The California Homeopath
Journal of the California Homeopathic Medical Society

By Richard Pitt   Thu, Jun 18, 2009

Each edition has had a general theme to it apart from the 1st one which was a summary of many of the lectures given to the annual conference of California Homeopathic Medical Society.  The 2nd edition explored the world of provings, the 3rd edition the varying and contrasting methods of homeopathic practice and the 4th edition was a study of miasmatic theory and practice.  This 5th edition is given to putting homeopathy on the couch, looking at the political, social and cultural dynamics of homeopathy and looking at the past influences which have affected the development of homeopathy.  It is both an introverted study of our art and science and a wider political analysis of the forces that affect our ability to practice.  Some articles are quite broad and philosophical in their analysis and some are more “eccentric” in their style.  We want the journal to publish articles that may stray from the conventional as we explore what the practice and study of homeopathy is all about.

The next edition of the journal will focus on the education of homeopaths; how we learn and how we teach homeopathy within the context of how we learn about anything.  This is a vital subject in the development of homeopathy and needs more thought and discussion. 

However, from this time all editions will be published online only and members of the CHMS and subscribers to the journal will have access to the whole library of articles published.  Also, we are designing the website to allow people to participate in the discussions on the articles and so it will be an interactive blog based journal.  We are seeking to explore the vision of the journal and for it to be a widely resourced homeopathic journal that can contribute to the profession’s development and the debate about the future of homeopathy. 

We will be encouraging a wide membership and bring in more writers and contributors to the journal.  The journal, while still associated with the California Homeopathic Medical Society through its membership will become an autonomous entity, and while retaining the name, The California Homeopath, will become a journal with a more national, if not international consciousness.  In the digital web-based age in which we live, the exchange of information does not have to be restricted by any geographical factors.  We encourage all our readers to help spread the news about the journal and help us gain new subscribers throughout the profession.

This Edition
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way."

As we think about the state of homeopathy we can see that this quote from Charles Dickens seems relevant to where we find ourselves today.  The last twenty years has seen incredible growth in homeopathy, both in sheer numbers of people studying and practicing homeopathy and the numbers of people seeking homeopathic treatment and the intellectual ferment within the profession.  We are also part of the evolution of global consciousness and as such are utilizing the technology around us to access information and analyze our ways of working.  This is all contributing to our own understanding of what we are doing as homeopaths and connecting the profession on a global level.

And yet, we also see a dwindling in the membership of many organizations, at least in the USA.  We see conferences not being supported by the profession, their numbers declining in spite of all the efforts of many groups.  We see homeopathic schools struggling to survive and to attract new students, especially students who will commit 20 years or more to homeopathic practice, a new young, passionate generation willing to take homeopathy to the next level.  We see that in spite of all the work in the last two decades, homeopathy is no closer to being recognized as a distinct medical profession than it was before.  We see that in spite of the great growth of other Complementary and Alternative Therapies in the United States, homeopathy has not really become more recognized and is not practiced seriously by those in the mainstream medical profession.  There is no real “integration” happening. 

I recently came across some copies of an old journal, the Journal of Homeopathic Practice, published in the San Francisco Bay Area, in 1978.  This was the time after George Vithoulkas had first come to the United States and homeopaths like Bill Gray and Roger Morrison were studying with him and other homeopaths like Randy Neustaedter, Corey Weinstein and Nancy Herrick were starting the Hering Clinic in Berkeley.  Stephen Cummings was the editor of the journal.  In one article Bill Gray was talking about the need to develop a full time homeopathic medical school, to do justice to the demands of studying homeopathy.  He spoke of the amazing results he was seeing in Greece in George Vithoulkas’ clinic.  He also reflected on how, in spite of the work of homeopaths in the Bay Area, he felt the profession was still quite immature and had quite a long way to go! Thirty years later we still don’t have a full time homeopathy school anywhere in the country, although hopefully one will open in Arizona in the next two years.  In another article Dr Allan Sutherland was interviewed.  Allan was one of the rare classical homeopaths who worked through the barren years of homeopathy, from 1925 up until the 1980’s.  He was a graduate of the Hahnemann Medical School in Philadelphia when it was still a homeopathic medical school, and he graduated in 1925.  However, he was lamenting at the laxity of homeopathic education at the school, one of only three remaining homeopathic medical schools in the early 1920’s.  He stated that after four years of study, he still knew next to nothing about homeopathy and it was only when studying with Dr. Roberts after graduation that he learnt homeopathy in a serious way. 

In the journal, there is a mission statement of the organization, The Bay Area Homeopathic Study Group, which states that medical care should be:
1.    Available to everyone as a right, not a privilege
2.    Preventative rather than crisis oriented
3.    Comprehensive rather than fragmented
4.    Personal rather than assembly-line approach
5.    People rather than profit oriented

Randy Neustaedter wrote an article on the goals and history of the group and of homeopathy in the San Francisco Bay Area.  He states that there used to be a San Francisco State Homeopathic Society that had been quite vital before the deaths of three of its senior members.  Another organization spoken of in the journal was the Bay Area Homeopathic Association, a network organization to promote homeopathy in the Bay Area.  As an interesting observation of the cyclical nature of things, a new organization called the Bay Area Homeopathy Association was formed two years ago, using the same acronym BAHA.  At the time it was not known that another organization of the same name had existed thirty years before. 

So, on reading these journals, one is struck by the fact that not that much has changed politically for homeopathy in the last thirty years.  The most significant political change has been the passing of the Health Freedom Bill, SB577 in 2002 that changed the legal ambivalence of many CAM therapies in California.  However, overall, the numbers of practitioners in the Bay Area has not grown that much in the last thirty years.  It is definitely more than it was then but not the exponential growth that many would have predicted.

And yet, there are probably more homeopaths practicing today in the whole country than at any time since the turn of the 20th century.  We see a consistency in standards and organizations that bring the profession together and help maintain standards for homeopaths from all backgrounds.  We see a heroic amount of time and energy given by dedicated individuals that keeps homeopathy alive and that maintains homeopathy as a vital ingredient in the melting pot of CAM therapies, both in the United States and the rest of the world.  However, the numbers of homeopaths who can make a decent living from practicing is not huge.  We see a small number of people who do very well, often by charging fairly high fees and yet there are many who struggle to make a living. 

