You Have The Right To Practice Any Occult You Like- But Don’t Say It Is Homeopathy!

One senior homeopath friend commented on my discussions regarding ‘energy medicine theories of homeopathy’:

“In fact I treat my patients with energy medicine apart from Homoeopathy and magnetic therapy. Energy medicine is there and practiced from 4000 years and Homoeopathy is 250 years old. Study some more and learn to know before commenting on any subject. 4000 years back no labs, no trials, still medicine was being given in many ways and patients were being treated too. Just because you would not believe energy medicine, you cant call it funny and mock at it. Energy medicine is having its own value and such comments would not change its place in the Universe. Never think you can attack somebody like this and you do not have any right to discuss the unknown subject in the group.”

My friend is gravely mistaken. I am not discussing the “”value” or ‘efficacy’ of energy medicine. Nor its historical relevance. I am not interested in ‘knowing’ it. I would not question anybody’s right to practice ‘energy medicine’, ‘magnetotherapy’ or anything like that “apart” from homeopathy. It is up to you to decide what you should practice.

I was commenting on the widely propagated theory that “homeopathy is energy medicine”. In that case, it is a different matter. I did not criticize ‘reflexology’ per se; I criticized the method of selecting similimum using reflexology David Little talk about. I have nothing if anybody practice radionics or dowsing; but when somebody theorizes about using radionics machines to select homeopathic drugs, I have the right to comment. The age old occult practice using hair as as medium existed here since antiquity. I am not bothered. But when somebody talks about homeopathic drug transmission to distance through hair, and conducts courses and seminars for homeopaths on that topic, it becomes a matter of concern for every homeopath. I am not bothered about the ‘water memory’ theory of Emoto or Rustom Roy. But when a homeopath claims he writes name of homeopathic similimum on paper, keeps it under a glass of water to ‘charge’ it and treats his patients with that ‘charged water’, you should not expect me me to keep silent. When a reputed homeopathy claims he recorded the homeopathic drug information as mp3 file and cured AIDS by playing it to patients, you have no right to ask me to keep mum.

Anybody can practice any occults or woodoo as he like “apart” from homeopathy, if law permits a ‘physician’ to do so. I don’t bother. But when you make homeopathy “part” of your occult practices, and spin ‘ultra-scientific’ theories about homeopathy to justify such practices, I have the right to intervene and comment. I am bothered only about homeopathy- not about your ‘energy medicine’ or occults. You keep them “apart”, I will not “attack” you.

Whether anybody is practicing or propagating CAM, ENERGY MEDICINE, FAITH HEALING or anything else is not my concern. It is for the law-enforcing authorities to decide whether a HOMEOPATH registered under the provision of CCH Act is permitted to engage in such practices ‘along’ with homeopathy. I do not intend to comment on it. I am questioning the widely propagated theory that ‘homeopathy is energy medicine’. I am questioning the practice of ‘homeopathic occults’ such as homeopathic drug transmission through hair, homeopathic drug transmission through photographs, mp3 file transmission, selecting similimum by radionics machine, dowsing and reflexology, and such things which gravely damage the scientific credentials of homeopathy. I object only when you make homeopathy a PART of ‘energy medicine’. Homeopathy is purely a method of ‘drug therapy’- not energy medicine or spiritual healing. Homeopathy should be understood, explained and practiced a MEDICAL SCIENCE. Homeopaths should be scientific medical professionals.

Regarding my “right to discuss the unknown subject in the group”, I would like to reserve my comments for the time being, hoping not to spoil our friendship. I expect you would discuss only “known” subjects hereafter.

Similarity Of ‘Functional Groups’ Of Drug Molecules And Pathogenic Molecules Determines ‘Similimum”

To understand the real science behind the phenomena of ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘drug proving’ and ‘potntization’, we should study drug substances in terms of not only their ‘constituent molecules’, but in terms of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of those drug molecules. A drug substance is composed of diverse types of drug molecules. A drug molecule interacts with ‘active groups’ of biological target molecules such as enzymes and receptors using their ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’. It is the ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ on the individual drug molecules that decide to which biological molecules they can bind to and produce molecular inhibitions. Different drug molecules with different size and structures, but having same ‘functional group’ or ‘moiety’ can bind to same biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors and similar groups of symptoms. A drug molecule become similimum to a disease when the drug molecule and disease-producing molecule have same functional groups, so that they could bind to same biological targets producing same molecular errors and same symptom groups.

