Talk:Homeopathy/Sources001

This is a collection of potentially useful quotes from sources for the Homeopathy article.

Natural Cures
Whorton, James C. Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America. Oxford University Press (2004).

Pg 49 Silly as they considered Thomson's steaming-and-puking regimen to be, nineteenth-century physicians thought of another irregular system as still more unlikely. Indeed, homeopathy's practices were so remarkably at odds with all accepted notions of how nature worked, of how nature conceivably could work, that they were only to be regarded as utterly impossible.

Homeopathy was also the most popular of all alternative systems of practice from the 1850s to the beginning of the twentieth century.

Pg 272 One of the new systems only seemed so, being in fact the oldest alternative rival to allopathic medicine. Homeopathy seemed to be a new arrival on the holistic scene because—in America, at least—it had all but disappeared during the middle years of the century. The system of Hahnemann, it will be recalled, had been far the most popular form of irregular practice during the second half of the nineteenth century. From the beginning, however, the seeming absurdity of its principles and practices made regulars confident homeopathy would not survive long.

Pp 272-73 The financial straits experienced by schools as enrollment declined were worsened dramatically by the heightened expectations of state licensing boards following the Flexner Report in 1910. By 1923 only two homeopathic medical colleges remained in existence, graduating fewer than a hundred students a year combined, and though they limped along for some years, neither survived beyond the 1950s. Meanwhile, homeopathic licensing boards had been repealed by state after state, until by the 1950s only Maryland maintained one.

Pg 273 From a low point in the early 1970s, when fewer than one hundred American physicians were still practicing homeopathy, the number rose to one thousand by the mid-1980s. In addition, another thousand practitioners were to be found by then in the ranks of dentists, naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists, veterinarians, and other health professionals. (Veterinary medicine blossomed as an area of homeopathy in the later twentieth century, offering “homeopathic care for the whole animal.”) Not only were there many more (and younger) practitioners of the system, but in the early 1980s several states (Connecticut, Arizona, Nevada) reestablished homeopathic licensing boards; in Arizona, for example, the law authorized the licensing of state residents with medical, osteopathic, or dental degrees and a minimum of ninety hours of instruction in classical homeopathy.

Classical Homeopathy
Classical Homeopathy. Marc S. Micozzi, Editor. Churchill Livingstone (2003).

Pg 4 The most fervent, almost rabid, opposition to homeopathy arises from the common use of homeopathically diluted medications that do not contain any scientifically measurable amount of the medicinal substance. Homeopathic medicines are commonly diluted beyond the point where Avogadro's hypothesis suggests that not even one molecule should remain of the original substance. Because Avogadro's number is one of the fundamental constants in chemistry, this is a formidable intellectual barrier. Although there are scientific theories that might explain away the problem, all of them are controversial. Critics therefore believe homeopathic treatment is solely placebo, and forget that this dilution process is secondary to the primary principle of "like cures like." Homeopaths believe that the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment extends well beyond the placebo effect, which inevitably benefits all groups of patients.

The principles of homeopathic medicine can be applied without using dilutions that appear to challenge Avogadro's hypothesis. Since Avogadro's constant was discovered, many homeopaths have refused, on intellectual grounds, to use medicines diluted past this point. Today this attitude is most common in France. What really is most essential to homeopathy is the primary hypothesis of like cures like.

Pp 14-15 Homeopaths since Hahnemann have always viewed symptoms of illness a bit differently from conventional physicians. Homeopaths emphasize the importance of the precise characteristics of each patient's symptoms, because they are the means the homeopath uses to ascertain the pattern of each individual's unique response to his illness. The specific distinguishing features help the homeopath sort out the patient in front of him from all others with the same disease condition.

Homeopaths also view symptoms as signposts indicating the manner in which the organism is working to restore itself to health. In other words, symptoms are not bad in themselves, nor are they the disease. Symptoms are a consequence of the body's work to regain health. Treatment should thus be directed at improving healthy response and correcting underlying imbalance, which then, secondarily, will relieve the symptoms.

Furthermore, there is a hierarchy of symptoms. Some symptoms are more important than others. Generally speaking, mental and emotional disturbances are more important than dermatologic complaints and even rarely some serious physical conditions. For example, a patient who is emotionally disturbed is sicker than a patient with a disfiguring skin rash. Likewise, a lively, energetic, and socially involved paraplegic is healthier than an able-bodied person who is crippled by anxiety or depression. A positive response to treatment is reflected in the movement of the disorder from deeper (more important) to more superficial symptoms. Interpreting the pattern of symptoms following treatment tells the homeopath whether the treatment was beneficial or harmful. The homeopath must use the analysis framework provided by homeopathic theory to correctly evaluate clinical information and determine the subsequent course of treatment. The answer to the question "Was my treatment effective?" must meet very specific criteria recognized throughout the world's homeopathic community. As a result, two homeopaths will rarely disagree in their assessment of the changes in a patient's health. In many ways homeopathic principles create a formalized process leading to a determination very much in harmony with the common sense perspective of laymen.

