and now homeopathy

[Guest guest]

as much of modern naturopathic theory was influenced by homeopathy,

this essay is perhaps also relevant. It is also another example of how

to make comparisons between seemingly disparate forms of medicine.

while there is much that is different, there are often reasons. but

basic principles - deep structures, if you will - seem to be common to

all viable systems of medicine, while the superficial details tend to

be more culture or theory bound. sometimes there is no reconciliation

possible; other times a closer look may reveal merely a differing angle

rather than a divergent structure.

 

BTW, small essays are OK to post here (obviously). Many of our various

posts are already pretty much essays in length, just not polished.

since we have blocked attachments due to virus issues, the only other

option is the files section. we can still use that for large files

(more than few pages) 

 

An Essay about the theoretical contentions between Homeopathy and TCM

by , L.ac.

 

 

 

The most basic rule of treatment in Chinese medicine is to use cold

substances to eliminate heat and warm substances to remove cold. This

has been called heteropathy.1 This stands in contrast to the

homeopathic principle of " like cures like " . In homeopathy,

infinitesimal amounts of " hot " substances, like fever inducing aconite,

for instance, would be used to treat a " hot " , i.e. feverish, disease.

Both approaches to the use of substances claim great success, not only

in relieving suffering, but in addressing the true root of a patient's

disease. How can this be? TCM herbalists often look curiously at

homeopaths, for no other reason than the fact the Chinese herbology is

practiced with extremely large dosages of medicinal substances (in

modern China, on the order of 150 g or 1/3 pound per day). Similarly,

classical homeopathy views this massive use of pharmacologically potent

substances as " suppression " of the highest order. As a TCM herbologist,

with some education in homeopathy, I will endeavor to examine this

dilemma.

 

Homeopathy is practiced in several different ways worldwide. Classical

homeopathy, with its psychospiritual leanings, was influenced mainly by

James Kent (and through him, by Emmanuel Swedenborg). It is now

promulgated by Vithoulkas and Murphy and Margaret Kent, and is

definitely the current vogue in the US. In the past, the Kentian

approach was given stiff competition in America from more

physiologically oriented practitioners, such as Clarke.2 In India,

multiple remedies are often prescribed, indicated at different times of

the day or in various combinations. On the European continent,

combination remedies are popular, often involving modern concepts, as

in the use of viral nosodes. In general, the approach is more

physiological than psychospiritual. All these methods are also

currently used by American homeopaths, but the classical method appears

to prevail, especially in the main learning institutions. All these

schools of thought hold allegiance only to the rule of dilution. They

vary greatly with regard to the law of similars, the single remedy, etc.

 

For instance, many modern combination remedies have not been proved,

but some have been shown to be clinically efficacious in double blind

studies.3 Many remedies in Boericke's Materia Medica have essentially

the same indications as listed in Felter's Eclectic Materia Medica (see

table I below). Many of these mild herbal substances (i.e. echinacea,

Oregon graperoot, calendula) are dosed in tincture form or low potency,

rarely in the truly infinitesimal, transmolecular range. They are used

heteropathically, in other words. Thus, the law of similars may apply

only to the very poisonous (aconite, gelsemium, belladonna, lachesis),

the inert (lycopodium), minerals (sulfur, calc carb, phosphorus),

microorganisms (nosodes), acids, psychoactives (coffee, cocaine,

cannabis, opium),and other very strong botanical extracts (camphor). If

this is true, there may be another way to understand the relationship

between Chinese herbology and homeopathy.

 

The law of biphasic action is well known with regard to the

physiological effects of poison on the system. That is to say that

small amounts of very potent substances often have diametrically

opposed actions to larger amounts of the same substance.4 This rule

does not apply to many mild herbal constituents, but mainly to

medicinal substances which are mainly comprised of potent alkaloids and

essential oils (see table II below). It is the milder substances that

make up the vast bulk of the Chinese materia medica. And like their

American equivalents, they are used heteropathically. Most American

homeopaths do not use these mild substances in dilution anymore. Those

who use herbs like echinacea are likely to use standard tinctures or

pills. This practice amongst early 20th century homeopaths (like

Boericke) can be clearly seen as an incorporation of proven eclectic

remedies into the practice of homeopathy during the beginning of its

decline in America. For example, echinacea is not used to treat

excessive salivation, even though the herb induces this symptom.

