Homeopathy – Part 7

By: Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon; ©2004
Homeopathy, is antagonist toward science. The authors contend that, by their very natures, homeopathy, especially classical homeopathy, and scientific medicine must remain antagonists because their view of the cause of disease and the cure for disease are so radically different and opposite from one another.


Antagonist Attitude Toward Science

The previous comparison of the premises of homeopathy and modern medical practice reveal why it has so consistently opposed scientific medicine from its inception. By their very natures, homeopathy, especially classical homeopathy, and scientific medicine must remain antagonists because their view of the cause of disease and the cure for disease are so radically different and opposite from one another.

The founder of homeopathy itself, Samuel Hahnemann, felt that non-homeo­pathic medicine was “pernicious” because it considers disease as residing in the physical frame, thereby preventing real cure.[1] Medical doctors are simply de­luded, indeed they are fools, if they think they can discover the cause of disease; when they claim such a discovery, it is only their vain imaginings.[2]

This is why James Tyler Kent, M.D., perhaps the greatest leader in homeopa­thy at the turn of the century, believed that modern physicians cannot properly treat the ill—because they cannot even determine what real sickness is to begin with.[3]

For Dr. Kent and many other classical and modern homeopaths, physicians who think of curing physical disease are confused at best: “To think of remedies for cancer is confusion, but to think of remedies for the patient who appears to have cancer is orderly…. Cancer is a result of disorder [in the vital force], which disorder must be turned into order and must be healed.”[4] He emphasized “no [physical] organ can make the body sick” and “neither can any disease cause be found with the microscope.”[5] He further emphasized: “All diseases known to man are … an invisible something that cannot be detected by the chemist or the microscopist, and will never be detected in the natural world. Disease… is not capable of investigation by the natural senses…. Disease causes are invisible.”[6] Thus, he taught that non-homeopathic beliefs and treatments had accomplished nothing more than “the establishment of confusion” in medicine; that its proce­dures were a “farce” and that it was full of folly and even insanity.[7] Dr. Kent con­cluded,

He who considers disease results to be the disease itself, and expects to do away with these as disease, is insane. It is an insanity in medicine…. The bacteria are results of disease. In the course of time we will be able to show perfectly that the microscopical little fellows are not the disease cause, but that they come after… that they are perfectly harmless in every respect.[8]

But bacteria and viruses are not “perfectly harmless in every respect”; they continue to destroy many thousands of lives each year. Is the AIDS virus “harm­less in every respect?” Anyone who thinks so is deluded. But Hahnemann, Tyler, and other homeopaths rejected and continue to reject the very prescription drugs that may kill deadly bacteria and viruses and save patient lives. For example, Kent believed that whenever a prescription drug was given “let it be clearly un­derstood that a cure of this patient is abandoned.”[9] Traditional homeopaths think the prescriptions given are harmful and evil because people who use them will only become sicker and sicker at the mental or spiritual level, even if they are cured at the physical level.[10] Statements like these indicate why classical home­opathy and medicine must remain forever hostile.[11]

But matters deteriorate even further. Classical homeopathy believes that not only are scientifically oriented physicians ultimately purveyors of illness and death; not only do they destroy their patients’ health; but, as we will shortly see, their malpractice contributes significantly to the social problems of the entire planet!

Nevertheless, because they claim to be healers and yet are destroyers, they are frauds. As Dr. Grossinger comments,

The conflict with allopathy is head-on here. If the visible disease is not the disease and if its alleviation is countertherapeutic, then the whole of medicine is involved in a system of superficial palliation leading to more serious disease. Doctors do not cure; they merely displace symptoms to ever less optimum channels of disease expression, each of which they consider to be a separate event because of its location in a new organ or region of the body. The disease meanwhile is driven deeper and deeper into the constitution because its mode of expression is cut off each time.[12]

In other words, homeopathy teaches that, in treating only visible disease, normal medicine must always drive disease deeper and deeper into the person; even to the point where it is incapable of cure, and insanity is the end result:

As disease becomes more serious… pathology moves from the physical level to the emotional level to the mental level, its ultimate expression being insanity and loss of reason.[13]

According to homeopathy then, almost everything the modern physician does is wrong, and this, of course, can never truly help his patients.[14]

It is certainly clear from the above why a rapprochement between standard medicine and homeopathy is impossible. Just on the principles [of homeopathy] alone, without even including the exotic and spiritual pharmacy, homeopathy condemns orthodox medical science to a wild goose chase of symptom classification when the dynamics of symptoms in no way reflect the dynamics of the disease. In treating imaginary categories, physicians were doomed to make their patients worse. Modern homeopathy has developed new language to explain how conventional medical treatment must always make the patient sicker, even if it gives him the delicate illusion of health.[15]

In fact, according to classical homeopathy, modern medicine is so destructive that it not only makes the patient sicker; it not only ends up producing mental derangement and life threatening illness; but it even causes massive social disruption and disintegration!

