can
only take notice of the changes in the health of the body and the mind …
that can be observed externally through the senses …. that can be
registered by the patient himself, that are notified by those around
him, and are observed by the physicians. All these observable signs
represent the disease in its entire extent, that means, all together
they form the true and only picture of the disease we can think about”.
This ‘totality of the symptoms’
constitutes, according to Hahnemann, the disease. And if all the
symptoms disappear completely, the patient has become healthy, and no
trace of the disease remains. The totality of the symptoms forms also
the basis for the medical choice of which specific treatment that is
required in each case. In homeopathy it is therefore necessary to
register carefully and exactly all symptoms that affect the patient in
all different spheres of his life. All these symptoms constitute in
their totality the disease, and it is this which forms the basis for the
choice of the homeopath of which remedy to give according to the
principle of similarity.
Hahnemann distinguishes the true
diseases from those defects “who belong to surgery”, from those states
who are due to poisoning, and from those states of impaired health that
are due to “harmful influences that can be avoided”. These states
of impaired health which people bring on themselves, can not be called
proper diseases because they “disappear spontaneously … by an improved
way of living.”
He makes also an exception of
epidemic diseases: “Each disease is in a way a unique phenomenon …. With
the exception of epidemic diseases which are due to a contagious
principle which always is of the same kind, such as smallpox, measles,
etc.”
When Hahnemann, in spite of such
exceptions, so strongly emphasises that diseases are individual
reactions and not constitute entities in themselves, this is because he
had come to realize that this is a decisive question whether medicine
shall serve as a true art of healing or not: “Therefore, disease, as it
is understood by allopaths as something apart from the living being and
its animating vitality, and hidden in the interior of the organism, is
an absurdity.” Such an absurdity can only have originated in brains
marked by materialistic thinking, and it has through thousands of years
given the reigning medical system all the harmful impulses that has made
it into a truly destructive (not healing) art.”
Apart from the effect of
chemical poisons, Hahnemann claimed that the factors causing diseases
were not absolute in their effect, but relative, dependent on the
receptivity or the resistance of the organism: “The harmful factors,
partly psychic, partly physical, that our terrestrial being are exposed
to, do not have an unconditional power to break down human health, but
we become ill only when our organism is sufficiently disposed and
receptive to the attack from these pathogenic factors that may be
present … and thus they may not cause disease in everyone at any
time.”
Reading a modern textbook of
medicine, we will in most cases, and especially as regards chronic
diseases, find that we have not found specific causes for common
diseases. Several different pathogenic factors are listed. Increasingly
we have discovered that the causes of most diseases are complex and
multi-factorial, and that the resistance or immunity of the organism is
of decisive significance. It is also a tendency in modern medicine, and
especially in psychiatry, not to regard diseases as rigid categories, as
it was common until recently, but to accept more individual diagnostic
terms and rather talk about syndromes (constellations of symptoms) and
patterns of reactions than about well defined diseases. At this point
modern medicine is increasingly in accord with ideas proposed by
Hahnemann 180 years ago.
The homeopathic principle, that
a similar effect on the organism will cure a similar disease, is,
according to Hahnemann, a natural law that has been discovered on an
empirical basis. A stronger effect, or, as Hahnemann expresses it, a
“dynamic affection” of the organism will cancel a weaker one. He finds
this principle confirmed through numerous observations, both from
medical literature and from his own clinical experience of how different
diseases affecting the same person interact. The decisive evidence for
this principle comes, however, from the effect of homeopathic remedies.
Hahnemann reasons that while different harmful factors sometimes cause
disease and sometimes not, chemical poisons will always affect the
organism and cause disease if they are given in sufficient dosages.
Chemical poisons are therefore stronger in their effect on the organism
than the usual pathogenic factors. Chemical poisoning therefore
represent stronger diseases, and this explains why such reactions to
chemical poisons can cancel other diseases in accordance with the
principle of homeopathy.
Although Hahnemann here tries to
give a rational explanation of why homeopathy works, homeopathy is
primarily based on clinical experience. The main thing is that
homeopathy does work as a practical art of healing. The explanations
Hahnemann and other homeopaths have provided, are of secondary
significance.
