- Email: [email protected]
Hahnemann in his time
101
Volume 76, Number2, April 1987
Remedy Weighfing EXAMPLE
5:
!--2--5
Weighting
16
r
15
\\
14
"" \x
15
\ \\
12
?-q
\
11
\
10
\
~k
0_
8 7
+6
5
o
r
X X \
!
\
)
"
\ A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Remedies
No Wt. spreadsheet can easily demonstrate to himself with a few examples how distorting 1, 2, 3 remedy weighting is. In view of this now visually demonstrated fact, is it not time now to abolish remedy weighting? E. DE RUYTER MED. DRS. ( A M S T E R D A M ) , FAIH AACS.
25 Lonsdale Avenue P.O. Box 21 Berowra Heights NSW 2082, Australia References
1 dc Ruytcr EAAAD. The disadvantages of remedy weighting in homceopathic repertory analysis. J American lnst Horn 1985;78:12 2 loc. cit. p. 21.
S I R , - - I read with great interest the report on the working parties of the Scottish Homoeopathic Congress in he October issue of our (vastly improved) Journal. Many interesting proposals are outlined. Some are very good;
~
1 - - 2 - 5 Wt.
some less so. Explored further by Council a new impetus in homeeopathic medicine will develop with great advantage. Historically, it is interesting to note that as a result of a personal visit to the then Faculty's City Solicitor about 1978, I recommended to Council that the Faculty should become a College and hopefully soon ascend to a Royal commendation. To tack it on a pre-existing Bill passing through Parliament, the costing of s was felt to be too extravaganat. Today we are in a more expansive climate; alas there is now a Lay College of Homceopathy. DR L. G. C. MA R TIN , FRCP, FFHOM
Consultant Physician Emeritus St. John's Cottage Chester CH1 1RE
Hahnemann in his time
S I R , - - I was very concerned to read Dr Leary's criticisms of Hahnemann's writings in the January issue. 1 There are several points on which one could take issue, for example his
102
understanding of chronic disease and miasms, but I shall limit myself to two aspects. Dr Leary implies that Hahnemann would disagree with Gregory's observation that the difference between physicians is that some reason better than others. Hahnemann said in a footnote in the Organon that 'it is not the physician's duty to c o n s t r u c t . . , s y s t e m s . . , interweaving speculation, hypotheses . . . theoretical medic i n e . . , with mere talk and begin to act, that is to help and cure', z He would also concur with Gregory's view that if 'conclusive proof . . . turns against i t . . . [he would] candidly acknowledge 9 an error somewhere.' Dr Leary says this is the normal attitude of today--I wonder if this is indeed so among our colleagues. On the point of chronic diseases, Dr Leafy refuses to accept the Organon's explanation, in the twentieth century, of how and why hom~eopathy works. In paragraph 64 Hahnemann states quite clearly how or why it works. 'During the primary action . . . of medicines . . . the impressions of the artificial power . . . alter its state of health; it then . . . appears to rouse itself . . . to develop the exact opposite condition of health (counteraction, secondary action) to this primary action.'3 To elucidate this he states in paragraph 65 that excessive vivacity follows the use of strong coffee (primary action) but sluggishness and drowsiness remain for a long time afterwards (reaction or secondary action)? Surely Dr Leary must have encountered similar 'rebound phenomena' in his previous orthodox practice, for example after stopping some antihypertensive therapies. C. OLIVER KENNEDY 14 Wellington Place London References
1 Leafy B. Br Horn J 1987;76:42-44. 2 H a h n e m a n n S. Organon 6th Edition, 75, footnote. 3 H a h n e m a n n S. Ibid 105 106.
Recent developments concerning homoeopathic materia medica--Bhopal--Was it methyl isocyanate S I R , - - I n the above-mentioned paper published in the Br Hom J of January 1986 there are some items that we would like to comment. On page 50 we have: 'According to homoeopathic principles mental and general symptoms
The British Homceopathic Journal
are particularly important. As these symptoms do not match it is evident that the gas affecting the victims and the residue from the tank are two different things.' I believe it should be pointed out that the mental condition of people in the two situations: being affected by a mass of aggressive gas that entered by nose, throat and lungs and burned eyes, and receiving a drug prepared in the 6x potency in a non-terrifying situation is different. The different mental state of 'provers' should produce different mental reactions and we cannot foresee the extension. On page 51 the author comments on the difficulties concerning the introduction of MIC into the homoeopathic materia medica as 'MIC in volatile form is known to react with alcohol as well as water'. The transesterification reaction of MIC with absolute alcohol (ethanol) in uncatalyzed (acidic or basic) conditions should be a very low speed reaction (methanol is more polar and then, more easily esterifiable than ethanol), specially if done at low temperatures, where the reaction rate is lowered. As another option we will have to dissolve the MIC in anhydrous methanol, at least for the mother tincture and 1st centesimal Hahnemannian dilutions. Only as an information on the subject, a good report on the Bhopal tragedy and the use of homoeopathic drugs to combat the effects of MIC has been done: Pramanik, MS. Report of work on MIC Victims at Bhopal by CC RH Homoeopathic Heritage 1985; 10: 601-06. MAURO
MERCALDO
Faculdade de Medicina de Taubat6 C. Postal 259 12100 Taubat6, SP Brasil
Strategy for research in homoeopathy: Proving the proving S I R , - - D r Davey's timely editorial 1 further develops the issues discussed at the Scottish Homoeopathic Conference2 and few would disagree with his strategy of addressing efficacy, safety and quality control. I would only add the need for an international collaboration in these issues, e.g. with the developing European and American Pharmacopoeas. I am writing on another aspect of the strategy we must now adopt. I accept the need to examine homoeopathy using contemporary methods, and recent work has succeeded in bringing some of the issues, such as potency action, into general
Volume 76, Number2, April 1987
Remedy Weighfing EXAMPLE
5:
!--2--5
Weighting
16
r
15
\\
14
"" \x
15
\ \\
12
?-q
\
11
\
10
\
~k
0_
8 7
+6
5
o
r
X X \
!
