I receive many requests from all over the world to initiate scientific research that proves homeopathy is a valid medical science. Many want to have it be accepted in the same terms as western allopathic medicine. I endorse this idea but find that there are some fundamental differences in trying to prove homeopathy’s veracity. In many ways it is like trying to compare apples and oranges. They are both fruit but much different in flavor, texture, color and just about every other way as well.
Hahnemann gave us a guide through the Organon. There are many practitioners now who say we need to overhaul the Organon and reexamine the principles and prove them so Homeopathy can stand as a valid medicinal science when compared to Allopathic medicine. They say we need more double blind studies. We need more ways to bring proof that homeopathy works. This way mainstream medicine will adopt homeopathy and we can be a legitimate medical science. I hope and pray that this can all come to pass; but there is a problem with homeopathy.
Hippocrates first mentioned that like cures like approximately two thousand years ago. Hahnemann reminded us of this two hundred years ago. What Hahnemann gave us that makes homeopathy so difficult to understand is potentization. When our remedy dilutions go beyond Avogadro’s number of dilution then there is nothing left of the original substance. This is where modern science looses it’s ability to quantify homeopathy. We are then forced to return to the basic premise that homeopathy is not a physical medicine. If we try to fit homeopathy into the same box as allopathic medicine then we are trying to make it a physical medicinal science which it is not, and can never be.
I am hopeful that a shift in consciousness will expand the frontiers of medicine. When this occurs homeopathy will not be compared to allopathic medicine and will then be recognized as a different form of medicine all on it’s own. We can thank the discoveries made through quantum theory and physics for helping to blend the lines between the physical and the non-physical world.
The work of Benoit Mandelbrot with fractals helps explain homeopathy as well as any other scientific study. Masaro Emoto’s work with the memory of water has been another great addition to helping explain how it is possible that a substance potentized in water can retain an energetic imprint. Studies in Holography, where we can prove that all of the parts of the whole are contained in all of the separate parts including the whole. These examples are more in line with proving homeopathy than most double blind studies.
This new line of thinking requires all of us to accept the basic premise that homeopathy is really spiritual medicine. It is based in the non-physical energy realms and not even comparable to allopathic medicine. What brings the two systems into conflict is that the end user, the suffering patient, is the common denominator. With out the patient, we would not have a need for either medicine. But suffering is inherent in the condition of man and our desire to reduce suffering and create a cure is needed.
The proof then for any medicine is in the results. This leads us back to double blind studies and other ways to prove homeopathy. I think that these studies are necessary. The real problem is because homeopathy is such individualized medicine how do we evaluate any of the medicines accurately when the variable of the patient and the medicine are always changing. Double blind studies are well and good for an allopathic approach to medicine but really do not work so very well when it comes to homeopathy.
Every time I give a remedy and share about the positive possibilities of the remedy with my clients, I always say, “the proof is in the pudding”. This means we do not know the end result until time has passed and a response is seen. This is true of all healing responses. It becomes very difficult to quantify homeopathy within a specific physiological parameter. This method works well for allopathic medicine though. We can not just force homeopathy into the very same methods of evaluation as allopathy. They are not the same and never will be.
We need new ways of looking at the model of health and disease and where true healing comes from. When the basic premise for the medicinal system is understood then we can properly evaluate them. Homeopathy is spiritual medicine. It will be properly evaluated when it is recognized as such. Until then the problem with homeopathy will still prevail and the search for legitimacy will continue.