And yet, as we see today and as many of the articles in the journal reveal, homeopathy has been the brunt of a coordinated and systematic attack in the United Kingdom, a place known traditionally for its acceptance of homeopathy, in a culture normally tolerant of things outside the norm.  Homeopathy was introduced into the new National Health Service in 1948 and until today has enjoyed this privilege of being a recognized form of medicine, practiced by physicians and available to everyone who wanted access to it.  Perhaps this is the very reason why this attack occurred.  There is nothing worse to any orthodoxy of belief than to have apostates in one’s own back yard.  Historically, homeopathy has always been anathema to the true believers of materialistic medicine and the economic engine that supports it and perhaps this is just the latest backlash against homeopathy as the orthodox medical machine feels the pressure on it’s own position and looks for convenient scapegoats. 

Carol Boyce’s brilliant articles shine a bright light on the true agenda of those who are seeking to destroy homeopathy in the U.K.  She shows that the hypocrisy of those “experts’ in the medical and journalistic profession, supported by the dubious characters in the “quack buster” organizations, are fueled by a “religious” fervor to demonize anything that doesn’t conform to their “professional,” “expert” opinions.  This level of sycophancy and hypocrisy is not new to most professions, whose ultimate goals are to protect their own position and who of course are totally against any idea, thought or philosophy that challenges their position on the social and economic pedestal.  There is nothing new here, but as Boyce’s articles reveal, the extraordinary lengths to which they have gone to and the fact that they have got away with it so far has emboldened many of them to try and go for the jugular of homeopathy.  They smell blood.  As Boyce reveals, the flaws of the research published in the Lancet that has given much fuel to the attacks on homeopathy are fairly easy to see, and yet so far this “dodgy” research is being cited all the time by those “experts’ emboldened by its success. 

Generally we expect this much from the high priests of traditional orthodoxy.  However, this time much of the media has lined up with them in their high browed critique.  As Boyce states, Ben Goldacre, a “young” science journalist has found his little niche being a “skeptic” of CAM therapies and seems determined to use it to the maximum to aid his own career.  He has been ably supported by two long time reporters in the same newspaper, a traditionally liberal progressive voice in the swamp of tabloid dirge that is the common fodder in the U.K.  Both Polly Toynbee and Simon Hoggart have used their pulpit in the Guardian newspaper to make outstandingly uninformed statements about homeopathy, and seem immune against any censure by the fact of their reputation.  And then we have Richard Dawkins, Godfather of the Neo-Darwinian movement, author the Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, whose unimaginative view of the universe seems to have mesmerized much of the so-called secular intellectual movement in the U.K. His basic argument that if you can’t see something it doesn’t exist, seems enough for him and countless others to refute any mystery or unknown phenomena in the universe and if such mysteries do exist, then it’s up to the universe to prove it to him!

Boyce describes how the attacks have so far succeeded and homeopathy is not looking that secure.  It is becoming harder for many to make a living practicing homeopathy.  As she describes in her second article, “A Global Threat to CAM Therapies…” the wider implications reach much further than the U.K. and are embedded in the “Matrix” that is the European Union and is found under the ominous term “Codex Alimentarius.”  As we reach the zenith (we hope) of the influence of corporations into the corridors of political policy, we are seeing the influence of “Big Pharma” potentially affecting government policy in all areas of the CAM movement, possibly le ading to their control of all natural products, and of course being disguised in the name of consumer safety. 

As Boyce suggests, quoting the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, this is the normal way of things when a new idea, system or theory challenges the status quo.  Power never gives way without a struggle and when the old guard goes down, similar to governments, Viking hoards or totalitarian regimes, they take as much as they can with them and hang on to the bitter end.  There is hope, as Boyce outlines, but we all need to take heed of the power dynamics being played out and not be naïve that we are safe from the machinations of the pharmaceutical-industrial complex and those that support it.

This attack has led to some introverted analysis on part of the profession as to why this is occurring now and whether we somehow attracted these attacks and if there is any justification for them.  George Vithoulkas, well-known Greek homeopath, has written an article which is published on the website of WholeHealthNow (www.WholeHealthHow.com) in which he blames much of what has happened to many of the new ideas within homeopathy which he feels diminishes the science of homeopathy to that of an esoteric cult.  He states:

“Homeopathy is being attacked by the British media. These attacks draw support from irresponsible and unjustified claims by certain teachers of homeopathy. Such claims include the use of 'dream' and 'imaginative' methods for provings.”

"For prescribing some such teachers attempt to replace the laborious process of matching symptom picture and remedy with spurious theories based on 'signatures', sensations and other methods. Other irresponsible claims have also been made.”

"These 'new ideas' risk destroying the principles, theory, and practice of homeopathy."

It is well known that Vithoulkas takes a strong position against quite a few of the “modern” homeopaths that he feels veers from the straight and true path of “classical” homeopathy.  However, even if one agrees with some or all of his criticisms regarding the conclusions and methods of those mentioned, it is seriously stretching things to conclude that the enemies of homeopathy have been emboldened by some of these new ideas.  They hate homeopathy, period, and don’t need any more fodder than they already have.  It is true that in the U.K. some homeopaths were “trapped” into making claims about homeopathy and the treatment of malaria, which admittedly was not a good thing to do but unfortunately Vithoulkas is compromising his great contribution to the homeopathic profession over the last 40 years.  This kind of infighting is not what the profession needs now but Vithoulkas’ position does lead us to another important debate.