In homeopathy, disease itself can ultimately be seen as a curative process, but one that must be managed in a very specific homeopathic manner to be effective. Properly managed, the disease process itself can result in great per­sonal and social benefit. Why? In theory, when disease is treated homeopathi­cally, the organism increasingly becomes resistant to physical and mental ill­nesses. If homeopathic methods were universal, the physical and mental condi­tion of humanity would progress toward Utopian levels. But when disease is mismanaged, its recuperative powers are lost. By preventing the proper treat­ment of disease, modern medicine drives it inward on both an individual and social level. As individuals become sicker and more mentally unstable, society itself disintegrates inwardly. Because the practices of modern medicine are universally producing severe physical and mental disease, they are, then, to a significant degree responsible for the grave social and political conditions in the modern world. Dr. Grossinger explains:
From a homeopathic point of view, the allopathic medical care provided in civilized countries has driven disease inward to such a degree that we see an exponential increase in the most serious pathological expressions—cancer, heart disease, and mental illness.
Seventy years ago Kent said that if we continue to treat skin disease palliatively, the human race will cease to exist.
The cumulative charge of poor medical treatment against the doctors of the West is so serious as to be mind-boggling, and, as we have suggested, it places conventional malpractice in a totally new light. It [scientific medicine] is, finally, all malpractice.
The implications, to the homeopath, pyramid from here. If the disease is invisible, then all the [medical] research is for naught… then the entire medical profession becomes an extortionist gang. The “sting” would outdo any “con game” on record. The older, sicker people, their diseases assured by earlier [medical] treatment, require extraordinarily expensive hospital treatment.
Ultimately the patient dies, and the sting is complete, with perfectabove-ground legal disposal of the body. What makes the whole thing a mockery… is that the real disease cause is invisible anyway. Any quest for an impossible object will become exponentially more expensive at each level of refinement, for, as long as there is no limit to the variety and subtlety of equipment that can be developed to aid in this grand delusion, there is also no limit to the cost.[16]

In this sense, homeopathy is the world’s savior. It alone knows the true prob­lem of man, it alone can cure man, and it alone has the potential to produce a social Utopia. To the extent homeopathy is rejected, to that extent man will suffer with disease, insanity, war, crime, hunger, apathy, and a host of other evils which only homeopathy can cure:

From a homeopathic standpoint, social and economic problems are the collective result of the disease driven inward…. Slaughter in Uganda or Cambodia or Guatemala is the work of disease driven inward to the mental plane on an epidemic level. Pornography, sexual violence, mayhem in the United States, and terrorism in Western Europe… are diseases.[17]

But such a bizarre theory also provides a convenient rationale for homeo­pathic inefficacy. Thus, classical homeopathy teaches that even its own failures are not really due to homeopathy which, in theory, can be infallible; they are due to the fact that disease has been driven so far inward that even homeopathy itself has become powerless.[18]

Thus, homeopathy is the intractable adversary of modern medicine. Here we find a paradox. Contemporary physicians seem to have ignored homeopathy largely because its medicines are relatively inert, like sugar water. They seem to think homeopathy is relatively harmless. By now it should be obvious that there is a problem with this assumption. The philosophy underlying homeopathy is any­thing but harmless to modern medicine; the one who believes in the principles of classical homeopathy cannot accept scientific medicine; indeed, he must oppose it. Nor is homeopathy harmless when it treats serious conditions with sugar pills and permits such conditions to go untreated by conventional medicine.

Perhaps modern medicine should take another look.



  1. Samuel Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine, 6th Edition, reprint (New Delhi, India: B. Jain Publish­ers, 1978), p. 21.
  2. Ibid., p. 32; Martin Gumpert, Hahnemann: The Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel (New York, NY: L. B. Fisher, 1945), pp. 98, 110.
  3. James Tyler Kent, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy (Richmond, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1979), pp. 18-20.
  4. Ibid., p. 82.
  5. Ibid., pp. 42, 55.
  6. Ibid., p. 90.
  7. Ibid., pp. 22, 44, 53
  8. Ibid., p. 22.
  9. Ibid., p. 244.
  10. Richard Grossinger, Planet Medicine: From Stone Age Shamanism to Post-Industrial Healing (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/ Doubleday, 1980), pp. 170-190.
  11. cf. 78:170-190; Kent, Lectures, pp. 18, 28, 57, 76, 79, 85.
  12. Ibid., pp. 170-171.
  13. Ibid.
  14. Ibid., pp. 172-173.
  15. Ibid., pp. 173-174.
  16. Ibid., pp. 175-176.
  17. Ibid., pp. 185, 190; cf. pp. 170-190.
  18. Ibid., p. 217.1NAStaf0305 Homeopathy Part 7

1 Comment

  1. […] Read Part 7 […]

Leave a Comment