Drug molecules act upon the biological molecules in the organism by binding their ‘functional groups’ to the active groups on the complex biological molecules such as receptors and enzymes. These molecular interactions are determined by the affinity between functional groups or moieties of drug molecules and active sites of biological molecules. Here, the functional groups of drug molecules are called ‘ligands’, and the biological molecules are called ‘targets’. Ligand-target interaction is  determined by a peculiar ‘key-lock’ relationship due to complementary configurational affinities.

It is to be specifically noted that same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size or configuration of of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups known as facilitating groups. That means, different types of drug molecules or pathogenic molecules having same functional groups and facilitating groups can bind to same biological molecules, and produce similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms. Homeopathic principle of ‘similimum’ is well explained by this understanding. If a drug molecule can produce symptoms similar to symptoms of a particular disease, it means that the drug molecules and disease-causing molecules have same functional groups on them, by which they bind to same biological molecules. Obviously, similarity of symptoms means similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules. To be similimum, the whole molecules need not be similar, but similarity of functional groups is enough.

Potentized drugs would contain the molecular imprints of drug molecules, along with molecular imprints of their functional groups. These molecular imprints will have specific configurational affinity towards any molecule having same functional groups, and can bind and deactivate them.

According to the scientific definition proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means:

“If a drug substance in crude form is capable of producing certain groups of symptoms in a healthy human organism, that drug substance in potentized form can cure diseases having similar symptoms”.

Potentization is explained in terms of molecular imprinting. As per this concept, potentized drugs contains diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of constituent molecules contained in the drug substances used for potentization.

In other words, “potentized drugs can cure diseases having symptoms similar to those produced by that drug in healthy organism if applied in crude forms”.

Homeopathy is based on the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’, which scientifically means “endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules that cause diseases by binding to the biological molecules can be entrapped and removed using molecular imprints of drug molecules which in molecular form can bind to the same biological molecules, utilizing the complementary configurational affinity between molecular imprints and pathogenic molecules”.

So far, we understood ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ as ‘similarity of symptoms produced by drugs as well as diseases’. According to modern scientific understanding, we can explain it as ‘similarity of molecular errors produced by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules’ in the organism.

To be more exact, that means ‘similarity of molecular configurations of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’. Potentized drugs contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of drug used for potentization. ‘Molecular imprints’ are three-dimensional negatives of molecules, and hence they would have a peculiar affinity towards those molecules, due to their complementary configuration. ‘Molecular imprints’ would show this complementary affinity not only towards the molecules used for imprinting, but also towards all molecules that have configurations similar to those molecules. Homeopathy utilizes this phenomenon, and uses molecular imprints of drug molecules to bind and entrap pathogenic molecules having configurations similar to them. Similarity of configurations of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are identified by evaluating the ‘similarity of symptoms’ they produce in organism during drug proving and disease. This realization is the the basis of scientific understanding of homeopathy I propose.

To be ‘similar’ does not mean pathological molecule and drug molecules should  be similar in their ‘whole’ molecular structure. To bind to same targets, similarity of ‘functional groups’ or even a ‘moeity’ is enough. If the adjacent groups that facilitate binding with targets are also same, similarity becomes more perfect. If a drug molecule could produce symptoms similar to a disease, that means the drug molecules contains some functional groups simialr to those of pathogenic molecules that caused the disease. By virtue of these similar functional groups, both pathogenic molecules and drug molecules could bind to same biological targets, producing similar molecular errors and symptoms in the organism.

