Origins
Homeopathy emerged as a treatment method in the early 19th century. Its founder was the German physician, chemist and translator Samuel Hahnemann. After studying medicine and practising briefly, Hahnemann came to believe that the treatments of his day did not produce lasting recovery, but merely eased symptoms and, in some cases, even worsened them. Being a man of high moral principles, he decided to leave medical practice and devote himself to translation. While translating medical books, he realised he had encountered an unusual principle already known to ancient physicians, Hippocrates and the notable physician of the later Middle Ages, Paracelsus.
Hahnemann devoted the rest of his life to investigating this principle further, developing and systematising his knowledge. He called it the law of similars. He named the treatment method built around this law homeopathy. The term derives from the Greek words homeo (same) and pathos (suffering).
The law of similars
In homeopathic thinking, the principle of similarity rests on the idea that a substance capable of producing certain symptoms in a healthy person can treat those symptoms in someone who is ill. In homeopathic practice, the principle is explained as follows: arsenic poisoning causes severe vomiting and diarrhoea, excessive salivation and similar symptoms. Food poisoning, for example from eating spoiled meat, may present very similarly. This is why Arsenicum album, a homeopathic remedy prepared from arsenic, is a remedy homeopaths consider for diarrhoea and vomiting.
As an example of the opposite principle, I refer to an approach in conventional medicine. Someone with constipation, for example, is given a medicine with a laxative effect. Samuel Hahnemann came to believe that the law of similars was considerably more effective in treatment. This is my account of his view of treatment.
Homeopathy during epidemics
Editorial note: The following historical overview and figures come from the original author's article, which does not provide sources for them. They do not constitute a verified comparison of treatment effectiveness.
Hahnemann needed to test his theory, and life offered him an excellent opportunity. In 1813, a typhus epidemic raged in Leipzig. Hahnemann treated 180 cases with homeopathy, and his success bordered on the miraculous. Only one of his patients died. His reputation spread throughout Europe. Specialist journals began appearing, and dedicated homeopathic hospitals opened in Leipzig, Munich and Vienna.
In 1831, Hahnemann again had an opportunity to test his theories on a large scale as cholera spread across Europe. In Raab, Hungary, 154 patients received homeopathic treatment and only 6 died, while mortality among patients of conventional physicians was 59 per cent. At its peak in America in 1860–1880, there were 56 homeopathic hospitals, 13 psychiatric institutions, 9 homeopathic children's hospitals and 15 sanatoriums staffed by trained homeopaths.
Subsequent medical discoveries strengthened the position of orthodox physicians. The development of medicine went hand in hand with the growth of the pharmaceutical industry, an effective and powerful force supporting conventional medicine's approach. Economic and political factors increasingly influenced medicine. The American Medical Association decided to close many homeopathic schools and mounted a major campaign against homeopathy. Sadly, this tension between conventional medicine and homeopathy continues to this day.
Why does homeopathy sometimes not work?
Many readers have surely wondered how the historical accounts of homeopathy for cholera or typhus fit with their own experience of it not helping. Many people have gone to a pharmacy with a cold, cough or flu, asked for a homeopathic remedy for the specific problem and found that it did not work. They then dismissed homeopathy as nonsense and no longer believe in it.
In my homeopathic practice, I explain this question through another principle: individualisation. This principle says that success in homeopathy requires us to consider the person as a whole rather than focus on a single symptom. At its core is the idea that symptoms, illnesses and pain do not exist in isolation, but reflect how the whole person deals with stress. Hahnemann already considered mental state the most important factor in identifying the right homeopathic remedy.
We cannot go to a pharmacy, ask for a homeopathic remedy for flu or a cold and, on that information alone, expect the pharmacist to sell us a remedy that will truly help. Knowing that you have chronic rhinitis or migraine is not enough for a homeopath. The distinctive features of the condition matter. One person with chronic rhinitis has discharge from the left nostril, another from the right; one is worse in the morning, another in the evening. Without knowing these factors, the homeopath is unlikely to find an appropriate remedy.
Within this framework, I place great importance on the individual selection of a remedy. I do not expect an inappropriately chosen remedy to help. In my original text, I also describe the possibility of rapid improvement in acute difficulties and a longer course in chronic problems. This is not a promise that a homeopathic remedy will help everyone or that a particular illness will subside within a set period.
The homeopath's task is to identify the client's combination of symptoms and determine which of the approximately 6000 homeopathic remedies mentioned in the original text corresponds to that combination. Even a single mistake in case-taking often leads to the wrong remedy being chosen. The homeopath must therefore be very precise.
A case from practice
One of my clients suffered from recurrent cold sores on her lips. This had continued for several months, and she could not get rid of them. In homeopathy, approximately 150 remedies are considered for herpes. I needed to select the right one. I therefore asked about the life circumstances preceding its onset. She told me she was going through a very unpleasant period at work, where her colleagues were bullying her. Her response to this bullying was internal, unexpressed anger.
Based on that information, I recommended the homeopathic remedy Colocynthis. In this case, after recommending the remedy, I recorded that the cold sores quickly disappeared and did not return.
With a superficial use of homeopathy, we would probably have recommended Rhus toxicodendron or Natrium muriaticum, the two best-known homeopathic remedies for herpes. In my assessment, however, her state of mind did not match the pictures of Natrium muriaticum or Rhus toxicodendron, so I did not consider them appropriate choices. Such an individual approach is necessary with every client if we are to succeed in homeopathy.
Homeopathy as an addition to care
In my practice, I see homeopathy as a possible source of help with chronic difficulties too. It should not replace conventional medicine, which also has an irreplaceable role, but it can complement it. I regard the experiences I describe as small miracles of my practice. They are not a promise of lasting recovery for everyone. As with any tool, I believe it is necessary to learn to use homeopathy properly.