Thirteenth Chapter

HOMEOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY OR CLASSICAL MEDICINE

The Ongoing Crises of "Old School"

Allopathy or classical medicine, called by Hahnemann a hundred and eighty years ago "the Old School", is currently in the countries of Europe the ruling system of treatment. This was for instance one hundred percent true in my own country only six years ago. This of course means that upon hearing the word treatment we automatically think of concepts of the "Old School", gained through many years of education. When we say treatment, most people would immediately imagine alleviation of a particular symptom. Treatment of influenza, treatment of cancer, treatment of eczema. Symptomatic treatment, elimination of the effects of pathology, not of its causes, this is at the core of allopathic philosophy. Cutting off a tumour, suppressing an eczema, substituting a live but diseased organ with another, perhaps even an artificial organ, this is what an allopath understands well. The only problem he/she has in applying these principles in practice, is that the results usually do not match the propaganda, that allopathic practices cannot return health in the cases of chronic diseases, and that he himself often is an ill person, with children who are also ill. He knows that in treatment of chronic diseases he is helpless. Many also know that suppression of the symptoms may cause deterioration of the overall condition. Yes, it is true, allopathy is going through a severe moral crises. The number of doctors who do not believe in what they are doing is enormous, and it keeps growing. I have met a pharmacist who would never put into his mouth any of the medicaments he was selling. I have met many medical doctors, who relied on homeopathy when treating themselves and their families, even though in their practice they continued to prescribe allopathic medications to the patients. I have met an allopathic doctor who worked in Germany with tomographic computer, but who was convinced that the contemporary (allopathic) medicine can do almost nothing in treatment of illnesses. The current great interest among our practitioners in homeopathy (thousands of them went through various courses) is the result of their bad experiences with allopathy, of their mistrust. Nevertheless, the world-wide allopathic propaganda, with billions of dollars at its disposal, continues to work. Thus we are being told that the medical scientists are again on the verge of discovery of the "cure of cancer" and perhaps of the "cure of AIDS"... By the way, since fifteen years of age, when I have begun to notice such things, I must have heard five to ten times the news that the scientists will be able to "cure cancer" within ten years. Therefore the cure should have been here several times already. To my great disappointment, I have recently read in the newspaper that this wonderful discovery has been postponed by another ten years. Remarkably, the classic of homeopathy, doctor James Tyler Kent, lamented at the beginning of the century: "How long have the allopaths been promising us the cure of cancer..."

It appears that those who really trust allopathy above all are people relatively healthy, who think that they do not need any treatment, and who have never had any close contact with allopathy in treatment of chronic diseases. Such people say: "Modern medicine can do anything. Look, they can even transplant the heart." At the same time it never occurs to them that it was precisely the allopathic suppressive treatment that lead the patient to his damaged heart. Had he taken a homeopathic constitutional remedy in the early stages of constitutional disease, the heart would not have been damaged. And consider this, what might the quality of life be like, with the transplanted heart! With a never ceasing intake of drugs to suppress the immunological reaction. With the painful procedures. And with the perspective of a very short life, because such transplants do not last very long. Take notice that shortly after any such transplantation, a few days later, we read: the operation was successful! On television I saw a touching documentary about a young man, returning home after the transplant of kidneys and being welcomed by his three young children. A joyful music accompanied the scene. If they had shown on the screen the statistics, how long do people with transplanted kidneys live on the average, it would be obvious that this man in all probability will not see his children as adults. That for the rest of his short life he would be sitting around waiting rooms and be subjected to various painful procedures. That he will be constantly taking drugs to prevent the transplant being rejected. That this will result in many other health problems. It would be better if they had shown in the documentary how did it happen that this young man's kidneys had failed. How he was repeatedly symptomatically treated by various drugs that brought down his defensive system. They could also have said what the effect of a homeopathic constitutional remedy would have been on his condition, had he taken it in time, years ago, in the early stage of less serious symptoms.

If it were so, allopathy would not be promoted but rather homeopathy, and there is no money for that. Homeopathy is poor. In the developed countries good homeopaths may be quite well situated, but hundreds of billions of dollars are certainly not spinning there, like they do in allopathy.

