Défendre l'homéopathie véritable : une lutte permanente.
Avatar de l’utilisateur
par Edouard Broussalian
Voici un extrait de l'introduction au premier Volume de la revue THE ORGANON, splendidement menée par Lippe et ses amis. Ils y résument les déviations de l'homéopathie dès ... 1878 et vous verrez qu'en effet les organos et autres isos sont déjà sous les feux de la rampe. C'est une curieuse malédiction de l'humanité que chaque fois que quelque chose de pur et de magnifique a été découvert par un esprit brillant, dans le bien de l'humanité, des foules se précipitent pour essayer de dénaturer et travestir. Il sera amusant de noter la régression de l'esprit scientifique en général qui fait du même coup reculer l'une des autres déviations de l'homéopathie basée sur la physiopathologie... Il est plus facile il est vrai de bâtir des cathédrales gothiques en esprit...

C'est en anglais, si des volontaires le veulent.. on peut traduire ;) Je pense qu'il sera aisé de constater le très haut niveau de la discussion, à comparer avec le niveau actuel de l'homéopathie.

The fact that there are already fourteen journals in the English language professedly devoted to Homoeopathy demands a reason for our adding to the number. We purpose, therefore, in this Introductory Address to give (1) Our reasons for the publication of “THE ORGANON”; (2) Our reasons for choosing this particular time; and (3) The objects we have in view.

I. Our reasons for publication.
It cannot be too earnestly or too early impressed upon the mind of the student that there is a false as well as a true Homoeopathy. There are now two distinct parties in the (so-called) Homoeopathic camp; and though the doctrine and practice of each party differ essentially from those of the other, yet there is so much apparent similarity (of a superficial kind) to an uninstructed eye, that it is only by his attention being directed to the points of radical difference between them, that the young student can, by being enabled to institute a comparison, make up his mind intelligently which path to follow. Our experience teaches us that it is of great importance that an inquirer should have both aspects of what is called Homoeopathy put clearly before him at the commencement of his career, as it may save him much after-trouble and disappointment.

HAHNEMANN discovered, founded, and elaborated a system of healing by medicines; to this system he gave the name Homoeopathy; in his Organon he gives the plainest and most minute rules for the practical application of his teachings; and he challenges the medical profession to put his teaching to the test. It would seem, therefore, a very simple matter to define Homoeopathy; it would seem also self-evident that, while every physician has the right to practice that system of medicine which he deems best, on the other hand, no one has the right to call himself a Homoeopathician who does not firmly believe in all HAHNEMANN'S practical rules, and strive in every case to carry them out to the best of his ability; and it would seem only consistent that the name of Homoeopathy should not be appropriated to any other system than that to which HAHNEMANN gave it. Yet that which would appear to be self-evidently just and true has not been followed; and HAHNEMANN'S fundamental rules are daily violated by those who falsely call themselves his disciples. These same professed disciples generally succeed in first raising clouds of dust, and then complain that they cannot see.

HAHNEMANN, besides giving us several rules which apply only to certain forms of disease (e.g., his directions to give the remedy, in a case of ague, after, or in some specified cases, towards the close of the paroxysms—Organon 236, 237), has given us three principal and fundamental rules, which are of universal application; they are
1- The law of similars,
2- The law of the single remedy, and
3- The law of the dynamization of medicines.

In the first place, HAHNEMANN teaches that the remedy to be given is always the one which has been proved to be capable of producing on healthy persons symptoms as like as possible to those of the individual patient; understanding by “symptoms” all those deviations from health, with their conditions and concomitant circumstances, which can be perceived as facts by any of our senses; the similarity, let it be observed, being not only that of quantity (number of corresponding symptoms), but quality also.

But from this law of symptom-correspondence, which approaches the mathematical sciences in its certainty, there have been various “departures”, all of them based upon a desire to clothe the teachings of Homoeopathy with the livery of Allopathic theorizing; but all of them far inferior to the system on which they profess to be an improvement.

