Scientific Homeopathy: Fight ‘Skeptics’ As Well As ‘Energy Medicine Homeopaths’

Scientific homeopathy can advance only by waging consistent and relentless struggle against pseudo-scientific ‘energy medicine’ homeopathic theoreticians on one side, and negative-mined skeptic community on other side.

For rational-mined people, any true observation or experience of a novel natural phenomenon would be inevitably followed by an inquiry for its logical explanations. People with a scientific approach would try to explain those experiences in terms of concepts of existing knowledge system. If the new observations could not be explained satisfactorily using existing theories, it results in the formulation of a system of learned assumptions known as hypothesis. Exactly, hypothesis means a proposed explanation or educated guess regarding the observed phenomenon. To be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test the hypothesis using available scientific tools and methodology. A hypothesis is called a working hypothesis once it is provisionally accepted as a candidate for scientific verification. Testability using existing scientific tools, simplicity, scope, fruitfulness and conservatism are considered to be the essential qualities of a working hypothesis. By conservatism, it is implied that assumptions of a good hypothesis should be fitting with existing recognized knowledge systems. Assumptions of these working hypothesis will be then subjected to rigorous verifications impartial and unprejudiced members of scientific community according to scientific methods, and if the outcomes are positive, it leads to a scientific theory and is accepted as part of scientific knowledge system. That is the way science advances.

There may be some experiences and observations that could not be easily explained using existing scientific paradigms, and formulating a scientifically viable hypothesis would be difficult. Even if they are formulated, a hypotheses may fail during scientific verifications, and will have to be abandoned temporarily or permanently. Some hypotheses could be modified, re-formulated and re-submitted for verification. But, abandoning of a particular hypothesis does not necessarily mean the experiences behind them were totally unreal or they do not exist. It only means that the proposed explanation failed. In some cases, formulating a reasonable hypothesis will be difficult. Skeptic minded people instantly deny the existence of such experiences, since they accept only experiences and observations that are ‘proved’. They consider that failure of a particular hypothesis proves the non-existence of such a phenomenon also. They fail to realize the difference between ‘unproved’ and ‘non-existent’. Beyond any doubt, there is a negative aspect in this skeptic approach.

Side by side with this negative and destructive approach of skeptics lie those pseudo-scientific people who spin imaginative ‘theories’ about every experiences without any consideration for existing knowledge system. They are never bothered about scientific methods or scientific verifications. People lacking scientific world outlook and rational thinking will float nonsense theories in a way fitting to their evil requirements, in a hurry to utilize such observations to justify and promote diverse pseudo-scientific practices they are engaged in. Both negative skepticism and pseudoscience complement each other in harming the evolution and advance of real scientific knowledge.

Exactly, homeopathy is based on two fundamental observations made by hahnemann regarding the process of cure-

1. Similia Similibus Curentur: Hahnemann observed through his experiments that diseases could be cured by extremely diluted forms of drug substances, which could produce symptoms similar to disease when applied in large doses in healthy individuals.

2. Potentization: Hahnemann developed a special process of preparing drugs by serial dilution and shaking, and observed that such expremely diluted drugs could act as therapeutic agents when applied according to similia similibus curentur

Due to the limitations imposed by the infantile stage of scientific knowledge available to him during that period, hahnemann could not formulate a viable hypothesis to explain his observation in a way fitting to the scientific knowledge system then existed. In fact, science was not properly equipped to provide a reasonable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

Instead of leaving his observations unexplained as it should have been truthfully done, hahnemann resorted to building up of a system of philosophical speculations and imaginative theorizations to explain them. May be since he found that the contemporary scientific paradigms were not sufficient for his purpose, he tried to develop a speculative philosophical system utilizing concepts such as ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic energy’ being part of spiritualistic philosophy existed then.

Obviously, this speculative part of homeopathy does not agree with scientific knowledge or its methods. As such, scientific community adopted a skeptical approach towards homeopathy. They totally denied the existence of even the fundamental observations of hahnemaan, whereas it would have been judicious to deny the theoretical explanations of homeopathy and asking for a more viable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

From a rational perspective, we have to logically differentiate between observational part of homeopathy from its speculative part. Observational part is objective experience, which forms the basis of practical application of similia similibus curentur and potentization. They should not be denied on the reason that hahnemann’s theoretical explanations contradict scientific knowledge.

Skeptical scientists deny homeopathy works on the reason that nobody could explain how homeopathy works. They should understand, both issues should be considered as different questions. The issue of efficacy of homeopathy should not be confused with the lack of explanations or wrong explanations regarding how homeopathy works.

