There is no difference between Homoeopathy taught by Hahnemann and Modern Homoeopathy. Only it just an new and scientific approach towards practicing Homoeopathy. As in today's world of Therapeutics for Diagnosis of disease and Treatment we have to depend on Pathological Investigation, X-ray, Ultrasonography, Echocardiography, ECG, Ct scan, MRI etc. So In Modern Homoeopathic approach we are not against taking Case History, Personal History, Mental History, Mind, Behavior or psychology of patient. We are also following the same approach which was taught by Dr. Hahnemann in Organon but the way of presenting it in modern manner.


Dear Dr. Pawan S. Chandak,

I'm a little confused about the first paragraph of your statement. I agree that Homeopathy and Hahnemann itself were and are "modern", simply because Hahnemann was far ahead of his time and can be called the father of experimental pharmacology and modern pharmaco-therapeutics (provings, made on healthy human beings...), because he was a great pioneer in the fields of hygiene and sanitation in medicine and daily life (public health...), the first advocate for human treatment of insane and psychotheraphy (think of Klockenbrink whom he freed from the asylum and treated in his home), the first medical man to talk about homoeostasis (the balanced state of the Vitalf Force etc....), who wrote about micro-organisms (which Koch only proved to be true with the microscope) and of course not to forget his theory of the chronic diseases, and he can also be viewed as the father of Nano-medicine* etc.


But does the way diagnosis has changed over the years and is made today (in modern labs etc.) change the way we practice homeopathy ?

Are it not the eternal and universal Law of Similars and all the other rules and principles of homeopathy that saved it's survival despite of all "modern" discoveries in allopathic medicine and of the attacks of its detractors ?

Fixed principles are the guidance for the true physician and Hahnemann prescribes in § 3 Organon the necessary tools for treatment and cure of patients, that a true physician knows to treat thoroughly and efficaciously when he has knowledge of disease, knowledge of medicinal powers, and if he can select the remedy in accordance to clearly defined principles.

No matter how "modern" medicine will be, especially its technics of diagnosis, neither of them will enable to discover the essence of disease, which indeed cannot be discovered by any of the senses but only be perceived by signs and symptoms, nor will their modern technic provide them with knowledge of medicines. Those who have no laws or doctrines think to discover by experience and undertake to invent out of experience. Allopathic medicine relies upon experience, but their medicine of experience confirms nothing but induces a series of inventions and theories, changing every year and never appearing twice alike. They deny law and principle thus they have no true foundation upon which to built a true science of medicine. Experience has only a confirmatory place in science and is to confirm what has been discovered through and is consistent with law and principles** .

Yes, I agree that diagnosis, even miasmatic diagnosis, is indispensable for the choice of the remedy, case management, prognosis etc.

But do we need it to call "Modern Homeopathy" in order to be more successful ? I'm afraid that homeopathy will not gain more acknowledgment from allopathic physicians and/or its detractors simply because of this new name. This requires at first an open mind, the will to learn and to educate themself before making an judgement and of course the understanding of what is written in the Organon.

I do not really understand why this new name should be necessary, but may be I did not understand your utmost concern...

Yours sincerely,
Katja Schütt

*(see H.Nigam in The Homoeopathic Heritage).
**(see Kent)