Molecular imprints of similar functional groups will also be similar. As such, potentized forms of a drug substance can bind and deactivate the pathogenic molecules having similar functional groups. This is the real molecular mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Except those substances of simple chemical formula belonging to mineral groups, most of the pathogenic agents as well as drug substances consist of complex organic molecules. In the study of chemical interactions involving these organic molecules, understanding the concept of ‘functional groups’ is very important.  ‘Functional groups’ are specific groups of atoms within large organic molecules that are responsible for their characteristic chemical reactions.  Different organic molecules having same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size of the molecule it is a part of.  However, its relative reactivity can be modified or influenced to an extent by nearby functional groups.

Even though the word moiety is often used synonymously to “functional group”, according to the IUPAC definition,a moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either whole functional groups or a parts of functional groups as substructures.

The atoms of functional groups are linked to each other and to the rest of the molecule by covalent bonds. When the group of covalently bound atoms bears a net charge, the group is referred to more properly as a polyatomic ion or a complex ion. Any subgroup of atoms of a compound also may be called a radical, and if a covalent bond is broken homolytically, the resulting fragment radicals are referred as free radicals.

Organic reactions are facilitated and controlled by the functional groups of the reactants.

A ‘moeity’ represents discrete non-bonded components. Thus, Na2SO4 would contain 3 moieties (2 Na+ and one SO42-). A “chemical formula moiety” is defined as “formula with each discrete bonded residue or ion shown as a separate moiety”.

We should learn different types of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of constituent molecules of our drug substances, as well as diverse types of pathogenic molecules. We have to study our materia medica from this viewpoint, comparing symptoms of different drug molecules having same functional moieties.  Then we can logically  explain the phenomenon of ‘drug relationships’. We can explain the similarity of drugs belonging to different groups such as ‘calcarea’, ‘merc’, ‘kali’, ‘acid’, ‘sulph’, ‘mur’ etc. Such an approach will make our understanding of homeopathy more scientific and accurate.

Learn ‘Functional Groups’ from Wikipedia:

The following is a list of common functional groups. In the formulas, the symbols R and R’ usually denote an attached hydrogen, or a hydrocarbon side chain of any length, but may sometimes refer to any group of atoms.

Functional Groups containing Hydrocarbons

Functional groups, called hydrocarbyls, that contain only carbon and hydrogen, but vary in the number and order of π bonds. Each one differs in type (and scope) of reactivity.

Chemical class

Group

Formula

Structural Formula

Prefix

Suffix

Example

Alkane

Alkyl

RH

alkyl-

-ane

Ethane

Alkene

Alkenyl

R2C=CR2

alkenyl-

-ene

Ethylene
(Ethene)

Alkyne

Alkynyl

RC≡CR’

alkynyl-

-yne

Acetylene
(Ethyne)

Benzene derivative

Phenyl

RC6H5
RPh

phenyl-

-benzene

Cumene
(2-phenylpropane)

Toluene derivative

Benzyl

RCH2C6H5
RBn

benzyl-

1-(substituent)toluene

Benzyl bromide
(α-Bromotoluene)

There are also a large number of branched or ring alkanes that have specific names, e.g., tert-butyl, bornyl, cyclohexyl, etc.

Hydrocarbons may form charged structures: positively charged carbocations or negative carbanions. Carbocations are often named -um. Examples are tropylium and triphenylmethyl cations and the cyclopentadienyl anion.

Functional Groups containing halogens

Haloalkanes are a class of molecule that is defined by a carbon-halogen bond. This bond can be relatively weak (in the case of an iodoalkane) or quite stable (as in the case of a fluoroalkane). In general, with the exception of fluorinated compounds, haloalkanes readily undergo nucleophilic substitution reactions or elimination reactions. The substitution on the carbon, the acidity of an adjacent proton, the solvent conditions, etc. all can influence the outcome of the reactivity.

Chemical class

Group

Formula

Structural Formula

Prefix

Suffix

Example

haloalkane

halo

RX

halo-

alkyl halide

Chloroethane
(Ethyl chloride)

fluoroalkane

fluoro

RF

fluoro-

alkyl fluoride

Fluoromethane
(Methyl fluoride)

chloroalkane

chloro

RCl

chloro-

alkyl chloride

Chloromethane
(Methyl chloride)

bromoalkane

bromo

RBr

bromo-

alkyl bromide

Bromomethane
(Methyl bromide)

iodoalkane

iodo

RI

iodo-

alkyl iodide

Iodomethane
(Methyl iodide)

Functional Groups containing oxygen

Compounds that contain C-O bonds each possess differing reactivity based upon the location and hybridization of the C-O bond, owing to the electron-withdrawing effect of sp hybridized oxygen (carbonyl groups) and the donating effects of sp2 hybridized oxygen (alcohol groups).

