So here’s the thing:  I have had so many comments in the past couple of days that ridicule homeopathy, denounce homeopathy and denounce me and say that, in advocating the my readers look into homeopathy, that I am a moral coward and that I have no conscience.

Sadly, in much that they say, the Flying Monkeys (as I call them when they assemble en mass) reveal a amazing lack of knowledge of just what homeopathy is.

Are they aware that the concept of homeopathy dates back, as does the concept of allopathy, to Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine?  Do they know that Hippocrates said that there are two streams of medicine (not eight, not ten–two) that flow side by side in opposite directions?  Do they know that Hippocrates said that the difference between the two streams was that one worked WITH a patient’s symptoms, thinking them a natural response on the body’s part to a threat to the system, while the other worked AGAINST a patient’s symptoms, thinking them invaders that, once eliminated would leave a healthy patient behind?

This is the basic difference between homeopathy and allopathy.  This fundamental disagreement has been in place for over two thousand years now.  Hippocrates was smart to identify these two basic forms of medicine for us.  All other medical modalities are offshoots of this.  All medical modalities are either homeopathic or allopathic.  Some systems, like Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda, incorporate aspects of both homeopathic and allopathic medicines under the umbrella of their complete methodology.  Indeed, the Eastern word is far ahead of us when it comes to learning to take the best from both approaches.  Only in the Western world are the homeopaths and the allopaths at each other’s throats.

"S. Hahnemann"

Samuel Hahnemann, The father of Homeopathy, author of the Organon

The other important difference between homeopathy and allopathy has to do with something called polypharmacy.  Simply put, it means taking more than one medicine at a time.  Samuel Hahnemann, the father of homeopathy, writes about it at length in his Organon of the Healing Art.  In fact, the entire first portion of his book is about medicine in general, allopathic and homeopathic, and how medicine, in general, can most safely be practiced.

He had two issues with allopathic medicine.  First, that many things that the allopaths were using as medicine were toxic.  The medicines were actually killing the patients.  So Hahnemann started his process of diluting his medicines until they became benign.  This is still very controversial today.  But the fact remains that allopathic medicines are as toxic today as ever.  Just as the families of those who were unfortunate enough to have their loved ones with diabetes be treated with drugs that caused them to have heart attacks.  People still die today from allopathic drugs.  The FDA attempts to keep us all safe from that reality, but, in truth, our foods are not safe for consumption and our medicines are no safer.  The FDA is doing a terrible job.

So the argument still rages over the concept of dilution.  I will leave it at that for today, because this is something that we will NEVER agree on.  We can fight about it later.

It is the other aspect that I want to discuss.  The idea of one medicine at a time.  Allopathic medicine looks at an individual drug and studies what it does.  When the research is done, the primary action of the drug–the reason for its use–is identified, as are the “side effects,” all the other things that the drug also does.  Now, just because the rather benign term “side effects” is used does not mean that these effects are any less potent or potentially important than the primary action of the drug.  And yet, the allopath, in giving it, more or less tells the patient what to expect in terms of side effects and then it is a game of wait and see to find out if, in this particular patient, the impact of the side effects is bearable or not.  If the side effects are too toxic for the patient to bear or not.

In homeopathic medicine, drugs are looked at in another way.  They are studied and tested once again, and their complete actions are noted and categorized, just as in allopathic medicine, but, instead of having one action take out of the pack and identified as the primary action and the other relegated to side effects, the homeopathic medicine is then considered in terms of all the things that it does, its entire sphere of activity.  The complete actions of the drug are matched to the complete symptom picture that the patient presents.  Only one medicine is given at a time.

When you give more than one medicine, it is impossible to trace the changes that each is individually causing.  It is further impossible to know what the interplay between any two or more drugs will be in an individual patient’s system.  These are danger points in allopathic treatments.  Indeed, allopathic drugs so commonly  create their own unique disease states that the allopaths have a name for the category of illness that are actually caused by medical treatments–iatrogenic illness.  If allopathic medicine were safe and if Hahnemann did not have a point when it comes to polypharmacy, would there need to be a category of illness that is artificially created by medicine itself?

My point is this:  should you find the homeopathic remedies just to “out there’ to swallow, don’t.  But think for a moment of two about the rest of homeopathy.  About the philosophy.  About how a homeopath sees a patient as a completely unique being and tailors treatment specifically to that patient.  In standardizing treatments that allow for the use of many medicines at once and that continue to use toxic substances as healing tools, allopathic medicine continues to be dangerous medicine.  Were the allopaths to make use of the homeopathic philosophy, even to a small degree, the results could be an allopathy that is far safer and just as effective.

Remember, allopathic medicine makes use of homeopathic principles all the time.  Almost all allergy treatments, in which a minute amount of the allergen is injected into the body, allowing the patient to become more and more resistant to it, is pure homeopathy.  It doesn’t use homeopathic remedies, but the concept is completely homeopathic.  The same can be said of the original vaccines.  The idea again is the micro-dose in action.  Were vaccines tailored to the individual and not standardized as they are, they would be completely homeopathic.

It is just too simplistic to say that homeopathy is voodoo and bad and allopathic medicine is scientific and good.  Allopathic medicine has within it both good science and bad, good practitioners and bad.  The same can be said of homeopathic medicine.

The job, I should think, of intelligent people everywhere, would be to learn as much as possible about BOTH and learn to incorporate what works in both methods of treatment, so that both can be used as safely and effectively as possible.

Finally, for those of you who just can’t get past the idea that many homeopathic remedies are diluted to the point that no molecules of the original substance remain, I have great news.  Molecule fans rejoice!  There are many homeopathic remedies that are in low enough potency that PLENTY of molecules remain.  They are diluted and yet still based in their material substance as well.  There is a whole system of these remedies called the cell salts.  Before you dismiss everything about homeopathy because one aspect of it upsets you, read a book, do some thinking.  Evaluate.  You may be surprised by what you discover.