The publication of ‘Organon’ did
create some interest in homeopathy, but the reaction of most medical
doctors in Germany was negative. This was a great disappointment for
Hahnemann. When he really had become convinced that homeopathy did
function and that it was a better form of medicine, he saw it has his
task to present it to his contemporary medical society. In 1811 he
decided to move to Leipzig and start teaching this new form of medicine
for medical doctors and students. To get the permission to teach at the
university, he first had to make a doctorial disputation. This he did
brilliantly, demonstrating his enormous knowledge and erudition. But
when he started giving lectures he often lost himself in emotional
diatribes against contemporary allopathic medicine. This scared most of
his audience. Only a few of them really understood the significance of
his teaching and followed up his lectures. This little group of
dedicated pupils cooperated with Hahnemann in the further development
and testing of new homeopathic remedies. In time it was this small group
of followers that were to continue the development of homeopathy and
bring it out in the world.
In spite of continuous attacks
from medical colleagues, the therapeutic results Hahnemann achieved were
so extraordinary that his reputation increased, and soon his name was
famous all over Europe. In 1820, however, he suffered a serious loss.
The pharmacists raised a court case against him, claiming that Hahnemann
and his pupils broke their privileges by producing their medicines
themselves. Hahnemann was sentenced to pay a fine and was prohibited
from prescribing medicines that had not been made by the pharmacists.
The
Chronic Diseases
In 1821 Hahnemann left Leipzig
and settled in Köthen as personal physician to the duke of Köthen. The
quiet years he lived in Köthen from 1821 to 1839 gave him time to fulfil
the last major task he had set himself: how to treat the chronic
diseases.
The homeopathic remedies gave
safer and more reliable results than contemporary allopathic drugs in
the treatment of acute diseases, including infections and venereal
diseases. But the chronic diseases turned out to be far more difficult
to treat. In such cases homeopathic treatment initially could have a
positive effect, but the disease had a tendency to return and often in
new and unexpected forms. From 1816 he increasingly engaged himself how
to treat these frustrating diseases which he describes so vividly in ‘Organon’:
“The genuine chronic
diseases are those who arise due to a chronic miasma, and if they are
left to themselves and are not treated by remedies that are specific to
them, always will develop to the worse in spite of optimal mental and
physical conditions of life, and torture the patient to the end of his
life with ever more sufferings. These diseases are, apart from those due
to erroneous medical treatment, the worst and most numerous tormentors
of mankind. The most robust constitution, the best way of living and the
most vigorous mobilisation of the vital energies are insufficient to
eradicate them.” (§78)
Hahnemann believed that he had
found the explanation of these chronic diseases in his theory about ‘the
miasmas’. These are, according to Hahnemann, subtle disturbances of the
vital force that can be transferred from one generation to the next. A
miasma may develop as a consequence of an infectious disease, as a kind
of dynamic disturbance that has penetrated into the very kernel of the
organism. It is not an infectious disease in its immediate form, but a
more subtle effect of this which the organism is not able to eliminate,
and which consequently may cause a later disease. (4)
Hahnemann described himself
three such miasmas. The first and most important is the psoric miasma
which he thought humanity had been infected with far back in history.
This is the most usual miasma and constitutes an internal disturbance
and weakness that may express itself in many different patterns of
disease. As it weakens the resistance of the organism, it will also
predispose for the other miasmas. In modern homeopathy it is not usual
to regard the psoric miasma as a typical miasma in itself, but rather as
a general constitutional weakness or disturbance. And the homeopathic
remedies Hahnemann recommended for the treatment of the psoric miasma,
constitute to day the important constitutional remedies in homeopathy.
The two other miasmas Hahnemann
described, are the syphilitic miasma, due to syphilis, and the miasma
due to gonorrhea. He found that both of these miasmas are relatively
common causes of chronic disease that may manifest in different forms.
In addition to these three
miasmas homeopathic doctors in the 19th century discovered
another important miasma, the tubercular miasma. Just as with the other
miasmas, the tubercular miasma does not correspond to manifest
tubercular infection, but to a more subtle effect of tuberculosis that
may be transferred to descendants of those who have suffered from
tubercular infection.
The theory of the miasmas and
their significance for the understanding and treatment of chronic
diseases belong to the most difficult part of homeopathy. And it has not
been accepted by all homeopaths. Just as with other parts of Hahnemann’s
teaching, his theory about the chronic diseases and the miasmas was,
however, developed on the basis of extensive and careful observations.
And ultimately it is clinical experience that is decisive in medicine.
