Hahnemann Ki Aawaz Posted on 15 – 07 – 2015

‘To articulate a suggestion is half -done. To criticize a suggestion is three fourth- done. To publish the both is well –done’, said my homoeopath father late shri Hira Nand Dua, writer of educational books and Urdu Gita.

Some day someone has to come up to grow a new leaf in homoeopathy. New leaf means innovation and this job is being carried out by two new schools of opinions. Sehgal’s research homoeopathy (SSRH) and Vijayakar’s predictive homoeopathy are popular, imperative, intellectual, and intensively imperial schools. Doctors and students are learning their innovative and ideological concepts. Every creative thinker knows that ill-conceived law is changeable. Great Hahnemann invented homoeopathy. It is not ill conceived. No one has tried to change it. New schools have no ill- conceived theory. They are not changing concept of Hahnemann’s Classic method. It is like catching right ear with left hand.

  • Sehgal’s revolutionary theory believes in present, persistent and predomination states of mind and follows Kent’s theory that disease is man and man is mind.
  • Vijayakar’s Predictive theory is of suppression, progression of disease with genetic constitutional similimum.

Who goes to these schools?

Every one wants to learn something that can enhance his or her practice. Had preaching been free, no one would have opted to attend these schools. We get oxygen free from air. We do not bother its worth when in good health. When we fall ill, we pay for oxygen. The same psychology works with these schools. Some doctors are curious about learning new methods of prescribing and some are in quest of knowledge.

Who has no interest in these schools?

Doctors, who read homoeopathic journals and study literature at their homes, generally do not go to these schools. They prefer to attend seminars of various doctor’s associations or colleges.

Why these schools are not recognized?

One cannot claim success without substantiating. There is no proof that their methods have high success rate. Only few important successful case- histories are discussed and repeated in many seminars in many cities having different audience. Homoeopathic colleges have not included their methods of prescribing in their study- courses because of this lacuna. CCRH, CCH and Ayush have not recommended these schools as well. Similarly, Doctor’s medical associations of the country do not discuss about these schools in their CME.

The challenge in homoeopathy

Schools of opinions are insignificant in comparison to the challenge we face today. Times of India (24th July 05) had published an article, ‘Bitter-sweet truths’. It says that homoeopathy is an incomplete science. Medical council in London banned a lady doctor for three years after she prescribed homoeopathic treatment on her personal belief and it risked the life of a patient. Personal risk means that homoeopathy is not a science.

Israel has banned homoeopathy. Hungary banned it in 1948 but legalized it in 1991. Germany banned all medicines containing alkaloids in 1992 declaring these as toxic. USA has no policy for or against homoeopathy. UK has moderate potential of homoeopathy and it exists only because it enjoys some Royal patronage.

Now we face followings questions:

  1. Whether homoeopathy actually works as a cure and if so, how?
  2. Whether homoeopathy is complete science or not?

We live in our own made well. Written on the walls are rules of homoeopathy. Many schools of opinions are writing their opinions on the walls. We praise, criticize or follow these as we can see them. What about the people living outside the well? They do not see it. Question of their believing in homoeopathy does not arise. Either outsiders should be invited in our ‘well’ or we should come out of our ‘well’. Outsiders appear biased. They would not come inside our well.

What can we do?

  • ‘How homoeopathy works’ should be made a compulsory research paper for every graduate or post graduate student.  Creative, imaginative or even wrong-appearing view of the students could open a new secret about homoeopathy. We could expect another great Hahnemann on his way to the world by this method.
  • Seminars and workshops in all states should have additional subject on ‘New methods to select a remedy in easiest way’. Some day some wrong-appearing idea of a doctor may change the concept of homoeopathy by this action.
  • Let all schools of opinions develop easy methods of prescribing. Disease-wise specific medicines was a dream of many scholars in the past. Can some school of opinion come up with this idea? It would be wonderful to have such a concept.

Let us unite and grow a new leaf in the history of homoeopathy. Some day some one will have to do it.

Dr. Shi Dua