Geschichten. der Homöopathie Anhang

Computer Programme.

[Dana Ullman]

European Literary Greats

The primary principle of homeopathy, called the law or principle of similars ("treating like with like"), is actually an ancient understanding that great thinkers and healers have acknowledged and utilized since early written history.

Clergy and Spiritual Leaders, highlights the use of the homeopathic principle by Moses. Even the Greeks' Oracle at Delphi was known to have said, "That which makes sick shall heal”, and one of the famous stories from Greek mythology is the tale of Telephus, a Trojan hero who was speared and then healed when pieces of the spear were scraped off and placed on the wound. Hippocrates, the father

of medicine and an early medical historian, once asserted, "Through the like, disease is produced, and through the application of the like it is cured”. Even Shakespeare wrote about treating "like with like" in his famed play Romeo and Juliet (Act I, scene ii), when Benvolio gives comfort and advice to lovesick Romeo, saying: “Tut, man, one fire burns out another's burning; One pain is lessened by another's anguish, Turn giddy and be holp by backward turning; One desperate grief cures with another's languish. Take thou some new infection to the eye, And the rank poison of the old will die.

The eminent British poet, John Milton (1608-1674), made direct reference to the concept of the treatment of "similars" in the preface to Samson Agonistes (1671): "Things of melancholic hue and quality

are used against melancholoy, sour against sour, salt to remove salt humors."

Literary Greats Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) is considered one of the greatest Western literary figures of all time. A German poet, novelist, playwright, courtier, and natural philosopher, Goethe was a contemporary of homeopathy's founder, Samuel Hahnemann, MD (1755-1843), and they both were Freemasons. When Goethe was given an amulet containing a very small gold ornament (September 2, 1820), he wrote: "The jewelers of Frankfort must have heard of the Leipzig Dr. Hahnemann's theory -now, certainly a world-famous physician-.. and taken the best of it from their own purposes ... now I believe more than ever in this wonderful doctor's theory äs I have experienced ... and continue to experience so clearly the efficacy of a very small administration." And in another letter he strongly proclaimed himself a "Hahnemannian disciple" (Haehl, 1922,1,113).

Goethe not only espoused the virtues of homeopathy in his letters to friends and colleagues, but even in his most famous play, Faust, in which his lead character, Mephistopheles, asserts the homeopathic credo, making specific reference to the homeopathic principle of similars: "To like things like, whatever one may ail; there's certain help."Goethe was also a close friend with Karl Wesselhoeft, the owner

of a large German Publishing Company of literary works, and Goethe was a frequent visitor in the Wesselhoeft home. Wesselhoeft's son, William, became Goethe's protege. As a result of Goethe's nfluence and due to later correspondence with German doctors who had become homeopaths, the younger Wesselhoeft became a serious Student and then practitioner and teacher of homeopathy in America.

One of the other truly great Western literary figures was Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1888). Dostoevsky suffered from epilepsy which seemed to begin around 1850 while he was imprisoned for his political beliefs. After this time, his father, a conventional physician, treated Dostoevsky for a severe throat affliction, but his conventional treatment didn't provide benefit and even led to a permanent impairment of his voice (Rice, 1983). Dr. Dostoevsky then resorted to prescribing homeopathic medicines for his son, though there isn't evidence that his father was trained in homeopathy and the results were unclear. Later in life, Dostoevsky included in his classic novel, The Brothers Karamazov (1880), a dialogue in which one of the brothers tells the other: "Homeopathic doses perhaps are the strongest" Another of the truly great Russian authors was Anton Chekhov (1860-1904), playwright and short story writer. Few people know that Chekhov was also a physician. We must be thankful that he wasn't a homeopath because the joys and the benefits from homeopathic practice might have led him to forego his magnificent contributions to literature.

Three of Chekhov's stories make reference to homeopathy. In "Ariadne" (1895), he spoke of a neighbor, a former landowner who was a homeopathic doctor and interested in spiritualism. Chekhov describes him as "a man of great delicacy and mildness, and by no means a fool." In "The Betrothed" (1903), he wrote of a woman betrothed to the son of a priest. Chekhov described the mother of the woman: "She went in for homeopathy and spiritualism, read a great deal, and was fond of talking about her religious doubts."Chekhov's short story "The Malingerers" (1885) has äs its lead character a homeopathic doctor—the widow of a Russian general who has practiced äs a homeopathic physician for ten years. She has an extremely busy practice and is especially populär among the poor peasants. The story focuses on one landowner who has sunk into poverty. He expresses extreme gratitude for her prescribing three doses of a homeopathic medicine to him. He falls to his knees to thank her, telling her that his eight years of suffering from rheumatism are over thanks to her medicines. He tells her that he was initially skeptical of these tiny doses, but his skepticism is over. He also tlills her how

greedy the regulär doctors are and how they never really eure people. He asserts: "The doctors did me nothing but härm. They drove the disease inwards. Drive in, that they did, but to drive out was beyond their science." He refers to doctors äs "assassins." He cries because he cannot even provide wood to keep his family warm. The doctor shows sympathy for him and gives him wood. The patient

then teils her he needs a cow, and the doctor provides that too. As the patient leaves the doctor, three pieces of paper fall out of his pockets, and she discovers that these are the homeopathic medicines

she had previously given him, left untouched.Chekhov closes the story with the homeopathic doctor experiencing doubt for the first time in ten years of practice. The story ends with the words

"The deceitfulness of man!"

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) was one of Ireland's most respected playwrights. Shaw is the only person ever to have won both a Nobel Prize (Literature in 1925) and an Academy Award

(Best Screenplay for Pygmalion in 1938). In his play The Doctor's Dilemma (1906), Shaw showed the dilemma that doctors inevitably face between their need to care for their patients and their need to practice, often using dangerous drugs and performing unnecessary operations in order to earn a livelihood.