The second category of people entirely dependent on allopathy are those who are chronically ill. They have no other choice. They were given medication and were told that it cures their particular disease. So they take it and hope. As soon as their condition gets worse, they get different drugs and with them more hope. If need be, the disease is renamed. Or a related disease is named. As soon as a disease is given a name, it implies that the practitioner knows the way to its elimination.

"A dextrous allopath above all thinks of a specific name for the patient's disease, Greek if possible, so that he would convince the patient that he has known the disease for a long time, that it is intimately known to him and that he is therefore best qualified to cure it". So much Hahnemann in his Organon (foreword to the 6th edition). Nothing has changed.

Allopathic procedures being ritualised, diseases given incomprehensible names, ritualistic white clothes (essentially a uniform, in which the individuality of the doctor is somewhat dissolved), superiority of the allopath who does not have to explain to the patient what he is doing, all this creates an atmosphere of a mediaeval monastery.

Painfulness of some procedures is undoubtedly related to mediaeval exorcism, where it was also assumed that the pain will drive out the devil - the disease. That these procedures in many instances are not effective, is conveniently suppressed. A survey of patients was conducted in England, who had returned from a stay in hospital. Eighty percent stated that their condition had not changed at all. I myself once stayed for six weeks at the ward of the Prague hospital Na Bulovce. There were about twelve of us in the room, and during my stay many patients had left with exactly the same problems they had come with. The one exception was a man, whose nose was bitten by a dog. Based on these observances we may assume that the best doctor in allopathy is time. The organism eventually has its way - either it is able to cure itself after the rest, which does not apply to chronic diseases, or it is incapable of doing it. The prominent writer Isaac Asimov published in 1978 the following:

"In 1976 the Los Angeles medical practitioners went on a strike that lasted for five weeks, so that their patients could only cure themselves naturally. The average weekly mortality rate in Los Angeles immediately after the beginning of the strike fell from 19.8 deaths in 100 000 inhabitants to 16.2. When the doctors had duly returned to their stethoscopes, the average mortality had immediately jumped to 20.4 and remained at this rate for the next five weeks."

Asimov's article ends thus: "This is a really well documented event, as it happened in Los Angeles. Similar cases may be also found when studying the local newspapers in small towns."

Truly remarkable results in classical medicine are achieved perhaps only by the surgeons. Here the homeopaths argue with the classical medicine the least. They only maintain that many surgical measures could be prevented by a timely homeopathic treatment. Naturally, no one questions the validity of surgical treatment of injuries and of congenital physical defects.

Many people rely on classical medicine, despite knowing about the "side effects" of the drugs they are taking, knowing of the negative long lasting effects that chemotherapy has on the organism. But they cannot see any real alternative, which undoubtedly is homeopathy.

Hahnemann had devoted a fairly substantial part of the Organon to condemning allopathy for good reasons, based on knowledge sprung from his pre-homeopathic, i.e. allopathic practice. He found out that a disease can be made substantially worse exactly by treatment. The treatment may even be directly responsible for a rise of new disease - the so called iatrogenic disease. This is the case despite of the changes in allopathic technology, now perhaps even more so than before. The principle has not changed. Diseases are still being treated by remedies with a different picture than the disease (alos - different), with antagonistic effect, with suppressive effect. The stronger the drugs the stronger the suppressive effect and the worse off is the patient as a whole person.

“Allopathy...Attacks the organism for long periods with large, frequently repeated doses of strong medication, not knowing its long-term, often serious effects, which it also evidently covers up by mixing large amounts of such unknown substances, in a single medical prescription. The organism thus incurs new, to some extend incurable diseases. Endeavoring to please the patient it uses , whenever possible, the remedies with opposite effects (contraria contrariis), which may immediately and temporarily suppres the problems related to the disease (palliatives), but which only exacerbate the cause of these problems (the actual disease)”. (Organon, foreword to the 6th edition).

Suppression of the symptoms

One of the main causes of worsened overall state of the organism, of the "disease itself", is suppression. We have already talked about this in connection with our staircase. Removal of an outer symptom only makes the slide to a more deep-seated pathology easier, it is also a removal of one line of defence. Quotation from the Organon continues:

“Allopathy... Incorrectly regards an ailment situated in the outer parts of the body as a local disease, thus having a separate existence, beliving it to be cured when suppressed by external remedies. This way, however, it only forces the inner disease to become manifested in a more serious manner on some nobler and more important part of the organism.”

