Download PDF
Homeopathy 2007; 96(02): 125-127
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2007.02.002
Social and Historical
Copyright © The Faculty of Homeopathy 2007

20 years ago: The British Homoeopathic Journal, April 1987

S.T. Land
Further Information

Publication History

Received23 January 2007

Publication Date:
21 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Two important themes

Pertussis and proving methodology, two major subjects at the time, are dealt with in Peter Fisher's editorial. The urgency of the Pertussis question was because of the major setback to homeopathy as a result of the revoking of the product licence of Pertussin by the Committee on the Review of Medicines; on the grounds of Quality Control and Efficacy. Fisher considered it vital that homeopathy should learn from this unfortunate episode. In considering Quality Control, he insisted that the old nosodes, ‘of dubious provenance, must be replaced by new, authenticated material, and these must be potentized by known, standard methods’. This was the easier of the two demands. Proof of efficacy was far more difficult, and the Pertussin crisis was precipitated by unsupported claims which the author deemed both unethical and damaging. He said that the biggest problem for validation of claims was the very large resources required, as seen by Dr English's important and timely study referred to below. At the same time, it was unclear what sort of evidence would be required. It appeared that the level of proof might be less rigorous than for orthodox medicines, at least initially; but the authorities might themselves be pressurized by vested interests, alarmed by the growth of complementary medicine.

To develop and extend the art and the science of homeopathy seemed to be the best answer to this problem; so the author welcomed the publication of papers on proving methods. The French homeopath Denis Demarque, in describing the remarkable development of proving methods since the time of Hahnemann, demonstrated that the homeopathic movement has been in the forefront of innovation in clinical experimental methodology, including such now standard methods as the double-blind and cross-over designs. The need for such methods is revealed in the classic study of Hahnemann's own provers by the late Frank Bodman, reprinted in tribute to him. In conclusion, Fisher stated: ‘These two papers reveal a remarkable international convergence of views on the problem of proving. The time is now ripe for international agreement on outline protocols for proving—this is a question which the International Homoeopathic Medical League should address. The paper by Dr Koppers of West Germany which appears in this number is a contribution to the development of consensus on this question’.[ 1 ]