In the play's preface, Shaw wrote: The test to which all methods of treatment are finally brought is whether they are lucrative to doctors or not. It would be difficult to cite any proposition less obnoxious to science than that advanced by Hahnemann, to wit, that drugs which in large doses produced certain Symptoms, counteract them in very small doses, just as in modern practice it is

found that a sufficiently small inoculation with typhoid rallies our powers to resist the disease instead of prostrating us with it. But Hahnemann and his followers were frantically persecuted for

a Century by generations of apothecary-doctors whose incomes depended on the quantity of drugs they could induce their patients to swallow.

These two cases of ordinary vaccination and homeopathy are typical of all the rest. He continued: "Here we have the explanation of the savage rancor that so amazes people who imagine that the controversy concerning vaccination is a scientific one. It has really nothing to do with science. Under such circumstances vaccination would be defended desperately were it twice as dirty,

dangerous and unscientific in method as it really is."

Major figure in the development of bebop and modern jazz, and played a major role in defining Afro-Cuban jazz. Ultimately, Gillespie was a trumpet virtuose and gifted improviser who added layers

of harmonic complexity previously not heard in jazz. His unique style and look included a beret, horn-rimmed spectacles, scat singing, a bent horn, and pooched cheeks, matched by a wonderfully lighthearted personality that endeared many people to him and his music.

After being introduced to homeopathic medicine by his protege, Jon Faddis, Dizzy had such remarkable experiences that he once told Faddis: "I`ve had two revelations in my life. The first was bebop;

the second was homeopathy."

Ravi Shankar (1920-) is a Bengali-Indian master musician of the sitar.

He played a seminal role in the introduction of classical Indian music to

Western culture. Initially, Shankar b

ecame famous due to being Beatle George Harrison's sitar teacher.

Ravi Shankar was another appreciator of homeopathy who not only sought homeopathic treatment wherever he lived but also on the road doing concerts. One Boston homeopath who treated him after

a concert remarked how open he was with all around him about his strong preference for homeopathic treatment over all other forms of medicine.

Tina Turner (1939-), often called the queen of rock and roll, is an American pop, rock, and soul singer who has won seven Grammies. She has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Farne and was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Farne. It is hard to imagine, but during the early 1970s this powerful woman was literally brought to her knees by a diagnosis of tuberculosis. She initially sought conventional medical treatment, but continued to suffer, until she sought care from Chandra Sharma, MD, a homeopathic doctor in England. Tina considered him her doctor and her friend. He passed away in 1986,

and she wrote in her autobiography: "I miss him more than I can say." Tina also noted: "Fortunately, his son, Rajandra, was his pro tege and is carrying on his work" (Turner, 1986, 156).

In 1985, Vogue magazine reported on Tina's longtime interest in Musicians, homeopathy and Buddhism: "Tina Turner looks about thirty-six, and her skin is flawless. She does not deprive herself. She sips wine at dinner, does not diet, does not take vitamins. If she's feeling particularly stressed, she consults a homeopathic doctor" (Orth, 1985).

In her autobiography, she wrote: "Life in the fast lane wore me down, changes in my diet and homeopathy saved me. Thanks to my homeopathic physician, for bringing me back to health and always being available for me" (Turner, 1986).

Paul McCartney (l942-), formally known as Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE, is best known as a member of the Beatles, and later, as leader of Wings. He is a British singer, musician, and songwriter who the Guinness Book of World Records lists as the most successful composer in popular music history. He has written or co-written more than fifty top ten hits, and innumerable other music artists and orchestras have recorded his songs.

Paul's second wife, Linda Eastman (1941-1998), introduced her husband to vegetarianism in 1975, and she authored several best-selling vegetarian cookbooks. In a 1992 interview, Linda McCartney asserted: "We never go anywhere without our homeopathic remedies. We often make use of them—and that goes for Paul too" (Glew, 1992).

Linda's interest in homeopathy began when a friend broke her arm, and Linda was duly impressed at how fast the injury healed with homeopathic treatment. But it wasn't until she had her own case of tonsillitis that she actually tried homeopathy herself. She was prescribed a round of antibiotics that worked but only temporarily. She then went to a homeopathic doctor. Not only did her Symptoms go away rapidly, they never returned. She said, "We couldn't cope without homeopathy." Sadly, Linda McCartney died in 1998 due to breast cancer.

George Harrison (1943-2001), also best known for being a member

of the Beatles, was a British lead guitarist, singer, songwriter, record pro-

ducer, and film producer. The Beatles

songs that Harrison wrote and sang

lead on include "If I Needed Someone," "Taxman," "While My Guitar

Gently Weeps," "Here Comes the Sun," and "Something."

[Anitha Gobind]

The birth of homoeopathy may have taken place when Hippocrates prescribed a small dose of mandrake to treat mania. He was aware that mandrake produces mania in large doses but he believed that small doses of mandrake could cure mania (Wikipedia, 2015b).Hippocrates had made two fundamental statements which were, firstly, do no harm and secondly, the same things that can cause disease can cure it (Kratz, 2011). Hahnemann was motivated by Hippocrates’sentiments and conceived the concept of homoeopathy.

[Edward Peter Phahamane]

The Law of Similars implies that a substance that causes certain symptoms can be used to cure those symptoms. This is more explicit in the homoeopathic term ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’

meaning ‘let likes be cured by likes’ (O’Reilly 1996; Bloch and Lewis 2003).

The homoeopathic approach is that the symptoms caused in a healthy person by a crude dose of a substance can be cured by a minute dose of the same substance. For instance, a crude dose of

onion will cause runny nose and stinging watery eyes – symptoms of the common cold.

Therefore, a homoeopath will prescribe a minute dose of onion (Allium cepa) i.e. onion in homoeopathic potency, to treat those symptoms.

In contrast, for the same symptoms of a common cold, an allopathic practitioner working according to the Law of Contraries may prescribe anti-inflammatories and anti-secretory medication

(Gray2000).

The phrases ‘Law of Similars’ and ‘like cures like’ seek to define what homoeopathic medicine is focused upon (O’Reilly 1996), and incorporates the definition of homoeopathy as well as how homoeopathy should function. Because of these constant definitions and laws, homoeopathy has sustained itself through the harsh criticism of sceptics and its enemies from the time of its inception until today when it has gained the momentum of popularity in health-care as being one of the best holistic medical therapies to date (Gray 2000; O’Reilly 1996).