Let's have a look at the system of allopathic treatment, precisely from the point of view of suppression of the disease, which is the basic programme of allopathy. While homeopathy is a holistic method with homeopaths treating the whole person and being responsible for his or her overall state of health, allopathy has gradually developed a very ingenious system of renouncing responsibility over the patient. It is the system of specialisation.

We already know that the natural and the most common development of chronic constitutional disease is its movement from the peripheral parts, with the weakening of inner defence of the organism, to the deeper seated and more important organs. Most commonly it would begin with various acute illnesses, which the organism can remove through its own power (colds, flu, chicken pox, etc.), or with skin rashes. In time, defence of the organism is weakened and the illnesses may gain a chronic character. A chronic cold develops, chronic tonsillitis, chronic eczema. Later the defence withdraws even deeper. The superficial chronic symptoms calm down (we know that symptoms are really a defensive reaction) and instead the deep-seated illness develops, such as chronic pneumonia. If the constitutional disease moves even deeper, pneumonia may become less severe, with no accompanying fever, in time disappearing altogether - instead there may be a chronic defect of the kidneys, the liver, the heart, etc.

Now, what is the course of allopathic treatment of the whole person?

First the patient suffers from various superficial acute illnesses, flu, colds, bronchitis. These illnesses are successfully suppressed by the general practitioner. In time the colds become chronic, this is the matter for the throat, nasal and ear specialist. Here the cold is further suppressed by drops, until the defence retreats from the line of throat, nose and ears (this area appears to become adjusted) and pneumonia arrives. The patient moves to the ward of respiratory diseases. Here the pneumonia is suppressed by massive doses of antibiotics, as far as possible. Pneumonia keeps coming back and the doses of antibiotics are getting stronger. As the pathology is being pushed inside, there may be disturbances of the inner organs, kidneys, liver, etc., while the previous problems subside. Let's say that there follows a kidney disease. The patient on his jolly way through the various departments is sent to the internal ward to a nefrologist. He too uses antibiotics and other suppressive drugs to overcome the kidney disease. After the repeated troubles with kidneys, the patient gets onto the dialysing machine and a transplantation may sometimes follow. Then there are additional heart troubles. The coronary specialist again prescribes medication, an electric stimulator may be surgically implanted, which postpones death for a while. The patient thus has enough time left for the pathology to substantially affect the psychological area and to pay visits to the neurologist and the psychiatrist. Such a journey does not have to end at the age of retirement, often much earlier, the latest innovations are very serious illnesses of young children, such as diabetes, heart attacks and cancer.

We can see, and this is not a joke, that the patient was successfully treated at many departments, until dying, while continually becoming more ill and never regaining health. Each of these departments has flawlessly done its work. Have the original colds not gone a long time ago? Facing the far more painful problems, the patient does not even remember them. He/she does not bother the respiratory, the urological or any other department, because he is currently at the coronary ward. All the other wards have registered a success in treatment! They have sent the patient on. Their existence has been justified.

That regarded by any homeopath at any phase of the treatment as a total loss, becomes a victory in allopathy.

So - what would the development of the constitutional disease of our imaginary patient be like, if he was not treated at all? Exactly the same! It would only be a great deal slower. While the development described in the first case may last throughout the entire life and the patient in some seventy years would only go through its part, perhaps to the stage of pneumonia, after the allopathic suppression it passes much quicker and in its full scale, because as we know, the suppression always speeds up the advance of constitutional disease. Hahnemann hits the point with his remark that most successful in treatment are those allopaths who instead of drugs use strawberry syrup. And, from the holistic point of view, this is true to these days.

What is the logical conclusion of these thoughts? The presumed successes of allopathy in treatment are not to a negligible degree caused by parasiting on the natural movement of constitutional disease, from the peripheral parts to the inner organs.

Allopaths however know nothing of the constitutional disease. And, above all, do not want to know. They also do not want to know about the whole patient. Recently I read in the USA a well known book by the non-homeopathic doctor Walter M. Bortz named We Live too Short and Die too Long. His main advise is: Do not take any medication!!!

