What do you think?
Rate this book
Homeopathy: An Introduction for Skeptics and Beginners
This book analyzes homeopathy from historical, philosophical, scientific, and cultural perspectives. It allows the reader to understand what homeopathy is, its historical origins and emergence, and the main issues affecting its future. Homeopathy proposes an inexpensive, accessible mode of healing.
162 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1994
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 23, 2024
AN ADVOCACY AND DEFENSE OF HOMEOPATHY
Author Richard Grossinger wrote in the ‘Author’s Note’ of this 1993 book, “[This book] appeared in shorter and considerably less detailed version within my book ‘Planet Medicine: From Stone Age Shamanism to Post-Industrial Healing’ (… originally published in 1980)… At present I am revising and updating ‘Planet Medicine’ in its entirety. The publication of [this book] completes the initial stage… A totally rewritten version of the rest of the book will appeared in 1994, and a sequel sometime thereafter… In [this book] I have tried to present, both historically and in the present, the form and context of a strange and controversial medicine. To that end I have quoted extensively from teo authors whose viewpoints and styles differ sharply from mine… I am aware of the awkwardness of this manner of presentation, but I finally chose thoroughness of text over the benefits of a single-voiced narrative. For the permission to use portions from their writings, I gratefully acknowledge James Gorman and Dana Ullman.”
He explains in the first chapter, “Homeopathy was developed by the brilliant but eccentric German Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843)… and quickly became a dominant medical practice in much of the Western world until the early twentieth century. Its ascent was greatest in North America, cresting during the decade from 1880 to 1980; its decline was most swift and thorough there, too… as laboratory science took over medicine, homeopathy ran into its own insurmountable internal contradictions and ultimately lost its identity as a single consistent system. The policies of the American Medical Association and Abraham Flexner’s ‘Report on Medical Education in the United States and Canade’ (1910) finally undermined homeopathy’s professional standing, and it was isolated as a nonscientific medicine. The old practitioners died in dishonor, and until the 1i70s, hardly any young recruits took their places.” (Pg. 1)
He continues, “Homeopathy is … a continuation of the empirical tradition of Western medicine… its claims have been based more on results than on any proven mode of treatment… Homeopathy contains elements of Vitalism, hermeticism, and early pharmacology, all conceived simultaneously as part of one dynamic… Homeopathy is based theoretically on the responsiveness of the defense mechanism rather than the intercession of the physician… it is holistic and dynamic in the same way that Navaho and Australian Aboriginal medicine are… Homeopathy is neither the first not the last attempt to develop a scientific Vitalist medicine… it persists as a clinical occult discipline through the entire period before the rebirth of paraphysical studies.” (Pg. 2-3)
He acknowledges, “Clinical homeopathy cannot be verified even in the twentieth century’s high-tech laboratory, which means, pessimistically, that scientific testing has already disproved ALL homeopathic claims. Many homeopaths would deny this, and they cite an array of experiments in the chemistry of enzymes, colloids, trace elements, and hormones. Some of this evidence is interesting and provocative, but it comes down to isolated events, without controlled retesting and certainly without orientation to the rest of science, nor does any of it test the exact claims of homeopathic microdilution. If we were to side with orthodoxy here… we would be left still with two significant events: one, the startling and repeated success of hundreds of thousands of homeopathic physicians in all parts of the world for more than a century or practice, and two, a homeopathic attack on the methods and goals of mainstream medicine that is homeopathic in perspective but does not require the proof of homeopathic principles for its own validity.” (Pg. 4-5)
He continues, “Historically. Prescribing a remedy with effects like those of the disease is known as the ‘Law of Similars.’ A doctor must choose both the right remedy and the moment of truth; otherwise the ‘cure’ will not inspire or amplify coction (the body’s natural conversion by heat). He must also distinguish between primary disease… and secondary disease, which is really a sign of the capitulation of the patient’s healing powers---often from the wrong treatment.” (Pg. 6)
He goes on, “By basing homeopathy solely on the Law of Similars, Hahnemann formalized the distinction between a medicine that respects and encourages symptoms and all other medicines. He called the first, of course, ‘homeopathy’ … and the second ‘allopathy’ … He meant to include in allopathy the medicine based on the supposed Law of Contraries, plus any other treatments that were not based on responding to symptomology with similar-acting medicine.” (Pg. 7)
He recounts, “Although homeopathy did succumb to a last-ditch, no-holds-barred attack by the American Medical Association backed by the pharmaceutical companies, its inherent position was untenable anyway and it was splitting from within. Many homeopathic physicians viewed themselves simply as doctors and came not even to distinguish between and allopathy, adopting new procedures and drugs as they appeared on the market and generally participating in technological progress. They held an idea of universal medicine without a corresponding commitment to homeopathy as the only candidate, so perhaps they strayed without any certainty as to what pure homeopathy was and what was violation. Even Hahnemann’s writings were not decisive on major issues, and in any case, progressive health care was a more attractive paradigm to most physicians. All systems in fact dissolved into the momentum of this revolutionary world-view fueled by technology.” (Pg. 9)
