(posted on 27-Mar-2000)
As one sprung from a family of licensed homeopathic doctors I think I may speak with some knowledge here.
The main reason for my message is to address the straw man of 'allopathy'. It is a phrase coined by the homeopaths to re-position conventional medicine in two ways:
1. Place homeopathy on an equal conceptual footing with it (homeo=same, allo=opposite), and therefore create some credibility.
2. Create a straw man to attack.
Why straw man? Because the phrase allopathy implies that conventional medicine only uses 'opposites' to deal with medical conditions or situations. (This being the conceptual opposite of homeopathy which uses the 'same' stuff to cure.)
That this is patently inaccurate should have been known by homeopaths in the 19th century itself - ever since the invention of the vaccine. Conventional medicine has long used attenuated forms of disease-producing agents to develop the body's natural resistance (in the form of antibodies etc) to the disease. The classic cases are, of course, Jenner's small pox vaccine (derived from cow pox), and Pasteur's rabies vaccine (derived from rabies itself).
A number of homeopaths attempt to use these ideas as support for homeopathy on the grounds that it works in a similar way to conventional vaccines. This ignores two salient points:
1. Vaccines are only effective if delivered prior to exposure to the disease-causing agent. If someone already has small pox, the cow pox bug is not going to help in curing the disease.
2. Vaccines work by allowing the body to recognise and prepare for certain invading microbes. They do not work by preparing the body for the symptoms caused by them. The cow pox - small pox connection is because the body can easily overwhelm an infection of cow pox, and subsequently possesses T-cells etc that recognise microbes of that shape, and is capable of dealing with them with much greater rapidity than someone without such exposure. What a vaccine does not do is prepare the body for the pustules and fever that are symptoms of small pox.
Similarly, therefore, introducing a pyretic agent is not going to help the body fight an attack from a disease that itself causes fever. The fever is a symptom, not an illness in itself.
The ironic thing here, is that homeopaths, with little or no knowledge or practice of germ theory, nevertheless claim that 'allopathy' attacks the symptoms, whereas homeopathy deals with the underlying causes of the symptoms. If you take a look in any homeopathic Materia medica you will see what the homeopathic notion of underlying causes is - usually a suite of symptoms (not diseases) that are given their own names (usually latinate, to sound important), with recommended medicines for dealing with them. Rarely if ever a mention of the genuine underlying cause behind a symptom or group of symptoms.
This chart will give you an idea of the homeopathic concept of disease or ailments. It is perhaps indicative that the domain's root word is 'alchemilla' - harking back to the alchemical days of the middle ages.
Do I have such a huge downer on homeopathy? And whereof do I know of what I speak? Read on (eccentric families Dawn?):
Yes, indeedy, I have homeopathy in the blood: my maternal grandfather and all his six offspring (along with the daughter of one of them) were/are (depending upon whether alive or not) LCEH - India's official Homeopathic college Licence to practice medicine (including midwifery/obstetrics etc). In fact, the Homeopathic College in Bombay was co-founded by my Grandad, and the family still lives in 'Homeo House' (I kid you not) as a tribute to the 'discipline' that made the family's money.
Just two days ago my father (in the pharmaceuticals business, but worn down by 36 years of homeopathic proselytisation) took Rhus Tox for a muscle strain. (On my mother's recommendation.)
Both of my parents are remarkably intelligent people, but with a few blind spots, alas. My mother says that if she ever gets cancer, she only wants homeopathic treatment - signing her death warrant IMO, but an opinion we cannot budge her from. In addition, she believes what a fortune-teller told her (and I cannot remember whether it was a numerologist or astrologer) - that she would die when she was 57. Since her 58th birthday is coming up in little over a month, I look forward to crowing over her on the day!
For Gift Horse - amongst my families less commonplace beliefs was the idea, after my grandfather died, that his spirit lived on in a crow that used to frequent my grandmother's balcony. (It attempted to peck her once, an obvious sign of affection right?)
I admit that some of the eccentricities are more related to the 'magical' environment that (primarily Hindu) India still seems to be immersed in, but a lot of the woo woo quotient is surely feeding upon, and feeds, the homeopathic idea. I do not go into long rants and raves with my uncles, aunts and cousins when I meet them, for two reasons:
1. I believe they are sincere in their belief that they are helping people.
2. They tend to be responsible 'practitioners', insofar as they always recommend cases to real doctors when they believe that it is necessary (trauma, cancer etc), and tend to limit their practice to chronic ailments where the cure might as well be a placebo (IMO, of course, since they genuinely believe their treatments make a difference).
Speaking of which - a little secret from a former insider - if a homeopath ever gives you phytum, beware. Phytum is jargon for sugared water - basically the homeopathic version of a placebo! (There's another palcebo too, but I forget its name now. Darn these dying neurons!)
cheer
the sunshine warrior