This post is about homoeopathy, the most maligned of all schools of medicine. The historical wars between homoeopathy and allopathy – to give “conventional” or “Western” medicine its correct name as a medical philosophy – ended in a comprehensive victory for the allopaths, and homoeopathy has been consigned to the realm of quackery. Or at least homoeopathy as a developed system, that is as developed by Samuel Hahnemann and his followers, has been so consigned, when in fact the principles and many methods of homoeopathy persist across all branches of medicine. Let us recall that homoeopathy was not invented by Dr Hahnemann, and he never claimed to have done so. He was a translator of ancient medical texts and discovered the principles of homoeopathy – chiefly that like can cure like – in ancient Greek medicine. It is a very ancient observation. What a large dose will cause a small dose might cure. It is, of course, the very principle of vaccines, currently a much-discussed topic. The allopaths might have relegated the homoeopaths to quackery but they embraced the core principle of homoeopathy in the development of vaccines. A vaccine works, as everyone knows, by giving a small dose of a certain pathogen in order to protect from large and dangerous doses of the pathogen. Or, indeed, similar pathogens, sometimes.
The mechanism, of course, is immune response. Hahnemanian homoeopathy purports to be a general and systematic application of the same principle, not merely for infectious diseases, and claims to work by stimulating the organism to heal itself. Strategically, the homoeopaths did themselves no favours by claiming that even tiny, tiny, microscopic (or molecullary non-existent) doses of toxins could have this effect. The allopaths had the science; the homoeopaths struggled to explain the action of their microdoses.
Microdosing, however, is presently fashionable, albeit in quite different therapeutic models. Most impressive, perhaps, has been the trend of microdosing hallucinogens and other mind-altering substances for the ameriolation of psychiatric disorders. Much of the trend has been led by self-experimentation rather than clincial trials, but it would still be a fair assessment to say that there is a growing body of evidence to support claims that microdosing on psyilicybin mushrooms, for example, can assist people with depression, for example. Other evidence shows some promising results in cases of more severe psychiatric disorders too. In some cases, at least, small doses of hallucinogens are beneficial to mental health.
Another case of this appeared in recent studies and chatter in the on-line health community. Studies show, it is said, that a small amount of alcohol can have a profoundly restorative effect upon a damaged liver. Regrettably, the amount is very small – about two-thirds a glass of wine per week and no more – but it has been shown to stimulate a whole cascade of biochemical events in the liver and related systems that are wholly beneficial, protective and healing. How can this be? Alcohol is a toxin. Indeed, it is verily a toxin, utterly poisonous, and outside of its uses as a social lubricant has no benign internal uses at all. It’s noxious, pure and simple. Why would a tiny dose have such health benefits? The answer to this is: homoeopathy. Why does a tiny dose heal the liver? Because a large dose harms it. That’s why.
Researchers explain it this way: alcohol is a toxin. When we consume a tiny amount the systems of the body anticipate that more of that toxin is on the way. It therefore mobilizes everything that it needs to protect itself from this anticipated damage. And since it anticipates that the toxin will harm the liver the systems of the liver are “up-regulated” as the researchers say.
Perhaps we can hypothesize that the same mechanism is involved in the psychiatric uses of hallucinogens? Certainly, in large doses the same hallucinogens can be destructive. The present author once knew a man who worked as a postman who chanced upon and consumed psylicibin mushrooms all along his mail route. He was eating 30+ a day! Sure enough, within a short while this drove him to complete psychosis: he went barking mad. Admittedly an extreme case, and a sample of one, but in general hallucinogens – in hallucinogenic doses - are not good for a fragile psyche and may be corrosive to a robust one too. Is this why a small dose of magic mushrooms – one instead of thirty a day – can be healing to psychosis and other mental disorders? Is it a homoeopathic effect?
By homoeopathic effect, we mean “bi-phasal”. Homoeopathy, in both its ancient and modern forms, proposes that this is a principle of nature. In fact, it is everywhere. Alcohol is a good example. It is bi-phasal. We all know this. When we drink, a small quantity of alcohol is uplifting. We feel light, merry, sociable, outgoing. But then, just a few more drinks further on, we encounter the “bi-phase”. In larger quantities alcohol is a depressant. We feel heavy, despondant, inward, morose. The same substance causes two diametrically opposed reactions. Homoeopathy proposes that all toxins, all irritants, are like this. There are two phases in the action of toxins and irritants. A small dose will have the opposite effect to a large dose. (The symmetry and paradox of this appealed to the ancient Greeks no end. It is the sort of thing to which Greek science was most sensitive.) Once again, the mechanism involved is that a small dose stimulates the body to “anticipate” and prepare for a large dose. The elation we feel from a few drinks of alcohol is in fact the result of the cascade of emergency chemistry as the body tries to deal with the in-coming toxin. It is not called “intoxication” for no reason.