Potentization was developed by Hahnemann to make the infinitesimal dosages of remedies required by the Law of Similars.

Potentization is a serial dilution process of the original substance interspersed with vigorous shaking. An alcohol tincture or a lactose powder (Saccharum lactis) trituration of the original substance (plant, mineral, animal matter) is diluted 1:100 with alcohol and shaken vigorously by pounding on a leather bound book or with lactose powder and triturated. This is known

as a centesimal dilution (cH) and 1:10 dilution is known as decimal dilution (xH).

After 3cH a trituration can be further diluted with alcohol. The vigorous shaking of the dilution is known as succussion. The dilution and succussion process is repeated until the desired dilution is reached, which is then called a ‘potency’ e.g. 30cH potency. Through empirical observations, Hahnemann and subsequent homoeopaths found that “the more a remedy is shaken and diluted, the more the curative power is increased (provided the choice of remedy is matched accurately by the Similia Principle) while simultaneously decreasing toxicity.”

(Hahnemann 1842 in Gray 2000).

Homoeopathy has a dynamic view of disease. Human disease is viewed as a mistuning of the spirit-like force that resides in all beings. Humans and nature all exist harmoniously as energy

and this relationship can be affected at an energy level. Therefore, according to this dynamic view, human disease exists at a subtle level that it is immaterial and energetic in nature.

When a mistuning occurs at that subtle, energetic level, the entire being on all levels is affected. In this view, therefore, it is imperative to treat the human in disease by retuning his/her spirit-like force rather than treating the disease in the human. Thus, homoeopathy employs a holistic approach involving a comprehensive case history followed by the administration of energized, infinitesimally small doses of remedies that energize the body to heal itself in disease. The remedial medicines used retune the spirit-like force to swiftly, gently, and restoratively cure symptoms a large dose of the original substance would cause in healthy test subjects (O’Reilly 1996).

The vital force in homoeopathy

Homoeopathy has a concept of the ‘vital force’ which is thought to be experienced by all living organisms as life energy. The vital force is a spirit like life force that resides within a living organism as a dynamic force which maintains the organism in admirable, harmonious function (O’Reilly 1996; Gray 2000). Homoeopathic physicians answer to their highest and only calling of cure, that of making the sick healthy, by targeting the vital force (O’Reilly 1996).

According to Hahnemann’s writing in the Organon (Aphorism 2, Principles of cure) “The highest ideal of cure is the rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health; that is, the

lifting and annihilation of the disease in its entire extent in the shortest, most reliable and least disadvantageous way, according to clearly realizable principles” (O’Reilly 1996).

Homoeopathy directly increases the amount of the vital force available within the organism (Gray 2000). Homoeopathic therapy aims to establish a balance between all the levels (spiritual, mental, emotional and physical) by gently targeting the vital force which is the central core of all and is capable of balancing energy between all levels (O’Reilly 1996). The vital force is otherwise understood

as the vital sensation which, according to Sankaran (2007), defines the nucleus of a being. According to the homoeopathic philosophy, an individual’s symptomatic response to stimuli is dependent on

the vital force i.e. a strong vital force helps the body to balance bodily energy on all levels to fight off diseases easily as opposed to a weakened vital force which fails to balance bodily energy so the body succumbs to diseases. In order to bring on cure and to maintain harmony an energetic balance has to be maintained in all planes by the vital force (Gray 2000).

THE EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT OF HOMEOPATHY

Homoeopathy has evolved throughout its 230 year history as a classical science based on empirical principles to become a modern science. Its empirical foundations made it data-base

oriented and holistic from its inception.

In modern practice, such as found in academic institutions like the Homoeopathic Day Clinic at The Durban University of Technology, homoeopathy engages with evidence based tools

(e.g. radiology and pathology laboratory tests) to arrive at objective diagnosis and relative treatment never undermining its basic principle but answering to the responsibilities of medical knowledge and functions (Gray 2000).

Homoeopathy like all other complementary alternative medical (CAM) therapies has been experiencing an atmosphere of revitalization lately; Eisenberg et al. (1993) reveal through statistics that in 1990 “Americans have made 425 million visits per year to alternative practitioners, 40 million more than were made to primary care physicians.

“An inevitable trend here is that homoeopathy like all other CAM therapies is growing internationally. Ullman (2010), and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2009) report on

Frequency of visits to CAM practitioners in the United States in 2007, reveal that homoeopathy has gained considerable popularity in the United States of America and most European countries

as well as Asian countries (India) (Prasad 2007; Nahim et al. 2009 ).

This revitalization should not come as a surprise because homoeopathy has two centuries of sustained history; it is relatively cheap, non-toxic and holistic in its approach to treatment. For these reasons it appeals to all seeking better health and individualised treatment (Gray 2000).

Homoeopathy is said to be the epitome of holistic treatment to date; it is a system based on verifiable principles of cure, individualized to the patient and compliant to the Laws of Similars.

During an extensive homoeopathic case history taking, this comprehensive medical therapeutic intervention covers the spiritual, mental, emotional and physical levels respectively. After the summation

of all these levels which represent the whole patient, a homoeopathic remedy is given (Gray 2000; Bloch and Lewis 2003).

SCIENCE AND HOMOEOPATHY

Homoeopathy is a science and has never been exempted from being described as such in explaining the uniformities and consistencies of relationships between natural phenomena.

Science seeks objectivity in observation, analysis, evaluation and grouping of similar traits to arrive at a conclusion regarding data (Shrake et al. 2006).

The Law of Similars is a break-through scientific insight resulting from understanding the uniformities and consistencies of 10 relationship between natural phenomena. How homoeopathy began as a science, and how it continues to be recognized as a leading scientific discipline to date, is due to the ongoing engagement of homoeopaths in the pursuit of understanding, explaining and predicting the systematic relationships between natural phenomena (Scholten 1993; Bloch and Lewis 2003).