The seemingly indisputable success of allopathy is the treatment of acute illnesses through antibiotics. Antibiotics have been saving the reputation of allopathy for almost forty years. Without antibiotics, vaccination and transplants, the allopaths would have very little to flaunt, as far as treatment of diseases is concerned. The effectiveness of potentised fungi was already recognised and studied by homeopaths in the last century. Allopaths found out about these remedies fifty years later. The main base for its spread was the Second World War.

The suppressive effectiveness of antibiotics is enormous. An objection to such a statement is instantly obvious: What suppression?! It kills bacteria and viruses, our main enemies!

So we will have to go through the subject of infectious germs a little more thoroughly, before returning to antibiotics and the related questions in a more complex way.

The Cause of Disease is Inside, not Outside

The opinion of homeopaths (even of many allopaths) about infectious germs is approximately this: Bacteria or viruses are not the actual cause of the disease. These micro-organisms only move to the diseased organs and parasite on them. Similarly as worms may parasite on a diseased bowel. Discussion on this subject begun the moment Louis Pasteur came out with the theory that bacteria are the actual cause of diseases. Against this stood up Antoine Bechamp and as he did, his current followers also maintain that treatment must reinforce the inner defensive sources of the organism, not kill the micro-organisms.

If the development of constitutional disease reached the stage where the organism puts up the defence on the level of tonsils, the tonsils will offer ideal conditions for the particular bacteria to reproduce here. If we administer a suitable homeopathic remedy in nonmaterial potency, it obviously cannot kill a single bacterium. Still, tonsillitis would quickly pass away. The bacteria disappear because the inner tendency towards tonsillitis has been removed and the pathology was pushed out, and bacteria no longer have the necessary conditions to stay and multiply. A really healthy person will not be affected by any bacteria or viruses. It is worse when the organism has a low vitality. If there is a total loss of vitality (death), the putrefactive bacteria move in, and the organism decomposes completely.

We all have been in the situation when someone with a flu sneezed on the train. The resulting spray sent millions of viruses into the air. If their power was unlimited, all the travellers should become ill with influenza. They have all breathed in the virus. In reality out of a hundred people perhaps only one or two may become ill. They are the ones who just happen to have the inner inclination towards influenza. In them the virus finds good living conditions. Not so with the others. Contagious diseases and epidemics spread in the population among those people who have inner disposition towards the given disease. They cannot afflict any other people. If the inner disposition to an illness is homeopatically removed, the illness is cured. It also ensures that there is prevention.

What happens then, if we give the celebrated, well tested antibiotics to someone ill with tonsillitis? Poisoned are not only the bacteria, but above all the organism of their host. The line of defence known as the tonsils is evacuated due to the overall intoxication of organism, the weakened defence retreats inside and the tonsils cease to be active, no longer full of blood they are not such a nice place for the bacteria. Defensive action, the fever, has also ended. The organism however does not return to normal, even though it might appear so. The tonsils are a deserted fortress. The defence might perhaps make a couple of attempts to regain the lost fortress (repeated tonsillitis), but it is finally driven away with antibiotics, so that the next round can now begin: perhaps on the level of the lungs. Or the liver.

It is often mentioned nowadays that some strains of bacteria are immune to antibiotics. Yes, bacteria are very adaptable. People are not adaptable. Through antibiotics, the state of health of the populace has been more negatively altered than through anything else. The enormous development of chronic diseases, afflicting most of the adult population and even most of the children, is the evidence of this.

I am nearly fifty. I do not recall seeing a chronically ill classmate when I went to school as a child. There may have been some, but it would have been an exception. This was at the beginning of the era of penicillin. Now, near its end, nearly all children, particularly those living in cities, have some chronic illness. There are rashes, colds, bronchial asthma, allergies, recurrent acute illnesses and also serious problems, such as diabetes, leukaemia and heart diseases. And we know that chronic disease, even if only superficial, is a serious warning signal, because it means that the organism is permanently disabled. A sad end to the penicillin euphoria, which still survives in our country. However nowadays many sensible allopaths prescribe antibiotics only in cases of utmost emergency, when there is a direct threat to the patient's life (we homeopaths should of course add that in all such cases the homeopathic remedy should be first considered). They are mindful of the lasting and irreparable damage caused by these drugs.

