Many homeopaths harbor concerns that the core tenets of homeopathy might become distorted if explained through the lens of contemporary scientific knowledge. This apprehension is understandable, considering that every word from the “masters” and “stalwarts” of homeopathy is often taught as sacrosanct. However, expecting that every aspect of homeopathic theory and practice can be explained without any deviation from its original “fundamentals” is unrealistic.
Homeopathy is traditionally presented as a closed system of unchangeable laws, rules, principles, and methods that every “true” homeopath must adhere to. Terms like “seven cardinal principles of Hahnemann,” “Hering’s laws,” and “Kent’s observations” dominate the discourse, creating an environment where any deviation is seen as heretical. Consequently, homeopaths demand that science explain every aspect of homeopathy without altering these foundational elements.
It’s important to acknowledge that historical homeopathic masters did not fully understand the processes behind potentization, the active principles of potentized drugs, or the molecular mechanisms through which these drugs exert their effects. Their knowledge was primarily limited to the observable phenomena of “likes curing likes” and the effects of high dilutions. The rest were speculative theories rooted in the unscientific philosophies of dynamism and vitalism.
Once scientific knowledge reveals the exact processes involved in potentization and the active principles of these drugs, many of the existing methods, laws, rules, and principles in homeopathy will need to be revised. This evolution will lead to new principles and methods, inevitably distorting many current fundamentals of homeopathy.
MIT approach to homeopathic practice is grounded in a scientific understanding of potentization as molecular imprinting, with the active principles being these molecular imprints. This understanding frames homeopathic therapeutics as the removal of biochemical inhibitions, rather than adherence to traditional laws and rules. This perspective cannot be expected to align perfectly with the historically established laws of homeopathy.
The guiding principle for a homeopath should be to acquire a scientific understanding of “similia similibus curentur” (like cures like) and potentization and to apply this knowledge judiciously to cure the sick. The objective observations of natural phenomena represented by “likes cures likes” and high dilution effects should be preserved and advanced, while the unscientific and irrational theoretical parts rooted in 18th-century European philosophies should be discarded.
We must preserve and strengthen the rational, objective aspects of homeopathy and integrate them with modern scientific knowledge. This requires the courage to discard irrational and unscientific elements. As we deepen our understanding of the science behind “likes cures likes” and potentization, new practical rules and laws will naturally emerge.
In the preface to the third edition of the “Organon,” Dr. Hahnemann himself stated:
“In this third edition I have not refrained from making any alterations and emendations suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”
This statement is a direct response to dogmatic homeopaths who resist change or updates in homeopathy. Hahnemann encouraged alterations and improvements based on increased knowledge and experience.
Explaining concepts like “vital force,” “dynamic force,” and “drug energy” in scientific terms is impossible because they lack scientific basis. These are remnants of the philosophical doctrine of dynamism. To advance homeopathy into a scientific medical system, we must embrace the rational aspects while letting go of unscientific traditions. Only then can homeopathy evolve and thrive in the light of modern science.
REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY 
Leave a comment