Chemical class

Group

Formula

Structural Formula

Prefix

Suffix

Example

Alcohol

Hydroxyl

ROH

hydroxy-

-ol

Methanol

Ketone

Carbonyl

RCOR’

-oyl- (-COR’)
or
oxo- (=O)

-one

Butanone
(Methyl ethyl ketone

Aldehyde

Aldehyde

RCHO

formyl- (-COH)
or
oxo- (=O)

-al

Ethanal
(Acetaldehyde)

Acyl halide

Haloformyl

RCOX

carbonofluoridoyl-
carbonochloridoyl-
carbonobromidoyl-
carbonoiodidoyl-

-oyl halide

Acetyl chloride
(Ethanoyl chloride)

Carbonate

Carbonate ester

ROCOOR

(alkoxycarbonyl)oxy-

alkyl carbonate

Triphosgene
(Di(trichloromethyl) carbonate)

Carboxylate

Carboxylate

RCOO

carboxy-

-oate

Sodium acetate
(Sodium ethanoate)

Carboxylic acid

Carboxyl

RCOOH

carboxy-

-oic acid

Acetic acid
(Ethanoic acid)

Ester

Ester

RCOOR’

alkanoyloxy-
or
alkoxycarbonyl

alkyl alkanoate

Ethyl butyrate
(Ethyl butanoate)

Hydroperoxide

Hydroperoxy

ROOH

hydroperoxy-

alkylhydroperoxide

Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide

Peroxide

Peroxy

ROOR

peroxy-

alkyl peroxide

Di-tert-butyl peroxide

Ether

Ether

ROR’

alkoxy-

alkyl ether

Diethyl ether
(Ethoxyethane)

Hemiacetal

Hemiacetal

RCH(OR’)(OH)

alkoxy -ol

-al alkylhemiacetal

Hemiketal

Hemiketal

RC(ORʺ)(OH)R’

alkoxy -ol

-one alkylhemiketal

Acetal

Acetal

RCH(OR’)(OR”)

dialkoxy-

-al dialkyl acetal

Ketal (orAcetal)

Ketal (orAcetal)

RC(ORʺ)(OR‴)R’

dialkoxy-

-one dialkyl ketal

Orthoester

Orthoester

RC(OR’)(ORʺ)(OR‴)

trialkoxy-

Orthocarbonate ester

Orthocarbonate ester

C(OR)(OR’)(ORʺ)(OR″)

tetralkoxy-

tetraalkylorthocarbonate

Functional Groups containing nitrogen

Compounds that contain nitrogen in this category may contain C-O bonds, such as in the case of amides.

Chemical class

Group

Formula

Structural Formula

Prefix

Suffix

Example

Amide

Carboxamide

RCONR2

carboxamido-
or
carbamoyl-

-amide

Acetamide
(Ethanamide)

Amines

Primary amine

RNH2

amino-

-amine

Methylamine
(Methanamine)

Secondary amine

R2NH

amino-

-amine

Dimethylamine

Tertiary amine

R3N

amino-

-amine

Trimethylamine

4° ammonium ion

R4N+

ammonio-

-ammonium

Choline

Imine

Primary ketimine

RC(=NH)R’

imino-

-imine

Secondary ketimine

RC(=NR)R’

imino-

-imine

Primary aldimine

RC(=NH)H

imino-

-imine

Secondary aldimine

RC(=NR’)H

imino-

-imine

Imide

Imide

(RCO)2NR’

imido-

-imide

Azide

Azide

RN3

azido-

alkyl azide

Phenyl azide (Azidobenzene)

Azo compound

Azo
(Diimide)

RN2R’

azo-

-diazene

Methyl orange
(p-dimethylamino-azobenzenesulfonic acid)