The AIDS

It would be interesting to dwell on the phenomenon called AIDS. In the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, all the main problems of contemporary allopathic medicine are concentrated, in a way. Here official medicine for the first time (!) admits that an incurable disease exists in the world, and that it cannot treat it. It may be obvious that literally thousands of other more common diseases have always existed, which are also allopathically untreatable. Nevertheless, until now it was not officially admitted. At the same time these common diseases are far more significant than AIDS, as they affect the majority of the population and eventually also end in inevitable death: diabetes, leukaemia, heart diseases, chronic diseases of kidneys, liver, lungs ... the list could go on. Syphilis is now, on the basis of long-lasting studies, also considered incurable. Most patients, who have been "cured" from syphilis through antibiotics, react positively to the tests FTA - ABS for the rest of their lives, and develop various health problems in the advancing stages of the disease. They can also pass on the syphilis. In the USA in 1977 in hospitals during the blood tests of 43 million patients, 1.5 million were found to be positive to syphilis, this is 3.5% (!). Analogically there may be much more sufferers in the USA. Syphilis is usually very difficult to detect in ordinary practice and it is often confused with other less serious diseases, unless blood tests are conducted. The contemporary trend is towards further spread of the disease.

A "cured" syphilis often precedes AIDS.

In the USA in 1989 a book by Harris L. Coulter AIDS and Syphilis - Hidden Links was published. The subject of AIDS is being considered by the author mainly from the point of view of the statistics. The official, generally accepted opinion, is that the disease is caused by the virus HIV, and that the illness could be regulated to a degree by the drug AZT (Azidothymidin). Let's look at what H. L. Coulter writes about the disease:

First of all, the statistics completely disprove the hypothesis that the virus HIV is the cause of the disease.

This virus was found in less than half of the AIDS patients and the antibodies against this virus were discovered only in 10 - 20% of the patients. The national agency Centrum for the control of diseases (CDC) has tested 870 health workers whose skin was accidentally pricked by a needle with blood infected by HIV. Only four of them were found to carry the virus. In another sample of health workers, whose blood or mucous membranes have been in contact with HIV, out of 104, none were infected. In another identical study, out of two thousand there were no infections. Four women in the USA were artificially inseminated with the infected male semen: four completely healthy children were born.

If the break down of the immunity system (defence of the organism) is not caused by the actual virus, what is the cause? Coultier finds an interesting answer to this: Ill with the disease become only those whose immunity system has already been uprooted through a bad way of life and particularly through an enormous intake of allopathic medication and drugs. He describes the anamnesis of a group of one hundred homosexuals infected with AIDS, from Berkeley in California:

Before the AIDS begun, a typical member of this group was regularly treated with antibiotics up to twenty times a year for gonorrhoea (there were frequent changes of partners).

Non-specific uretritidis was treated by antibiotics 6 - 7 times a year, for at least eight years.

Skin rashes were treated in all of them almost continually with antibiotics, tetracycline and corticosteroids. These drugs were also taken as prevention. There were cases of continuous intake of tetracycline for five and for eighteen years.

Sedatives, tranquillisers and other drugs for psychology were used continuously without prescription.

Chronic throat pains - more than 50% stated they were frequently treated with antibiotics.

Herpes simplex - 25% have recently been treated with various drugs. In the last 10 years it was 90%.

Allergy - a high incidence of allergies with suppression of symptoms.

Lymphadenopathy - treatment of swollen glands in 40%.

Diarrhoea of known or unknown aetiology, antiparasitical treatment in 30%.

Recreational drugs - nearly all have used marihuana, also frequently used were LSD, heroin, cocaine, amyl and butyl nitrates, amphetamines, barbiturates and other drugs.

It is obvious that they have lost their defensive capacity against disease (lost their immunity) through the use of medication and drugs, before they got AIDS. It must be stressed that the majority of drugs, mainly the antibiotics, were prescribed to them. On the contrary, the people who lived a normal way of life, with a low or no intake of drugs, did not get AIDS, even though the conditions for an infection were also fulfilled. Another risk group are naturally drug addicts. A distinctive destructive influence of even the "soft" drugs (such as marihuana) on the human immune system has been conclusively proven. Another group are haemophiliacs, after the transfusion of infected blood - the explanation is also obvious: their immune system was uprooted by the deep seated constitutional disease, which in its natural progression (without transfusions) could already end in death.