Boericke actually indicates it for dry mouth, as would be

heteropathically expected.5

 

As for poisons, the Chinese tend to use them like the eclectics did,

rather than like the homeopaths. The eclectics used small amounts for

the direct effect of the poison to stimulate the " vital force " . The

Chinese do similarly, when using scorpion or centipede to " open the

channels " . Other herbs, such as pinellia ternata, aconite and arisaema,

are generally detoxified before use in various ways and are no longer

considered poisonous. The Chinese use of minerals also appears to be

physiological in most cases, relying on rather large doses of compounds

which are then extracted into solution. It has been suggested by one of

my students that some minerals which are known to extract very poorly,

such as Gypsum, may exert their action " homeopathically " , noting that

the indications for magnesium sulphate are somewhat similar to those

for Chinese shi gao (see table III). He further suggests that the

vigorous boiling of the herbs has a " succussive " effect, as well. I

find this an intriguing proposition, which may bear further study.

Heiner Fruehauf, L.Ac., Chair of the Department of Classical Chinese

Medicine at NCNM, has suggested in lecture that it is the resonance of

the herbs that effects the profound changes that occur in some cases of

herbal treatment, rather than their pharmacological constituents.

 

Some Homeopaths would consider the use of minerals and poisons in full

strength to be particularly " suppressive " in nature. The Chinese

actually consider such substances to be " inferior medicines " and

generally only use such substances short term and always in combination

with balancing and harmonizing substances. As elaborated below, TCM

sees a purpose to the control of symptoms that is certainly anathema to

homeopathy. Classical homeopaths would only use special preparations of

either such potent, poisonous or apparently inert substances

(preparations that in medieval Europe or China or India would probably

have been considered alchemical in nature). They believe full strength

preparations of these substances generally damage the body in the long

run. Classical homeopaths make little or no use of mild herbs, at least

not in dilution. On the other hand, the Chinese practice of

heteropathic medicine centers on the use of such mild herbs. To

reiterate, that the law of similars does not apply to these herbal

preparations can be seen in the fact that similar mild herbs included

in materia medicas such as Boericke's do not really have " homeopathic "

indications (i.e. their indications are not the opposite of their

actions in larger doses).

 

Yet despite having demonstrated that the law of similars has not

generally been applied to the use of mild herbal substances, one

question still remains. Is Chinese herbal medicine " suppressive " or

does it promote " true healing " ? Most American classical homeopaths do

not bother to use dilute preparations of mild herbal substances,

knowing full well that these substances are actually heteropathic in

nature. Classical homeopathy proposes that the use of such herbs is

inherently suppressive. While some may admit their occasional clinical

usefulness, pure classical homeopaths believe the use of full strength

botanicals can ultimately only lead to more suffering. I would argue

that the prevailing position of homeopathy towards herbalism is based

in experiences that bear little relation with the practice of Chinese

herbology.

 

In the early days of homeopathy, Galenic herbalism was dying and

allopathy was on the rise. Very few people were gently balancing humors

anymore. Drastic purges and bloodlets and sweats and pukes were the

rage. Suppressive poisons ruled the day. As time went on, the

Homeopaths also did battle with the Thomsonians, the Physiomedicalists

and the Eclectics, too, calling all of their herbal therapies

" suppressive " , too. It was only at the turn of this century that nature

curists united various practitioners of herbs, diet and homeopathy,

ultimately founding the most truly eclectic and durable of all

professional, holistic medical practices, Naturopathy. Pushed to the

fringes of society for most of this century, naturopaths have quietly

continued to argue about this homeopathic dilemma. Now, with many herbs

being used according to their recently discovered pharmacological

actions, homeopaths seem more resolute than ever. According to

classical homeopathy, whenever herbs are used like drugs to affect

" diseases " or adjust particular physiological " mechanisms " , they are

being used incorrectly. The classical homeopath is instructed to treat

patients according to their signs and symptoms taken in their entirety.