Pseudoscientific homeopathic theoreticians, starting from hahnemann himself have contributed a lot in alienating homeopathy from scientific community, through their utter nonsense vitalistic and energy medicine theories that never agree with scientific knowledge system or scientific methods.

According to me, inorder to promote scientific homeopathy, we have to address fllowing preliminary tasks:

1. Convince the scientific community that homeopathy works, through demonstrations and scientifically acceptable clinical studies.

2. Convince them the importance of differentiating objective observational part of homeopathy from the unscientific theoretical or explanatory part of homeopathy.

3. Propose a scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding how homeopathy works, in a way fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system.

4. Prove the propositions of this hypothesis using scientific methods, in a way undisputable to the scientific community.

While addressing this four-pointed fundamental tasks, scientific homeopathy will have to relentlessly fight against the negative-minded skeptics as well as pseudo-scientific energy medicine theoreticians of homeopathy.

We have to consistently tell the world, real homeopathy is entirely different from those nonsense the pseudoscientific homeopathic theoreticians preach and practice.

We have to understand and tell the homeopathic community that the negative-minded anti-homeopathic skeptics are entirely different from real scientific community.

Dialogue has to be between scientific homeopathy and scientific community

Author: Chandran Nambiar K C

I started practicing homeopathy in 1970, when I was 20 years old and studying for final year of BSc (Zoology) course. My interest in homeopathy happened very accidentally, through a constant relationship with a local practitioner who happened to be father of my classmate. I was a regular visitor in his clinic, where from I started reading BOERICKE MATERIA MEDICA and other homeopathic books, which helped me to cure myself my troublesome asthma that have been haunting me since my childhood days. I became a voracious reader of homeopathy. I was also deeply involved in studying marxism and dialectical materialism during my college days, which attracted me to political activities. MARXISM and HOMEOPATHY became two essential parts of my intellectual and practical life, which still continues so. Even though I joined DHMS course in a karnataka homeopathic college, I could not continue it due to my intense involvement in revolutionary political activities that resulted in jail life and a lot of criminal cases. Once that phase was over, I took a diploma in veterinary science and became a livestock inspector in animal husbandry department under govt of kerala. I have been continuing my study and practice of homeopathy all through these years. Since CCH act came into force only in 1976, and it contained provisions allowing existing practitioners to continue, my homeopathic practice went smoothly in parallel with my government job. In 1987, co-operating with some local homeopaths and social activists, I started Kannur District Homeopathic Hospital Sociey, which established a chain of hospitals and homeopathic clinics in different parts of Kannur district. After a few years I had to leave the society for some political reasons, and I established a 100 bedded well equipped homeopathic hospital in Taliparamba, employing a number of prominent homeopaths. That was ended up as a financial disaster for me due to many reasons, including my lack of skills as a money manager, and I was compelled to close down my dream project with in a short period. I lost huge money I invested, lost my reputation, and it pulled me into a debt trap. I learned a lot of valuabl lessons from this failure- about life, human psychology, relationships, and above all, about myself. I realized failure is the greatest teacher, if you are prepared learn from it. I learned how will power and determination to win will help us come back into life as a phoenix from our own ashes. I learned, one does not fail unless he stops fighting and accepts failure. My failure and the hardships that followed has moulded my personality in such a way that I can now withstand any disaster and fight back. I tell you, you will not know what life really is, unless you miserably fail at least once in your life. By this time, I left my government job also, and settled as a full time homeopathic practitioner. By this practice, I could repair my earlier financial losses, and establish well in life. It was during this period that I felt the need of developing a simple and user-friendly homeopathic software, that resulted in the evolution of SIMILIMUM, which was later upgraded into SIMILIMUM ULTRA. Similimum Ultra was well accepted by the profession, and it collected good revenues which continues even today. I stopped my practice a few years back , and concentrated in the study and research activities to evolve scientifically viable explanations to the so-called riddles of homeopathy. This unrelenting study resulted in MIT or Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, which provides a scientific and rational explanation for homeopathy. I started a homeopathic discussion group on facebook called HOMEOPATHY FOR TOTAL CURE, which has more than 35000 homeopaths as members. By this work on facebook, I could establish close relationship with many homeopaths around the world. It goes on. I could successfully convert facebook as my office and work place, from where I propagate my MIT ideas, co-ordinate my works for homeopathic community, and sell my Similimum Ultra Software. My years of hardwork in search of HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS ultimately resulted in the publication of a book titled REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY (3000 pages, 3 volumes, hard bound, Rs 6000), in which I have compiled my articles regarding my scientific explanations of basic principles of homeopathy. These ideas are called MIT or MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS. MIT is now included in the syllabus of MD (HOM) course of prestigious DY PATIL DEEMED UNIVERSITY, PUNE, INDIA. Research department of SARADA KRISHNA HOMEOPATHIC COLLEGE, Kulashekharam, Tamilnadu, India, the only NAC accredited homeopathy college in India, has recently taken up certain reserch projects for proving the scientific explanations proposed by MIT. Based on MIT perspective of homeopathy, I had developed an MIT PROTOCOL for scientific homeopathy, and initiated a project for establishing a chain of MIT NETWORK CLINICS all over India, where MIT PROTOCOL will be practiced. More over, I have developed a whole range of 351 MIT FORMULATIONS, which are disease-specific combinations of post-avogadro diluted homeopathy drugs. NOW I AM IN 71st YEAR OF MY LIFE, AND STILL LOOKING FOR NEW HORRIZONS!

