Dear Editors,
On June 5, I handed in with great disappointment my resignation as a board member of the HANP. My raison d’être on the board was to support Hahnemann’s homeopathy. With the irrevocable resignations of Peter Wright and Barbara Osawa as editors of Simillimum and the determination of others to have an eclectic journal, my efforts were no longer required in this institution. Peter and Barbara did an outstanding job in elevating the standards of Simillimum to a true Hahnemannian journal. Never before had I been so proud of our professional journal. Due to unceasing harassment from a few diplomates, which constantly obliged our editors to defend the high standards needed to have a journal truly representing the mission of the HANP, our talented but exhausted editors have thrown in their towels. Is it at all pertinent to remind ourselves in these contentious times that the HANP was founded fifteen years ago with its main purpose of establishing and maintaining the highest standards in Hahnemann’s homeopathy?
The current position of many diplomates is: let’s remove from the HANP constitution the words “Hahnemann” and “Organon,” or “if Hahnemann was alive today, he would agree on our innovations” or “if Hahnemann was alive today, he would be writing the 50th edition of the Organon,” or that “as Mendeleev developed his periodic table after Hahnemann’s death I am sure that Hahnemann would have used it as an aid in prescribing had he known about it.” Homeopaths from Hahnemann on have had the unpleasant duty of constantly defending homeopathy against eclecticism, or the practice of selecting what seems best or most fruitful from several sets of ideas, beliefs or theories. Homeopathy has nothing to do with eclecticism. Homeopathy is a science with clearly defined, established and tried principles. For anyone familiar with the history of homeopathy, these principles have been so abundantly verified in practice that no discussion is ever needed to doubt their validity. The extraordinary track record of pure homeopathy forms an established and indisputable set of facts. History teaches that the better these principles are understood and applied, the more satisfying the clinical results. Therefore, the discussion among true Hahnemannians is never about what needs to be fixed or innovated in homeopathy but how to apply these principles better.
Unfortunately for homeopathy and the sick ones, history with all its erring is repeating itself. Institutions initially founded in support of Hahnemann’s homeopathy were eventually taken over by eclectics. Hahnemann’s homeopathy will survive, but meanwhile, another generation of practitioners and students and their poor patients requesting the best of homeopathy will have to pay the price of confusion and failure again.
Yours truly,
André Saine, ND
PS: I am attaching extracts of a letter from a patient who had read the recent articles about the current debate of homeopathy versus speculative medicine:
——–
Dear Dr. Saine
… As a patient of homeopathy, I too have suffered at the hands of so-called homeopaths in the past. This is not a trivial matter as the needless suffering of our fellow human beings under the care of those who should know better is unconscionable. The allopaths don’t know any better; they don’t know what they don’t know.
The homeopaths should know better, but it becomes a case of the blind leading the blind. Mediocrity is, unfortunately, part of the human disease. There can be no compromise with precision. Having been a master mechanic, I know that when an engineer specifies that the clearance between a piston wrist pin and piston must be .0005-.0015 inches, this absolutely must be adhered to, or the engine will fail.
…I’ve seen a good friend of mine suffer under the tutelage of pseudo-homeopathic instruction, which she paid many of her hard-earned dollars for only to become a mediocre prescriber. Fortunately, she has since seen the light… As a result of [finally discovering Hahnemann’s homeopathy], her prescribing has become much more precise, and her patients benefit with relief of unnecessary suffering…
Sincerely,
E. D.