This pertains to the need, or not, of homeopathy to prove itself to the guardians of traditional, medical/scientific orthodoxy.  We state that homeopathy is a science and much effort has gone into verifying homeopathy by conventional medical standards.  The results have been mixed, but all in all, in spite of enough favorable data that proves the efficacy of homeopathy, we see it makes little difference within mainstream medicine.  This has led many in the profession to dismiss the need to prove homeopathy in this way.  The conclusion is that homeopathy will ultimately be proven by the advances of pure science, not artificial double-blind trials.  In an interesting article in the journal, “Natural Philosophy,” Peter Fraser explores the differences in the methods of conventional and alternative research and lays out the philosophical and scientific foundations that have led to the dichotomies in understanding and belief.  He traces it back to the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle and brilliantly weaves an analysis totally pertinent to the position homeopathy finds itself today.  It gives a clear insight into the belief structures of those who dismiss homeopathy out of hand without even giving it any possibility of proof.  “If we can’t see it or understand it, it cannot be”, is the bottom line of the Aristotle position.  Fraser explores how Platonic thought leads inevitably to a holistic world view, one that is increasingly being explored in all walks of life today, and not only in quasi-religious terms.  The global consciousness is part of the holistic paradigm and it is happening, whether the reductionists like it or not.

The holistic paradigm that Fraser reveals does not avoid the issue of verifying the science of the homeopathic method but clearly shows how it requires a shift in perspective, one that embraces an individualistic approach and that recognizes the multitudinous affects of many variable factors.  He clearly reveals that one way is not better than the other way, they are just different perspectives, but as we see, the current orthodoxy imposes its views completely and conventional science is reduced to being just another set of beliefs, not much different than the religious orthodoxies it has replaced.  However, what is interesting in Fraser’s analysis is how homeopathy has straddled the two schools of thought, the conventional and the alternative.  Hahnemann’s own methodologies have all the hallmarks of extreme rationality and his methods of ascertaining the “knowledge of medicines” through provings have all the ingredients of a traditional approach, in spite of the “inconvenient” fact that the medicines being given were highly diluted.  It is good to remember that Hahnemann’s original provings were done with tinctures and low potencies.  So, the arguments of Vithoulkas and others that feel that some in homeopathy have deviated too far beyond the line of acceptable practice has its roots in the very foundation of the homeopathic method.  They have a point in attempting to remain true to Hahemann’s own scientific methodology.   However, the inherent contradictions that exist within homeopathy, including Hahnemann’s own more esoteric beliefs make this position harder to hold onto in the onslaught of reductionistic orthodoxy.  As always, homeopathy is between a rock and hard place.

Loretta Butehorn, whose article “Hahnemann and a Shamanic World View” gives another angle on this argument and reveals another thread of the unique system of healing we call homeopathy.  Fraser mentions how homeopathic provings are as much a shamanic journey as they are conventional scientific method and there is no reason why both perspectives cannot co-exist.  In fact they should co-exist as the synthesis between the conventional and alternative, the materialistic and the holistic, the rational and the artistic.  True science is always seeking this synthesis, where the scientific and intuitive methods can integrate in the fluidity of the moment.  As Butehorn reveals, “The world view, the paradigm of Hahnemann was immersed in the romanticism of Goethe and Blake.  It was a natural worldview that saw beyond construct of the body as material only.  Nature and the human body had intelligence and purpose.  Illness was an impairment of spirit which if imbalanced impacts our path in life and thus creates disharmony and illness.”  She explores how Hahnemann’s life balanced the scientific method with the “Shamanic” one, and how homeopathy is a true reflection of the integration of these strands of human exploration and relationship.  This is part of what attracts us to homeopathy.

Another perspective on this investigation is that of the influence of Hahnemann himself and homeopathy to the present day.  My article on Hahnemann attempts to explore the influence of individuals within homeopathy and to give another view on the strengths and weaknesses of this within the story of homeopathy. Fraser also explores this, looking at the “guru” dynamics that Hahnemann himself participated in which have affected homeopathy ever since. The tendency to create a cultic relationship with individuals within any given system or school of thought has always been with us and homeopathy itself tends to have had an insular identity, perhaps based on the persecution that Hahnemann experienced and that we see alive and well today.  The argument is put that we have to find a confidence in ourselves and in our identity as a profession that transcends the need for “powerful” individuals within the profession that somehow capture the imagination of it’s practitioners.  Perhaps this is why homeopathy is not yet truly a profession.  There simply is not the “commons” within the system, a central thread so strong that there is no need to form little pockets of subidentities within the larger identity of the profession. The continuing need for external authority figures shows that we are not quite ready to be defined as a mature science.  On the other hand it can be argued that many of the “soft” sciences suffer from a similar struggle, as they tend to grapple with the unpredictable and unknown dynamics of human consciousness.  As a result of this more holistic yet individualistic approach, it tends to bring to the surface many individuals whose own nature becomes reflected through the prism of homeopathy, for better and for worse.

The spirit of Hahnemann still hovers over us over 200 years later and Donald Grabau gives a fascinating perspective of Hahnemann from an astrological point of view, making the case again for us to accept the strengths and weaknesses of the man and the system, to allow the plutonic forces to merge with the light and allow the true evolutionary potential of homeopathy to flower.  Including an astrological analysis of Hahnemann may seem a little esoteric for some but the purpose of the journal is to stimulate thought and provoke interest in all areas and perspectives and Grabau’s article offers an interesting perspective on the topic of this journal.

Coming back down to earth, articles by Dr Farokh Master of Mumbai, India and David Levy and Alastair Gray of Australia give us an interesting perspective on the state of homeopathy in their respective countries.  Farokh Master’s article is particularly interesting as it shines a light on the fact that homeopathy in India is not what many of us thought.  Every country has it’s own struggles in maintaining the quality of practice and India is obviously no exception.  We explore these issues in Dr. Todd Rowe and other's article on the legislative options that we face here in the United States.  We have reached a point in our evolution where many involved in professional organizations and teaching at schools are wondering where we are going to go next and for some, there is the inevitable question of defining a more secure form of legitimacy for our evolving profession.  This topic was broached at the last annual conference of the North American Network of Homeopathic Educators and this article is a result of this discussion.

It is hoped that you enjoy these articles and that it inspires you to take your study of homeopathy further.  My thanks go to all the contributors who sent articles for this journal, to Premananda Childs, my co-editor in previous editions for all his great work' and to Olga Singer for her great typesetting and design work.

