PROJECT REPORT

A STUDY ON HOMEOPATHY

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE

DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 2013-2016

Under the guidance of:

Submitted By:

MR. JAGAT JYOTI BARUA

SHUBHAM JAIN

FACULTY, MAIMS

Roll no. 6114701713

Batch No. (BBA III SEM)

Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies

Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi
PSP Area, Plot No. 1, Sector 22, Rohini Delhi -110086

STUDENT DECLARATION

This is to certify that I have completed the PDCS Project titled A Study on Homeopathy
under the guidance of Mr. Jagat Jyoti Barua in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the
award of Degree of Bachelor of Business Administration at Maharaja Agrasen Institute of
Management Studies, Delhi. This is an original piece of work & I have not submitted it earlier
elsewhere.

Date: 31-10-2014

Signature:

Place: Rohini, New Delhi

Name: SHUBHAM JAIN

University Enrollment No.: 6114701713

CERTIFICATE FROM THE INSTITUTE GUIDE

This is to certify that the summer project titled A Study on Homeopathy is an academic
work done by Shubham Jain submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
award of the degree of Bachelor of Business Administration at Maharaja Agrasen Institute of
Management Studies, Delhi, under my guidance & direction.

To the best of my knowledge and belief the data & information presented by him/her in the
project has not been submitted earlier.

Signature

Name of the Faculty : Mr. Jagat Jyoti Barua

Designation

: Faculty, MAIMS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Success is an effort bounded activity, involving coordination & cooperation of all. Nothing in
this world can be achieved without proper coordination. This report has been made possible
through direct and indirect support of various people for whom I wish to express my
appreciation and gratitude.

This project of mine wouldnt have seen the light of the day without the coordination of Mr.
Jagat Jyoti Barua my project guide. I would like to express my special thanks and gratitude to
maam for constantly guiding me and tackling a variety of hurdles with implicit patience
throughout my research project, her deep involvement and interest infused in me great
inspiration and confidence in taking up this study in the right direction. Without her overall
guidance and help, the project may not have been completed.
I would also like to thank my family and friends, who were always a support for me. Last,
but not the least, Dr.C.S. Shrama and other faculty members who acted as the constant source
of inspiration and motivation.

Shubham Jain
BBA 3rd SEM
6114701713

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project is an attempt to give information and knowledge about Homeopathy. It aims to
make its reader well versed with each and every aspect of Homeopathy. In this project an
attempt has been made to gather the maximum information available on Homeopathy.
This project is overall an attempt to make you aware or to cover every possible aspect of
Homeopathy and Homeopathy in India.

Homeopathy is an elaborate and very detailed system of healing based upon the principle of
stimulating the body to heal itself. Widespread throughout Europe, especially Great Britain,
and also in Central and South America, India, and Africa, homeopathy is experiencing an
explosive resurgence in the United States and Canada as part of the movement toward
alternative medicine. Homeopathic pharmacies are regulated by Department of Ayush in
India, Health Canada in Canada, and the FDA in the United States. The principles underlying
the specialty of homeopathy have been systematically proven throughout two centuries of
practice, and are validated by over 200 scientific studies meeting modern criteria of
acceptability.

When Dr Samuel Hahnemann developed the art of homoeopathy in the 19th Century, people's
lives were very different to now. The average life expectancy would have been in the 60s. The
ratio of acute to chronic illnesses was very different; 80% illnesses were acute in those days,
complaints such as cholera, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and smallpox were commonplace, as
many people lived in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. The classical approach of
Homoeopathy according to Hahnemann's principles was very successful. In the London
cholera epidemic of 1854, the homoeopathic hospitals had a 16.4% mortality rate compared
with the allopathic hospital, which was between 50-60%. By contrast in the 21st Century,
when we now have antibiotics, vaccinations, better sanitation and living conditions, the
average life expectancy in the western world is now well into the 80s, but rather than being
healthier than we have ever been, the incidence of chronic illnesses compared with acute, has
completely reversed since Hahnemanns time; now chronic illnesses comprise 80% of
illnesses.

Table of Contents

Page no.
Chapter 1.

Introduction.
1.1
1.2

Origin..
Objectives of the study...

8
17

Homeopathy in India....

18

2.1

Development...

29

Chapter 3.

Research Methodology

33

Chapter 4.

Findings....

35

4.1 Advantages..

36

4.2 Techniques...

40

4.3

Limitations and Risks..

46

4.4

SWOT Analysis...

53

Conclusion and Suggestions.

54

Chapter 2.

Chapter 5.

Bibliography
Attendance Sheet

57
58

Chapter 1.
Introduction

Homeopathy is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann based

on his doctrine of likecures like: a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy
people will cure similar symptoms in sick people, Homeopathy is considered
a pseudoscience, and its remedies have been found to be no more effective thanplacebos.

Hahnemann believed the underlying causes of disease were phenomena that he

termed miasms, and that homeopathicremedies addressed these. The remedies are prepared
by repeatedlydiluting a chosen substance in alcohol or distilled water, followed by forceful
striking on an elastic body.Dilution usually continues well past the point where no molecules
of the original substance remain. Homeopaths select remedies by consulting reference books
known as repertories, and by considering the totality of the patient's symptoms, personal
traits, physical and psychological state, and life history.
Homeopathy lacks biological plausibility,and the axioms of homeopathy are contradicted by
scientific facts.The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are both
scientifically implausibleand not physically possible. Although some clinicaltrials produce
positive results, systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research
methods, and reportingbias. Continued homeopathic practice, despite the evidence that it does
not work, has been criticized as unethical because it increases the suffering of patients by
discouraging the use of real medicine, with the WorldHealthOrganisation warning against
using homeopathy to try to treat severe diseases such as HIV and malaria.]The continued
practice, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to homeopathy being characterized
within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense, quackery, or a sham.
The British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has stated: "In our view,
the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic
products perform no better than placebos. The Government shares our interpretation of the
evidence."

Homeopathy Introduction & Overview

Homeopathy was founded 200 years ago by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann who gave direction to
this branch of medicine with his famous concept similia similibus curentur (let like cure
likes). Homeopathy is based on three basic principles:
1. The rule of similie
2. Testing of medicament in healthy human being
3. The principle of homeopathic doses.
Hahnemann studied many substances that led him to establish new rules of cure by use of
substances which are capable of creating such disturbances in healthy human beings, by use
of same substances in micro quantitative level.
The system of Homeopathy that he developed is holistic as it considers the entire individuals
physical, mental and emotional symptoms and treats the sum of the symptoms according to
the rule of similie.
In 1866, Samuel Hahnemann founded the Homeopathic Central Pharmacy to manufacture and
sell homeopathic medicine. He also created prescribed standards for homeopathic
pharmaceuticals production known as Pharma Copoeia Homeopathic Polyglotta which was
later revised and is known as German Homeopathic Pharma Copoeia (HAB) which serves as
international reference for homeopathic standards today.
Homoeopathy today is a rapidly growing system and is being practiced almost all over the
world. In India it has become a household name due the safety of its pills and gentleness of its
cure. A rough study states that about 10% of the Indian population solely depend
Homoeopathy for their Health care needs and is considered as the Second most popular
system of medicine in the Country.

It is more than a century and a half now that Homoeopathy is being practiced in India. It has
blended so well into the roots and traditions of the country that it has been recognised as one
of the National System of Medicine and plays a very important role in providing health care
to a large number of people. Its strength lies in its evident effectiveness as it takes a holistic
approach towards the sick individual through promotion of inner balance at mental,
emotional, spiritual and physical levels.
The word Homoeopathy is derived from two Greek words, Homois meaning similar and
pathos meaning suffering. Homoeopathy simply means treating diseases with remedies,
prescribed in minute doses, which are capable of producing symptoms similar to the disease

when taken by healthy people. It is based on the natural law of healing- "Similia Similibus
Curantur which means "likes are cured by likes. It was given a scientific basis by Dr.
Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) in the early 19th century. It has been serving suffering
humanity for over two centuries and has withstood the upheavals of time and has emerged as
a time tested therapy, for the scientific principles propounded by Hahnemann are natural and
well proven and continue to be followed with success even today.

In India, the history of Homeopathy is linked with the name of Dr. Honiberger, a French man
who brought Homeopathy to India in 1829. He was invited to treat Maharaja Ranjit Singh of
Punjab. He later on started practicing in Calcutta. The influx of homeopath and Homeopathy
was more in Calcutta & later on became the site of first Homeopathy College in India. The
system spread from eastern region to U.P, Delhi, Kerala and Karnataka. In the second phase of
expansion, the spread took place in
Northern and Western India. Dr M.L. Sirkar was first qualified physician in India.
Subsequently, the Government of India constituted a Homeopathic Inquiry Committee in
1948, which submitted its report in 1949. A few state governments extended recognition by
suitable enactment in fifties, finally leading to government of India recognizing the system in
1960. With this followed the constitution of an advisory committee, Homeopathic
Pharmacopoeia Committee and Central Council of Homeopathy. A homeopathic
Pharmacopoeia laboratory was established in 1975, which formed the nucleus of
establishment of Central Council for Research in Homeopathy.
Today there are over 1,50,000 institutionally qualified homeopaths, and over 2.5 lakhs
practitioners under certain legal rights and protection given to them. In addition, there are
over ten lakh persons or more patronizing it as self-medicating Homeopathy knowing person.
According to a recent survey conducted by Dabur research organisation, the market size of
homeopathic industry in India is estimated to be of Rs 600 crores which holds 14% share in
total Indian system of medicine and Homeopathy.
The sector constitutes of
1. Registered Homeopathic practitioners (institutionally qualified and non-institutionally
qualified),
2. Manufacturing units or pharmacy involved in production of homeopathic medicines and
products

3. Both government and non-government, homeopathic research institutes/council owned

privately or by government,
4. Hospitals and dispensaries.

Homeopaths
The persons who have the knowledge of Homeopathy and who offer treatment to other
persons are the practitioners who have gained professional knowledge through some training
or the education in this field. And these are the people, who are responsible for the spread and
success of the system.
As of 1.1.1999 estimates, the number of registered practitioners were estimated at 188527 that
constituted 30.9% of total Indian system of medicine and homeopathic practitioner. Indian
system of medicine and Homeopathy in India 1998). The number of homeopathic registered
practitioner showed an increase of 2.7% on an average and it varied between 4.2 to 1.1% for
the years 1991 to 1999.
In the exercise of power conferred by the Homeopathy Central Council Act 1973, the central
council has taken expeditious steps towards putting medical education in Homeopathy and
practice on a proper footing keeping in view the national requirements. It has introduced with
the prior sanction of central government and the following educational Regulation for
diploma, degree and post-graduate degree courses for maintaining uniformity of medical
education at all India level:
Homeopathy (Diploma courses) D.H.M.S Regulations 1983 DHMS courses spread over a
period of four years including compulsory internship of six months duration after passing the
final diploma examination. 2. Homeopathy (Degree course) B.H.M.S Regulation 1983
spread over a period of five and a half years including internship of one year duration after
passing final year degree examination. 3. Homeopathy (Graded Degree courses) B.H.M.S
Regulations 1983 spread over a period of 2 years including internship of six months
duration after passing the final degree examination. 4. Homeopathy (PG degree course) M.D
(hom.) Regulations, 1989 (which were amended) PG Degree Courses M.D (Hom)
(Amendment) Regulation 1992 Central Council has prescribed PG Degree Courses in
Homeopathy subject i.e. Materia Medica, homeopathic philosophy & Repertory which spread
over 3 years duration including one year of house job or equivalent. 5. Teacher Training
intensive 3-week program have been circulated by central council.

All over India there are 118 Homeopathic Medical College/ institutes imparting education in
Homeopathy. Out of these, 83 institutes are non-government organisation and about 33
government supported unit (1998 ISM&H report).
Manufacturing Units
Homeopathic medicine as well as the industry is regulated by the Drug and Control Act.
Quality of raw materials as well as finished product of some of the fast moving items are
covered by Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia which is published by Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare in five volumes.
Legal Definition of Homeopathic Medicines (GOI)
Homeopathic medicines includes any drug which is recorded in homeopathic proving or
therapeutic efficacy of which has been established through long clinical experience as
recorded in authoritative homeopathic literature of India or abroad and which is prepared
according to the technique of homeopathic pharmacy and covers combination of ingredients
of such homeopathic medicines which is administered by parental route.
Government of India listed 2373 drugs used as homeopathic medicines in 1965, which was
subsequently increased to 3000. In this system, the most frequently used drugs are called
Polycrest. And in this context it should be noted that for homeopathic medicines clinical and
biological trial are conducted where they are tested for toxicity on long term, short term and
medium term use.
Currently, there are 863 manufacturing units all over India of which 100 can be said to be
organised. Out of these, three units are those belonging to foreign companies like Willmer
Shwabe, Sharda Borion (SBL) and Bioforce. The companies in organised sector are
professionally managed production facilities with modern equipment and technology. The
main products that are manufactured by these units are medicines. Other products like
shampoo, pastes and creams are also manufactured by some of these units. All these things are
sold under the prescription of
Medical practitioners. However, the market for homeopathic products other than drugs is very
small in India.
Manufacturing of homeopathic medicines require raw materials in the form of different plant,
chemicals of animal origin and bacteria, micro-organism & certain disease causing factors.
These are processed to obtain the mother tincture. Then they are processed further according
to the pharmacopoeia for Homeopathy. These are diluted in alcohol at different potency levels

according to the requirement of the medicines. Then the quality control test is done in the
laboratory.
The source of homeopathic medicines can be classified like following:
60% is of plant origin 25% is of chemical or mineral origin 10% is of animal origin 5% from
bacteria, micro-organism & certain disease causing factors
Since Homeopathy originated from Germany the industry is still using 150 raw materials,
which are of imported origin like plants not grown in India, and minerals not found in India.
In homeopathic industry the raw material are taken and processed. From them mother tincture
is obtained. This is diluted further in alcohol. It is interesting to note that in Homeopathy the
raw material requirement is not substantially large because they are used in very small
quantities and then it is further diluted. But the environment required is pollution free, dust
free and bacteria free. Normally, bigger companies undertake extraction, as it involves
significant technical knowhow. Dilution, however, does not require much complication,
though the environment requirements still remain. There is also a prevalent practice of mixing
two or more homeopathic medicine and selling it in brand name. Estimated sale of such
branded products constitutes 30% of total sales.
The technology involved in Homeopathy has evolved over time, with scientists and
pharmacists working in the industry taking American, German & French methods of
production as their base. The manufacturing base in India is however, not homogeneous. The
production facilities available in the organised manufacturing sector are far more superior to
the facilities for smaller units. Larger units maintain a quality control unit and research testing
labs, which the smaller operations cannot always afford.
Here it should be noted that the technical requirement of the homeopathic industry is high.
And interestingly, technical manpower in India is deficient, in spite of the system being more
popular in India compared to other countries. In more advanced countries where Homeopathy
is recognised systems of medicine high tech systems are used for production in view of the
technical requirements of the system.

1.1 Origin

The history of homeopathy combines the high drama and intrigue commonly found in the best
efforts of the silver screen. Although a movie has not yet been made about homeopathy, it is a
film waiting to happen.
Homeopathy became spectacularly popular in the United States and Europe in the 1800s and
its strongest advocates included European royalty, American entrepreneurs, literary giants,
and religious leaders. But at the time that it was gaining widespread popularity, it became the
object of deep-seated animosity and vigilant opposition from establishment medicine. The
conflict between homeopathy and orthodox medicine was protracted and bitter. We know who
won the first round of this conflict. We await the results of the second round. Hopefully, we
will soon discover that a "fight" over healing is inappropriate and that various approaches to
healing are all necessary to build a comprehensive and effective health care system.
The history of homeopathy begins with the discoveries of its founder Samuel Hahnemann
(1755-1843), a German physician. Hahnemann first coined the word "homeopathy"
("homoios" in Greek means similar, "pathos" means suffering) to refer to the pharmacological
principle, the law of similar that is its basis. Actually, the law of similars was previously
described by Hippocrates and Paracelsus and was utilized by many cultures, including the
Mayans, Chinese, Greeks, Native American Indians, and Asian Indians, but it was
Hahnemann who codified the law of similars into a systematic medical science.
Hahnemann's first comments about the general applicability of the law of similars were in
1789 when he translated a book by William Cullen, one of the leading physicians of the era.
At one point in the book Cullen ascribed the usefulness of Peruvian bark (Cinchona) in
treating malaria due to its bitter and astringent properties. Hahnemann wrote a bold footnote
in his translation, disputing Cullen's explanation. Hahnemann asserted that the efficacy
of Peruvian bark must be for other factor, since he noted that there were other substances and
mixtures of substances decidedly bitterer and more astringent than Peruvian bark that were
not effective in treating malaria. He then described his own taking repeated doses of this herb
until his body responded to its toxic dose with fever, chills, and other symptoms similar to
malaria. Hahnemann concluded that the reason this herb was beneficial was because it caused
symptoms similar to those of the disease it was treating.
This account epitomizes Hahnemann. First, he was translating Cullen's work, which indicates
that he was one of the more respected translators of his day. By the time he was only 24,
Hahnemann could read and write in at least seven languages. He ultimately translated over 20
major medical and scientific texts. This story reveals Hahnemann as both an avid
experimenter and a respected chemist. He had authored a four volume set of books called The

Pharmaceutical Lexicon, which was considered one of the standard reference texts for
apothecaries/pharmacists of his day. And this account also reveals Hahnemann as an
audacious rebel. He was unafraid to speak his mind, even if it meant correcting the analysis of
a very respected physician. He was unafraid to question commonly accepted truths. And he
had enough initiative to seek his own alternative explanations.
After translating Cullen's work, Hahnemann spent the next six years actively experimenting
on himself, his family, and a small but growing group of followers. In 1796 he wrote about his
experiences with the law of similars in Hufeland's Journal, a respected medical journal in
Germany. Coincidentally, in 1798 Edward Jenner discovered the value of giving small doses
of cowpox to people in an effort to immunize them against smallpox. Whereas Jenner's work
was generally accepted into orthodox medicine, Hahnemann's work was not. In fact, there was
so much antagonism to Hahnemann and the new school of medical thought he called
homeopathy that entire medical journals were called Anti-Homoeopathic Archives or AntiOrganon (the Organon refers to the book that Hahnemann wrote as the primary text on the
homeopathic art and science).
Hahnemann was particularly disliked by the apothecaries because he recommended the use of
only one medicine at a time and prescribing only limited doses of it. Because he
recommended only small doses of each medicine, the apothecaries could not charge much for
them. And because each medicine required careful preparation, Hahnemann found that the
apothecaries were not always making them correctly or were intentionally giving his patients
different medicines. As he grew to distrust the apothecaries, he chose to dispense his own
medicines, an illegal act at the time in Germany. The apothecaries then accused Hahnemann
of "entrenching upon their privileges by the dispensing of medicines." Arrested in Leipzig in
1820, he was found guilty and forced to move.
He moved to Kothen, where he was delegated special permission to practice and dispense his
own medicines by Grand Duke Ferdinand, one of the many European royalty who supported
homeopathy.
Despite the persecution, homeopathy continued to grow. It grew not just because it offered a
systematic approach to treating sick people, but also because orthodox medicine was
ineffective and even dangerous. There is general agreement among medical historians today
that orthodox medicine of the 1700s and 1800s in particular frequently caused more harm
than good.

Bloodletting and application of leeches were common practice even through to the mid-1800s.
One French doctor blood let so much that some jokingly estimated that he spilled more blood
in his medical practice than was spilled throughout the entire Napoleonic Wars. Benjamin
Rush, considered the father of American medicine, asserted that bloodletting was useful in all
general and chronic disease. As many as 41 million leeches were imported into France in
1833 alone. In the United States, one firm imported 500,000 leeches in 1856; its competitor
imported 300,000. Besides bloodletting and leeches, orthodox physicians used medicines
made from mercury, lead, arsenic, and various strong herbs to help purge the body of foreign
disease-causing matter.
The combination of poor medical care and prejudicial reaction against homeopathy is
certainly understandable in light of medical education at the time. Nathan Smith Davis, who
was the driving force in the creation of the American Medical Association, described medical
education in 1845:
"All the young man has to do is gain admittance in the office of some physician, where he can
have access to a series of ordinary medical text-books, and see a patient perhaps once a
month, with perhaps a hasty post-mortem examination once a year; and in the course of three
years thus spent, one or two courses of lectures in the medical colleges, where the whole
science of medicine, including anatomy, physiology, chemistry, material medica, pathology,
practice of medicine, medical jurisprudence, surgery, and midwivery are all crowded upon his
mind in the short space of sixteen weeks...and his education, both primary and medical, is
deemed complete."
Despite the fact that historians and scientists today consider medicine of the 18th and 19th
century as unscientific and even barbaric, orthodox physicians had the audacity to call
homeopathy "quackery," "unscientific," "cultish," and "devilish."

The Opposition to Homeopathy

Homeopathy posed a serious threat to entrenched medicine. Orthodox physicians criticized

herbalists, midwives, and various other "non-regular" practitioners because they were not
medically trained. Homeopaths, however, could not be discredited as being unlearned, since
they were graduates from many of the same medical schools as "regular" physicians. In fact,
many of the initial practitioners of homeopathy graduated from some of the most prestigious
medical schools of the day.

Orthodox medicine was also threatened because homeopathy offered an integrated, coherent,
systematic basis for its therapeutic practice. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Social
Transformation of American Medicine Paul Starr noted, "Because homeopathy was
simultaneously philosophical and experimental, it seemed too many people to be more rather
than less scientific than orthodox medicine."
One of the most important reasons that orthodox physicians and drug companies disliked
homeopathy was that inherent in the homeopathic approach was a sharp critique of the use of
conventional drugs. Homeopaths were primarily critical of the suppressive nature of these
drugs. They felt that they simply masked the person's symptoms, creating deeper, more
serious diseases. Homeopaths also noted that this masking of symptoms made it more difficult
for them ultimately to find the correct medicine, since the person's idiosyncratic symptoms are
the primary guide to the individual selection of the medicine.
Perhaps the most important reason that conventional physicians disliked homeopathy and
homeopaths was well expressed at an A.M.A. meeting by one of the more respected orthodox
physicians who said, "We must admit that we never fought the homeopath on matters of
principles; we fought him because he came into the community and got the business."
Although most physicians, past or present, won't as easily admit it, economic issues play a
major role in what is practiced and what is allowed to be practiced.
Hahnemann's principles therefore posed a philosophical, clinical, and economic threat to
orthodox medicine.
Homeopathy began growing in the New World shortly after Hans Gram, a Dutch homeopath,
immigrated to the United States in 1825. It expanded so rapidly that the homeopaths decided
to create a national medical society. In 1844 they organized the American Institute of
Homeopathy, which became America's first national medical society. Partially in response to
the growth of the homeopaths, in 1846 a rival medical group formed which then vowed to
slow the development of homeopathy. This organization called itself the American Medical
Association.
Members of the A.M.A. had a long-standing animosity towards homeopathy and homeopaths.
This feeling ran so strong that, shortly after the formation of the A.M.A., it was decided to
purge all the local medical societies of physicians who were homeopaths. This purge was
successful in every state except Massachusetts. Because homeopathy was so strong among the
elite of Boston, the A.M.A. allowed this exception, as long as the Society agreed not to allow

any new homeopathic members. Then, in 1871, the eight remaining physicians were expelled
from the Society for the heinous crime of being homeopaths.
In 1882 the AMA declined to acknowledge the delegates from the New York State Medical
Society because this society had recently passed a resolution that recognized all properly
graduated doctors (which thereby included homeopathic physicians).
Besides keeping homeopaths out of their societies, the A.M.A. wanted to discourage any type
of association with homeopaths. In 1855 the AMA established a code of ethics which asserted
that orthodox physicians would lose their membership in the A.M.A. if they even consulted
with a homeopath or any other "non-regular" practitioner. At the time, if a physician lost his
membership in the local medical society, it meant that in some states he no longer had a
license to practice medicine. Often, orthodox physicians, who controlled the medical
societies, wouldn't admit homeopathic physicians and then would arrange for their arrest for
practicing medicine without a license. Ultimately, homeopaths set up their own local societies
and established their own medical boards.
At a time in American medicine when physicians would very rarely, if ever, be reprimanded
by fellow physicians, the ethical code on consorting with homeopaths was regularly enforced.
One Connecticut physician was expelled from his local medical society for consulting with a
homeopath--his wife. A New York doctor was expelled for purchasing milk sugar from a
homeopathic pharmacy. Joseph K. Barnes, the Surgeon General of the United States, was
denounced for aiding in the treatment of Secretary of State William Seward on the night he
was stabbed and Lincoln was shot, simply because Seward's personal physician was a
homeopath.
In a bizarre event Dr. Christopher C. Cox was refused admittance into the Medical Society of
the District of Columbia because he had served on the D.C. board of health which had a
member who was a homeopath. Dr. D.W. Bliss, a conventional physician and colleague of Dr.
Cox, also was expelled, not because he consulted a homeopath, but because he consulted with
Dr. Cox who was previously expelled. Ironically, the Medical Society judged that Bliss and
Cox had committed a heinous crime, even though it was in the treatment of Schulyer Colfax,
the Vice President of the United States under Andrew Johnson.
The A.M.A. and its members did anything possible to thwart the education of homeopaths. In
the early 1840's and again in 1855 advocates of homeopathy convinced the Michigan
legislature to establish a professorship of homeopathy in the department of medicine at the
University of Michigan. The AMA resolved to deny recognition to the university's "regular"

medical graduates if a homeopath, as one of their professors, signed their diploma (at the time
all professors signed graduates' diplomas). The homeopaths brought their case to the
Michigan Supreme Court three times, but each time the court expressed uncertainty as to its
power to compel the Regents of the University to take action.
Finally, a compromise was reached. In 1875 the Michigan legislature voted to give money to a
new hospital dependent upon the appointment of two professors of homeopathy, but it was
also decided that only the president and the secretary of the university would sign the
diplomas, thereby allowing their graduates to be recognized by the A.M.A.
Despite this compromise, almost every medical journal in the country urged the Michigan
medical faculty to resign rather than participate in the training of homeopaths.
The antagonism to homeopathy was not confined only to the United States; it was also
widespread in Europe. A French medical student was expelled from his college for expressing
interest in homeopathy. A "consultation clause" similar to the one in the United States was
established in France. When J.P. Tessier, a conventional French physician, evaluated the
results of homeopathy at Hospital Ste. Marguerite and announced to the Paris Academy that
they were favourable, he aroused a storm of protest. No orthodox medical journal would
publish these results, and when he had it published in a homeopathic journal, he was
summarily expelled by the medical society.
In the 1830s the practice of homeopathy became illegal in Austria. Despite its illegality, many
people used micro doses during the cholera epidemic of 1831. Statistics show that those with
cholera who tried homeopathy had a mortality rate between 2.4 to 21.1%; whereas over 50%
of those with cholera under conventional medical care died.
In addition to the attacks by conventional physicians on the homeopaths' right to practice, the
right to join medical organizations, and the right to a medical education, conventional
physicians sought to besmirch the reputation of homeopaths. Homeopaths were considered
"immoral," "illegitimate," and "unmanly." The opposition to homeopathy was not based on
any scientific evaluation of this healing art, but arose primarily because homeopathy and
homeopaths were a significant competitor to conventional physicians.

The Rise of Homeopathy

In 1890 issue of Harpers Magazine, Mark Twain acknowledged the special value of
homeopathy, noting, "The introduction of homeopathy forced the old school doctor to stir
around and learn something of a rational nature about his business." Twain also asserted that

"You may honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of the allopathists
(orthodox physicians) to destroy it."
Despite the significant oppression from the orthodox medical profession, homeopathy
survived and even thrived in the 1800s and early 1900s. By 1900 there were 22 homeopathic
medical schools, more than 100 homeopathic hospitals, over 60 orphan asylums and old
people's homes, and 1,000+ homeopathic pharmacies in the U.S. These impressive numbers
alone do not provide an accurate perspective on the significant impact that homeopathy had
on American life.
Homeopathy attracted support from many of the most respected members of society. Its
advocates included William James, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Nathanial Hawthorne,
Harriet Beecher Stowe, Daniel Webster, William Seward, Horace Greeley, and Louisa May
Alcott. William Cullen Bryant, the famous journalist, was president of the New York
Homeopathic Society. John D. Rockefeller referred to homeopathy as "a progressive and
aggressive step in medicine"; the fact that he was under homeopathic care throughout the
latter part of his life may be one reason he lived 99 years.
Homeopathy's popularity among respected classes was also evident in Europe. Besides its
patronage by Britain's Royal Family dating from the 1830s, homeopathy could count among
its supporters Charles Dickens, W.B. Yeats, William Thackarey, Benjamin Disraeli, Johann
Wolfgang Goethe, and Pope Pius X.
Because abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison and Zabina Eastman were strong proponents of
homeopathy, and also because many individual homeopaths were politically progressive, the
medicine itself became identified with causes of female and black emancipation. Perhaps this
spurred homeopathy's popularity in the north, while retard its progress in the south.
Homeopathy was also disproportionately popular among women, not only as patients, but as
its practitioners. The first women's medical college in the world was the homeopathic Boston
Female Medical College, founded in 1848. Four years later it became the New England
Female Medical College, and in 1873, it merged with Boston University, another homeopathic
college.