Pg 17 Homeopathy has always been controversial. Hahnemann was compelled to move to another country to escape the political and social pressure brought to bear on him and his students. In fairness to his detractors, Hahnemann probably contributed substantially to the conflict, because he was not at all gentle in his public criticisms of the methods and ethics of his opponents. After Austria's emperor died, he placed an advertisement in a major newspaper blaming the emperor's orthodox physicians for the death.

Although homeopathic history is rich with colorful and dramatic personalities, the controversy surrounding homeopathy has always had more to do with its fundamental philosophic opposition to the world-view of conventional medicine than with personalities. This polarity is so deeply ingrained that orthodox medicine's most widely used philosophic name, allopathy, was devised by homeopaths. In many ways, homeopathic medicine has helped allopathic medicine define itself over the past two centuries.

Pg 23 Homeopathy arrived in the United States in 1825, brought by Hans Burch Gram, a doctor of American birth who was trained in Denmark by a pupil of Hahnemann's. Within a few years of his return to New York, Dr. Gram converted several "regular" practitioners in the New York City area, and these physicians became the leaders of homeopathy in the state. This group was responsible for teaching homeopathy to several other physicians who, in turn, spread it to other states—New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Indiana, and Illinois.

At the time, almost all states had abandoned the practice of licensing physicians. There were many practitioners of botanic medicine, some of whom learned from Native American herbalists. At a time when regular medical training consisted of 4 months of lectures and 2 years of preceptorship, the care offered by herbalists was often better than the bleeding, purging, and administration of mercury compounds prescribed by the "regulars." Homeopathists stood apart from herbal practitioners in that most homeopaths were converts from conventional medicine.

At about the time that Gram settled in New York, William Wesselhoeft and Henry Detwiller, two German physician immigrants living near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, began studying Hahnemann's books, Organon of Medicine and Materia Medica Pura, sent to them by Dr. Stapf, a pupil of Hahnemann. When Detwiller cured a patient with a homeopathic dose in 1828, the two became homeopaths and introduced the system to others in their community.

Constantine Hering, trained in medicine in Germany, had been working as a botanist in Surinam, South America. Introduced to homeopathy while a medical student, he practiced in South America before moving to the United States in 1833. He found the practice of homeopathy well underway in the German communities around Philadelphia, and he became the guiding force that brought the homeopathic movement together. In 1835 he founded, together with several other physicians, the first medical school in the world to teach homeopathy. Although the Allentown Academy, as it was called, lasted for only a few years, it became the training ground for some of the finest homeopathic doctors— the teachers of the next generation.

In 1844 Hering, with a group of doctors from New York and Boston, founded the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH)—the first national medical organization, antedating the AMA by three years. The AIH has actively promoted homeopathic medicine and the dissemination of related medical knowledge ever since.

In 1847, conventional physicians formed their own national association—the American Medical Association (AMA). The question almost immediately arose as to what position the AMA would take in relation to homeopathic physicians. After considerable discussion, the AMA adopted the position that those "adhering to an exclusive dogma" (i.e., homeopaths) could not be members of the association and, furthermore, no member of the association was allowed discourse with such practitioners. Nearly two decades later, the White House physician was almost removed from the Washington Medical Society because, in the aftermath of the Lincoln assassination, he had talked to the physician of Secretary of State Seward, a homeopath. The hostility of the AMA toward homeopathy continued into the twentieth century.

Pp 33-34 The world has changed profoundly since Hahnemann's day. His followers have spread homeopathy over much of the world. Simultaneously, they have carried homeopathy, begrudgingly at times, into the modern world. Today the production of homeopathic medicines takes place in gleaming industrial facilities, and even classical homeopaths often use computers to help them select the correct homeopathic remedy.

Although many observers note the historical importance of its early nineteenth-century American golden age, much of homeopathy's worldwide popularity can be attributed to the influence of the British Empire. In the same way that homeopathy came to America in the medical bags of immigrating German homeopathic physicians, it experienced a second wave of expansion via emigration when it was spread throughout the British Empire by British physicians in the rnid-to-late nineteenth century. The practice of homeopathy has very deep roots in many of the most far-flung corners of the globe. International gatherings of homeopathic physicians have been the norm for generations.