Firstly, we have the Pathological School, frequently called (though incorrectly) the Physiological School [1]. One of the champions of this school —Dr. Richard Hughes, the lecturer on Materia Medica at the new London School of Homoeopathy— thus avows his faith: —”I quite admit that there is many a terra incognita as yet in disease, and many a case which as yet we can treat only symptomatically. I am most thankful that the law of similars enables us to fit drug to disease, even when we are unable to say what the phenomena of either mean. But not the less do I reckon the other mode [the pathological] of applying the law as the more satisfying, and, in most hands, successful; and believe that a scientific pharmaco-dynamics, linked to a scientific pathology by the band of the homoeopathic method, will constitute the therapeutics of the future” —(United States Medical Investigator, Nov., 1876, p. 408.)

[1] Strictly speaking, Physiology is the science or theory of the functions and changes of the healthy body; Pathology that of the same when diseased, whether by drugs or otherwise; hence the Pathological action of drugs is the theory that we may form as to their mode of action on the organism, while their Pathogenetic action signifies the facts which we observe concerning their action (symptoms), irrespective of theory

Thus the adherents of this departure from HAHNEMANN make the pathology of the disease and the remedy the basis of treatment, the minute symptomatology being held to be quite secondary in importance, and to be resorted to only when the former fails [2] ; whereas the followers of HAHNEMANN make the minute symptomatology the basis of treatment, pathology and everything else being subservient to it.

[2] In the Monthly Homeopathic Review, March, 1867, there is an editorial paper entitled, “Hahnemannians and Physicians practicing Homoeopathy”, in which we find the following identical teaching : “There are, however, many oases where diagnosis is difficult and simply conjectural; and we concede that, in these cases, we must continue to resort to ‘symptom treatment’ until Our pathological knowledge is more complete.” That this teaching is not in accordance with that of HAHNEMANN is suggested by the very title of the editorial.

In other words, the Pathological School prefer to select their remedies according to the theory which each may happen to hold concerning the nature of the disease and the action of the remedy, while the Homoeopathic School select their remedies according to the facts (symptoms) observed in each individual case. Which treatment is a priori most likely to be successful is obvious. [3]

[3] The opponents of Homoeopathy have frequently asserted, that while HAHNEMANN rejected the uncertain and vague pathology of the old school of his time, as an indication for treatment, yet he himself invented a new and improved pathology of chronic diseases, basing a special treatment thereon; hence they argue, We may also base our treatment on the “new and improved pathology “of the present day. Without stopping to show that the pathology of to-day is no more certain than that of fifty years ago, we deny their statement concerning HAHNEMANN. His doctrine of the nature of chronic diseases is not a mere pathological theory, but a well-established fact, acknowledged by the leading Allopaths, viz., that external manifestations of disease are not local but constitutional, internal disorders resulting from their suppression. His teaching with regard to their treatment is based upon this fact of sequence of symptoms, and simply amounts to this, that in the treatment of chronic diseases, in order to eradicate the constitutional taint, we must sooner or later employ those remedies which are homoeopathic, not only to the present symptoms but also to the past, in other words, which are indicated by the entire constitutional state of the patient. Thus here again the totality of the symptoms, with the utmost minuteness of detail, is the sole indication for the choice of the remedy

Another departure may be called the School of Morbid Anatomy. In the Monthly Homoeopathic Review, 1869, p. 295, the reviewer of Dr. Richard Hughes' essay, “On the Various Forms of Paralysis and their Treatment”, says, the author endeavors to base his selection on the analogy subsisting between the organic changes involved in paralysis and the morbid appearances found (postmortem) in cases of poison. This is undoubtedly the correct line to take.
But at the same time we must remember that it is as yet far from possible of adoption in all cases.” Here it would seem, at first, that we were treading on firm ground, inasmuch as we are dealing with the facts observable after death; yet, on examination, these hopes prove illusive. The post-mortem appearances are not the end of the disease, but the end of the patient, and manifest a condition necessarily incurable.