It is in this point that we find some important common ground with

traditional Chinese herbology.

 

Chinese herbology also does not attempt to treat diseases or adjust

biochemical mechanisms. All professional Chinese medicine adheres to at

least one common principle, bian zheng lun zhi, which is the rule to

administer treatment according to the differentiation of symptom

complexes. TCM says one disease may require various different

treatments and one treatment may be applicable to many different

diseases, all depending on the nature of the patient. Even though

Chinese medicine does not use infinitesimal doses of herbs, it attempts

to correct the root imbalance of the patient. Chinese medicine gauges

its success on the changes in the four evaluations (asking, looking,

touching, listening) and does not accept symptom relief alone to be a

sign of " healing " . It has long been a caution in Chinese medicine that

you can make someone feel better in the short term at the expense of

their longterm health. The injudicious use of tonics (astragalus,

ginseng) is usually the cause of this, as described in historical

texts.6

 

Homeopathy also gauges its success according to particular rules of

evaluation. Hering's law is the most important, according to which the

disease process reverses itself from top to bottom, inside to outside,

most recent symptoms to those long suppressed. According to Vithoulkas,

one should also see the focus of the symptoms recede from the mental to

the physical sphere, even if Hering's law is not in obvious activity. I

would argue that Chinese herbologists have observed the improvement in

total symptom/sign complexes concurrent with the use of particular mild

herbal substances for millennia and that homeopaths have similarly

witnessed Hering " s law in action when using their " alchemically "

prepared, infinitesimally dosed remedies. And that neither one of these

experiences contradicts the other.

 

Homeopaths are probably correct that certain substances can only be

used in dilute and/or potentized form to exert a long term beneficial

therapeutic effect. Otherwise these substances are harmful to overall

health. Homeopaths are also probably correct that the use of mild

herbal substances can be " suppressive " , as well. Chinese herbology has

a saying that all medicinal substances can be " poisons " , meaning that

any single substance will ultimately unbalance the system and create

disease. That is why classical Chinese herbologists always use formulae

for chronic illness, reserving single herbs for symptom relief, if at

all. It is also why one formula is rarely used unchanged for extended

periods of time. After all, according to Chinese philosophy, change is

the only true constant.

 

However, just because some medicines can only be used to treat root

imbalances if they are prepared alchemically (dilution and succussion,

in this case), that does not mean there is no holistic way to use those

substances whose only mode of action is heteropathic. I believe the

preponderance of historical evidence lends credence to the idea that

the Chinese, the Egyptians and the Hindus, among others in the ancient

world, discovered how to such mild medicinal substances to restore

health, not just suppress symptoms. They did this through careful

observation of the changes in their patients who ingested these

substances. This same method was also duplicated by the 19th century

eclectic physicians. The success of homeopathy is historically evident

as well, but no moreso than that of TCM. That they both enjoy such

widespread worldwide popularity at this time is certainly a testament

to the perceived efficacy of both of these " systems " of medicine by

their consumers.

 

There does remain the apparently irreconcilable difference between

homeopaths and TCM herbologists, with regard to short term symptom

relief. Two thousand years of holistic Chinese herbology supports the

use of herbs that soothe cough, stop spasms, astringe chronic

discharges (but not acute ones!), sedate the mind, etc. It is the

observation of Chinese herbologists that if certain symptoms are are

not controlled, the patient will be unable to improve, even when using

Chinese formula to treat their root imbalance. These include coughing,

dyspepsia, insomnia, to name a few. When combined with herbs that treat

the root imbalance of the patient, these " suppressive " agents are not

thought to do long term harm. The four evaluations demonstrate that the

judicious use of such herbs does not drive diseases deeper into the

body. This may be a rule that applies to the practice of holistic

herbology, when applied using mild heteropathic substances. That

homeopathy, which uses " potentized " substances, has a different rule

for its very different preparations is no contradiction of this

principle. This is not to say that Chinese herbs canít be used

" suppressively " . In fact, in my judgment, they are quite often used

that way by practitioners following a modern disease model and those

unfamiliar with the insights of homeopathy and naturopathy in this area.