Cyanates

Cyanate

ROCN

cyanato-

alkyl cyanate

Methyl cyanate

Isocyanate

RNCO

isocyanato-

alkyl isocyanate

Methyl isocyanate

Nitrate

Nitrate

RONO2

nitrooxy-, nitroxy-

alkyl nitrate

Amyl nitrate
(1-nitrooxypentane)

Nitrile

Nitrile

RCN

cyano-

alkanenitrile
alkyl cyanide

Benzonitrile
(Phenyl cyanide)

Isonitrile

RNC

isocyano-

alkaneisonitrile
alkyl isocyanide

Methyl isocyanide

Nitrite

Nitrosooxy

RONO

nitrosooxy-

alkyl nitrite

Isoamyl nitrite
(3-methyl-1-nitrosooxybutane)

Nitro compound

Nitro

RNO2

nitro-

Nitromethane

Nitroso compound

Nitroso

RNO

nitroso-

Nitrosobenzene

Pyridine derivative

Pyridyl

RC5H4N

4-pyridyl
(pyridin-4-yl)

3-pyridyl
(pyridin-3-yl)

2-pyridyl
(pyridin-2-yl)

-pyridine

Nicotine

Functional Groups containing sulphur

Compounds that contain sulfur exhibit unique chemistry due to their ability to form more bonds than oxygen, their lighter analogue on the periodic table. Substitutive nomenclature (marked as prefix in table) is preferred over functional class nomenclature (marked as suffix in table) for sulfides, disulfides, sulfoxides and sulfones.

Chemical class

Group

Formula

Structural Formula

Prefix

Suffix

Example

Thiol

Sulfhydryl

RSH

sulfanyl-
(-SH)

thiol

Ethanethiol

Sulfide
(Thioether)

Sulfide

RSR’

substituent sulfanyl-
(-SR’)

di(substituentsulfide

(Methylsulfanyl)methane (prefix) or
Dimethyl sulfide (suffix)

Disulfide

Disulfide

RSSR’

substituent disulfanyl-
(-SSR’)

di(substituentdisulfide

(Methyldisulfanyl)methane (prefix) or
Dimethyl disulfide (suffix)

Sulfoxide

Sulfinyl

RSOR’

-sulfinyl-
(-SOR’)

di(substituentsulfoxide

(Methanesulfinyl)methane (prefix) or
Dimethyl sulfoxide (suffix)

Sulfone

Sulfonyl

RSO2R’

-sulfonyl-
(-SO2R’)

di(substituentsulfone

(Methanesulfonyl)methane (prefix) or
Dimethyl sulfone (suffix)

Sulfinic acid

Sulfino

RSO2H

sulfino-
(-SO2H)

sulfinic acid

2-Aminoethanesulfinic acid

Sulfonic acid

Sulfo

RSO3H

sulfo-
(-SO3H)

sulfonic acid

Benzenesulfonic acid

Thiocyanate

Thiocyanate

RSCN

thiocyanato-
(-SCN)

substituent thiocyanate

Phenyl thiocyanate

Isothiocyanate

RNCS

isothiocyanato-
(-NCS)

substituent isothiocyanate

Allyl isothiocyanate

Thione

Carbonothioyl

RCSR’

-thioyl-
(-CSR’)
or
sulfanylidene-
(=S)

thione

Diphenylmethanethione
(Thiobenzophenone)

Thial

Carbonothioyl

RCSH

methanethioyl-
(-CSH)
or
sulfanylidene-
(=S)

thial

Groups containing phosphorus

Compounds that contain phosphorus exhibit unique chemistry due to their ability to form more bonds than nitrogen, their lighter analogues on the periodic table.