According to my judgement there is little doubt that concepts like the
syphilitic and the tubercular miasmas represent important advances in
medical thought, although we to this day do not quite understand what
they represent. In clinical practice Hahnemann’s teaching about the
miasmas explain many individual patterns of disease and tell us how to
treat them with appropriate homeopathic therapy. And the constitutional
homeopathic remedies he recommends, constitute a valuable and highly
interesting part of the homeopathic repertory.
To day we may better appreciate
and possibly accept the theory of the miasmas as subtle disturbances in
the vital power of the organism. The discovery of Kaznatchejev that the
disease process due to infectious disease may be transmitted from one
cell to another by ultra-weak radiation, gives us a new scientific basis
to understand how such subtle physical disturbances in the energy
pattern (or rather we may call it ‘biological des-information’) can act
as a cause of disease. With new insight into the physics of DNA and the
development of wave-genetics it is no longer unreasonable that such
subtle pathogenic disturbances (or biological des-information) may be
transferred genetically from one generation to the next.
In 1831 Europe was hit by a very
serious epidemic of cholera. The health authorities were helpless and
fear grew as the epidemic hit ever new areas. Hahnemann now interrupted
his study of the chronic diseases and wrote 4 booklets of information he
gave to publishers to make them available for the public. This caused a
violent reaction from medical experts. The booklets were stopped in
Germany, but were published in other countries. Hahnemann was first of
all criticised because he claimed that cholera was a highly contagious
disease. According to him, cholera was transmitted from person to person
“by living beings of a lower order” which possibly had their origin in
the “marshes around the river Ganges in India”. To day this aetiology of
cholera is a well known medical fact. But at the time of Hahnemann the
medical authorities claimed that cholera was not contagious. and that
there was no extra risqué in sharing the same bed as a cholera patient.
Those medical doctors who
followed the advices of Hahnemann, had much better results than those
who gave the usual treatment for cholera at that time. The statistical
mortality of this very violent cholera epidemic was close to 50 %. Among
the 1238 cases of cholera treated according to the homeopathic
prescriptions of Hahnemann by Dr. Bacody in Raab, Dr. Gerstal in Brünn,
Dr. Schreter in Lemberg, Dr. Stüler in Berlin, Dr. Seider in
Wisnei-Woltscheck, Dr. Veit in Wien and Dr. Hadasy in Daka there were
only 84 cases of death, and thus a mortality of only 7 %. (2) Similar
results were achieved by homeopathic doctors in England.
Hahnemann stayed in Köthen until
1835. At that time he was a widower and his 11 children were grown up. A
French woman of 35 years came to him for medical advice. They fell in
love, got married and moved to Paris. This way he started at the age of
80 years the last phase of his life.
In Paris it was as if the
goddess of Fortuna at last smiled to Hahnemann. Although he still was
controversial and academic medicine turned its hand down for this new
kind of medicine, he had many influential admirers. In France a
homeopathic medical association had already been established, and
Hahnemann was elected honorary president in the presence of 500
admirers. He became a celebrity. In daytime horses and carriages were
lined up in front of his office. The evenings he often went together
with his wife to theatres, concerts or parties. He had completed the
task of his life to create homeopathy as a new school in medicine, and
now he apparently enjoyed the evening of his life together with his
elegant and beautiful wife. He kept his vitality until his death in 1843
at the age of 88. His long working days through so many years, the
bitter struggles he had lived through, and all the poisonings he had
sustained to test out new medicines, had not weakened his constitution
or broken his will for life.
Homeopathy after Hahnemann
In spite of this personal
triumph and in spite of the success of homeopathy as a practical art of
healing, homeopathy was never accepted or taken seriously by academic
medicine. A campaign to prohibit homeopathy was stopped a few years
after the death of Hahnemann by the French government. In his reply to
the medical academy the minister Guizot wrote these wise words:
“If homeopathy is a chimera
and an inutile method, it will disappear by itself. If it, however, is
an advance in medicine, it will progress in spite of all our attempts to
prohibit it, and the Academy then ought to be the first to welcome it.
It is Your task to promote advances in science and inspire new
discoveries.” (1)
The decisive scientific argument
against homeopathy was then, as it is now, that it utilizes remedies
that are so much diluted that they from the point of view of chemistry
can not contain any active substances. As long as medicine is locked
into a chemical understanding of reality, consisting exclusively of
atoms and molecules, homeopathy appears like a chimera and a scientific
fraud. The higher potencies of homeopathic remedies that were diluted to
the extent that they statistically could not contain any molecules of
the original substance, were later prohibited in France. In spite of
this restriction and in spite of ridicule by their colleagues many
French medical doctors continued, however, to practice homeopathy. To
day several thousands of French doctors use homeopathic remedies.