 

As a final note, we should remember that the ancient Chinese understood

their medicinal substances to have a heteropathic nature because of

their observed effects, not their assumed mode of action. In other

words, because coptis lowers fever, stops acute bacterial dysentery and

sedates the mind, it is classified as an herb that " clears heat from

the heart, stomach and intestines " . Similarly, if a Chinese doctor was

told that homeopathic sulfur treated signs of red rash, feeling of

heat, etc., he would classify it also as a " clear heat herb " . Thus, the

fact that full strength sulfur is considered hot and poisonous in TCM

would be meaningless. It could easily be accepted that a hot, poisonous

herb had been processed into a cool, nontoxic herb (an example from TCM

is the transformation of tian nan xing to dan nan xing). The fact that

the use of an herb was also reserved for a very specific presentation

would not rend the conceptual fabric of TCM, either. In fact, some

homeopaths in India differentiate their remedies according to the

ayurvedic system7 , which has many similarities to TCM.8 Thus, to this

TCM herbologist, it appears that Hahnemann did not discover a general

law of medicine and pharmacology, so much as a specific method by which

to reveal otherwise hidden properties of certain types of compounds

(i.e. external alchemy, which he definitely studied, at least in the

writings of Paracelsus).

 

Hahnemann speculated that the method by which homeopathy works is by

introducing a weak, but similar, artificial disease into the body,

which induces the vital force to expel the true disease; the artificial

disease then can be easily removed itself by the bodies vital force.9

It is still not known if this is true. This was assumed due to the

characteristic aggravation of symptoms observed in " true " homeopathic

healing. The aggravation was explained as the temporary summation of

the true and artificial diseases, which magnified the existing

symptoms. This of course would not " explain " the reappearance of old

diseases and symptoms, which are often unrelated to the symptom picture

of the initial remedy. Thus, it remains possible that the action of

those medicines which exhibit biphasic activity is actually

heteropathic in nature. In other words, homeopathic sulfur may have

actually been changed into a substance that clears heat; its mode of

action may simply be to direct the body to " clear heat " , rather than to

introduce an artificial " heat syndrome " , which will then ultimately

cause the body to respond by eliminating the symptom/sign complex.

 

That homeopathic Sulfur treats symptoms that it causes in heteropathic

doses may be just a peculiar property of certain types of substances,

not reflective of its mode of action. Conversely, as stated above, it

may be that the mode of action of even " monophasic " substances, like

most Chinese herbs, actually occurs by introducing a " similar "

artificial " resonance " into the body. Whichever the case, this

quibbling over modes of action has never been prominent in the writings

of Chinese herbologists. And it should not occupy the time of

homeopaths, nor cause rifts between them and TCM herbologists.

Homeopathy and TCM can both be practiced without any need to understand

their " mechanisms " , however intellectually satisfying that might be.

Historically, most Chinese herbologists and Homeopaths are in

cross-cultural agreement on the most fundamental tenet of holistic

medicine, which is that the only proof of correct treatment is

improvement in the patient's total symptom/sign complex (i.e. if your

fatigue is better, but your sleep is now disturbed, something is not

right). From this common ground, we should work together to resist the

powerful forces that would truly turn modern herbal medicine into the

" natural " equivalent of the old drug company credo: better living

through chemistry.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

FAX:

 

 

[Guest guest]

Todd

Do you use homeopathy in practice?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

 

> Do you use homeopathy in practice?

> Alon

 

 

nope. just on my cats. seems to work well, though.