Chemical class

Group

Formula

Structural Formula

Prefix

Suffix

Example

Phosphine
(Phosphane)

Phosphino

R3P

phosphanyl-

-phosphane

Methylpropylphosphane

Phosphonic acid

Phosphono

RP(=O)(OH)2

phosphono-

substituent phosphonic acid

Benzylphosphonic acid

Phosphate

Phosphate

ROP(=O)(OH)2

phosphonooxy-
or
O-phosphono- (phospho-)

substituent phosphate

Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate (suffix)

O-Phosphonocholine (prefix)
(Phosphocholine)

Phosphodiester

Phosphate

HOPO(OR)2

[(alkoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]oxy-
or
O-[(alkoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]-

di(substituent) hydrogen phosphate
or
phosphoric acid di(substituentester

DNA

O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine (prefix)
(Lombricine)

‘Kentian Philosophy’- Theological Influence That ‘Divorced’ Homeopathy From Scientific Knowledge System For Ever

Kent said in Lesser Writings:  “You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural”.

Remember, this is not the words of a religious preacher. These words were spoken by a great physician while explaining the philosophy of homeopathy to his students. This statement clearly exposes the world outlook of Kent, which he used abundantly while explaining homeopathic philosophy.

By saying “you cannot divorce medicine from theology”,Kent actually ‘divorced homeopathy from scientific thought’ for ever.Kent remains to be the most quoted and most followed ‘homeopathic philosopher’ for that class of  ‘spiritual homeopaths’, who want homeopathy to remain ‘divorced’ from modern scientific knowledge and scientific methods.

Kent can be rightfully called the ‘father’ of ‘spiritual’ homeopathy.

James Tylor Kent is considered to be next only to Samulel Hahnemann in the history of homeopathy. The repertory he complied still continues to be the most widely used repertory among homeopathic community. What a neophyte understands as homeopathic philosophy is actually ‘Kentian philosophy’. Kent’s ‘Philosophical Lectures’ is used as the basic text book to teach ‘homeopathic philosophy’ in colleges. No wonder the majority of homeopathic community vehemently resist any scientific thought or approach evolving in homeopathy. To be known as a ‘kentian homeopath’ is considered to be most respectable position among homeopaths.

I am quoting following statements of J T KENT from his two famous works, which amply demonstrate the ‘theological’ and ‘spiritualistic’ approach he consciously implanted into the body of homeopathic philosophy.

LESSER WRITINGS:

1. ‘You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural.’ [Lesser Writings, p.641]

2. ‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.” [p.671]

3. ‘The body became corrupt because man’s interior will became corrupt.’ [ibid, p.681]

4. ‘Man…becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil, through thinking wrong…’ [ibid, p.664]

5. ‘Psora is the evolution of the state of man’s will, the ultimates of sin.’ [ibid, p.654]

6. ‘This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil willing, is Psora.’ [ibid, p.654]

7. ‘Thinking, willing and doing are the 3 things in life from which finally proceed the chronic miasms.’ [ibid, p.654]

PHILOSOPHICL LECTURES:

1.  ‘…had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race… susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible… it is the foundation of all sickness.’ [Lectures, p.126]

2. ‘Psora…is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing evils.’ [ibid, p.135]

3. ‘The human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little better than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the present day. To put it another way everyone is Psoric.’ [ibid, p.135]

4. ‘Psora…would not exist in a perfectly healthy race.’ [ibid, p.133]

5. ‘As long as man continued to think that which was true and held that which was good to the neighbour, that which was uprightness and justice, so long man remained free from disease, because that was the state in which he was created.’ [ibid, p.134]

6. ‘The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him; therefore, the environment is not the cause…’ [ibid, p.136]

7. ‘Diseases correspond to man’s affections, and the diseases upon the human race today are but the outward expression of man’s interiors… man hates his neighbour, he is willing to violate every commandment; such is the state os man today. This state is represented in man’s diseases.’ [ibid, p.136]

8. ‘The Itch is looked upon as a disgraceful affair; so is everything that has a similar correspondence; because the Itch in itself has a correspondence with adultery…’ [ibid, p.137]

9. ‘How long can this thing go on before the human race is swept from the earth with the results of the suppression of Psora?’ [ibid, pp.137-8]

10. ‘Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness… is the underlying cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human race.’ [ibid, p.126]

11. ‘…for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness…which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases. [ibid, p.126]

It is obvious from these quotes that Kent took a very puritanical and moral approach towards the origins of disease within the human race and he apparently felt that Psora was equivalent to ‘Original Sin’ or the ‘Fall of Man’. That is why he says ‘homeopathy cannot be divorced from theology.