In Germany the pupils of
Hahnemann continued the development of homeopathy. Special homeopathic
pharmacies were established to make homeopathic remedies available
without breaking the privileges of the pharmacists. To day homeopathy is
practiced widely in Germany, but mostly in a less classic way, using
complex compounds of several low potency homeopathic remedies in
combination – a form of homeopathy Hahnemann did not favour.
In England homeopathy was
officially recognized when Parliament in 1950 authorized a special
homeopathic faculty to be integrated in the university system. It has
been of great significance that the British royal family traditionally
has preferred homeopathic therapy. The personal physician of Queen
Elisabeth is a homeopath and the Royal Homeopathic Hospital is famous.
It is of great interest that homeopathy also has become popular in India
where it has found links of association with traditional ayurvedic
medicine.
Perhaps the most interesting
development in homeopathy was, however, in the United States. A pupil of
Hahnemann, Constantine Hering, brought homeopathy to America. In 1848 he
founded in Philadelphia the Hahnemann Medical College, establishing
homeopathy at a high academic level in the spirit of Hahnemann. We owe
to him the formulation of the last basic law of homeopathy. According to
the law of Hering, a disease heals by moving from the upper part of the
body to the lower part, from the interior to the exterior, from the most
central and vital organs to the less vital parts of the organism; and
during the healing process the patient will experience symptoms
belonging to earlier stages of the disease. This last part is an
interesting phenomenon which often occur, not only during homeopathic
therapy, but also in connection with other kinds of natural healing
processes. It is as if the patient relives the disease history backwards
in time. Or, as it is often told: a disease has to leave through the
same door it has entered.
The greatest name in homeopathy in the second half of
the 19th century was James Tyler Kent. Kent was professor of
anatomy at the medical college in Saint Louis when his wife to his great
sorrow was struck by a serious disease which failed to respond to all
available medical care. It was with utmost scepticism he in the end let
a homeopathic doctor treat her. The healing of his wife through this
homeopathic therapy impressed him deeply and caused a revolution in his
medical thought. He studied homeopathy himself and became one of the
most knowing and therapeutically successful homeopaths who has ever
lived. Next to Hahnemann’s ‘Organon’ the ‘Repertory’ by Kent is the most
famous book in homeopathic literature. It is a handbook used by
homeopaths to identify the right homeopathic remedy in each individual
case. Kent was a great teacher, and it was much due to him and his
pupils that homeopathy of high potency won a new renaissance in Europe.
At the end of the 19th century homeopathy
was widely practiced in the United States. One out of five medical
doctors practiced homeopathy and there were around 100 hospitals that
gave homeopathic therapy. In 1910, however, the Flexner report was
published, and new strict guidelines for the medical education were
established in the US. Only 20 % of the medical colleges satisfied the
“scientific” guidelines defined by the Flexner report. In due time all
the others were forced to close. Homeopathy was thus forcefully exempted
from American medicine which from now on was totally dominated by the
accepted academic medicine. (5)
Classical homeopathy has, however, survived in
America and is now in new development there, as in many other countries.
A prominent teacher during the last decades has been George Vithoulkas
who has established an academy for homeopathy in Athens and has had
great success reviving the interest for classical homeopathy in the
whole Western world. (6)
Can We Explain Homeopathy
on the Basis of Natural Science?
Homeopathy has survived for 200 years and remains a
vital school in Western medicine. According to the recommendation of
Guizot, we have reason to accept it as an important contribution to
medicine which the Academy, representing the scientific authority of our
medicine, ought to welcome.
But how are we to explain the medical effect of
homeopathic remedies? Homeopathic remedies of higher potency are diluted
to the degree that no molecules of the original substance remain in the
solution. To claim that such dilutions have medical effect, appears to
violate fundamental laws of chemistry and physics. Her we face a real
paradox that bears on not only medicine and biology, but even chemistry
and physics.
It has often been argued that also in other fields of
medicine, like in immunology, there are examples that even minimal
traces of a chemical substance may have strong medical effects. A simple
analysis, however, shows that such analogies are not sufficient to
explain the paradox of homeopathy.
