Editorial - Volume 13 Issue 1 - the California Homeopath
by Richard Pitt
The Development of the Journal.
This edition, Vol 13, Issue 1, is the 5th journal in the new publication of the California Homeopath. We reissued this Journal after a break from the original publication which was published between 1882 and 1892 by Dr William Boericke and Dr W.A. Dewey. 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 to 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 we are now living in, 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 Darwin 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 spoke about 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 leading 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.wholehealthnow.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 sub identities 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 was happening. 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 others 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
