Homoeopaths say, “Cure takes place through the way of similars. All other modes, including allopathy, are suppressive.”

The statement is in conflict with the ground realities. People do recover under allopathy and stay healthy afterwards without any recurrence of the old disease or any untoward after-effect. In some cases, however, the untoward effects following allopathic treatment are very awesome but that may be due to the inability of the physician to properly diagnose a case or failure of the patient to properly follow the instructions of his physician rather than the weakness of the allopathic system.

The allopathic system as practised during the days of Hahnemann was, no doubt, suppressive but since then the situation has changed a lot. It is time, the homoeopaths took stock of the ground realities and reassessed their attitude to allopathy.

Please understand, I am not an advocate of allopathy. I am trying to just convey what I mostly see. Insinuations by homeopaths against allopathy appear to be based on a negligible fraction of cases spoiled by injudicious use of allopathic drugs. If homoeopaths were in the habit of reporting their failures as faithfully as they are keen to hoist their success stories, the percentage of homoeopathic spoiling will be far greater than allopathy.

I have great respect for homoeopathy, and in fact, have benefited from it. It is a wonderful system; I wish, its practitioners could only shed some of the bias they hold against allopathy and see the ground realities.

__________________
Abdullah<br />I know too little