These are essential characteristics in the design of groupings of themes, such as seen in miasmatic theory (Gaier 1991) and group analysis. Research within the field of modern quantum electro-dynamic physics are answering the gap in knowledge that has existed over time regarding how homoeopathy works. Dr. S.Y. Lo from the California Institute of Technology and American Technologies Group has shown through the concept of coherence, clusters and clathrates how water is able to retain information through potentization and dissipate it through electromagnetic principles (Lo 1998 in Gray 2000). These developments revitalize homoeopathy to become modern age science that answers the critical quest of knowledge about the

adequacy of homoeopathy (Gray 2000; Ameke 2007).

REMEDIES IN HOMOEOPATHY

Homoeopathic medicines known as ‘remedies’ are prepared by the process of potentization based on advanced chemistry, modern quantum electro-dynamic physics and electro-magnetic principles

(Gray 2000).

The healing powers of remedies are energetic, immaterial and act according to the Law of Similars. The energy of the respective healing substance in nature is imparted into a medium i.e. alcohol, water or lactose powder through potentization, then administered as medicines so that the impression of the healing substance can bring on healing through modern electro-magnetic principles in line with the Law of Similars (Gray 2000).

Homoeopathic materia medica

The materia medica of a remedy is the complete symptom picture of that remedy as gathered from homoeopathic proving experiments, toxicology reports, observation of the way in which the substance exists in nature and clinical experience (Vermeulen 2001).

These individual materia medicas are combined into a book of materia medica. In homoeopathic practice, the materia medica is complemented by a repertory, a book that lists all the symptoms

that have been elicited during the proving as well as in clinical verifications. In the repertory, symptoms are grouped into systems that simplify its use and hasten case analysis and remedy prescription

(Bloch and Lewis 2003). With the addition of kingdoms, miasms and remedy groups the assumption is that the speed and accuracy of remedy selection is improved.

The Amazing Story of Charles Darwin and His Homeopathic Doctor

In early 1849, Charles Darwin was so ill that he was unable to work one of every three days, and after having various serious symptoms for two to twelve years, he wrote to a friend that he was dying. He sought treatment from Dr. James Manby Gully, a medical doctor who used water cure (hydrotherapy) and homeopathic medicines. Despite being highly skeptical of these treatments, he experienced a dramatic improvement in his health. He grew to appreciate water cure, but he remained skeptical of homeopathy, even though his own later experiments on insectivore plants using what can be described as homeopathic doses of ammonia salts surprised and shocked him with their significant biological effect. It is impossible to know if Charles Darwin would have survived long enough to have written his seminal book in 1859, published 10 years after Dr. Gully’s treatment. We may all have to thank the water cure and homeopathic treatment provided by Dr. Gully for Darwin’s survival.

NOTE: The article published here is a summary of a more detailed article that was just published in a medical journal published by Oxford University Press, called eCAM (which stands for “Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine"). To see this entire article, go to: http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/nep168?ijkey=nGCDiG4UTVh6zBx&keytype=ref. Readers will find that the majority of the evidence here is drawn directly from Charles Darwin’s own personal letters.

The year 2009, is an auspicious year for appreciators of Charles Darwin. It is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin (1809–1882), and November 24, 2009, is the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work, On the Origin of Species (1859).

Although much has been written about Charles Darwin, few people today know that, according to Darwin’s own letters, it is uncertain that he would have lived long enough to have written this seminal scientific work in 1859 if he had not received treatment 10 years earlier from Dr. Gully.

After graduating from Cambridge in 1831, he began what became a five-year journey on the HMS Beagle surveying the coast of South America. On board the ship, Darwin suffered from seasickness, and in October 1833, he caught a fever in Argentina. In July 1834, while returning from the Andes down to the coast of Chile, he fell so ill that he spent a month in bed.

The Serious Illness and Near Death of Charles Darwin

From 1837 on, Darwin was frequently incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, and trembling. Orthodox physicians of Darwin’s day had no idea what his problem was, and all of their treatments simply made him worse.

In 1847, Darwin’s illness worsened. He again experienced frequent episodes of vomiting and weakness, but he now was also experiencing fainting spells and seeing spots in front of his eyes. In March, 1849, he was so sick that he thought he was dying. Darwin wrote to his good friend, J.D. Hooker, an English botanist, that he was “unable to do anything one day out of three and am altogether too dispirited to write to you or to do anything but what I was compelled. I thought I was rapidly going the way of all flesh."

It is indeed impossible to say that Charles Darwin would have been healthy enough to live another 10 years, let alone to work as diligently on the body of work that his seminal book required for its publication in 1859 unless some type of effective treatment significantly improved his health. Lucky for all of humanity, Charles Darwin sought out a different type of medical care and experienced a profound improvement in his health.

Dr. James Manby Gully: Homeopath and Hydrotherapist

The captain of the HMS Beagle, Capt. Sullivan, initially told Darwin about a different type of medical treatment provided by Dr. James Manby Gully (1808–1883), andhis recommendation was taken more seriously when one of his cousins, William Darwin Fox, told Darwin that two friends had benefited greatly from Gully’s care. Dr. Gully, a medical graduate of the University of Edinburgh, was strongly critical of the use of drugs of that era.

Gully was particularly critical of polypharmacy, the common and unscientific practice of using multiple drugs concurrently for a patient, a practice that continues today. Gully’s medical practice did not simply provide water cure and dietary advice; he also prescribed homeopathic medicines and recommended medical clairvoyant readings. In 1846, he had authored a popular book entitled Water Cure in Chronic Disease that Darwin was known to have read. Darwin decided to go to see Dr. Gully with his wife, Emma, and their seven children. Dr. Gully and his health spa were situated in Malvern (just southwest of Birmingham), around 150 miles from the Darwins’ home.

Virtually every biography of Charles Darwin refers to his health problems and acknowledges that the one physician who provided an effective treatment for him was Dr. Gully. However, most of these biographies make reference to Dr. Gully as a “hydrotherapist,” and few mention that he was a homeopathic physician.

After being at Dr. Gully’s spa for just nine days, Darwin lamented that Gully had prescribed homeopathic medicine to him: “I grieve to say that Dr. Gully gives me homeopathic medicines 3x a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.” Darwin continued: “I like Dr. Gully much—he is certainly an able man” The fact that Darwin saw Gully as being “able” was still not enough to convince him that homeopathic medicines were effective.