\
)
"
\ A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Remedies
No Wt. spreadsheet can easily demonstrate to himself with a few examples how distorting 1, 2, 3 remedy weighting is. In view of this now visually demonstrated fact, is it not time now to abolish remedy weighting? E. DE RUYTER MED. DRS. ( A M S T E R D A M ) , FAIH AACS.
25 Lonsdale Avenue P.O. Box 21 Berowra Heights NSW 2082, Australia References
1 dc Ruytcr EAAAD. The disadvantages of remedy weighting in homceopathic repertory analysis. J American lnst Horn 1985;78:12 2 loc. cit. p. 21.
S I R , - - I read with great interest the report on the working parties of the Scottish Homoeopathic Congress in he October issue of our (vastly improved) Journal. Many interesting proposals are outlined. Some are very good;
~
1 - - 2 - 5 Wt.
some less so. Explored further by Council a new impetus in homeeopathic medicine will develop with great advantage. Historically, it is interesting to note that as a result of a personal visit to the then Faculty's City Solicitor about 1978, I recommended to Council that the Faculty should become a College and hopefully soon ascend to a Royal commendation. To tack it on a pre-existing Bill passing through Parliament, the costing of s was felt to be too extravaganat. Today we are in a more expansive climate; alas there is now a Lay College of Homceopathy. DR L. G. C. MA R TIN , FRCP, FFHOM
Consultant Physician Emeritus St. John's Cottage Chester CH1 1RE
Hahnemann in his time
S I R , - - I was very concerned to read Dr Leary's criticisms of Hahnemann's writings in the January issue. 1 There are several points on which one could take issue, for example his
102
understanding of chronic disease and miasms, but I shall limit myself to two aspects. Dr Leary implies that Hahnemann would disagree with Gregory's observation that the difference between physicians is that some reason better than others. Hahnemann said in a footnote in the Organon that 'it is not the physician's duty to c o n s t r u c t . . , s y s t e m s . . , interweaving speculation, hypotheses . . . theoretical medic i n e . . , with mere talk and begin to act, that is to help and cure', z He would also concur with Gregory's view that if 'conclusive proof . . . turns against i t . . . [he would] candidly acknowledge 9 an error somewhere.' Dr Leary says this is the normal attitude of today--I wonder if this is indeed so among our colleagues. On the point of chronic diseases, Dr Leafy refuses to accept the Organon's explanation, in the twentieth century, of how and why hom~eopathy works. In paragraph 64 Hahnemann states quite clearly how or why it works. 'During the primary action . . . of medicines . . . the impressions of the artificial power . . . alter its state of health; it then . . . appears to rouse itself . . . to develop the exact opposite condition of health (counteraction, secondary action) to this primary action.'3 To elucidate this he states in paragraph 65 that excessive vivacity follows the use of strong coffee (primary action) but sluggishness and drowsiness remain for a long time afterwards (reaction or secondary action)? Surely Dr Leary must have encountered similar 'rebound phenomena' in his previous orthodox practice, for example after stopping some antihypertensive therapies. C. OLIVER KENNEDY 14 Wellington Place London References
1 Leafy B. Br Horn J 1987;76:42-44. 2 H a h n e m a n n S. Organon 6th Edition, 75, footnote. 3 H a h n e m a n n S. Ibid 105 106.
Recent developments concerning homoeopathic materia medica--Bhopal--Was it methyl isocyanate S I R , - - I n the above-mentioned paper published in the Br Hom J of January 1986 there are some items that we would like to comment. On page 50 we have: 'According to homoeopathic principles mental and general symptoms
The British Homceopathic Journal
are particularly important. As these symptoms do not match it is evident that the gas affecting the victims and the residue from the tank are two different things.' I believe it should be pointed out that the mental condition of people in the two situations: being affected by a mass of aggressive gas that entered by nose, throat and lungs and burned eyes, and receiving a drug prepared in the 6x potency in a non-terrifying situation is different. The different mental state of 'provers' should produce different mental reactions and we cannot foresee the extension. On page 51 the author comments on the difficulties concerning the introduction of MIC into the homoeopathic materia medica as 'MIC in volatile form is known to react with alcohol as well as water'. The transesterification reaction of MIC with absolute alcohol (ethanol) in uncatalyzed (acidic or basic) conditions should be a very low speed reaction (methanol is more polar and then, more easily esterifiable than ethanol), specially if done at low temperatures, where the reaction rate is lowered. As another option we will have to dissolve the MIC in anhydrous methanol, at least for the mother tincture and 1st centesimal Hahnemannian dilutions. Only as an information on the subject, a good report on the Bhopal tragedy and the use of homoeopathic drugs to combat the effects of MIC has been done: Pramanik, MS. Report of work on MIC Victims at Bhopal by CC RH Homoeopathic Heritage 1985; 10: 601-06. MAURO
MERCALDO
Faculdade de Medicina de Taubat6 C. Postal 259 12100 Taubat6, SP Brasil
Strategy for research in homoeopathy: Proving the proving S I R , - - D r Davey's timely editorial 1 further develops the issues discussed at the Scottish Homoeopathic Conference2 and few would disagree with his strategy of addressing efficacy, safety and quality control. I would only add the need for an international collaboration in these issues, e.g. with the developing European and American Pharmacopoeas. I am writing on another aspect of the strategy we must now adopt. I accept the need to examine homoeopathy using contemporary methods, and recent work has succeeded in bringing some of the issues, such as potency action, into general