With Best Wishes,

Richard Pitt, Editor 

editor@californiahomeopath.com

By   Wed, Sep 30, 2009

By Carol Boyce   Thu, Jun 18, 2009

Codex affects everyone, everyday

The Codex Alimentarius, or the food code, is a collection of standards, codes of practice and guidelines that has become "the seminal global reference point for consumers, food producers and processors, national food control agencies and the international food trade".(2)  Codex affects everyone, every day.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the bureaucratic body charged with developing the codes of practice for harmonization of global food standards and simplifying trade between countries, and the commission is closely tied to the World Trade Organiz ation (WTO).  Superficially this looks like a good idea: if sta ndards are harmonized, we know what we are getting when we buy and sell goods.  The problem lies in who sets the standards and why.   The WTO is run by huge, self-serving corporations.  Closed-door meetings and a restricted appeals process mean that no nation can retain its sovereignty.

In recent years, Codex has expanded its scope and is currently setting enforceable directives on nutritional supplements and from there potentially reaching into the wider CAM arena.  Although adoption of the regulations is described as voluntary, compliance will be required in order to trade with countries that have adopted them, so there will be considerable pressure on individual countries to comply. The European Union is currently the most powerful trading group in the world.  The power of the E.U. to set the Codex agenda, and potentially to affect trade regulations everywhere, is significant, and the E.U.'s current trend toward increasingly restrictive trade practices assumes critical importance, via Codex, for the entire global CAM community.

It's just a precaution

In April 2007, Europe and the U.S. signed a transatlantic trade agreement with the express intent of making trade between these two powerful regions easier. Harmonization of regulations is crucial to this agreement, and the powerful vested interests that originally pushed for the restrictive Food Supplements Directive in Europe is set to push for its adoption in the U.S. In the name of consumer protection, Codex uses what it calls the "precautionary principle".  Originally developed by activists to protect the environment, it is now in use as an unlimited regulatory instrument.(3) If there is any suggestion of a risk and "scientific uncertainty persists" that there is no risk, then Codex can impose provisional restrictions until that scientific information becomes available.

In reality there is always a risk to everything; drinking too much water will kill you.  Asking science to definitively prove there is no risk makes risk assessment redundant and  provides Codex with a tool that can be used to restrict anything that can be described as food-related. It may all seem to make sense in the interests of consumer safety, but in these days of corporate interests taking precedence over consumer protection, as and when it suits, it could spell the end of free access to the nutritional supplements we take for granted in places like the U.K., the U.S., the Netherlands, and New Zealand.

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), a non-profit organization based in the U.K., challenged the European Food Supplements Directive all the way to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.  The court found in the ANH's favor in 2005, but the legal discussions and challenges continue.  In a minefield of bureaucracy, and against mighty corporations pushing for the restrictions, this small group of committed individuals is determined to take a stand for all of us.  Future access to a wide range of nutritional supplements in therapeutic doses hangs in the balance, not just in Europe but potentially for all trading countries. (4)

In the name of consumer safety therefore, the trend in all areas of CAM is toward more-restrictive regulation. Given confinement of ingredients, to those synthetic and patented, and defined as safe and efficacious by extremely expensive trials, rather than natural ingredients tested by decades of safe clinical use, only the most powerful manufacturing companies will be able to compete in the marketplace.  Add to that the confinement of higher therapeutic doses of nutritional supplements to medical prescription, and a significant portion of CAM is moved into the hands of Big Pharma.

There seems little doubt that there is a conscious push by the pharmaceutical companies to move into the CAM arena, but on their own terms: monopoly.

Though the European Union currently favors homeopathy, recent E.U. legislation restricting access to supplements suggests that any harmonization of  legislation relating to homeopathy would tend toward similar restriction: medically qualified prescription-only homeopathy, as is already the case in much of Europe.  Homeopaths everywhere should take heed.  Our freedom to do our work can rapidly be compromised through commercial pressures for new legislation.

Big Pharma Democracy

A brief look at the 2007 push by pharmaceutical companies for permission to communicate directly with the European public (for which read "advertise prescription drugs") serves to illustrate the extent to which they have inserted themselves into the democratic process.  If it were successful, it would ease the path for similar changes worldwide.

To date, the U.S.A. and N.Z. are the only countries where drug companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs.  Some countries allow vaccine campaigns; and some, advertisements for products to help smokers withdraw from nicotine, but the drug companies already circumvent all such restrictions by presenting the information in "news articles", describing a specific health condition and then mentioning the imminent arrival of a new drug that will address it.  In 2001, the most influential drug companies, via the European Commission (the executive arm of the European Union), pushed for a pilot project targeting asthma, diabetes, and HIV infection, stating that the public needed information on these diseases and their treatment.  The European Parliament reviewed the results of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs in the U.S. and N.Z. and solidly rejected the proposal (494 against, 42 in favor).

In 2005, the same European Commission created a new group, the Pharmaceutical Forum, to add to the pressure.  Despite a call for transparency of committees, no full list of participants, how they were selected, how conflicts of interest are managed, or even how the forum works has ever been made public. Patient representation on the Pharmaceutical Forum is provided by the European Patient's Forum, a group funded by drug companies.  Friends of Europe, another "patient" group, has thrown its weight behind the push for prescription-drug advertising.  Its report, concluding that the paucity of health information in Europe needs to be addressed, was funded entirely by Pfizer.  The report is based partly on information from the Cambridge University Informed Patient Project, funded by Johnson and Johnson. (5)

Conflicts of interest

By any recognized standards, conventional medicine is failing the public and bankrupting companies, countries and private citizens.  Held to ransom by the pharmaceutical industry, Americans pay the highest prices anywhere on earth for their drugs; price markups of 1000%- 50,000% over manufacturing costs are not unusual.  Iatrogenic disease is now accepted as the third-leading cause of death in the U.S.  (Some say that this is an underestimate; that it is now actually the leading cause of death. (6))  Alarming numbers of pre- schoolers are prescribed psychotropic drugs in the medicalizing of what was once considered normal childhood behaviour. (7)  According to the U.S. Institute of Medicine's 2007 report, pharmaceutical drugs injure at least 1.5 million Americans each year.  Given the power of the Internet, efficient dissemination of information, and the consequent empowerment of the public, it can only be a matter of time before the system implodes upon itself.