Homeopathy has been ridiculed by comparing it with a
procedure where you drop a teaspoon of a chemical material in the Rhine
at its sources in the Alps, and then take another teaspoon of its water
at the outlet of the Rhine by Rotterdam and then give it as a medicine
to a patient. (7) The truth is, however, even more paradoxical. All the
waters of the oceans of the world would not be sufficient as a solvent
if we were to obtain the same degree of dilution as we have in high
potent homeopathic remedies. In a homeopathic dilution of C12 (the 12th
centesimal potency, corresponding to a dilution of 10 in the potency 24)
we have exceeded the number of Avogadro (giving the number of molecules
of a chemical substance in a defined amount), and there will
statistically be no molecules of the substance left in the solution. In
homeopathy dilutions of C1000 and even higher are used.
ahnemann Medical CollegeHHeringospital
Hospital
And such dilutions are even
called remedies of high potency and are recommended used carefully and
often with long intervals in between dosages because of the deep and
long lasting healing reactions they may initiate.
In homeopathy chemical
substances, that normally do not have any significant pharmacological
effect, are also used as highly potent remedies. One of these, which is
thought to be a highly potent homeopathic remedy with very profound
effects, is Natrium muriaticum, which actually is ordinary table salt
(sodium chloride) in homeopathic dilution. In such a case it is obvious
that a couple of molecules that might remain by chance in the dilution
would have no effect whatsoever. How might a few molecules of common
table salt possibly be of significance compared to the billions of
billions chemically identical molecules we daily digest through our
food? If we really are to take homeopathy seriously, the conclusion is
clear: the effect of homeopathic remedies can not be explained on the
basis of known biochemical principles.
To better understand what
happens in homeopathy we may put it logically in a few steps:
1.
When the organism is exposed to a pathogenic factor, a disease is
produced.
2.
When the organism is exposed to poisoning with a chemical
substance, a pattern of symptoms similar to the disease is produced.
3.
When this chemical substance is shaken together with a solvent in
increasing dilutions, according to the method of Hahnemann, a
homeopathic factor is produced in the dilution, and this constitutes the
real homeopathic remedy.
4.
When this homeopathic remedy is given to the diseased organism,
it helps the organism to overcome the pathogenic factor and induce a
healing process.
When we look at these four
steps, we see that both the organism and the solvent we use for creating
the homeopathic dilution, are exposed to something they react to. A
pathogenic factor causes a disease, characterized by a specific pattern
of symptoms, which expresses the fight of the organism against this
pathogenic factor. In the solvent a homeopathic factor is produced,
which when it is given to the patient helps him to overcome the disease.
We may imagine this to happen either by neutralising the pathogenic
factor, or by strengthening the resistance of the organism, or by
provoking the organism to a stronger response to rid itself of the
disease.
In the first case the
homeopathic factor will act as a non-chemical antidote. In the second
case it will act as a resonance amplifier of the defence reaction of the
organism, and in the third case as a kind of provocation therapy. The
effect of the homeopathic therapy may include one, two, or even three of
these reactions.
In the production of successive
dilutions of the homeopathic remedy, the part that is to be diluted is
shaken thoroughly together with the medium of dilution. This will cause
a physical interaction that may cause a change in the medium of
dilution. In chemical dilutions the potency of the dilution will be a
function of the number of molecules in the dilution, and this will
diminish with successive dilutions. In homeopathic dilutions, however,
each new dilution may change the properties of the remedy, but it will
not reduce its potency. A homeopathic dilution is thus not a dilution in
a chemical sense. We rather have to imagine it as a physical change in
the medium of dilution that somehow dissipitates through the whole
volume of the dilution. By each new dilution we take a part of the
preceding dilution to prepare the new one. This part, therefore, must
somehow represent the whole dilution, being able to mediate this
wholeness to the next dilution. A homeopathic dilution thus seems to
function as a whole and to have coherent properties.
Apparently we have to conclude
that the homeopathic factor is located in the medium of dilution and not
in the molecules of the original chemical substance. It is, however,
related to this substance as a kind of image representing information
about this substance in such a way that it may act on the organism
according to the principle of similarity.
This way we may explain the
effect of homeopathy on the basis of information theory. It is a
question of what we call problems of invariance: how an image or a
pattern of information may be transferred from one medium to another
without loosing its information value.
During the last decades
information theory has become one of the mightiest branches of science.
Information is to day an equally fundamental scientific concept as
matter and energy. The father of cybernetics, the American mathematician
Norbert Wiener, stated it like this in 1948: “Information is
information, not matter or energy. No materialism that does not accept
this, can survive to day.”