He states, “There are… strong correspondences between Paracelsus’ alchemy and Hahnemann’s homeopathy: substances that normally have no effect on the body… in their crude state, take on medicinal power when extracted and potentized into their ‘Quintessence.’ Thus, both alchemists and homeopaths liberate the curative aspects of common and simple substances; both are involved in the magical transmutation of matter into energy. Additionally, since the modality of alchemical medicine is spiritual, it is often the case that one drop is as good as a hundred drops, half a drop or even a fraction or a drop may be powerful enough. In some conditions, just the smell may be sufficient, for the whole of the Quintessence of the medicine works of the vital force of the organism. Homeopathy likewise produces medicines that become active on the basis of a single archetypal message rather than a commodity of digestible substance.” (Pg. 23-24)
He observes, “The method of bring on symptoms in a healthy person by giving a medicine is known as proving… It is a procedure for discovering new remedies and is considered beneficial in an immune-stimulating way to people who do it.” (Pg. 51)
He notes, “Homeopathic medicines are ‘spiritual’ medicine. Despite their elaborate chemical preparation by an overt laboratory procedure, they are not drugs… The final product, the actual pill, is such a high dilution of the original substance that nothing is left of it; in some cases, an extremely tiny amount, not known to have any biomechanical effectiveness remains incidentally.” (Pg. 62)
He admits, “It is wrong to assume that Hahnemann fully adopted homeopathy in 1796 and never looked back. He was tentative in his reliance on the new insight; for instance, he mentions, in one case of tapeworm, attempting more than sixteen allopathic medicines before, in desperation, administering white hellebore for its potential to cause colic like the patient’s. The result was such a violent colic that the person almost died, but afterward improved rapidly and permanently. From this Hahnemann was reminded not only of the power of Similars but that the artificial disease can be as dangerous as the original one.” (Pg. 91-92)
He concludes, “It is sufficient for us to note that medicine is presently at a crossroads in the United States. The homeopathic revival is part of a cultural rebellion against the authoritarianism and sterility of the ‘M.D.’ cult of the last generation. A cohesive, self-consistent system has not yet emerged… What is clear is that, from the beginning, homeopathy has been a process working toward something extraordinarily important. That process will press on through the different forms and versions until that something is manifested. In a sense, the mere fact of inexpensive and effective cure for whatever reason, should keep us satisfied till then.” (Pg. 136)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying homeopathy.
Author Richard Grossinger wrote in the ‘Author’s Note’ of this 1993 book, “[This book] appeared in shorter and considerably less detailed version within my book ‘Planet Medicine: From Stone Age Shamanism to Post-Industrial Healing’ (… originally published in 1980)… At present I am revising and updating ‘Planet Medicine’ in its entirety. The publication of [this book] completes the initial stage… A totally rewritten version of the rest of the book will appeared in 1994, and a sequel sometime thereafter… In [this book] I have tried to present, both historically and in the present, the form and context of a strange and controversial medicine. To that end I have quoted extensively from teo authors whose viewpoints and styles differ sharply from mine… I am aware of the awkwardness of this manner of presentation, but I finally chose thoroughness of text over the benefits of a single-voiced narrative. For the permission to use portions from their writings, I gratefully acknowledge James Gorman and Dana Ullman.”
He explains in the first chapter, “Homeopathy was developed by the brilliant but eccentric German Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843)… and quickly became a dominant medical practice in much of the Western world until the early twentieth century. Its ascent was greatest in North America, cresting during the decade from 1880 to 1980; its decline was most swift and thorough there, too… as laboratory science took over medicine, homeopathy ran into its own insurmountable internal contradictions and ultimately lost its identity as a single consistent system. The policies of the American Medical Association and Abraham Flexner’s ‘Report on Medical Education in the United States and Canade’ (1910) finally undermined homeopathy’s professional standing, and it was isolated as a nonscientific medicine. The old practitioners died in dishonor, and until the 1i70s, hardly any young recruits took their places.” (Pg. 1)
He continues, “Homeopathy is … a continuation of the empirical tradition of Western medicine… its claims have been based more on results than on any proven mode of treatment… Homeopathy contains elements of Vitalism, hermeticism, and early pharmacology, all conceived simultaneously as part of one dynamic… Homeopathy is based theoretically on the responsiveness of the defense mechanism rather than the intercession of the physician… it is holistic and dynamic in the same way that Navaho and Australian Aboriginal medicine are… Homeopathy is neither the first not the last attempt to develop a scientific Vitalist medicine… it persists as a clinical occult discipline through the entire period before the rebirth of paraphysical studies.” (Pg. 2-3)