In a desperate attempt to protect its medical monopoly, Big Pharma buys out dissenters; directly affects the democratic process with millions paid to lobbyists ($75 million and 678 lobbyists in Washington DC in 2001); pays doctors handsomely to lecture about specific drugs in the guise of seminars; pays commissions to clinics prescribing specific drug protocols; sponsors undergraduate medical training; funds university research; finances trips to exotic locations for product placements thinly disguised as conferences; funds scientific journals with advertising dollars; manipulates the media in places like the U.S. via its advertising revenue; and sends armies of drug representatives to offer GPs pizza and coffee in the middle of their busy day.  These can surely only be the actions of a failing system. If we factor in that the majority of pharmaceutical best-sellers (those responsible for between 14% and 41% of Big Pharma revenues) have patents due to expire before 2012, we can better appreciate the pressure these companies are under to satisfy their shareholders.  Amongst the expiring patents are those for Viagra and Lipitor, the world's bestselling medicines (that fact in itself perhaps a reflection on the health of conventional medicine), are worth 41% of Pfizer's revenue stream. (8)

It seems that the only certain way the system can maintain itself is by legislating against consumer choice! The estimate in the WHO report of 2005 that homeopathy is the fastest growing modality on planet earth with more than half a billion users must put it firmly in the firing line.

The FDA goes into business for itself

In the U.S., a new business model for industry regulation was rushed through the democratic process in late 2007, as Bill S1082 created the Reagan-Udall Foundation, a joint commercial venture between industry, private investors, academia, and philanthropic organizations working together with the FDA to research and develop new drugs and procedures and bring them to market in a timely manner.  Conflicts of interest were already rife in the FDA, with more than 50% of its funding  paid by the pharmaceutical industry to fast-track drugs through to market, and  the revolving door between FDA officials an d high-level positions in the same commercial companies.  The inclusion of "foods and food ingredients" in this bill potentially allows the FDA to extend its reach to nutritional supplements and  declare them unsafe according to the FDA's latest development, the Critical Path Initiative: a department responsible for designing methods of predicting safety and effectiveness, in an attempt to streamline drug development and bring products more quickly to market.

A new drug in development has only an 8% chance of ever reaching the marketplace.  A 10% improvement in failure prediction (safety issues and lack of effectiveness) before clinical trials could save $100 million in development costs per drug. The Critical Path Initiative will develop new assays, computer-modeling techniques, biomarkers, and clinical-trial endpoints, refining the development process.  Drugs will be brought to clinical trial based on computer-modeled safety predictions or specific isolated bio-markers, with the associated potential risks when patients, for instance, do not behave like the computer models. In terms of nutritional supplements, it again boils down to who identifies the criteria and why.  These new tools, in particular the use of FDA selected bio-markers, could provide a means by which nutritional supplements, proven perfectly safe in decades of clinical use, might be declared unsafe according to an arbitrarily chosen biomarker.  Given the complex mix of vested interests, it must be another cause for concern.

More of the same

Another legislative trend, this time in Canada, is exemplified in the tabling of Bill C-51 in April 2008 by the Canadian Health minister and being debated in parliament.  Health Canada, the official government website, states clearly that neither Codex nor Bill C-51 will affect regulation of Canada's natural health products since they are not considered food and are already defined as a subset of "drug" with separate regulations.  But in C-51, "drug" would be replaced by the term "therapeutic product", and the word "sell" would be extended to mean "distribute to one or more people", thereby potentially including a whole range of natural health products under the same definition as pharmaceutical drugs.  In addition, the bill extends powers of enforcement and, perhaps most crucially, shifts decisions from elected officials to administrative bodies in closed meetings.  Codex remains the most obvious example of this recent legislative trend, but other current examples include allowing administrators to decide funding withdrawal for U.K. N.H.S. homeopathy, and giving the (non-elected) U.S. Federal Advisory Committee the power to set regulations governing a major increase in the state's mandatory vaccination schedule (proposed New York Assembly Bill 10942 currently on the table).  A strong Canadian grassroots campaign successfully mobilized and called for clarification of Bill C-51's possible effect on access to natural health products, and, depending on the government's response, will oppose its ratification.  Initially the CAM community's sensitivity to the changes in terminology was dismissed as a question of semantics, but in the face of public pressure, the Canadian government was forced to make amendments to the bill, including a clearer definition of "natural health products". (9) Major concerns about the Bill remain, and the scene is still potentially set to restrict all things natural in favor of all things pharmaceutical and to remove the public's power to influence the decisions directly affecting its health. (10) Grassroots opposition continues to make headway and provides a great example of the power of consumers to effect change.

There is no sign that the anti-homeopathy - indeed, anti-CAM - movement is running out of steam.  It is clearly active at media level, as exemplified by the ongoing series of negative articles in the press; but given the pressure exerted on Primary Care Trusts to withdraw N.H.S. funding for homeopathy and the legislation currently under examination in the European Union and Canada, it is also equally active, and potentially much more dangerously so, at administrative and governmental level. There is no reason to imagine that similar legislation regarding CAMs is not already being written in the US.  Indeed, the American Medical Association, the doctor's trade organization, has been extending its Scope of Practice Project (SOPP) during the last two years in order to ensure that legislation is in place to firmly establish allopathic medicine as the only provider of primary care medicine.  All other disciplines, including specialties such as optometry, podiatry and CAMs, would be limited to that available as part of a licensed medical practice.  "...During 2008, SOPP is attempting to limit non-physician scope of practice through a combination of legislative and regulatory activities, "judicial advocacy," and "programs of information, research, and education," .." (11)

Getting a seat at the table

Professional homeopaths are working hard to promote homeopathy and to protect patient access to homeopathic treatment. They should also remember that in places like Europe and North America, Australia and New Zealand, they have the largest professional homeopathic organizations; offer the most comprehensive homeopathic education programs; conduct the majority of provings; write almost all contemporary homeopathic literature and strive to maintain homeopathic prescribing in its purest form. In the current climate, it would seem imperative to build a cohesive and collaborative movement that will ensure the professional homeopathic community has a prominent place at the table of future healthcare providers.