An explanation of homeopathy on
the basis of information theory gives us, therefore, a possibility to
practice it in accordance with the framework of modern science. And for
all practical purposes this is sufficient. It is, however, not
sufficient to answer the fundamental scientific problems homeopathy
raises: What, in a physical sense, is the homeopathic factor arising in
the medium of dilution? How is this factor transferred and transformed
through successive homeopathic dilutions? And how does it act on the
living organism? It is through such questions we are brought face to
face with the real challenge homeopathy poses for our scientific
understanding.
If the homeopathic factor is due
to a structural or energetic change in the medium of dilution, it should
be possible to measure this by physical methods. Already in 1862 Ozanam
analysed the spectrum of light from homeopathic dilutions and was able
to identify changes due to the diluted chemical substance at a dilution
of C9. (1) The decisive question is, however, if such changes also can
be identified at dilutions higher than C12 or D24, where, according to
the number of Avogadro, no molecules of the original chemical substance
remain. In 1948 Wurmser and Loch managed to prove such changes by
spectral analysis for three different homeopathic remedies in dilutions
from D24 to D30. (8) And in 1976 the French pharmacologist C. Luu
demonstrated significant changes in the spectrum of Bryonia up to a
dilution of D60. (9)
Changes in the dielectric index
in a medium of dilution due to homeopathic dilutions are also of great
interest. This was first discovered by Gay and Boiron at the beginning
of the 1950ths. (10) Their experiments were repeated by Stephenson and
Brucato in 1966. They measured the dielectric index in homeopathic
dilutions of mercury chloride in distilled water, and found that this
was significantly reduced compared to the value in distilled water. This
was found in all dilutions they examined up to D33. (11) Significant
physical changes in the medium of dilution due to homeopathic dilutions
have also been found by nuclear magnetic resonance. (12, 13)
Such experimental evidence has
so far not been accepted as final, scientific proof, but they support
the view of leading homeopaths since the time of Hahnemann that
homeopathic remedies are medicines in a physical sense. Hahnemann
defined the homeopathic factor as a “spirit like force to change the
state of health which is hidden in the inner nature of man”. (14) I
suppose the term ‘spirit like force’ was about as close Hahnemann could
get in the vocabulary of his time to a modern physical concept of
biological information. Another place in ‘Organon’ he writes that this
force is not “hyper-physical”, that is it does belong to the domain of
physics.
When I described how homeopathic
dilutions are produced, I wrote that the homeopathic factor is
dissipated through the whole volume of the dilution and that it
apparently had coherent qualities. I thus described it as a dissipative
structure. To what degree homeopathic remedies can be explained on the
basis of the theories of dissipative structures and coherent excitations
such as these have been formulated by Prigogine and Fröhlich, is an open
question. In regard of the great number of successive dilutions
necessary to produce high potency homeopathic remedies this would
probably be to stretch these theories too far. What we might say so far
is that these theories give us a theoretical model that may give us an
indication how a physical explanation of homeopathy might be possible.
Both Prigogine (14) and Fröhlich
(15) believe that their theories are of primary significance for the
science of life, and that a scientific explanation of the phenomenon of
life must be based on the phenomenon of coherence arising in states far
beyond thermal equilibrium. And in such a scientific context medical
remedies based on coherent structures and biological resonance, and not
on well known biochemical principles, will be far easier to accept as
reasonable from a scientific point of view. Yes, indeed, perhaps it is
such kinds of medical remedies we have to expect as a natural
consequence of our new scientific insight.
We may thus conclude that in
time there will probably be possible to give a physical explanation of
what the homeopathic factor in homeopathic remedies really is. From a
biophysical point of view homeopathy is a scientific possibility. But
this is not sufficient to explain how remedies produced according to
Hahnemann’s method have such profound medical effects. Here, however,
another great physicist might give us the key for a more profound
understanding. I am here referring to David Bohm and his theory of
implicate order.
Homeopathy and Implicate Order
A hologram is, according to Bohm,
an example of an implicate order. Although a hologram has no external
similarity to the object it mirrors, each part of the hologram contains
all the information necessary to recreate an image of the object. The
image of the object is implicated (folded in) into every part of the
hologram and can be explicated (folded out) from that part. The
information contained in a hologram represents thus an implicate order.
