What is it?

Latest articles
Pam Muller

Homoeopathic Clinic
How to find it

Study Course

A so-called “non-scientific” way of perceiving the question of health and sickness

In a time before the microscope and the more powerful electron microscope were invented, there were people who deduced the presence of micro organisms that were in a mysterious way associated with and in some way responsible for infectious diseases. Men who had ideas like this were considered to be talking nonsense and the established scientific community regarded them with contempt.

One of these men was a German physician and chemist and the founder of homoeopathic medicine, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). He wrote many books and articles on the subject of health, among them was a booklet called, “The mode and propagation of cholera” in which he wrote of  “....swarms of infinitely small invisible living organisms, which are so murderously hostile to human life and which most probably form the infectious matter of cholera.” The pioneer microbiologist Robert Koch, who identified the cholera bacterium, was born in the year that Hahnemann died.

In around 1831-1832 a cholera epidemic swept across Europe. Dr. Hahnemann was was instrumental in producing both cures and prophylactic  (preventative) remedies for diseases like scarlet fever and cholera which saved the lives of thousands of people in an age before intravenous re-hydration or inoculation. He  also wrote about the importance of the first line of defense against disease, vis. town planning, sanitation, hygiene, isolation and disinfection in epidemics. The introduction of sanitation in UK in Victorian times stopped cholera in its tracks.
So why did the established orthodoxy of his day not adopt his discovery? The simple answer is that it was too prejudiced. He had unorthodox methods of producing and testing medicines, case taking and prescribing. Despite the impressive results he achieved, the medical men of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, insisted on bloodletting, purging and mixing of different dangerous drugs. In their ignorance and arrogance, they would not consider Dr. Hahnemann’s discovery.  His passionate delivery and openly criticism of the methods in use at that time most likely did nothing to enhance his popularity.

What they rejected was the homoeopathic way of treating sick people, a method of cure effective in acute epidemic diseases and in chronic illness too. It was hugely successful in the 1918 influenza pandemic with a mortality rate of  1.5% of people treated compared with the devastating figures of the orthodox school of the day.

Homoeopathy is still misunderstood because people are loathe to think about health and sickness in terms of Energy. The prevailing scientific premise of our time insists that only evidence of physical-material substance is valid and will not consider that which is immaterial, energetic, dynamic. Is it impartial and scientific not to make serious efforts to do so? While massive profit is to be made in pharmaceuticals it is unlikely that unprejudiced research into these matters will be undertaken. Over the past two centuries homoeopathy has continued, despite its detractors, to benefit people all over the world. If current day science chooses to consider entering such "unscientific" realms, it will have a debt of gratitude to homoeopathy for keeping a door open to a wider perception of health and sickness.
Pam Muller Dip.Hom.Med. Reg IHM
Classical Homoeopath