A special category is formed by the African countries, such as Rwanda and Zimbabwe, where up to 60% of the city population have AIDS. Surprisingly, even here the spread of the disease is to a large degree conditioned by the use of medication. "In Zimbabwe, substantially more antibiotics are prescribed in comparison with the USA or Great Britain, with penicillin the one most in use." (Coulter). The pharmaceutical concerns are not idle, pushing these cheap drugs on the market in developing countries, where they are freely sold at the markets and elsewhere. Another, perhaps the decisive factor that significantly lowers immunity in these countries, is the chronic under-nourishment.

Analysing the cases of AIDS regularly treated by the drug AZT, the cases left untreated and the cases treated through alternative methods, Coulter concludes that it has not been proven that the drug AZT (used even in our country) would prolong the patients' life even by one day. The medication causes further weakening of the immune system and has many negative effects. It kills any cell it encounters. It destroys the bone marrow, causes heavy anaemia. It causes headaches, nausea and muscle atrophy, it destroys the kidneys, the liver and the nervous system. Many patients need weekly transfusions and even transplants of bone marrow (Coulter). The only reason for its use, according to Coulter, is its cost of $10 000 a year. For each case of AIDS the pharmaceutical concerns and the distributors obtain this amount. This is not insignificant. Coulter compares the various methods of treatment of AIDS, and it is his opinion that the best results are achieved by homeopathy.

The conclusion: Statistics say clearly that the Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, AIDS, is not caused by a virus, nor should it be treated by allopathic drugs, which to a large degree cause it. Which is also a homeopath's opinion, not only in connection with AIDS but with any other chronic disease.

Let's add that in India in 1989 and 1990 a trial was conducted, to evaluate the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment on people, who had tested positive in the tests ELISA for the HIV virus. These people were given various homeopathic remedies in the potencies C 30 to C 10 000. Out of sixty three patients, after treatment lasting between three and eighteen months, twelve lost the positive serological reaction, which was again determined by the test ELISA. In other words, twelve (or one fifth) had been cured. When the classical allopathic medication is used, there can never be such effect in any circumstances and no such cases were observed. When allopathically treated, once testing positively, the patient cannot become negative. The search was conducted with the support of the World Health Organisation - WHO and it is thoroughly described in the British Homeopathic Journal 1/93. A clear indication of the direction the AIDS researchers should follow. The mentioned results were achieved by the Indian homeopaths only after a year of treatment, which is a relatively very short time, taking into account the seriousness of constitutional damage.

Vaccination

One more point of friction between allopathy and homeopathy is another strong article of the allopathic doctrine, vaccination. Any criticism in this area might be regarded as dangerous blasphemy, and whenever this matter is mentioned the allopaths make a big noise, apt to label the critic a mass murderer, not allowing any reasonable discussion. Homeopaths as early as the last century have discovered the fact that the health of many people has collapsed after a vaccination. The illnesses that appeared were not necessarily connected with the picture of the disease the patient was vaccinated against. Such illnesses, called vaccinoses by the homeopaths, are of a constitutional character. Vaccination against local pathology has weakened the organism and a chronic disease swiftly develops. When a homeopath detects such a sudden weakening after vaccination, the patient is often routinely prescribed Thuja, which is closely related to vaccinoses. Another method of controlling damage caused by vaccination is to give the incriminated vaccine, homeopathically highly potentised, to the patient. The best, of course, is to use the constitutional remedy, accordant to the totality of psychological and physical symptoms. Constitutional remedy is at the same time the best and the most reliable vaccination, the best prevention for any disease. Constitutional remedy is also capable of repairing any damage caused by vaccination.

The allopaths themselves know of the risks of vaccinating, but they keep quiet about it, having only one excuse: there is no alternative. According to such allopaths, there is no homeopathy.