A television broadcast represents likewise an implicate order: The
camera picture is transformed to an electromagnetic message where each
point in the picture is represented as an electrical signal that is
modulated on an electromagnetic carrier wave. (16) Light which hits the
retina in our eyes mediates information about visual objects as an
implicate order. In the retina this information is translated into a
pattern of nervous signals that is transmitted like a new implicate
order to the visual cortex of the brain.
According to Bohm, these
concepts of implicate and explicate order are of fundamental
significance for our understanding of reality. The wave – particle
duality of modern physics means that the wave structure and the particle
structure are complementary aspects of physical reality. If we do one
type of experiments, we find that physical reality behaves as waves. If
we do another type of experiments, we find that the same physical
reality behaves as particles. According to Bohm, the wave structure of
physical reality represents an implicate order, while the particle
structure represents an explicate order. Elementary particles are all
the time implicated like waves, and the waves explicated as particles.
(16) The wave phenomenon thus represents the implicate order of physical
reality.
Implicate order is, however, an
even wider concept than what has to do with waves and wave structures.
The theory of Bohm gives a fundamentally new way of compassing our
understanding of reality. In their mathematical development of the
theory Bohm and his students have shown that both the relativity theory
and the quantum theory can be deduced from the theory of implicate order
as more specialized laws if certain bordering conditions are accepted.
(16) They have been working to plan experiments where the theory can be
tested beyond these bordering conditions.
In science, as we know it, we
have been mostly concerned about the explicate order. According to Bohm,
however, the implicate order is of more fundamental significance to
understand reality. He compares the explicate order to islands in an
enormous sea of implicate order.
If we apply these concepts to
homeopathy, we see that the process of homeopathic dilution implies that
the explicate order, of the original chemical substance, is implicated
into the medium of dilution as an implicate order. We have to imagine
that the medium of dilution represents a kind of extremely sensitive
film where information of the chemical substance is impregnated, or
implicated, as a holographic image of the original substance. By further
dilutions this holographic image will be further implicated into the
medium of dilution. We may here talk about implications in several steps
or stages, in accordance with increasing homeopathic potencies. This is
actually in accord with the theory. Bohm does indeed talk about
implications in successive steps giving implications of higher degrees,
and he has developed a mathematical formula for this. (16) Although Bohm
does not mention homeopathy, we may therefore on the basis of his theory
define a homeopathic remedy of a certain potency as an implicate order
of corresponding degree.
In we apply the same reasoning
to the field of medicine, we may describe a disease as an implication of
a pathogenic factor into the organism. This may indeed be a highly
meaningful way to describe diseases. The Russian biophysicist Vlail
Kaznachejev discovered in the 1960.s that the pathogenic information
represented by a virus is transmitted from infected cells by ultra-weak
ultraviolet radiation to other cells, causing similar disease symptoms
in uninfected cells. (17) This discovery has later been confirmed
through more than 20.000 single experiments, not only for virus
diseases, but also for other disease conditions. The explicate
information represented by the virus particle is here apparently
implicated in the pathogenic radiation. This implicated pathogenic
information, or may be we rather should call it ‘biological
disinformation’, is further implicated in pathological processes in the
diseased organism to be explicated in a manifest disease.
When the organism is exposed to
physical damage, as when we cut a finger, this brings a material loss,
but not necessarily a disease. A wound will heal, and thus the
anatomical integrity of the organism is re-established. Through a
healing process the organism on the basis of its inner implicate order
will re-establish order on the external explicate level. We realize that
the living organism includes both explicate and implicate orders, and
that implicate order may be on many levels and of different degrees or
levels of implication. Healing seems to imply a restoration of organic
order on the basis of a more implicated degree of internal order.
We may thus define a disease as
an implicate disorder which is explicated in manifest symptoms. A long
lasting disease will as a rule imply a deeper implication of the disease
in the organism, than a short term disease. A chronic disease arises
when the organism is not able to heal itself. We may suppose that this
means that the disease has reached such a level of implicate order in
the organism that the ability for spontaneous healing and restoration of
physiological order in the organism has been permanently impaired. To
heal such a disease we have to act on a corresponding level of
implication in the organism. Or, perhaps, we even have to intervene on a
still deeper level of implicate order in the organism to strengthen this
in such a way that a real healing process may take place.
