Why does Homeopathy (sometimes) fail?
Homeopathy cannot fail! This is contrary to the universal principle/law of Similars (likes cures likes, where “likes” means “similars”). The “simillimum” will always generate a response from the organism; whether this response leads to a patient cure is determined by the patient’s own destiny. (The philosophy of the patient’s destiny, ie. the soul’s experience, is beyond the scope of this essay). Sometimes a particular individual is just meant to die (transition to the next dimension); they are incurable in this dimensional realm. Disease is what limits the individual’s freedom (on all levels: mental, emotional, spiritual, physical, etc.), to be who they are meant to be. We must remember though that we are experiencing the human material form, and we must do things within our capabilities to play out our human song (a concept derived from Rajan Sankaran’s Sensation method) at full volume. Healers/practitioners play a role in helping the human song to play out loud in those patients’ lives. This is all that matters, really…
The homeopathic practitioner can certainly fail (…as to err is human…), by either selecting the incorrect remedy or by improper case management, even with the simillimum (or both). The patient also has to have a willingness to be cured (a will to live). It is pointless if the patient is “bluffing” or just playing a game. Healing originates from within (ie. the body’s own immune system) but the patient must allow or want this to happen. Some people prefer to live with a “symptom complex” in order to attract attention and sympathy that they deeply crave, or the illness might relinquish them from responsibility. A shallow-taken case that only focusses on local physical pathologies will only palliate or suppress based on local symptoms. A true constitutional case addresses the “core delusions” and perceptions (the “other” song) of the patient. This is where and when true healing begins. The practitioner must be careful though not to psycho-analyze the patient or to jump to conclusions.
Prognosis and the vitality of the patient go hand in hand. If the vitality (vital force) of the patient is good, it will activate the body’s own immune system for self-healing (as universally designed). This is a good prognosis. A good vitality is advantageous, but a weak vitality might only lead to palliation with low potencies. It does not mean though that the practitioner has to “change” the patient; in other words to change positive constitutional characteristics of that person to the opposite of what they are showing. Same goes for food likes/dislikes, etc. Just because someone dislikes apples, doesn’t mean that we have to change them to suddenly start liking apples…
It is important to take into account the fundamental cause(s) of a disease, as discussed by Hahnemann in Aphorism §5. These causes are amongst other: body constitution, mental and emotional character, occupation, lifestyle and habits, civic and domestic relationships, age, sexual function, etc. There are certainly more perceived factors to take into account in our modern times, like real and perceived stress (work and home), etc. Together with these causative factors, are other antidoting factors (the commonly known factors being coffee and camphor, or even suppression by prescription medications) and other obstacles to cure (§77). The patient must be made aware of these factors in order to give the remedy the best possible chance to affect a cure.
How can we best select an effective remedy? More importantly: how can we select the simillimum? I think the first step to success is for the practitioner to be totally impartial and unbiased towards the patient (and themselves) during the case-taking and the case analysis. To be an unprejudiced observer! The subsequent steps are to find out what is to be cured in the patient. This does not necessarily mean the physical symptoms, but what within the patient needs to be cured. Remember, it is the patient (who has the symptoms) that needs to be cured. The symptoms are our guide. It is important to know what is curative in remedies. In other words, what are the proving symptoms of remedies (compiled into our Materia Medicas). Once proving symptoms are matched to patient symptoms and the case is managed effectively, recovery must result, as stated in Aphorism §3 of the Organon.
“…In this way, recovery must result…
…If the physician has this insight, discernment, knowledge and awareness
then he understands how to act expediently and thoroughly, and he is a genuine practitioner of the medical art…”
Hahnemann did not write the Organon only for medical practitioners, he prescribed the book itself to patients to read. The Organon is itself a remedy of the highest potency, acting dynamically in relation to each reader, and acting differently with each reading. Maybe all practitioners should endeavor to provide a copy of the Organon, together with the remedy, to each patient. This completes the simillimum prescription, and hopefully a life-long cure.
- The Organon of the Medical Art, Samuel Hahnemann (Wenda Brewster O’Reilly translation)