The Theory

Another characteristic trait of allopathy is the variability of theories, which are not based on true knowledge, but only on presumptions. Any observant layman could find an endless number of examples. How long ago was it, when in every surgery there used to hang a picture of cheese, eggs and meat, with the sign declaring it to be a healthy diet? Nowadays eggs are being regarded as a storehouse of cholesterol and virtually a poison. How often were artificial vitamins recommended as a necessary requirement for gaining and maintaining health? Now there is a silence about artificial vitamins. In Scandinavia the results of a long lasting study were published. One group of people received artificial vitamins, another did not. After several years it came out that the state of health of the group without vitamins was significantly better than of that with the artificial vitamins. Twenty years ago it was fashionable to remove the tonsils, so that "the tonsillitis would not be repeated", this was also done as prevention. Every allopath knows now that the tonsils should be left alone. Some twenty years ago it was scientific to add fluoride to drinking water, to prevent tooth decay. The long-termed studies of tooth decay in the cities with fluorised water, in our country for instance in Tabor, have established that the state of dentures there was no better than elsewhere. The question remains, whether the inhabitants may suffer from any "side effects", brought about by this involuntary medication. Fluoride, as known, is a poison. And so on.

Progress in Medicine

The allopaths often speak highly of the progress made by the medicinal science. In connection with this they often mention (as has already been stated) very controversial subjects:

a) Transplantation and other technologically and financially demanding activities, with questionable ethics from the point of view of the patient's life and the end result. It should be born in mind here why, what sort of "treatment" has caused such a serious state of the patient, that there was no other solution but transplantation.

b) Treatment of diseases through antibiotics, sulphonamides, corticoids and other drugs with suppressive effects.

c) Diagnostic methods such as magnetic resonance, computer tomography and similar, to effectively screen the defects on organs. Mostly (in cases of chronic diseases) these do not lead to any effective treatment and to a cure, at best only to a surgical repression of the symptom.

d) Vaccination.

e) The rise of new theories and new branches, such as genetic engineering. With enormous investments, enormously expensive drugs are being manufactured, which at best will be used for symptomatic treatment and suppression of local symptoms, while a long-termed negative effect on the health of the population cannot be presently estimated, just as it was not possible at the beginning of the era of antibiotics.

f) The quantitative expansion of personnel, the volume of finances and the overall growth of power.

Only the last point stands the proof in all consequences. Yes, allopathy does move the wheels of economy at the highest rate. To a large degree it is responsible for the creation of national product. With its associated productions it is currently the most extensive branch of the national economy in all developed countries. The pharmaceutical industry alone shows yearly net profits in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. Too often people are prescribed medication only for commercial reasons. The doctors are sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly bribed by pharmaceutists into prescribing and recommending more drugs. Allopaths demand from the governments and the tax payers extraordinary sums of money for the research of new diseases, such as the AIDS, where without any tangible results many billions of dollars are spent. The prescription drugs administered in large quantities become a factor in the declining state of health of the population. This reality has been already officially recognised. In some countries the problem became a political matter and for instance in Germany a law was passed that imposes limitations on the drugs prescribed by practitioners. There is nothing wrong with business. It should not however be uncontrolled trade in people's health, in people's lives, in human souls. Well known in Germany is the book by three doctors, non-homeopaths, K. Langbein, H.P. Martin and H. Weiss Bitter Pills (Bittere Pillen), where they analyse the drugs sold on the German market, according to their treatment values and side effects. More than 50% of the drugs they declare as therapeutically unsuitable.

Treatment and Business

While the homeopath prescribes a pill or two worth a few cents, the allopath administers drugs worth tens of thousands of dollars.

While the homeopath leads the patient to independence in treatment, the allopath through the specialist system, suppressive drugs and propaganda, tries to keep the patient in his care.

While homeopathic constitutional treatment, bare a few exceptions, is ambulant, the allopath builds huge hospitals with armies of workers and extensive associated industries.

While the homeopath always individualises, prescribes to a specific person, the allopath tends to make general arrangements that require large means (vaccination, etc.). The allopath helps to move the wheels of the economy.

Well known and historically documented is the American multimillionaire J.D. Rockefeller. Catherine Coulter in her book Portraits of Homeopathic Remedies writes about him. At the beginning of this century the oil magnate caused the near extinction of blossoming homeopathy in the United States through his extensive investments into the pharmaceutical industry and also by founding the Rockefeller Medical Institute, which gave scientific blessing to his financial interests, and at the same time put financial and ideological pressure onto the medical societies, with the result that homeopathic practitioners were being excluded. Rockefeller was largely responsible for the fact that the highly successful homeopathic movement in the USA had almost disappeared within twenty years, and did not re-establish itself until the 1960's. This man lived to the ripe old age of ninety eight, undoubtedly thanks to the fact that till the end of his life he allowed himself to be homeopatically treated!!!

