mktsgm
- 151
- 22
By 1784, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann of Germany, revolts against the then practice of 'heroic medicine' which is nothing but bloodletting and some related treatment like purgation. Around the same time, he hits upon an idea of 'like cures like' after reading William Cullen's A Treatise on the materia medica. He then decides to abandon the humorist 'heroic medicine' in favor of his new brainchild 'homeopathy'.
With new science, the microscope had just entered the medical scene to 'view'. But they didn't have any clue to move further into this science. Despite the discontent and reservations about the current treatment, the then physicians had continued to follow the two millennium old medical practice of treatment, ie the bloodletting and purgation for want of any viable alternatives.
While, it is within anybody's rights to support this theory vs that, I wonder historically, what on Earth that made the then physicians (heroic medicine practitioners) to declare homeopathy as 'quackery'! Whatever they had been practicing was no better!
I am not here to justify or support any alternative medicine let alone homeopathy. Personally I find it is just a fantasy.
My question is, given the historical point of time, what made the then physicians not to support a new theory, while admittedly their own current theory itself was not yielding results.
(It is another story, that modern medicine marched ahead and proved homeopathy untenable, some 200 years later...)
With new science, the microscope had just entered the medical scene to 'view'. But they didn't have any clue to move further into this science. Despite the discontent and reservations about the current treatment, the then physicians had continued to follow the two millennium old medical practice of treatment, ie the bloodletting and purgation for want of any viable alternatives.
While, it is within anybody's rights to support this theory vs that, I wonder historically, what on Earth that made the then physicians (heroic medicine practitioners) to declare homeopathy as 'quackery'! Whatever they had been practicing was no better!
I am not here to justify or support any alternative medicine let alone homeopathy. Personally I find it is just a fantasy.
My question is, given the historical point of time, what made the then physicians not to support a new theory, while admittedly their own current theory itself was not yielding results.
(It is another story, that modern medicine marched ahead and proved homeopathy untenable, some 200 years later...)