Based on a series of articles published in Similia:

Magnus Pharma and the Golden Goose  Similia vol. 19 no. 1 June 2007
Homeopathy and Humbug  Similia vol. 19 no. 2 Dec 2007
Edzard Ernst and the Ultimate Delusion Similia vol. 20 no. 1 June 2008

1.    Community code relating to medicinal products for human use http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l21230.htm

2.    http://www.codexalimentarius.net

3.    Raffensperger C. and deFur P.L.  Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Rigorous science and solid ethics.  Human and Ecological Risk 1999;5:933-941

4.    Alliance for Natural Health http://www.anhcampaign.org/

5.    Big Pharma's health information: a growing danger. Transl. from Rev Prescrire  2006;26(278):863-865

6.    U.S. National Center for Health Statistics.  National Vital Statistics Report 2003;51(5)

7.    Coyle J.T.,  Psychotropic Drug Use in Very Young Children.  JAMA 2000;283:1025-1030

8.    Mike Nagle.  Pfizer axes jobs and closes plants.  DrugResearcher.com, http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/ng.asp?n=73592-pfizer-prudential-equity-group-job-cuts-plant-closure-patent-expiry

9.    Schmidt S.  Amendment to provide new bill of health for natural remedies.  The Montreal Gazette 14 Jun 2008.

10.  Buckley, S.  Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-51, 9 Apr 2008, http://www.healthcanadaexposed.com/discussion.htm

11.  AMA Scope of Practice Initiative Advances. American Optometric Association June 2008, http://www.aoanews.org/x7856.xml?AOAMember

By Loretta Butehorn   Thu, Sep 03, 2009

What Is a Paradigm and How Does It Impact Our Thinking

In the 1962 Thomas Kunz wrote a significant work entitled The Structure of the Scientific Revolution in which he described how thinking in sciences changes, incorporating new findings into its body of collected wisdom.  In this work, Kunz described how thinking both in science and in the general public’s acceptance of new information into day to day consensus and utilization requires numerous s teps before what he called “our paradigm” changes.  A paradigm is the larger view of a construct into which a specific piece of data fits or does not fit.  Galileo’s construct of the sun-centered solar system was a paradigmatic shift.  Darwin’s evolution of species another, as was Freud’s construct of the unconscious. 

In any culture, at any time there are numerous paradigms at work.  There is a dominant cultural paradigm and non-dominant one.  Take any one of the three examples above and you will recall that while today each is a dominant paradigm and usually several non-dominant ones.  Take any one of the three examples above and you will recall that while today each is a dominant paradigm both in science and in public understanding of how the world works, that was not always so.  Galileo was imprisoned by the Catholic Church as a heretic.  Darwin struggled to have the National Academy of Science accept his papers; and Freud was so challenged by his peers he altered his original theories of hysteria as originating from sexual abuse. 

Within the larger scientific community, integrative medicine and 200 year old “traditional” medicine are also in the midst of a paradigm shift, - one that debates if there are non-material ways to change one’s health.  In 1980, it was thought impossible for the human being to impact his/her sympathetic/parasympathetic responses or immune system by thoughts, intention or any mental process.  Today some 25+ years later, there is a significant body of research that gives support in scientific language to this construct. In this case, general public opinion led science.  In 1996, when Eisner asked randomly selected patients at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston and asked 1) if they used any alternative approaches to healing and 2) if their physicians knew about it, he was surprised that 1/3 did and that 70% were fearful of telling their physicians.  Needless to say in this culture that so highly prizes materialism in all forms especially financial, the fact that people were spending their own money made medicine, and insurance companies sit up and take notice.

Within all of integrative medicine- mental emotional approaches, herbs, energy medicine, acupuncture and other traditional systems including homeopathy, it is the latter which most challenges 21^st century medicine. If one examines the roots of Hahneman’s thinking one sees forerunners in a paradigm which saw Nature as a source of wisdom.  Today, homeopathy continues to struggle to be accepted.  In this quest to be fully accepted by the dominant, scientific paradigm, some in the homeopathic community seems to be distressed by anything other than a strict classical interpretation – thinking homeopathy can be more fully accepted if it adheres to what is seen as the original Hahnemannian paradigm.  This paper suggests that Hahnemann had a paradigmatic worldview that fully encompassed some of the more recent innovations in case taking.  

Hahnemann’s Paradigmatic Legacy

The worldview, the paradigm of Hahnemann was immersed in the romanticism of Goethe and Blake.  It was a natural worldview that saw beyond construct of the body as material only.  Nature and the human body had intelligence and purpose.  Illness was an impairment of spirit which if imbalanced impacts our path in life and thus creates disharmony and illness.  Symptoms were signals from the body’s essence asking for help.

“In the healthy human state, the spirit-like life force (autocracy) that enlivens the material organism as dynamis, governs without restriction and keeps all parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both feelings and functions, so that our indwelling, rational spirit can freely avail itself of this living, healthy instrument for the higher purposes of our existence. 

The material organism, thought of without life force, is capable of no sensibility, no activity, no self-preservation.  It derives all sensibility and produces its life functions solely by means of the immaterial wesen (the life principle, the life force) that enlivens the material organism in health and in disease.” Aph 9 –10 (1)

Although a 19^th century physician, Hahneman’s paradigm of the Vital Force has deep roots in the indigenous tribal paradigms of people who remained close to Nature.  Land based or tribal peoples hold a paradigm which emerged from the hunter gathers of all indigenous peoples, and became the originating paradigms of shamanic cultures as diverse as Shinto in the East, the Celts in the West, and all tribal peoples from Russia to South America and Africa.  Theirs was a paradigmatic worldview that saw Nature as the source of all necessary supply and information, as well as a partnering with humans in expressing that wisdom.

