This book review is reprinted with the permission of the National Center for Homeopathy
801 North Fairfax Street, Suite 306
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 548-7790, Fax (703) 548-7792
E-mail address: nch@igc.apc.org (Internet and e-mail).

Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science
by Paolo Bellavite, MD, and Andrea Signorini, MD
North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 1995,
335 pages, $25
Reviewed by Harris L. Coulter, PhD

My writings have tried to demonstrate that medical thought is cyclical, with old ideas continually reappearing dressed up in the scientific language of the day, in function of the conflict and interplay between the Empirical and Rationalist therapeutic philosophies. Hence it is not surprising, even though regrettable, that Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science should revive the late nineteenth-century dispute which effectively destroyed the homeopathic movement in England and the United States for close to 100 years.

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century the so-called low- potency, meaning allopathizing, trend in homeopathy emerged under the leadership of the Englishman, Richard Hughes, in conflict with the high-potency trend exemplified by the American, James Tyler Kent. So when, in the Foreword to the book under review we find Kent associated with Swedenborg (which has become obligatory in some quarters, almost a mantra) together with a commendatory reference to Hughes' attempt to reconcile homeopathy with contemporary pathophysiological concepts, we have a sense of deja vu all over again (to quote the American philosopher, Yogi Berra).

By the time Hughes appeared on the scene this conflict had actually existed for some decades-since 1840 according to Constantine Hering-but it was endowed with enhanced respectability by Hughes' professional and social position. While presented as a scientific issue, the dispute was (and is today) rooted in the desire of some homeopathic physicians to be accepted by the medical profession rather than functioning on the margin (as they see it).

The theme of this book is given on page 1: the progress of biomedical research, on the one hand, and the evolution of homeopathy, on the other, are leading to an increasing degree of convergence of the two systems, which are usually regarded as alternatives.

My point is that some homeopaths understand that their discipline is the polar opposite of allopathy and want nothing to do with convergence, while others want convergence on social, economic, or commercial grounds and are willing to manipulate the homeopathic ideas and principles to achieve it. While convergence of the allopathic and homeopathic professions is presented in this book as the inexorable progression of science (as it was by Hughes himself a century ago), that is putting the cart before the horse. If the two professions converge, a way will perforce be found to ensure convergence of their doctrines-meaning inexorably the allopathizing of homeopathy.

Unfortunately, the low-potency group has always been considerably larger than the high-potency one because classical homeopathy is more difficult and time-consuming than the other kind. As Bellavite and Signorini correctly note, "the activity of the homeopathic practitioner proves highly demanding on account of the continual changes in the clinical picture as a result of the developing course of the disease and the effect of drugs. For this reason, homeopathy, however plausible and useful it may seem [??] in theoretical terms, is hard to apply in practice..." (p. 214)

This is not to say that Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science is totally devoid of value. The first four chapters present a comprehensive and generally accurate account of the present state of homeopathy and homeopathic research in the world. But Chapter 5 and the following exemplify the confusion which results when homeopathy is reinterpreted in allopathic categories. The attempt to substitute chaos theory for the subtle and precise Hahnemannian symptom analysis seems-to this observer-simply ludicrous.

One is stupefied, moreover, by the authors' statement: "the need to resort to the analysis of symptoms is related essentially to ignorance of the ultimate pathophysiological mechanisms involved in disease....According ... to the reasoning behind the models outlined here, it is to be assumed that, if the mechanism or mechanisms of the disease were known, to achieve effective regulatory intervention it would not be necessary-indeed, it would not be enough-to resort to analysis of the symptoms, inasmuch as a knowledge of the relevant biochemical, laboratory, molecular, and cellular parameters and of their causes is more scientifically reliable and precise." (p. 215)

This sentence betrays such misunderstanding of the most elementary homeopathic principles as to vitiate the whole book. In Hughes' days the low-potency trend could justify its half- hearted homeopathy by the sheer dog-work involved in manipulating the literature before the advent of Kent's Repertory. But today, when the Repertory is in use by thousands and thousands of practitioners, and especially when its computerization has made possible a new level of diagnostic complexity, the attempt to reduce homeopathy to pathophysiology is nothing less than pernicious.

One might ask why the parties in question cannot just recognize their profound differences of approach, and agree to go their separate ways. Why this incessant desire to fuse the two systems, to make them converge, to take the best from each and synthesize them, etc. etc., ad auseam? The answer is, of course, as in most things medical, that these are political and economic issues, questions of sovereignty Sovereignty is indivisible, and the allopaths will never willingly relinquish their sovereignty over medical practice in all its aspects. For the allopathic majority to recognize the equal standing of homeopathy would be like Lincoln recognizing the Confederacy or Yeltsin recognizing the Chechens.

Hence they call for fusion, for convergence, for bringing homeopathy into the mainstream. But when one percent of the profession (or five, or ten percent) fuses with the remainder, we know who will be doing the fusing and who will be fused. The result will be the denaturing of homeopathy and its restructuring along allopathic lines, as in the book by Bellavite and Signorini. It should be read by us all, so we will know just what is in store for those who succumb to the blandishments of chaos theory.

HOMEOPATHY TODAY