Moreover, this mode of selecting the remedy, like the former one, is necessarily imperfect and inferior, inasmuch as our knowledge of Pathology and Morbid Anatomy is neither certain nor complete (the most advanced Allopathic authorities being witnesses), nor has it advanced so far, and been developed so minutely, as that of symptomatology.
Let us suppose two cases of pneumonia; one patient complains of a pain shooting across the chest from right to left, the other of a similar pain from left to right. This difference in direction would (caeteris paribus) indicate a different medicine in each case, the former case requiring Petroleum, and the latter Calcarea carbonica. But, we ask, what is the pathology of these two symptoms, and, in the event of death, with what post-mortem change would each be found to be connected? Doubtless a difference exists; there must be a reason for the difference of direction, and there must be some difference of lesion in the lung-tissue to cause this difference of symptom manifestation; but what is this difference?

If the pathologists cannot answer our question, then they must admit that the Homoeopathic method is superior to their own; if they can, let them do so, but let them also show how, even in that case, their method would be more accurate or more successful than that of HAHNEMANN; it certainly would not be more simple or easy. [4]

[4] In Hahnemannian Monthly, vol. xi., p. 259, Dr. Lilienthal is reported to have said, at a meeting of the Hahnemann Academy of Medicine, “Paralysis Agitans, for example, has no head symptoms; the brain is perfectly clear. I will first select the remedies having no head symptoms.” If this is the result of the teaching of the Pathological School, it is indeed deplorable, for it hag actually made our learned friend overlook the fact that every well-proved medicine in the Materia Medica has head symptoms!

Another departure is Organopathy. This departure was introduced into our ranks by Dr. Sharp, who now proclaims that HAHNEMANN “has done so much good that one does not like to blame him, and he has done so much harm that one does not know how to praise him”!
The author of this departure evidently considers both the name and the teaching to be superior to that of Homoeopathy. He informs us that “drugs, to be remedies, must affect the same organs as the disease affects”; and again, “If it be objected that there are many cases in which we cannot find out the seat of the symptoms, I reply that this is mere than the objector knows till he has tried; but, I admit, till we have found this out, there is no better way of prescribing than for the symptoms themselves.” (Organopathy, or Medical Progress, 180.)

In this departure from Homoeopathy we find the same fatal error, neglect of symptomatology; and the objections to the Pathological and Morbid Anatomy Schools apply with equal force to this one. It is imperfect. HAHNEMANN'S law does indeed require that the remedy should act on the same organ as is affected in the patient, when that can be with certainty demonstrated; but it requires much more, viz., that it should be affected in the same way; in a word, that the totality of the symptoms should be the indication for the selection of the remedy.
Thus HAHNEMANN'S law is applicable to all cases, whereas Organopathy breaks down for two reasons,
(1) that we often cannot diagnose what organ is primarily affected, as Dr. Sharp admits, and
(2) that every well-proved medicine acts on every organ of the body so far as can be ascertained from the symptoms produced by it on the living organism, and the postmortem appearances in cases of poisoning, limited and therefore indecisive though they be, point to the same conclusion. [5]

[5] We lately saw a tract in which this departure was served up in a popular dress. The writer thereof informed the public that belladonna would cure inflammation of the eyes, because it had a marked action on them; but that ipecacuanha would not, because it had not any such action. Nevertheless, we find in Allen’s Materia Medica, symptom 55, that ipecacuanha has produced one of the most severe eye symptoms on record, which we trust this would-be teacher of Homoeopathy will never experience, unless it be from a proving of some medicine for the sake of suffering humanity

The fourth and latest departure was that of Schüssler, who invented a new system of curing all diseases with twelve “tissue remedies”, the indications for these being based on certain pathological theories of his own. This new system, having suddenly sprung up like a fungus, has already perished from inanition; the only good ever derived from it being a collection of clinical symptoms cured by potencies of these twelve drugs, which we can use, as Bönninghausen used clinical symptoms in his repertories with HAHNEMANN'S approval, to fill up the gaps in our Materia Medica. [6]

[6] Some professed Homœopathicians, whose own practice is by no means in accordance with the Organon, have raised an outcry against the use of clinical symptoms, alleging, first, that their use is contrary to the law of Homoeopathy, and, secondly, that the errors of Allopathy have chiefly arisen from its being based on clinical observations. The fact that HAHNEMANN preferred Bönninghausen‘s repertory to all others, is a proof that he approved of the cautious use of well-established clinical symptoms for the purpose above named; besides which, to base a system on clinical experience with large doses which may act homeopathically, allopathically, enantiopathically, chemically, or in other ways, as the Allopaths do, is a very different matter from first selecting symptoms cured by doses so small that no other action than the homoeopathic seems possible, and then using these solely to supply the deficiencies of our provings, which every year become less.