In all times, even to the present, groups of people have lived intimately with Nature relying on it for the necessities of life—food, shelter, medicine and information.  The primary source of life necessities for land-based peoples is still Nature.  As recently as 2005, the land based and so called primitive tribes of Andaman Island, the Sentinelese and Poomphor peoples (2) escaped devastation and destruction by the tsunami by reading the signs of Nature and hearing her message of grave danger escaping to higher ground to safety without benefit of modern technology and meteorology.  They “read” Nature and survived.  The Andaman Island tribes were safer than the so-called civilized tourists who saw the water receding and went down to the beach to witness these phenomena without “hearing” the danger this event foretold.

How did these tribes experience the same warning as the tourist and yet interpret it wholly differently?  The relationship with Nature was different.  When one partners with the diverse forces that are active within our biofields rather than abstractly and impersonally studying them, there is a different line of communication.

Stephen Harrod Buhner writes of how native people received the healing information from plants and its continuation into the present time:

“All ancient and indigenous peoples said that they learned the uses of plants as medicines from the plants themselves….Although these assertions have been disregarded by Western thinkers the past two hundred years-deemed the superstitious ramblings of unsophisticated, unchristian and unscientific peoples—it is distinctly odd that every indigenous and ancient culture on Earth, cultures geographically and temporally distinct, would say the same thing….This more ancient mode of cognition has not just disappeared just because another mode of cognition has gained dominance ….It was used by the great German poet Goethe in the early 19^th century, by Luther Burbank in the early 20^th century in his creation of the majority of food plants that we now take for granted.  It was used by George Washington Carver in his work with and development of the peanut as food, and is now being used by Masanobu Fukuka, the great Japanese farmer in growing crops that consistently exceed the yield of farmers who use more scientific approaches…It was used by Henry David Thoreau…and even Barbara McClintock who won the Nobel prize for her work with transposition and corn genetics.  The truth is that this way of gathering knowledge is inherent in the way we are structured as human beings. .This gathering of knowledge directly from the wildness of the world is called biognosis-meaning “knowledge from life….” (3)

21^st Century Paradigm

This construct of a relationship with Nature that partners and communicates is quite different from the scientific basis of the 20-21^st centuries which is inherently materialistic.

Numerous scientists, though far from a quorum, have discussed how biased science is in excluding the spiritual (that is non material) as a causal factor when investigating phenomena. It is as if we can investigate phenomena only if we acknowledge that there is some material basis to how a phenomenon operates.  If we see a result, to explore it we have to explore it from a paradigm of material causality.  This creates problems when a possible causal factor is thought, intention or even energy.

Our mindset seems to be that something is explainable only if we can examine it within the paradigm of material causality.  The Cartesian split separating body and soul in the 16^th century has impacted not just the mind body split, which is only recently beginning to heal, but also influences science itself.  Something cannot even be investigated if it does not fall within the domain of the dominant cultural paradigm.

Ironically, the field of science which has the most double blind, randomized controlled studies with significant outcomes is parapsychology.  Even with this data, most scientists and a large percentage of the general population have a paradigm that says “not possible” and so it is not.  When reporting to Congress, at their request, on the research base of parapsychological data, Jessica Utts PhD a University of Cal statistician wrote:

“Using the standard applied to any other area of science it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established.  The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance….There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.” - Jessica Utts PhD , 1995. (4)

;Land Based Paradigms: A Shamanic View

Indigenous peoples even today partner with Nature, dialogue with Nature and expect information.

“When leaving my home with a question in mind—do I take this job, how might I handle this conflict at work—I listen for the aid the Earth and all its inhabitants provide.  Which direction is the wind blowing from—is the North wind suggesting an assertive response or the South wind a gentler approach?  Which animals cross my path or come to mind—is the trickster coyote recommending cunning or the squirrel industriousness?  Is the morning dove suggesting peace, or the cawing crow demanding confrontation?  Every aspect of Nature speaks to me and offers aid.”

The shaman sees the day-to-day world as both material and spiritual in which all participants carry multiple layers of information.  Viewing the Middle World, the everyday world, with this double vision requires that I ask not just what do I see, hear, and experience but also what valuable clue, information or meaning does it offer.  It is almost like a Jungian dream analysis.  What does each and every aspect of the dream have to say to me about the meaning it holds?

If one holds this paradigmatic world-view, how one engages in everything in daily life changes.  One not only experiences the “stuff” of daily life, but one inquires into the meaning of all that “stuff.”  Nothing is insignificant or meaningless.  The words one uses, the gestures one makes, the various participants within a scene of life become possible sources of information.

Karen Armstrong a contemporary documenter of belief shaping paradigms writes of how paradigms, myths, belief systems:

 “…taught people to see through the tangible world to a reality that seemed to embody something else.  But this required no leap of faith because at this stage (Paleolithic) there seemed to be no metaphysical gulf between the sacred and the profane.  When these early people looked at a stone they did not see an inert, unpromising rock.  It embodied strength, perseverance, solidity and another mode of being that was quite different from the vulnerable human state.  Its very otherness made it holy.  A stone was a common hierophany –revelation of the sacred—in the ancient world.  Again a tree which had the power to effortlessly renew itself incarnated and made visible a miraculous vitality denied the mortal men and women….Trees, stars and heavenly bodies were never objects of worship in themselves but were revered because they were ephanies of a tremendous force that could be seen powerfully at work in all natural phenomena giving people ____of another more potent reality.” (5) 

This Paleolithic view of the natural world was also the view the philosophers, and artists and even some scientists of the Romantic period (late 18^th early 19^th centuries) sought to revive as a response to the mind heavy approach of the Enlightenment and it was the world view Hahnemann held in great part.

“He (Hahnemann) uses the word Aeussrungen (which literally means utterances) to refer to the manifestation of disease (Aph 11) He refers to the disease ‘expressing itself’ through symptoms (Aph 12), to the ‘pure language of nature’ (Aph 144) to the physician’s articulation of the disease case (Aph 192) and to the voice of nature (Aph 262.)”(6)

Homeopathy and the Shamanic Paradigm

From this perspective then, a homeopathic interview is much more than collecting data from the client.  It is the setting in which the offering is made, the entire gestalt and all of the players from nature that are attending at the moment.  The pejorative comment that I have heard or read such as “He/she is not a classical homeopath, he gave cat’s milk because a cat greeted the patient.” signals a paradigmatic view that is quite literal: “How silly, he looked at such a thing that has nothing to do with a case.”  The paradigm at work eliminates certain information out as non-relevant and therefore useless.  It is a paradigm that narrows the field of inquiry and is a superficial understanding of the causal exploration.