Here is another example that might underline how widespread this principle might be. Health enthusiasts will assure you – based on science or upon 3000 years of Aryuvedic lore, or both – that turmeric is fantastically good for all sorts of sundry maladies. Standard practice is to eat turmeric daily, or swallow it in pill-form, for a thousand healthy outcomes. These days people put it in their latte. It is listed, oftentimes, as a “super-food”. But, in fact, it is an irritant. It is a stressor. It irritates and stresses the body. But this is exactly what makes it beneficial. Irritants stimulate the body to react – and specifically to react in response to what it anticipates to be the threat. Turmeric is certainly toxic in large doses. The biochemists will tend you that of the rhizome’s 200 known compounds, some 183 are known toxins. And, moreover, they are specifically toxic to the organs, systems and processes that a small quantity of turmeric is purported to assist. Turmeric is health-giving because, confronted by the irritant, the body bolsters itself in exactly those areas that a large dose of the irritant would harm.
Much medical, nutritional and even herbal thinking is wrongly based on the ‘Deficit Theory’ model. Thus, for example, the experts might relate how turmeric is a rich supply of, say, sulphur, or copper, and then relate how these are essential nutrients for physical well-being. The assumption is that there is a deficit in these minerals and then turmeric promotes health by supplying them. Thus do the chemists trawl through the various “super-foods” and latest herbal pancea from the Amazon jungle looking for bundles of goodies. But, in fact, it is the toxins that are important. It works because it irritates the body, not because it refills depleted stores of substances. We can actually push this much further and say that, in fact, this is how most if not all herbal medicines work: not by filling a deficit but by stimulating – irritating, stressing – the body into action. When medieval scribes reported that bitter rue (ruta gravelons) improves eyesight, we must understand that what is happening is that the compounds in rue (toxic and intense – you can taste them) can damage the optic nerve and so a small dose – what we call a ‘medicinal dose’ – will prod the body into “up-regulating” those processes that preserve, strengthen and heal the optic nerve.
No one in early modern medicine
appreciated this entire matter like Samuel Hahnemann. His experiments with
quinine, trying smaller and smaller doses of quinine to treat malaria, were
correct. He established the very worthy principle of the minimum dose, namely:
the correct amount of any medication is the smallest amount necessary to
initiate a reaction. This is what led him to explore various dilutions. Controversially,
he claimed to have found a method of amplifying the stimulative effect while
reducing dilutions to microscopic attenuations. Those who ridicule homoeopathy
are usually ridiculing Hahnemanian dilutions, not homoeopathy itself. Because
the principle of microdosing is sound. In Hahnemann’s time medical wisdom was
that more is better. Syphilis? More mercury! It was Hahnemann who – very
bravely – declared that less might be more and championed the method of using microdoses
of toxins to prompt the body to heal itself.
* * *
As for microdosing on alcohol, it is important to understand that it will only be beneficial if you don't drink otherwise. If you are a regular or even light drinker, microdosing is a waste of time. The idea is to prod the body with an unfamiliar toxin. It also follows that it is best not to microdose (on anything) continually. Again: the idea is to prod the body with an unfamiliar toxin. To keep the toxin unfamiliar it needs to be intermittent. Some time ago the present writer purchased some turmeric root from an Indian grocers, and the old Indian lady commented on it's health-giving properties in Aryuvedic medicine. Then she cautioned: "But don't take it all the time. Only for a few weeks. Then stop for a week." She explained that she didn't know why, but this was what her mother had told her, and she believed it to be traditional best practice.
* * *
On a further tangent: Islamic orthodoxy is of the opinion that alcohol cannot be of any benefit to man even in the tiniest doses. This is a matter of legal principle: since it is forbidden in large doses it is forbidden in small doses. It is uniformly bad. There are hadith of the Prophet proclaiming outright that it cannot be used as a medicine. Historically, this matter went through the typical stages from moderate to severe. In the earliest school of jurisprudence, that of Imam Hanafi, some alcohol was permitted, while drunkenness was frowned upon. This was then challenged by later schools, leading ultimately to the most severe interpretation: total prohibition. This strict view became the prevailing orthodoxy in modern Islam with the ascendency of the Wahhabi. There's no need to ask the jurists: they'll rule that even microdosing on alcohol is haram.
Harper McAlpine Black