In the second place, HAHNEMANN teaches us, that having selected the simillimum, we should give that remedy solely, not mixing or alternating it with any other remedy, or using any other remedy externally, and should allow it to act undisturbed until its full curative action is exhausted. It has been asserted by the Anti-Hahnemannians, that HAHNEMANN at times speaks with approval of “alternation“; a careful examination and comparison of the passages where he uses the word will show that the “alternation” which he approved of in treating the sick was invariably an alternation or change of medicine according to a corresponding alternation or change in the symptoms of the patient, and not otherwise.

Our Master says (Organon 272), “In no case is it requisite to administer more than one single simple medicinal substance at one time”; and in the note thereto, “Some Homoeopathists have made the experiment, in cases where they deemed one remedy suitable for one portion of the symptoms of a case of disease, and a second for another portion, of administering both remedies at once, or almost at once; but I earnestly deprecate such hazardous experiments, that can never be necessary, though they may sometimes seem to be of use.”

This law of the single remedy has been observed even by some of the leading Allopaths both before and after HAHNEMANN'S time, among whom we may mention Cullen, Elliotson, and Simpson; and not only does it result in a surer knowledge of the curative power of medicines than could otherwise be obtained, but it is also the only way in which medicines can be given according to the law of The effect of two drugs combined (and alternation is merely mixing them in the patient's organism instead of in the medicine bottle) is not merely that of one plus the other, but a tertius quid, differing from each, as may be seen by comparing the action of Dover's Powder with that of its constituents, ipecacuanha and opium. Hence, unless our remedies are proved on healthy persons in combination or alternation, they cannot be prescribed homoeopathically in like manner for the sick, because we know not what their combined or alternated action on the healthy would be.

Yet this law, perfectly in accordance with reason, and so plainly stated by HAHNEMANN, is broken by many of his professed followers. We have not a word to say against neophytes whose imperfect knowledge of Homoeopathy may at times compel them to fall back upon other means, the employment of which they more thoroughly understand, always provided that they really do their best, and strive to advance; but we do most emphatically protest against the practice of professed Homœopathicians, of many years' standing, some of them writers and teachers, who habitually violate this law of HAHNEMANN without even testing it first.

We know of professed Homoeopathicians who habitually give two remedies in alternation; and we know of others who use leeches and blisters. We have now lying before us the following prescriptions by professed Homœopathicians: —Hydrarg. Biniodidi gr. -rig Pot. Iodidi gr. ij., Fiat pilula et mitte tales xij. i. ter die sumendus; compound decoction of sarsaparilla [containing sarsaparilla, guaiacum, sassafras, mezereum and glycyrrhiza] mixed with iodide of potassium; Donovan's solution [consisting of Arsenic, Iodine and Mercury], with the application of caustic to the throat; a liniment of aconite, chloroform, capsicum, and alcohol, with a mixture of chlorate of potash and hydrochloric acid internally; and, to crown all, the following most remarkable Homoeopathic (!?) prescription: —Tinct. acon. 50 m, tinct. nucis. vom. 40 m, aqua chloroformi, ad. uncias, 6, one teaspoonful undiluted half-hourly for 8 doses, then hourly; with the following pillHydrarg.subchlor.gr —. 1, extract bellad.gr, pil.coloc.co. gr. 8, ft. pil. ii. h.s.s.
Nor is this evil confined to private practice; we know as a fact that similar practices exist in certain so-called Homoeopathic institutions for the relief of the sick. In the Monthly Homoeopathic Review, 1875, p. 420, we find the following record, without a word of adverse comment: “In Nov., 1874, I took the patient to Mr. —, a well-known surgeon in our ranks, for the benefit of consultation. He cauterized the urethra with stick nitrate of silver. Unfortunately, this procedure set up an acute cystitis, utterly uncontrollable by remedies. Incessant enuresis was superadded to the patient's sufferings, who from this time gravitated downwards till she finally sank, on April 21st, 1875.” (The italics are ours.)