The shamanic paradigm would approach this by saying, “We (all of Nature) are all interconnected and co creating reality, everything that moves into my experience as a homeopath (or a human) is a communication from Nature.  It is not the answer and it is information.  How might that information or clue instruct me?”

The cat is not the remedy, and the appearance of the cat is part of the case, as the homeopath, the patient and the natural world co create the solution, the remedy.

Sankaran and the Inherent Shamanic Paradigm

Sankaran’s model of watching for movement, seeking basic sensation and listening for source words seem to some to be totally non-classical.  The classical homeopathic paradigm emerges from a dominant northern European world-view which often does not fully articulate its indigenous roots as expressed in the view of the Vital Force.

If one uses the shamanic worldview of nature communicating from a deeper place and actually speaking to us, Sankaran’s approach is not non-classical at all.

Boenninghausen’s description of the total symptoms as location, sensation and modality take us part of the way Sankaran suggests. Sankaran asks us to walk deeper down the path to that place where the patient has difficulty humanly articulating his dilemma.  The homeopath and patient move into the  shamanic Middle World where what one sees, hears, feels, embodies has meaning both as experienced data and meaning.

“I began to see, what we consider as disease, the totality of signs and symptoms, mental and physical, general, particular… all of this come from one basic disturbance. And that disturbance is not in the mind, not in the body, something deeper than both and at that level a person talks of language which is both mental and physical.  The body and the mind can then be seen as expression of that and that language actually is not even the language of a human being. It’s a language that is coming from a source that is different from human being. If we start hearing that language, deeper and deeper, if we focus on those words and those gestures, which are not human, therefore they are very peculiar, what we call as peculiar in homoeopathy, very strange. Then we start hearing a different language, other than the human language.” (7) 

 

When the patient spontaneously discusses source materials of the remedy especially with energetic movement which enlivens the body in a new way, is this not information of the nature of the remedy which the homeopath might find useful.  The shaman would say yes, be attentive to all.

A further consideration comes from Sankaran when he writes:

“…the disease, the totality of the signs and symptoms, mental and physical, general and particular all of this comes from our basic disturbance and that disturbance is not in the mind, nor in the body; it is something deeper than both.  At that level the person talks a language which is both mental and physical.  The body and the mind can then be seen as an expression of that level (sensation) and that language actually is not even the language of the human being.  It is a language that comes from a source that is different from the human being: a plant, a mineral or an animal.” (8) 

“That which is non human in a human, the basis of stress, that is what I understood to be disease.  Disease is the non-human song playing within us, the melody from another substance from nature….This pattern or sensation, from which our delusion arises, seems almost to be the voice of the sprit within us.  It rules a part of our human life and colors our experience….It is a language that is coming from a source that is different from a human being: a plant, a mineral or an animal….it can be said that each one of us lives two lives at the same time….This other world, the spirit of this other substance within us, this energy pattern that confers individuality to each of us has its appropriate place in nature and not in us.  But we have borrowed the energy pattern so that we can cope with the way we perceive reality….This energy pattern is not innate to us but to the  “source” from which we have borrowed it in nature….…a remedy is selected which is prepared from a substance whose song is similar to the patient’s non human song.” (9) 

“….the voice of the spirit of something within us… a remedy is selected which is prepared from a substance whose song is similar to the patient’s non-human song.  Such a remedy in time has the effect of diminishing the non-human song so that the cacophony or conflict or stress ceases and one melody, the human melody, is heard distinctly.” (10)

Paradigms and Homeopathy

To examine the varied approaches of contemporary homeopathy, one needs first of all to become aware of the paradigms we consciously and unconsciously embrace, and be cognizant of those paradigms we screen out, sometimes because of prejudice, sometimes because of oversight, sometimes because we are each deeply rooted in a preferred model of thinking.  Hahnemann was an explorer who challenged the dominant paradigm and religiously defended the alternative model he established. 

“This individualising examination of a disease case, for which I am giving only general instructions here, demands nothing of the practitioner except freedom from bias and healthy senses, attention while observing, and fidelity in recording….” (11)

This is the aspect of case-receiving that Sankaran has refined.  By observing and fully accepting all that is being observed, within the entire biofield of the patient-practitioner; by staying with the patient in all his/her expressions, and by following the body language of the total organism into the experienced sensations, always asking the patient to reveal in human language its essential nature, one receives the full homeopathic case true to Hahnemann and true to the nature of the patient with all his/her relationship to Nature herself.          

Bibliography 

1. O’Reilly, WB, Organon of the Medical Art, by Samuel Hahnemann, Redmond: 1996: Aph 9-10.
2. CBS news report and Associated Press, Jan 14, 2004.
3. Bruhner, S.H., The Secret Teaching of Plants. Rochester: Bear and Co, 2004: pp 2-3.
4. Dossey, L.,  The dark side of consciousness and the therapeutic relationship.  Alternative Therapies 2002: 8: p. 17.
5. Armstrong, Karen, A Brief History of Myth, New York: Cannongate, 2005: pp. 16-17.
6. O’Reilly, WB Organon of the Medical Art, by Samuel Hahnemann, Redmond,Washinton, 1996.
7. Sankaran, R., Lecture at Florida seminar, October, 2005.
8. Sankaran, R., The Sensation in Homeopathy, Mumbai, India.:  Homeopathic Medical Publishers, 2004: p. 6.
9. Ibid: p. 7.
10. Ibid: p. 7.
11. O’Reilly, WB, Organon of the Medical Art, by Samuel Hahnemann. Redmond: 1996: Aph 85.
12. Kunz, T., The Structure of the Scientific Revolution, New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1962.