Homeopathy in its consequences does not suit the current economical interests. It uses minute quantities of inexpensive remedies and offers complex treatment, aimed at sustenance of health and long termed independence from the practitioner. If homeopathy were the generally accepted way of treatment, there would be no need for the massive hospitals, for the huge investments into research, nor the industry manufacturing artificial valves and chemical drugs. There would perhaps only be more practitioners and homeopathic healers, instead of the large crowd of suppliers, middle men, administrators and other personnel. Homeopaths would not be here only to examine and to prescribe remedies. Part of their role is to understand the individual patient, which is a kind of psychotherapy or spiritual advice. However - the dance of billions in the health industry would undoubtedly be subdued. Very suitable for homeopathy would be the system of remunerating practitioners that is currently being officially considered in our country, under which practitioners would not be paid accordingly to the number of visits (which encourages them to see the patient as often as possible), but in accordance to the number of patients who are voluntarily registered with a particular practitioner, regardless of how often they come to see him. Such an alternative system would stimulate the practitioner to make his flock healthy as soon as possible, independent of treatment - for this the holistic homeopathy is particularly suitable. This system would be advantageous not only for the patients, but also for the insurance companies and naturally for the homeopathic practitioners.

Treatment and War

The might of allopathy grows in times of war. It is often said that the medical science leaps forward during war. Naturally, this means the allopathic science. Its chief aim is to send the wounded back to the field. The allopathic "repair shop", with its chemistry, tubes, pumps, knives, drills and spare parts is eminently suited to the military notion of man as an obedient machine, without a free will, with no rights to individuality. Suppression of the symptoms is analogical to the suppression of the individual needs of people. The image of man as a machine is always pleasing to the military politicians and generals, who also do not have to think about the suffering they are causing. A machine could be either repaired or it may be destroyed, as wished. Pondering about individual prescriptions, about knowing the patient's mind, about dynamis, the human nonmaterial centre, is not on, in the turmoil of war.

Homeopathy has suffered a great deal at the time of the two world wars. In the United States it was defunct during the war and in its aftermath. Presently a substantial part of the world is going through a lengthy period of peace. This is one of the reasons why homeopathy is gaining strength, why it is now the most important branch of the so called alternative medicine.

The Conflict and the Way out of it

In the seventies a charted plane flew out of London, with about eighteen prominent British homeopathic practitioners, going to an international congress. Soon after take off it crashed. There were no survivors. The death of a dozen and a half of most eminent experts was a heavy blow to English homeopathy, from which it took a long time to recover. An unfortunate accident? In any case, English homeopaths now never fly together, in one plane, as one British practitioner, a member of the Board of the London Homeopathic Faculty, has confided to me.

In 1994 a book was published called The Dirty Medicine, by Martin Walker. On 729 pages it documents the practices of allopathic institutions and pharmaceutical industry in their fight against alternative medicine, from misinformation, sabotages, campaigns aimed to discredit, even to murders.

But - who are these allopaths? Mostly very honest people. People like any one of us. People, who suffer from allopathy just as much as the others. Suffering from allergies, AIDS, chronic colds, cancer, vaccinosis, their children have eczema and diabetes and their wives suffer from discharges ... they are people who have tried out their drugs and their methods, and who in their significant numbers no longer have any trust in them. They are people who increasingly believe in homeopathy. And many are also willing to do something about it, unlike the decrepit oil magnate. So, in my opinion, there should be no worry about the future. Hahnemann, Kent, in fact all contemporary homeopathic practitioners, they too begun as allopaths. In time they found out which system is the better one. And if our homeopathic practitioners in their surgeries still use allopathy, it is often only because the current system of health care does not make it possible for them to become fully committed to homeopathic treatment.

[Next Chapter] [Table of Contents]

© Jiri Cehovsky, 1994
Translation © Voyen Koreis, 1997

home

poslední aktualizace: 30.08.2006