Lastly, in a lecture on Follicular Pharyngitis, recently given at the new London School of Homoeopathy, we find the lecturer saying, “In certain cases you may require to assist the internal treatment by local applications, which may be either applied by swabbing the parts or by the atomizing apparatus. The best of these applications is the pure tincture of hamamelis, a drug which I shall afterwards mention as a remedy of great value in chronic varicose states, and as having a special affinity for the venous system. Or you may use nitrate of silver, gr. 20 to oz. 1, or tinct. ferri perchlor, or alum, in solution of gr. 5 to 10 to oz. 1. You will understand, however, that I do not advise you to use these local stimulants except in such obstinate cases as resist internal treatment.” (Monthly Homœopathic Review, 1877, pp. 541-2).
With every feeling of sympathy for the difficulties of the lecturer, who not many years ago occupied a high position in the Allopathic ranks (and we know how difficult it is to shake off old associations), we must most strongly protest against such teaching in a school to which Allopathic students and practitioners are invited to learn the principles of Homoeopathy. Such teaching is entirely at variance with that of HAHNEMANN; it is unnecessary, because known to every Allopath before; and it is pernicious, inasmuch as it tends to make them believe that where are cases where Allopathy will cure after Homoeopathy has failed; hence they will naturally conclude that, in obstinate or severe cases, if their first application of the law of Similia fails, they had better fall back upon Allopathy at once, without searching the Materia Medica further to find out the truly Homoeopathic remedy.

In the third place, HAHNEMANN teaches us the law of the dynamization of medicines. He says (Organon 269), “The Homoeopathic system of medicine develops for its use, to an unheard of degree, the spiritual medicinal powers of the crude substances by means of a process peculiar to it, and which has hitherto never been tried, whereby only they all become penetratingly efficacious and serviceable, even those that, in the crude state, gave no evidence of the slightest medicinal power on the human body.”
Again, he says (Preface to part 5 of the Chronic Diseases), “Homoeopathic dynamizations are real awakenings of the medicinal properties that lie dormant in natural bodies during their crude state, which then become capable of acting in an almost spiritual manner upon our life, that is to say, on our percipient (sensible) and excitable (irritable) fibers. These developments of properties (dynamizations) in crude medicinal substances, which were unknown before my time, are accomplished, as I first taught, by the trituration of dry substances in a mortar, but by the succussion of liquid substances, which is nothing less than a trituration of them. These preparations, therefore, cannot have the term 'dilutions' applied to them, although every preparation of the sort, in order to potentize it higher, that is to say, in order to awaken and develop still further the medicinal properties that still lie latent in it, must first be again yet more attenuated, to allow the trituration or succussion to penetrate more deeply into the essential nature of the medicinal substance, and thus to liberate and bring to light the more subtle part of the medicinal power that lies still deeper, which were impossible to be effected by the greatest amount of trituration and succussion of substances in a concentrated state.”

Again, he says (Organon 246, note), “It holds good, and will continue to hold good as a homoeopathic therapeutic maxim, not to be refuted by any experience in the world, that the best dose of the properly-selected remedy is always the very smallest one in one of the high dynamizations (30), as well for chronic as for acute diseases; —a truth that is the inestimable property of pure homoeopathy, and which, as long as Allopathy (and the new mongrel-system, made up of a mixture of allopathic and homœopathic processes, is not much better) continues to gnaw like a cancer at the life of sick human beings, and to ruin them by large and ever larger doses of drugs, will keep pure homoeopathy separated from these spurious arts as by an impassable gulf.”