Although there are considerable differences in homeopathic practice from country to country, they are outweighed by the commonalties among homeopathic patients and practitioners. Worldwide, homeopathic practitioners and patients are tied together by the twin beliefs that healing should be as closely allied to natural processes as possible and that homeopathy works in precisely this manner.

Pg 143 Quite a few people in the United States and Canada train through homeopathic correspondence programs, often because there are no on-site homeopathic programs available in many parts of the country. As with many on-site programs, the quality of correspondence programs varies considerably. The major criticism of these programs is that correspondence learning is not sufficient. An evaluation of skills gained through an ongoing, personal relationship with teachers is a more rigorous approach to homeopathic education. The lack of a major clinical component is also a significant problem, as it is with all schools.

Traditionally, one way in which homeopaths learned was through apprenticeship. Spending time with experienced homeopaths and observing their practice has always been an important experience for developing homeopaths. This tradition goes all the way back to Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy. However, today this is rarely a major form of learning for aspiring homeopaths.

Mainstreaming CAM
The Mainstreaming of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Studies in Social Context. Jon Adams, Editor. Routledge (2003).

Pg 66 The underlying basis to these reservations with the now common term of 'complementary and alternative' can be explained further, using insights from the sociology of science. In particular, the issue of commensurability is discussed by Kuhn (1962). Broadly speaking, this concept refers to the extent to which there is translatability between paradigms due to having an integral common measure. By way of example, are the paradigms of allopathy (the historical forerunner of Western scientific biomedicine) and the CAM modality of homeopathy able to be considered commensurable, such that they could be designated complementary? Allopathy is based upon the theory of opposites: that a disease may be cured with a chemical substance that has the opposite therapeutic effect (for example, an antibiotic). Homeopathy on the other hand, has, as a central plank to its paradigm of healthcare knowledge, the principle that 'like cures like' (see Kaufman 1971). Hence the principal therapeutic tool for homeopaths of preparing medicines by diluting them, from a homeopathic perspective, actually increases their potency. From an allopathic perspective however, diluting a chemical substance (often many times to the point where few molecules of the original chemical compound actually remain) decreases its potency. In other words, allopathic and homeopathic paradigms are incommensurable-both can not be correct and thus they can not really be considered complementary to each other.

Pp 78-79 The 1858 Medical Act in Britain was the culmination of a long, bitter and, on occasion, violent campaign by general practitioners to achieve statutory regulation (Waddington 1977). The Act set the standard for the regulation of medical practitioners in Britain and its colonies. It gave the General Medical Council (GMC) powers to control who could practice medicine by establishing a system of medical registration. Although not restricting the practice of medicine to doctors, the GMC was so powerful that it could veto other occupations' claims for recognition (Larkin 1983). Since this time, healthcare occupations such as nurses and physiotherapists have had to seek medical patronage in the same ways as the medical profession had previously sought state patronage (Larkin 1983).

The 1858 Act in Britain was not, however, an outright victory for the regular medical practitioners of the day. The popularity of homeopathy posed a serious challenge to orthodox medicine, and a clause was inserted into legislation that would ensure homeopaths could practise. Homeopathy has therefore been able to maintain a place in regulated medical practice in Britain-though a rather vulnerable place. Homeopathic physicians are licensed to practice under the National Health Service, and there were still five homeopathic hospitals operating within the NHS in 2001.

Apart from the homeopaths, the 1858 Medical Act had a dramatic impact in excluding alternative therapies. It took another 135 years before alternative therapies were able to gain recognition and favourable legislation as separate occupational groups. This occurred with the passing of the Osteopaths Act 1993 in the United Kingdom (Fisher and Ward 1994).

After the 1858 Act, Britain's colonies followed suit in regulating the medical profession. Legislation granting the medical profession advantages over its competitors occurred in Victoria, Australia, in 1862. By 1867, the first Act securing dominance and autonomy for the medical profession in New Zealand was passed. The 1867 Medical Practitioners Act incorporated a provision clearly aimed at undermining the strength of homeopathy in New Zealand. This provision was for the adoption of British pharmacopoeia as the only prescription source in public hospitals, leaving homeopathy out of the hospital system (Belgrave 1985).

But the New Zealand medical profession's new powers were quickly relinquished. In one province the government appointed a homeopath as an assessor to examine individuals' qualifications when applying to register as medical practitioners. In response to this, and the refusal of the government to cancel the appointment, members of the Medical Board resigned. The reaction to this by the government was the 1869 Act, which took the power to regulate medical practitioners away from the medical profession, and placed it in the hands of the Registrar-General (Belgrave 1985). It was not until 1914 that doctors would regain what they had lost in the 1869 legislation.