In such a theoretical context
homeopathy is meaningful. Those rules that have been discovered on an
empirical basis get their logical explanation. We may now understand why
remedies of low potency act for a short time and must be given in
repeated dosages; why remedies of high potency may start a long lasting
healing process which may heal a chronic disease; and why acute diseases
as a rule ought to be treated by remedies of low potency, while chronic
diseases require remedies of high potency. Such a model of thought
explains the law of Hering and tells us why a chronic disease has to
heal from the inside out and through a re-enactment in time whereby
earlier stages of the disease with symptoms the patient has experienced
previously, recur.
In the light of Bohm’s theory of
implicate order, homeopathy thus becomes rational and meaningful. This
means that we have to regard it as a meaningful theory in a modern
scientific context. If it also gives a relevant and useful understanding
of reality, is another question that only can be settled on an empirical
basis. But here homeopathy seems well supported through two hundred
years of homeopathic practice.
The theory demands that the
degree of order is sustained through successive implications and
explications. As regards living beings, experimental data indicate that
these have a very high degree of coherence and capacity for transferring
and storing information. It seems more difficult to accept that a medium
of dilution may have a comparable degree of transparency for information
necessary to explain how a pattern of information may be implicated more
than a thousand times through successive homeopathic dilutions, as
required in high potency homeopathy. But as far as I understand, this is
not impossible according to the theory of implicate order.
Bohm’s theory is a very
ambitious new proposal for a more general understanding of reality. It
is, however, to day gaining ever wider acceptance among physicists and
other scientists. If a new theory can contribute to our understanding
of other and unexpected fields than those for which it originally was
proposed, this may be an additional indication of its general value for
our understanding of reality. And, as we have seen, the medical
experience that has been crystallized through the history of homeopathy,
is in profound agreement with this new proposal for a more thorough
scientific understanding of nature.
References:
1.
Palaiseul, Jean: “Tous les espoir de guerir”, Robert Lafont,
Paris 1970.
2.
Haehl, Richard: “Samuel Hahnemann, Sein Leben und Schaffen”,
Willmar Schwabes Verlag, Leipzig.
3.
Hahnemann, Samuel: “Organon of Medicine”, 6th edition,
B. Jain Publ. , New Dehli 1972
4.
Hahnemann, Samuel: “Die chronische Krankheiten, ihre
eigentümliche Natur und homeopathische Heilung”, Tyskland 1828.
5.
Capra, Fritjof: “The Turning Point”, Wildwood House, London 1982
6.
Vithoulkas, George: “Homeopathy – Medicine of the New Man”, Arco
Publ. Inc., New York 1979.
7.
Voegeli, A.: “Wieder einmal die Hahnemannschen Potenzen”,
Zeitschrift für klassische Homeopathie, Bind 17/1973.
8.
Stephenson, J.: “A Review of Investigation into the action of
Substances in Dilutions greater than 1x10 (in minus 24th
potency) (Microdilutions)”, Journal of the American Inst. of Homeopathy
48 (1955) 327-335.
9.
Luu, C.: “Etude des dilutions homöopathiques par spectroscopie
Paman-laser”, Les Laboratoire Boiron, Depot legal 2 trimestre 1976, No
841, Editions et Imprimierie du Sud-Est-Lyon.
10.
Gay, A. and Boiron, J.: “Demonstration physique de l’existence
reelle du remede homeopathique”, Edition des Laboratoire P.H.P., Lyon
1953.
11.
Brucato, A. and Stephenson, J.: “Dielectric Strength Testing of
Homeopathic Dilutions of HgCl2”, Journal of the American Inst. of
Homeopathy 59 (1966) 281-286
12.
Boericke, G.W. and Smith, R.B.: “Modern Aspects of Homeopathic
Research”, Journal of Ame. Inst. of Homeopathy 56 (1963) 363-366 and 58
(1965) 158-167.
13.
Young, Timothy: “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Studies of Succussed
Solutions”, Journ. Ame.Inst.Homeopathy 68 (1975) 8-16. Young, T.:
“Anomalous Effects in Alcohol-Water Solutions”, Review of Mathematical
Physics 13 (1975) 10-12.
14.
Prigogine, Ilya: “From Being to Becoming”, W.H.Freeman and Co.,
San Fransisco 1980.
15.
Fröhlich, H. and Kremer, F. (eds.): “Coherent Excitations in
Biological Systems”, Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York/Rokyo
1983.
16.
Bohm, David: “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London 1980.
17.
Kaznachejev, V. P. and Michailova, L.P.: Ultra-weak Radiation and
Intercellular Exchange” (in Russian), Nauka, Novosibirsk 1981.
|