Again, he says (Organon 287, note), “The higher we carry the attenuations accompanied by dynamization (by two succussion strokes), with so much the more rapid and penetrating action does the preparation seem to affect the vital force and to alter the health, with but slight diminution of strength, even when this operation is carried very far—in place, as is usual (and generally sufficient), to 30, when it is carried to 60, 150, 300, and higher.”
Further, he says (Organon 276, note), “The praise bestowed, of late years, by some few homoeopathists, on the larger doses, depends on this, either that they chose low dynamizations of the medicine to be administered, as I myself used to do twenty years ago, from not knowing any better, or that the medicines selected were not perfectly homœopathic.”

Lastly, he says (Organon 276), “A medicine, even though it may be homoeopathically suited to the case of disease, does harm in every dose that is too large, the more harm the larger the dose, and by the magnitude of the dose it does more harm the greater its homoeopathicity and the higher the potency selected.”
From these statements we deduce this law, that the more homoeopathic the medicine, the higher should be the potency, and the smaller the dose.

This third law of HAHNEMANN has found as many opponents as the other two. While some are content with saying that in practice they have found the low potencies act best (and we cannot blame them for giving the potencies with which they achieve most success, though we think the solution of this difficulty is given by HAHNEMANN himself in one of the passages just quoted), there are others who totally repudiate the use of the high potencies, asserting them to be “nonentities.”
This we entirely deny. While we admit, with HAHNEMANN, that unless a simillimum is found, the highest potencies will be of little avail, so that the whole scale of potencies should be open to the use of the Homoeopathician, yet we believe that there are very few, if any, cases of disease for which a remedy cannot be found sufficiently similar to cure in a high potency, which potencies we prefer as being more rapidly and permanently curative.

Having thus pointed out the principal rules of HAHNEMANN'S Homoeopathy, and how his professed followers are divided into two camps, the Hahnemannians and the Anti-Hahnemannians, the question arises, are the Hahnemannians truly and sufficiently represented in the journals which profess to advocate Homoeopathic principles? While we acknowledge the services to our cause which many of these journals have rendered, yet we cannot be blind to the fact that not only are some of these journals openly hostile to the Hahnemannian School, but that of the rest there is not one at the present day which is devoted solely to the teaching and illustration of the Hahnemannian method, as we believe it must be continually taught and illustrated, if we are to advance. This want we hope to supply; and this is our reason for the publication of “THE ORGANON.”
par freelancet
En effet, tout y est déjà: l'organothérapie, ceux qui veulent concilier pratique de l'homéopathie et théories allopathiques, ceux qui veulent baser l'homéopathie non sur la similitude des symptômes, mais sur des similitudes d'organe ou "anatomo-pathologiques" (Ce qui fait ""scientifique" :lol:), ceux qui font une soupe pluraliste, et ceux qui, par peur de choquer leurs confrères allopathes, ne prescrivent pas au-dessus de 9 CH.

Tout cela, en trahissant Hahnemann, mène à l'échec ou, dans le meilleur des cas, à une pseudo-homéopathie qui fait, comme dans une étude prétendument favorable, "aussi bien que l'allopathie", c'est-à-dire pas mieux!

Et tout ça repose sur une illusion totale. En voulant ne pas choquer les allopathes, et leur "Evidence Based Medecine" bidon, les pluralistes n'obtiennent, n'ont jamais obtenu et n'obtiendront jamais la reconnaissance dont ils rêvent. Ils n'ont jamais droit qu'au regard méprisant, dans le meilleur des cas condescendant, des allopathes. Et c'est normal: ils ont perdu leur droit d'aînesse pour un plat de lentilles...
Avatar de l’utilisateur
par Argentum
S'agissant des pluralistes, soupistes, iso-bio ou hétéro-biothérapistes et autres sophistes passés à la "trappe", ce qui est un peu gênant voire agaçant (du moins pour certains) c'est que l'illusion dure et perdure encore..

Merci pour ces cas cliniques ! J'essaie, je suis […]

Bonjour à tous, Je partage avec vous cette […]

Merci pour vos réponses Calc n' a pas soul[…]

Alors de là à voir Trump comme un sa[…]