In 1848, Dr. Gully became a formal member of the British Society of Homeopathy, and he maintained his membership through at least 1871. In subsequent editions of his book, his favorable experiences with homeopathy led him to become a strong advocate for the power of homeopathic medicines in treating people with chronic diseases.

Gully’s observation that the use of concurrent treatment of water cure and homeopathic medicine seems to echo the experiences of naturopathic physicians who have been known to use these treatments together along with nutritional advice since the 19th century.

And even though Darwin was extremely skeptical, just two days later (March 30, 1849) Darwin acknowledged, “I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated.”

After eight days a skin eruption broke out all over Darwin’s legs, and he was actually pleased to experience this problem because he had previously observed that his physical and mental health improved noticeably after having skin eruptions. He went a month without vomiting, a very rare experience for him, and even gained some weight. One day he surprised himself by being able to walk seven miles.

He wrote to a friend, “I am turning into a mere walking & eating machine.”

After just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully’s treatments were not quackery after all. After 16 weeks, he felt like a new man, and by June he was able to go home to resume his important work. Darwin actually wrote that he was “of almost perfect health.”

Despite Darwin’s greatly improved health, he never publicly attributed any benefits directly to homeopathy. However, one must also realize that even though homeopathy achieved impressive popularity among British royalty, numerous literary greats, and many of the rich and powerful at that time, there was incredible animosity to it from orthodox physicians and scientists. Because Darwin was just beginning to propose his own new ideas about evolution, it would have been professional suicide to broadcast his positive experiences with homeopathy. Having to defend homeopathy would have damaged his credibility among his colleagues who were extremely antagonistic to this emerging medical specialty.

Darwin occasionally experienced relapses of digestive and skin symptoms over the years, so he returned to Dr. Gully’s clinic for more treatments, staying two to eight weeks. Although Darwin complained during his first visit that he experienced “complete stagnation of the mind,” he didn’t have similar problems during later visits to Gully’s clinic and spa. In fact, he asserted that his mind was alert and that his scientific writing was progressing well.

He lived 33 more years, and it is surprising and confusing that the story of Darwin’s successful experiences with hydrotherapy and homeopathy has not become an integral part of the history of science and medicine today.

After significant improvement in his persistent nausea and vomiting, frequent fainting spells, spots before his eyes, incapacitating stomach pains, severe fatigue, widespread boils, nerve-wrecking tremors and heart palpitations, he was considerably more able to do his seminal scientific work.

Some other people of significant notoriety who benefited from Dr. Gully’s care include Charles Dickens (novelist and writer), Alfred, Lord Tennyson (poet), Florence Nightingale (famed nurse), George Eliot (British novelist), Thomas Carlyle (Scottish essayist, satirist, and historian), John Ruskin (art critic and social critic), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (British novelist, playwright, and politician), Thomas Babington Macaulay (first Baron Macaulay, poet and politician), and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. Further, three prime ministers sought Dr. Gully’s care, including William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli, and George Hamilton-Gordon, as well as Queen Victoria herself. Hamilton-Gordon described Dr. Gully as “the most gifted physician of the age.”

Dr. Gully was not the only homeopathic physician to provide clinical care to cultural elite of the 19th century. In fact, many of the leading politicians, clergy, literary greats, musical geniuses, royalty and wealthy classes were known patients and even advocates of homeopathy.

Although there is no evidence that Darwin knew that so many other well known “cultural heroes” sought the care of Dr. Gully, Darwin was pleased to hear when other people he knew received treatment from Gully. When his second cousin, William Darwin Fox, the man who introduced Darwin to entomology and to Dr. Gully, had seen the doctor, Darwin expected him to have benefited from water cure and to be much stronger. When one considers that Darwin had previously received much medical care without positive results, Darwin’s letter to Fox on December 7, 1855, confirmed a different experience with Dr. Gully: “Dr. Gully did me much good” (his emphasis).

Darwin’s Continued Water Cure and Homeopathic Treatment

There is a long history of antagonism to homeopathic medicine from conventional physicians and their organizations. There is also a history of antagonism to water cure,] though while homeopathy has persisted internationally as a minority school of thought and practice, water cure as a medical treatment for chronic ailments has become marginalized or is hardly utilized today except by a minority of naturopathic physicians.

Darwin and many of his biographers seemed to have highlighted “water cure” as Gully’s effective treatment because they simply could not believe that homeopathic medicines could provide any benefit. However, one must wonder if hydrotherapy alone could have provided these significant health benefits, especially in the first week of treatment that Darwin experienced. What is additionally intriguing about this story of Darwin is that it confirms an ultimately essential observation of truly effective healing methods: that they can and will be effective whether or not the person believes they will work.

Hardened skeptics insist that homeopathic treatment could not have helped Darwin (or anyone) and suggest that hydrotherapy must have been the method of therapeutic benefit. And yet, few orthodox physicians of that day or today would even consider using hydrotherapy for people with complex disease processes.

When Dr. Gully retired from his full-time practice in Malvern in the late 1850s, he chose Dr. James Smith Ayerst (1824–1884) as his replacement. Not surprisingly, Ayerst was also a homeopathic physician. He served as assistant surgeon in the Royal Navy, was physician to Great Malvern, Worcestershire, ran a hydropathic establishment at Old Well House, Malvern Wells in conjunction with that of Dr. Gully, and later, practiced homeopathy and hygienics in Torquay, Devon.

Darwin’s wife Emma wrote to W. Darwin Fox: “We like Dr. Ayerst, tho’ he has not the influence of Dr. Gully. Dr. G. it is hopeless to try to see tho’ I must say he has been to see Ch. [Charles] twice & he quite approves of his treatment.” Darwin visited other hydrotherapy spas as well. In 1857 and 1859 he visited Moor Park, run by Edward Wickstead Lane, MD, a physician and hydrotherapist (not a homeopath). And perhaps not by lucky coincidence, Darwin’s famed book On the Origin of Species was at the printing press, while he was at Ilkley Wells, a spa operated by Edmund Smith, MD, another homeopathic physician.