He acknowledges, “Clinical homeopathy cannot be verified even in the twentieth century’s high-tech laboratory, which means, pessimistically, that scientific testing has already disproved ALL homeopathic claims. Many homeopaths would deny this, and they cite an array of experiments in the chemistry of enzymes, colloids, trace elements, and hormones. Some of this evidence is interesting and provocative, but it comes down to isolated events, without controlled retesting and certainly without orientation to the rest of science, nor does any of it test the exact claims of homeopathic microdilution. If we were to side with orthodoxy here… we would be left still with two significant events: one, the startling and repeated success of hundreds of thousands of homeopathic physicians in all parts of the world for more than a century or practice, and two, a homeopathic attack on the methods and goals of mainstream medicine that is homeopathic in perspective but does not require the proof of homeopathic principles for its own validity.” (Pg. 4-5)
He continues, “Historically. Prescribing a remedy with effects like those of the disease is known as the ‘Law of Similars.’ A doctor must choose both the right remedy and the moment of truth; otherwise the ‘cure’ will not inspire or amplify coction (the body’s natural conversion by heat). He must also distinguish between primary disease… and secondary disease, which is really a sign of the capitulation of the patient’s healing powers---often from the wrong treatment.” (Pg. 6)
He goes on, “By basing homeopathy solely on the Law of Similars, Hahnemann formalized the distinction between a medicine that respects and encourages symptoms and all other medicines. He called the first, of course, ‘homeopathy’ … and the second ‘allopathy’ … He meant to include in allopathy the medicine based on the supposed Law of Contraries, plus any other treatments that were not based on responding to symptomology with similar-acting medicine.” (Pg. 7)
He recounts, “Although homeopathy did succumb to a last-ditch, no-holds-barred attack by the American Medical Association backed by the pharmaceutical companies, its inherent position was untenable anyway and it was splitting from within. Many homeopathic physicians viewed themselves simply as doctors and came not even to distinguish between and allopathy, adopting new procedures and drugs as they appeared on the market and generally participating in technological progress. They held an idea of universal medicine without a corresponding commitment to homeopathy as the only candidate, so perhaps they strayed without any certainty as to what pure homeopathy was and what was violation. Even Hahnemann’s writings were not decisive on major issues, and in any case, progressive health care was a more attractive paradigm to most physicians. All systems in fact dissolved into the momentum of this revolutionary world-view fueled by technology.” (Pg. 9)
He states, “There are… strong correspondences between Paracelsus’ alchemy and Hahnemann’s homeopathy: substances that normally have no effect on the body… in their crude state, take on medicinal power when extracted and potentized into their ‘Quintessence.’ Thus, both alchemists and homeopaths liberate the curative aspects of common and simple substances; both are involved in the magical transmutation of matter into energy. Additionally, since the modality of alchemical medicine is spiritual, it is often the case that one drop is as good as a hundred drops, half a drop or even a fraction or a drop may be powerful enough. In some conditions, just the smell may be sufficient, for the whole of the Quintessence of the medicine works of the vital force of the organism. Homeopathy likewise produces medicines that become active on the basis of a single archetypal message rather than a commodity of digestible substance.” (Pg. 23-24)
He observes, “The method of bring on symptoms in a healthy person by giving a medicine is known as proving… It is a procedure for discovering new remedies and is considered beneficial in an immune-stimulating way to people who do it.” (Pg. 51)
He notes, “Homeopathic medicines are ‘spiritual’ medicine. Despite their elaborate chemical preparation by an overt laboratory procedure, they are not drugs… The final product, the actual pill, is such a high dilution of the original substance that nothing is left of it; in some cases, an extremely tiny amount, not known to have any biomechanical effectiveness remains incidentally.” (Pg. 62)
He admits, “It is wrong to assume that Hahnemann fully adopted homeopathy in 1796 and never looked back. He was tentative in his reliance on the new insight; for instance, he mentions, in one case of tapeworm, attempting more than sixteen allopathic medicines before, in desperation, administering white hellebore for its potential to cause colic like the patient’s. The result was such a violent colic that the person almost died, but afterward improved rapidly and permanently. From this Hahnemann was reminded not only of the power of Similars but that the artificial disease can be as dangerous as the original one.” (Pg. 91-92)
He concludes, “It is sufficient for us to note that medicine is presently at a crossroads in the United States. The homeopathic revival is part of a cultural rebellion against the authoritarianism and sterility of the ‘M.D.’ cult of the last generation. A cohesive, self-consistent system has not yet emerged… What is clear is that, from the beginning, homeopathy has been a process working toward something extraordinarily important. That process will press on through the different forms and versions until that something is manifested. In a sense, the mere fact of inexpensive and effective cure for whatever reason, should keep us satisfied till then.” (Pg. 136)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying homeopathy.
September 21, 2011
I always thought that homeopathy would be complicated and it is, but with simplicity. This is a wonderful introduction to a very formative and delicate art. A very good place for everyone to start on the journey to understand health and disease and these natural remedies – now I can actually understand what my homoeopathist has been telling me for 10 years.
November 14, 2017
I wouldn't call this an introcdtion for beginners -- it was far more in-depth than an introduction for beginners. Having said that, there was some interesting information within.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews