ABSTRACT: There is a total incompatibility between the Homoeopathic Remedy and allopathic medicine because the prescription of the Homoeopathic Remedy is not based exclusively on the disease of the organ, albeit on the accurate spotting of the disease of the organism which expresses itself in the pathology of an organ.

(Papers of the Transnational Conference: "THE HOMOEOPATIC REMEDY-NON-MEDICINE. A PROPOSAL FOR RECOGNITION" - Rome 12th and 13th december 1988).

During my medical practise I have often observed what happens when, in one same patient, for different reasons, the Homoeopathic Remedy cohabits with the allopathic medicine. Fron the resulting observations I reached the conclusion that there is a total incompatibility between the Homoeopathic Remedy and the allopathic medicine. The only partial compatibility may be found in the individual doctor's decision. Learned in both disciplines, in the creative solitude of his therapeutic choice, faced with the single patient, he decides on the most suitable path to follow as regards the unique and unrepeatable conditions of that particular medical case.

If this happens, this is not the place to speak about it for the actions the doctor decides upon under his personal responsability cannot be subject to approval or disapproval, having the doctor to meet only three basic requirements: diligence, ability, and caution established by the legislator. My survey, therefore, will only regard the compatibility between the two methods and not the doctor's actions as regards his patient.

To illustrate the above I shall give you some data drawn from my clinical casuistry.

I shall consider 105 patients subdivided into 3 homogeneous groups.

The first group is formed by 35 cases of skin pathology, partly of an allergic kind and partly of an infectious kind (bacterial, viral and fungous); the second group by 35 cases of respiratory pathology, partly allergic and partly infectious (bacterial or viral). The third group is formed of the same number of cases with a psychiatric pathology classifiable in the group of neuroses.

What are the reasons for my choise? It covers an array of meaningful opportunities from a Homoeopathic point of view.

In the first case the pathologic manifestation is located on the skin, that is on a very important emunctory organ; in the second case it is located on a mucous membrane, that is again on an emunctory organ which is, however, in a indirect relationship (rhinoipharyngeal mucous and laryngeal mucous) or direct relationship (bronchial mucous), with a vital organ; the lung, without the latter being involved in the pathology.

In the third case the pathology involves a vital organ, the noblest: the brain in its complex directing and order giving mechanisms.

Each patient inserted in this group corresponds to the following requisites which I believe have to be established for a brief but detailed report.

1) Being 1 to 45 years old because over 45 pathology presumably

becomes more intricate and thus unfit to be discusses in a

few minutes.

2) Being treated by me according to the dictates of classic

Homoeopathy and that is with an only Remedy at a time in line

with the psychophysic totality of the subject in order to

evaluate as accurately as possible the effect of each Remedy

and the length of its action.

3) Being a case I deemed closed and of which I have had a sure

clinical verification, positive or negative, after treatment.

4) Being a case of chronic pathology or of pathology

characterised by relapsing acute episodes, following each

other in a short succession of time, and thus being

classifiable as chronic pathology.

5) Being a case of pathology of a benignant nature as regards

prognosis quoad vitam since the cases of severe chronic

pathology ensue a series of variables as regards the

assumption of allopathic drugs which would require a much

more complex and longer report.

6) Haing been diligent in carrying out the treatment for the

sake of correctness and continuity.

7) Being insensible to the common allopathic pharmacologic

therapies.

This graph shows us how the distribution of pathology varies according to age in the groups of patients examined.

The skin pathology considered reaches a peak around 20, decreases from 21 to 30 and then stabilizes.

Respiratory pathology considered reaches a very marked peak between the ages of 1 and 20 and then decreases. The number of neuroses increases with the age increase.

Let us nuw consider the graph regarding the result of the treatment.

I consider as cured those patients who have obtained a total subsidence of the symptomatology and in whom subsidence has remained such for at least 6 months or a year. I consider very much improved those patients whose length, frequency and intensivity of symptoms and in whom the presence of a residual symptomatology in such that it does not limit the working life and the social relations of the subject.

Lastly, I consider as not recovered those patients who, in 24 months have not obtained any benefit from the treatment.

In the graph we see that:

- 52% of the patients recovered;

- 38% improved greatly;

- 10% obtained no benefit whatever.

Considering only the improved or recovered patients we obtain the following:

- 40% improved or recovered in 1 to 6 months;

- 33% in 7 to 12 months;

- 28% in 1 to 2 years.

I must remind you that we are talking of chronic pathologies and pathologies insensitive to the common pharmacologic therapies often carried out for years. Let us now consider the group of those patients who did not improve; we notice that in 50% of the cases the patients had followed systematic treatments with allopath drugs for one or more years or had taken drugs systematically during the Homoeopathic treatment.

In the group of the improved patients only 25% had teken drugs systematically during treatment or systematically for many years before the Homoeopathic treatment.

In the group of recovered patients only 4% had taken drugs systematically during treatment or in previous years.

Moreover, it must be said that while the patients of the recovered group or of the much improved group managed, after some time, to definately suspend pharmacologic treatment, the patients of the nonimproved group were not even able to reduce the dose of allopathic drugs.

In conclusion we may say that in the non recovered group the incidence of the systematic assumption of drugs is remarkable, while it lowers in the improved cases and loses all importance in the cases of recovery.

In the light of the above and more so in the light of what I observe daily in my work and which cannot always be translated into figures, I believe I can assume that a patient having a beningnat albeit chronic pathology, treated with Homoeopathy is more prone to recovery inasmuch he has not taken allopath drugs, while he is less prone to recovery if he has taken drugs. In fact, in this case he can be cured, but cannot achieve a complete recovery.

In this respect I must mention another fact remarked in this survey and that is that 80% of recovered patients never took allopath drugs during treatment, not even occasionally in the occurring acute stages in which they continued taking only the Homeopathic Remedy indicated by their doctor.

On the contrary in those patients who occasionally took allopath drugs during the homoeopathic treatment in the occurring acute stage, I have seen the following fact in 64% of the cases:

a) a fresh outbreak of the basic chronic pathology which had

formerly improved;

b) appearance of the so-called morbid metastasis, that is the

disappearance of the pathology in an organ and its appearance

in another;

c) a worsening of the general condition which had formerly

improved.

The phenomenon must be attributed to an interruption of a natural evolution towards recovery started by the Homoeopathic Remedy, according to Hering's law and that is from top to bottom, from the most vital organs to the least vital organs, from the most recent pathology to the least recent.

These are phenomena which any homoeopathic doctor observes, not because they occur in the homoeopathic treatment albeit because thanks to his professional training he tries to find out if the subidence of the local disorder corresponds or not to the actual improvement of the patient.

Let us now look at the true and proper characteristics of the Homoeopathic Remedy as compared to the allopath drug.

I shall consider the following points:

The Homoeopathic Remedy comes from nature, from the mineral, vegetable and animal world.

The allopath drug may be extracted from nature or may be extracted from nature and then modified or may be made of laboratory synthesized molecules.

The Homoeopathic Remedy always acts in an imponderable dose, while the allopath drug acts in a clinically quantifiable dose.

The Homoeopathic Remedy in its interaction with the human organism does not follow necessarily the pharmaco-receptor pattern whereas the allopath drug follows this pattern.

The Homoeopathic Remedy is experimented on the healthy person, while the allopath drug is experimented on animals and sick people. In the pharmacologic medicine the clinical verification is achieved on the diseased organ; in homoeopathy the clinical verification is achieved on the local disease as well as on the psycho-physical symptomatologic totality of the patient.

To explain the above we see that of the patients considered, 52% presented concomitant pathologies, that is other kinds of affections with a positive quoad vitam prognosis in other organs or apparatuses and of these 78% recovered or improved also as regards the concomitant disorders.

This happens because the prescription of the Homoeopathic Remedy is not based exclusively on the disease of the organ, albeit on the accurate spotting of the disease of the organism which expresses itself in the pathology of an organ.

This spotting out is carried out through a detailed survey of the psychic ego and of the neurovegetative ego of the subject considered, in the awareness that the disease of an organ must be considered as the result of an interaction of mechanisms pathogenetically responsible for the disease and of mechanisms which react to the disease itself.

Here disease means that pathology of the psychic ego, of the neurovegetative ego and, I would say, of the genetic ego which finds a fitting expression in the pathology of the organ. Therefore, since the homoeopathic prescription considers all these factors, it may happen that while treating the patient for a specific disease, other diseases from which the patient suffers are treated.

Let us go back to the analysis of the characteristics of the Homoeopathic Remedy as regards allopath drugs and let us analyze the toxic effects on the organism.

The Homoeopathic Remedy never produces toxic effects nor does it have allergizing capacities. The therapeutic action is only due to the similitude with the psycho-physical totality of the patient.

Therefore, the Remedy mey be administered freely, both in pregnancy and in breast-feeding, as well as to patients allergic to all the usual drugs. On the contrary, the allopath drug produces a therapeutic action almost always accompanied by side effects amd may even produce a border line intoxication, whether clinically manifest or not.

In this respect I must mention the increasing incidence of hyatrogenous diseases, that is those produced by the intake of drugs. The presence of toxic effects is a very important reason of incompatibility between the Homoeopathic Remedy and the allopath drug. In fact, the problem of the homoeopathic doctor is that of treating the natural disease because it is the one in which we find the similitude with the corresponding natural Remedy, through the knowledge of the series of symptoms caused by the Remedy on healthy people; when, on the contrary, the symptoms are the result of a mixture between natural disease and the one pharmacologically produced, the patient loses the chance of recovery in terms of natural processes.

The hyatrogenous power of the allopath drug on the human organism, in fact, is far greater than the power of bacteria, viruses and fungi. In fact, while it is not true that anyone and in any circumstance may be affected by microorganisms with the virulence present in nature, because he is endowed with natural defences againist these agents, it is however true that anyone and in any circumstance may be affected by drugs or other toxic agents if taken in adequate doses.

With reference to the clinical example previously stated, I can say that 99,9% of patients treated did not complain of side effects; in some rare cases I noticed a phenomenon which has nothing to do with side effects and that is an initial worsening of the disorder of which the patient was being treated and this must partly be attributed to the sudden suspension of allopath drugs taken, till then, to check the pathology and partly to the curative action of the Homoeopathic Remedy. However, this worsening is always fleeting and foreboding of a subsequent improvement.

The theoretic abjective of the two therapeutic interventios in exactly the same and that is health as defined by the OMS, as a state of well-being, but the two medicines start drifting apart when this theoretic idea is put into effect. In Homoeopathic Medicine the aim of treatment is recovery of the human being in its psycho-physic totality:

- morbid predispositions

- constitution

- local disease

This recovery nust be proved by Hering's law as already underlined above.

All these motives observed in clinical practice and briefly explained above, entitle me to believe that the incompatibility between allopath drugs and Homoeopathic Remedy is total.

Naturally, it would be extremely interesting to continue the research in this respect by means of a polycentric survey which I expect to begin in a near future as the natural conclusion of this symposium.