On March 5, 1863, Darwin wrote a letter to J. D. Hooker (a botanist), noting: “A good severe fit of Eczema would do me good, and I have a touch this morning & consequently feel a little alive.” On this same day, he wrote his cousin W. Darwin Fox: “I am having an attack of Eczema on my face, which does me as much good as Gout does others.”

What is interesting here is that Darwin was either taught or learned from his own experience a common observation in homeopathy: that symptoms on the skin or in the extremities (the symptoms of gout manifest in the big toe) are important externalizations of the disease process that should not be suppressed through conventional drugs. Because homeopaths and other advocates of natural medicine recognize the “wisdom of the body,” symptoms, even acute and painful ones, are ways that the body is working to push out and externalize internal pathology.

Darwin’s Survival of the Shrewdest

Despite Darwin’s personal experiences and significant successes as a homeopathic patient, he never publicly acknowledged the benefits he received. And despite his own experiments on plants using homeopathic doses (these amazing experiments are discussed in detail in my article published in Oxford University Press’ journal, eCAM), he never used the word “homeopathic” in his public writings. Although these actions may seem surprising, Darwin’s decision to avoid reference to homeopathy was a shrewd part of his own survival strategy, and as true expert on evolution, Darwin knew the importance of survival of his terrestrial body and of his ideas.

Ultimately, even though Charles Darwin had a long-time scepticism of homeopathic medicine, his life and health seems to have been impacted by it, and he engaged in experimentation that verified the power of extremely small doses on plants. Further, he was found to express appreciation for the contributions to science that select homeopathic physicians were known to provide.

2009 is the year in which we honor Charles Darwin’s 200th anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal book. When commemorating the many vital contributions that Charles Darwin made to science, we should not ignore the therapeutic contributions that allowed Darwin to live beyond his own life expectations and that played an important role in improving his physical and mental health.

[V.D. Kaviraj, Dutch homeopath]

Charles Darwin published The Power of Movement in Plants -on phototropism and vine behaviour- in 1880, but the concept of plant intelligence has been slow to creep into the general consciousness.

He also did some experiments on plants with homoeopathic remedies. He did not call his experiments homoeopathic, for that would have been scientific suicide in his day. We know it is little different today, as many are opposed to homoeopathy through ignorance. Darwin was experimenting in a scientific manner when he did his experiments on plants.

He did some very interesting experiments with Drosera or Sundew, a flesh-eating plant, well known today. He discovered that however much he reduced the dose of the substance he used, salt of ammonia – prepared according to the homoeopathic method with dilution and succussion – the effects were always visible in the plant. He was quite astonished by these effects and their consistent appearance with every new dilution. He compared the substances pheromones, which a dog can smell from a great distance in the case of, for instance, a bitch in heat.

His frame of reference was the molecule - then the smallest known particle of matter that was able to show particular characteristics. He did not realise that the doses he prepared no longer had any molecules in them, while still being increasingly active. It stimulated the glands and the plant’s tentacles and caused the plant to turn inward. Avogadros’ limit may have been known to him.

In 1903 he wrote to the well-known physiologist Prof F.C. Donders of Utrecht Netherlands, that he observed 1/4,000,000^th of a grain of the salt had a demonstrable effect on Drosera. Here is what

he said about his experiments:

“And that the 1/20,000,000^th of a grain of the crystallised salt does the same. Now I am quite unhappy at the thought of having to publish such a statement. The reader will best realise this degree of dilution by remembering that 5,000 ounces would more than fill a thirty-one gallon cask or barrel and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added - only ½ drachm or 30 minims

of the solution poured over the leaf. Yet this amount sufficed to cause the inflection of the leaf. My results were for a long time incredible, even to myself and I anxiously sought for every source of error.

The observations were repeated during several years. Two of my sons, who were as incredulous as myself, compared several lots of leaves simultaneously immersed in the weaker solutions and in water

and declared that there could be no doubt as to the differences in their appearance. In fact, every time that we perceive an odour, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves. Moreover, this extreme sensitiveness, exceeding that of the most delicate part of the human body, as well as the power of committing various impulses from one part of the leaf to another, have been acquired without the intervention of any nervous system.”

(Darwin The Power of Movement in Plants 1875)

He also demonstrated that Drosera is not sensitive to just any substance. He tested several alkaloids and other substances that have a powerful effect on the human and animal body, which possesses a nervous system, but that had no effect on Drosera. He decided that:

“The power of transmitting an influence to other parts of the leaf, causing movement or modified secretion or aggregation does not depend on the presence of a diffused element allied to a nervous system.”

(Darwin The Power of Movement in Plants 1875)

He thus confirmed the homoeopathic consensus that living systems react only to those substances that are in harmony with their own pattern of energy.

Opium.

3. Internationaler Homöopathiekongreß

Interview mit Dr. Willibald Gawlik durch Claudia Heinzel gekürzt wiedergegeben.

Dr. Gawlik, wie sind Sie zur Homöopathie gekommen?

Ich habe nach dem Krieg noch ein bißchen Krieg gespielt, denn ich war noch 6 Jahre in russischer Gefangenschaft und ich war damals ein ausgesprochener Schulmediziner. Ich war Assistent von Viktor von Weizsäcker in Breslau vor dem Krieg.

Während der Gefangenschaft war ich Lagerarzt für etwa 1.800 Leute und 40 Mann russische Besatzung. Plötzlich, es war kurz vor Weihnachten, erkrankte das ganze Lager an Fleckfieber. Nur 10 Mann blieben übrig, der Rest ging zu den Englein (...). Wir 10, die wir überlebt hatten, lagen im „Nebel“ (typhusähnlich). Als wir aufwachten, wir waren die einzigen, die aufwachten, da hatten wir alle dieselbe Symptomatik: wir hatten eine absolute retrograde Amnesie, d.h. keiner von uns wusste, wie er heißt, keiner wusste, wo er herkommt, keiner wusste, was er gelernt hatte, nichts mehr von der Familie, gar nichts. Wir lagen auf Matratzen ohne Stroh, auf dem kalten Fußboden, draußen waren minus 20° C, aber wir haben nicht gefroren. Wir haben auch keinen Hunger gehabt, obschon wir ja sowieso kaum

was zu Essen bekamen. Es waren noch andere Symptome dabei, aber das war das Eindrucksvollste.