5 thoughts on “Scientific Homeopathy: Fight ‘Skeptics’ As Well As ‘Energy Medicine Homeopaths’”

  1. Similia Similibus Curentur and Potentization belong to objective observational parts of homeopathy, which are real natural phenomena related with the process of cure. We have to preserve them. This issue is related with the question ‘does homeopathy work’?

    Vital force theory, dynamic drug energy and such things belong to speculative theoretical parts of homeopathy, which are unscientific, and we have to discard them. This issue is related with the question ‘how homeopathy works’?

    We should explain the objective observational parts of homeopathy in a way fitting to scientific knowledge system, and prove it accordingly.

    By scientific homeopathy, I mean this task.

    Even if the speculative theoretical parts are unscientific and irrational, that does not necessarily mean the objective observational parts of homeopathy are non-existent or unreal. That only means, we have to explain the whole things in a different way.

  2. There is no such thing as scientific homeopathy. Science is self-critical and self-correcting. I have never come across a single article by a homeopath which meets either of those criteria. No homeopath has been able to cite for me a single example of homeopathy discarding a remedy because it is wrong, something scientific medicine does all the time. No homeopath has ever been able to point out to me the generalisable experimental proof of similia or potentisation, two concepts which are core to homeopathy and which science finds to be generally wrong in practice.

    You can’t build science without some solid theoretical and empirically verifiable foundations. Hypothesising water memory to arm-wave away Avogadro is simply special pleading and violates Occam’s Razor – in fact there is not one single homeopathy experiment which convincingly refutes the null hypothesis of placebo effect plus observer bias.

    1. I have been with homeopathy for last 40 years. I know homeopathy is not ‘placebo effect plus observer bias’.

      There is scientific homeopathy. Problem is, it is not realized among the noises created by pseudoscientific homeopaths an anti-homeopathic skeptics.

      You can say homeopathy has no a scientifically verified theory so far. I will agree with you on that point. But you should not say to me homeopathy is ‘placebo effect plus observer bias’. I know homeopathy much better than you. Its positive and negative aspects.

      You should look at homeopathy with open eyes. It WORKS, beyond any doubt. But so far nobody knows HOW IT WORKS.

      You cannot say an objective observation is nonexistent, on the reason that it is not so far scientifically explained. There are still many many phenomena not explained scientifically. They would be explained as science advances. Many things we today accept as part of science were ‘unexplained’ 50 or hundred years back. That does not meant they did not exist.
      I do not agree with the ‘water memory’ theory or ‘energy medicine’ theory regarding homeopathy. I know all those pseudoscientific verbosity are pure nonsense.

      From 40 years of experimenting and experience with homeopathy, I am 100 percent convinced HOMEOPATHY WORKS. Problem is, all the theories trying to explain homeopathy so far were unscientific.

      Perhaps, my concept of ‘molecular imprints’ as the active principle of homeopathic drugs may be wrong. But that does not disprove my experiences that homeopathy works.

      1. You said: “Science is self-critical and self-correcting. I have never come across a single article by a homeopath which meets either of those criteria””

        If you go through my articles, you can see them “meeting both criteria” you set..

        I would agree, classical homeopathy is dogmatic in approach. You heve correctly pointed out that aspect.

    2. To sum up your points, there is no such thing as ‘scientific homeopathy’, because:

      1. Homeopathy is not self-critical and self correcting.

      2. Homeopathy did not ever discard a single drug because it is wrong

      3. No generalized experimental proof for similia or potentization

      4. No solid theoretical and empirically viable foundations

      5. Homeopaths hypothesize over water memory to wave away avogadro, which violates Occam’s Razor

      6. No single homeopathy experiment which convincingly refutes the null hypothesis of placebo effect plus observer bias

      I think these SIX POINTS provide a solid foundation for a healthy dialogue between scientific homeopathy and skepticism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s