Hahnemann only said that Psora was the most ancient and insidious miasm, and that it was derived from skin eruptions of various types in the past, such as scabies (Itch), leprosy and psoriasis. These had been contracted by ancestors or in one’s own early childhood. The suppression of these conditions especially through the use of ointments he held to be the primary cause of Psora.

“Psora is that most ancient, most universal, most destructive, and yet most misapprehended chronic miasmatic disease which for many thousands of years has disfigured and tortured mankind… and become the mother of all the thousands of incredibly various chronic diseases… [Chronic Diseases, p9]”

But Kent, in his Lectures, greatly enlarged upon the theory of miasms, proposing that Psora was the foundation of all other illness, without which mankind would be pure and healthy both in mind and body, as in the Garden of Eden. He thus regarded Psora as being equated with the ‘Fall of Man’ and with original sinfulness. He portrayed Psora in this highly moralistic light as also being the foundation of the sexual miasms that came later.

Beyond any doubt,Kent here deviated a lot from original concepts of Hahnemann regarding miasms, there by making homeopathy more of theology than medical science.

The theory of miasms originates in Hahnemann’s book The Chronic Diseases which was published in 1828. Around the same time that hahnemann decided to fix 30c as the standard potency for all homoeopaths. He declared that the theory was the result of 12 years of the most painstaking work on difficult cases of a chronic character combined with his own historical research into the diseases of man. But it was kent, who made homeopathy an art of  ‘ultra high’ dilutions.

From the quotes above, it is clear thatKentemphasized the moral aspect of origin of miasms, connecting it with ‘sexual sins’. Hahnemann unlike Kent, attached no moral dimension whatsoever to the sexual nature of the two latter miasms.

See Kent saying: ‘You cannot divorce medicine and theology”. And, ‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.”

Being spiritual does not necessarily make one a ‘good’ homeopath or ‘bad’ homeopath. If one know how to apply simila similibus curentur correctly, and have enough knowledge of materia medica, anybody can be a ‘good’ homeopath. It was Kent, who unnecessarily introduced the issue of being spiritualist or not as a condition to be a ‘good’ homeopath. His statement that “one who does not believe in god cannot be a homeopath” is totally irrelevant. Hahnemann never placed that condition. It was kent who ‘married’ homeopathy with theology- not hahnemann. I was discussing that aspect of kent’s contribution in my article. In my opinion, without freeing homeopathy from this ‘theological’ and ‘spiritualistic’ philosophy of kent, we cannot study and practice homeopathy as a ‘medical science’. Homeopathy will remain a ‘theological’ or ‘spiritualistic’ healing art as kent wanted it to be.

A scientist can be a spiritualist also. But a man with ‘scientific world outlook’ cannot be a spiritualist. You can give any number of great scientists who were spiritualists. Being a spiritualist, a scientist cannot utilize full potentials of scientific knowledge. To follow a ‘scientific world out look’ is is entirely different from ‘knowledge in science’. Homeopathy cannot be a ‘scientific medicine’, if you understand and practice it as ‘spiritual medicine’ or ‘theological medicine’. I know the influence of spiritualism and kentian philosophy is very deep rooted among homeopaths, and my statement in this regard will not be easily accepted by the profession. But I am sure, homeopaths having ‘scientific world outlook’ will accept my statement.

Kent said “one who do not believe in god cannot be a homeopath. No man with a scientific world outlook can agree to this statement. Homeopathy as a medical science has nothing to do with ‘believing in god’. You can believe or not believe in god, and be a good homeopath.

I am fully convinced that without freeing homeopathic philosophy and homeopathic community from the spiritualistic or theological influence of ‘kentian philosophy’, we cannot hope homeopathy to become a scientific medical system.

Studying homeopathic philosophy directly from the original works of hahnemann such as organon and chronic diseases, using scientific and logical mindset is essential first step to free oneself from the influence of ‘spiritualistic’ philosophy ofKent. Only then can we realize the importance of scientific understanding of homeopathy.