Eines Tages wurden wir in ein Lager verlegt, das hieß „Erholungslager“ und da wurde uns ein homöopathischer Arzt hereingebracht, der sich als Dr. Öhmisch vorstellte.

Wir wussten gar nicht, was ein Arzt ist, ich wusste auch nicht, was ich bin. Er kam zu uns in die kleine Stube herein, hatte u.a. ein Fläschchen dabei mit Alkohol, mit Wasser (was ich aber später erst erfahren habe) und ein Medizinalfläschchen, von dem er eine bestimmte Menge genommen, geschüttelt, gemacht und gemischt hat. Wir haben gedacht, was ist das für ein Arzt, der da immer so rumschüttelt?

Nach 2, 3 Tagen bekamen 5 von uns am Abend ein paar Tropfen in den Mund und wir haben wie immer, geschlafen. Ich wachte früh als erster auf, rieb meine Augen und - der Vorhang war auf!

Ich wusste, wie ich heiße, ich wusste wo ich herkomme, ich kannte meine Familie, meinen Namen - alles. Alles, alles, alles war da! Dann hab ich meinen Nachbarn sofort in den Hintern getreten, der

hat mich beschimpft und wusste meinen Namen auch. So war also bei uns 5, die diese Tropfen genommen hatten, der Vorhang auf!

Das war ein derart eindrucksvolles Erlebnis, daß ich mir vorgenommen hatte (es war 1947), falls ich überhaupt noch nach Hause komme, denn es starben ja so viele von uns, dann würde ich mich damit beschäftigen.

C.H.: Was hat Dr. Öhmisch Ihnen gegeben?

Es war Opium.

Warum Opium? Es hat eine absolute Somnolenz, schläft den ganzen Tag, Opium hat keine Beschwerden. Ich hab nicht gefroren, habe keinen Hunger gehabt, keinen Durst gehabt.

Außerdem war die Symptomatik Blässe im Gesicht, leichte Zyanose und Schweiß im Gesicht, warmer Schweiß, nicht kalter und noch so ein paar andere Symptome, die alle dazu passten. Er hat aus

Opium simplex praktisch eine C 30 gemacht.

Er fuhr 3 Monate später nach Hause und ich kam erst ein paar Jahre später heim. Inzwischen war er Chefarzt im homöopathischen Krankenhaus in München geworden. Bei ihm habe ich dann, als ich wieder zuhause war, 3½ Jahre als Assistenzarzt die Homöopathie gelernt.

Ich habe im Krieg viele Verwundungen mitgemacht, alles mögliche. Aber der stärkste psychische Schock, den ich je im Leben bekommen habe, war dieses Wachwerden aus dem Nebel. Dass ich mich dann, als ich doch heimgekommen bin, reingekniet habe, können Sie sich vorstellen - bis jetzt noch. Dieses Aha-Erlebnis wünsche ich jedem Homöopathen.

Sie wissen genau, das ist eine Krankheit, da gibt’s keine Möglichkeit, rauszukommen und Sie werden gesund von ein paar stark verdünnten und verschüttelten Tropfen. Das ist ein Schock, der führt durchs ganze Leben durch. Deshalb kann ich auch sagen, ich bin für diese Weichenstellung, auch wenn sie sehr schmerzhaft war, dankbar.

C.H.: Herr Dr. Gawlik, warum wirkt die Homöopathie?

Wir sind heute noch nicht so weit, daß wir es erklären könnten, aber es dauert nicht mehr lange. Wir sind in Bereiche vorgedrungen, die noch kleiner sind, als die, die wir geben bei unseren homöopathischen Medikamenten. Wenn Sie die z.B. die genetische Analyse eines Asiaten, eines Australiers und eines Europäers ansehen, kann Ihnen die Forschung genau sagen, wer der Europäer ist.

Weil der nämlich heute noch in seinen Genen Pesterreger hat. Das, was Hahnemann als Verschmutzung angibt, der Ausdruck „Miasma“, ist nichts anderes als „Verschmutzung“, eine Behauptung, die

viel belacht worden ist, ist heute nicht mehr zum Lachen, man kann sie nachweisen. Hahnemann hatte Recht.

C.H.: Herr Dr. Gawlik, Wie kann es sein, daß eine Substanz, die immer stärker verdünnt wird, immer stärker wirkt?

Vielleicht kann man das vom Philosophischen her beantworten. Nicht nur in der christlichen Religion heißt es „Am Anfang war das Wort oder der Gedanke“. Der Gedanke ist ja nichts fassbares, ist ja keine Substanz. Und wenn wir die Schöpfung betrachten, egal von welchem religiösen Standpunkt aus wir das tun, finden wir immer wieder denselben Satz „Am Anfang war der Gedanke, war das Wort“ und erst mit dem Gedanken wird es materialisiert. Wenn Sie diese Materie jetzt nehmen, dann können Sie auf demselben Weg wieder zur Idee zurückkommen. Und die Idee, also der Gedanke ist ja viel stärker, als die Möglichkeit, etwas zu machen. Wenn Ihnen das als Erklärung genügen könnte ...

Wir leben ja in einem naturwissenschaftlichen Zeitalter, das jetzt langsam stirbt. Wir stehen heute noch auf dem Standpunkt, daß die Tollkirsche beispielsweise durch ihre Inhaltsstoffe (Atropin, Hyoscyamin, Stramonium) eine Wirksamkeit hat, sogar eine Giftigkeit. Stimmt ja gar nicht! Kann ja gar nicht stimmen.

Das Wesen eines Heilmittels ist das Heilen, nicht die natürlichen Inhaltsstoffe.

C.H.: Dr. Gawlik, was ist für Sie „Heilung“?

Es ist so leicht eine Krankheit zu definieren. Die Gesundheit zu definieren ist unmöglich! Lesen Sie Gardama, der hat ein Buch geschrieben über dieses Thema: „Die Verborgenheit der Gesundheit“. Ein dolles Buch, er lebt ja noch, 100 Jahre alt und der ist immer noch geistig völlig auf Draht.

Heilung hieße erst mal von vornherein eine Ganzheitsbetrachtung. Heute beim Kongreß ist das ja auch wieder herausgekommen. Wir haben ja nicht nur einen Körper, wir haben auch noch einen Geist und eine Seele. Alles gehört zusammen - es gibt gar kein Auseinander. Und wenn alles das zusammen in „Harmonie“ lebt, ist es Gesundheit, könnte es Gesundheit sein. Das ist der Zustand von Gleichgewicht, auf den man als Homöopath hinarbeiten muß.

Die alten Griechen haben in die wichtigsten „Bestandteile“ des Menschen einen Gott gesetzt. in den Kopf wurde Zeuss gesetzt, der Geist. Ins Herz Hera, die Mutter, die Liebe. In die Mundhöhle haben sie 2 reingesetzt. Hier atmen wir ein und aus und hier findet Kommunikation statt, das Sprechen. Hierher kamen Aphrodite, die Göttin der Liebe und des Genusses und ein Mann, Ares, den Kriegsgott. Und auf so engem Raum zusammen, Männlein und Weiblein - naja, die haben dann ein Kind gekriegt. Und jetzt kommt die Überraschung: Das Kind ist eine Tochter und wissen Sie, wie die hieß? Harmonea. Das ist die Gesundheit. Harmonie heißt ja nicht nur Händchen halten, Küßchen geben, heile, heile Segen, sondern es muß auch mal krachen, man muß auch mal die Zähne zeigen. Und dann wird auch wieder sehr schön. Das ist Harmonie und das ist auch Gesundheit.

Was kennzeichnet für Sie einen guten Homöopathen?

In erster Linie muß er ein Menschenfreund sein, denn in der Praxis sollte immer eine Begegnung von Mensch zu Mensch stattfinden.

Homöopathie heißt ja nicht nur ähnliches heilen mit ähnlichem. „Homoios“ heißt ähnlich und „pathein“ heißt auch fühlen und denken. Sympathie, Antipathie, Telepathie, man denkt, man fühlt, man spürt. Heißt ja auch ähnlich fühlen, wie der, der da zu uns kommt. Deswegen hat Hahnemann die Prüfung der Symptomatik einiger Arzneimittel empfohlen, damit man weiß, was ein Kranker überhaupt empfindet. Wenn Ihnen der Patient von seinen Krankheiten und Beschwerden erzählt, wissen Sie noch lange nicht, was er mitmacht. Das wissen Sie erst, wenn Sie eine Arzneimittelprüfung machen, oder wenn Sie selbst mal krank waren.

C.H.: Dr. Gawlik, was ist der Tod für Sie?

Der Tod ist ein ausgesprochener Freund der Menschen. Ich habe Tausenden die Augen zugedrückt in der Gefangenschaft. Tausende begleitet. Ich habe selbst als Leiche auf dem Eisberg gelegen (...)

und war so traurig, als ich wieder zurückgeholt wurde, weil es so schön war. Ich habe weder Angst vor dem Tod, noch Angst vor dem Sterben. Das ganze ist für mich, wie in eine andere Ebene hineinzugehen. Wenn Sie mal Tausende begleitet haben, die Krämpfe und Schmerzen hatten, Angst, das Gesicht ganz verkrampft. Und auf einmal war es vorbei und ins Gesicht kommt Freude. Unglaubliche Freude. Für mich ist das ein Weg, naja, wie durch die Tür in ein mir völlig fremdes Haus herein. Wahrscheinlich eine völlig andere Ebene.

Meine Frau ist voriges Jahr gestorben und es klingt jetzt blöd, aber sie war der größte homöopathische Erfolg meiner Praxis. Sie ist gestorben und war 30 Jahre lang krebskrank, nie chemotherapiert, nie bestrahlt, bei bester Lebensqualität bis zur letzten Stunde. 21 Operationen, 5 verschiedene Primärkrebse, aber bis zur letzten Minute fröhlich, heiter, voller Freude, voller Wachheit. Für sie war es eine Erlösung, denn sie ist 30 Jahre lang mit dem Damoklesschwert („morgen kannst du schon tot sein“) herumgelaufen. Und doch war sie immer fröhlich. Bei ihr ist es so weit gegangen bis sie den Tod akzeptiert hat und ganz still gegangen ist. Wir sprachen vorhin über das Zurückgehen von der Materie auf die Idee. Was wir sind und spüren können, ist unsere Materie und wir müssen davon ausgehen, daß wir wieder, wie beim homöopathischen Mittel, zurückkommen in die Idee. Wir das genau aussieht, kann ich Ihnen auch nicht sagen, wir sind ja Menschen, wir haben nur unsere 5 Sinne. Die reichen nicht aus, um den Tod zu durchblicken. Ich weiß nur, daß nichts verloren geht. Ein kleines Mohnkorn wird von der Blüte auf die Erde geweht und nach kurzer Zeit haben sie die Blume und aus der Blume kommen wieder tausend neue Mohnkörner. Immer wieder dasselbe Spiel. So ist es auch mit dem Leben und dem Tod - wir können es uns nur nicht vorstellen, dazu sind wir zu klein.

Vielen Dank für dieses Gespräch, Dr. Gawlik!

Dr. Gawlik ist inzwischen 83 Jahre alt und praktiziert noch 2x pro Woche in seiner eigenen Praxis in Süddeutschland. Er hat 10 Bücher veröffentlicht über die Homöopathie und referierte auf dem diesjährigen Kongreß über Tuberculinum, indem er sich „tuberculinisch“-launisch gab, sich eine bunt karierte Decke um die Schultern warf und Schweiß mit einem gelben Handtuch wischte. Ein Vortrag, der mitriß, zum Lachen anregte, aber auch zum Nachdenken - in jedem Fall sehr eindrucksvoll vital vorgetragen!

Vorwort/Suchen. Zeichen/Abkürzungen. Impressum.