Homeopaths also admitted women physicians into their national organization

considerably before orthodox physicians did. Homeopaths admitted women into the American
Institute of Homeopathy in 1871, while women were not invited into the A.M.A. until 1915.
The orthodox medical school at Johns Hopkins finally agreed to accept women students as
late as 1890, but not out of interests in women's rights. They were offered a $500,000
endowment. Harvard turned down this same offer.

Many clergy not only were personally supportive of homeopathy, they also helped spread the
word about it. Even Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, who generally was
vehemently opposed to the use of drugs, acknowledged homeopathy's value, saying,
"Evidences of progress and of spiritualization greet us on every hand. Drug-systems are
quitting their hold on matter and so letting in matter's higher stratum, mortal mind.
Homeopathy, a step in advance of allopathy, is doing this."
"Allopathy" is a word coined by Hahnemann to refer to orthodox medicine.
The press was often very supportive of homeopathy, as the Journal of the American Medical
Association regretfully acknowledged, "We all know perfectly well that the sympathy of the
press generally and of the public is with the homeopaths."
Although homeopathy was particularly popular among the educated and upper classes, it also
had a good reputation among the poor. Some of this support no doubt resulted from the free
homeopathic dispensaries in many cities.
However, probably the most important reason that homeopathy developed such immense
popularity was its success in treating the various infectious epidemic diseases that raged
throughout America and Europe during the 1800s. Statistics indicate that the death rates in
homeopathic hospitals from these epidemics were often one-half to as little as one-eighth
those in orthodox medical hospitals. Cincinati Homeopaths were so successful in treating
people during the 1849 cholera epidemic that homeopaths published a daily list of their
patients in the newspaper, giving names and addresses of those who were cured and those
who died. Only 3% of the 1,116 homeopathic patients died, while between 48-60% of those
under orthodox medical treatment died.
The success of homeopaths in treating the yellow fever epidemic of 1878 that spread
throughout the south was so impressive that homeopathy finally began to be noticed in the
region. Deaths rates for those under homeopathic care were approximately one-third what
they were for those using orthodox medicine.
Besides offering effective treatment for infectious diseases, homeopaths provided care for a
wide range of acute and chronic disease. The observation that patients under homeopathic
care lived longer led some life insurance companies to offer a 10% discount to homeopathic
patients.

There is also actuarial evidence that more life insurance money was paid to

beneficiaries of homeopathic patients because these people lived longer.

The training of 19th century homeopaths compared favourably to that of their orthodox
physician colleagues. As I mentioned earlier, many homeopaths attended orthodox medical

schools. Eventually, homeopaths developed their own medical schools or maintained

departments of homeopathy within other medical schools. Boston University, University of
Michigan, University of Minnesota, Hahnemann Medical College, and University of Iowa
were but some of the schools teaching homeopathy. Historians today consider the education
offered at the homeopathic medical colleges on a par with the orthodox medical schools of the
day.
It is impressive to note that a higher percentage of graduates from homeopathic medical
schools passed medical board examinations than did their orthodox medical student
colleagues.
Homeopaths showed impressive scholarship, both in books and journals. According to a U.S.
Commission on Education in 1898, three of the four medical schools with the largest libraries
were homeopathic colleges. And at the turn of the century, there were as many as 29 different
homeopathic journals.
Homeopathy's popularity in the United States was obvious and deep-seated. And yet, when
reading most books on the history of American medicine, we find little or no mention of it.
When there is reference, it is generally derogatory, delegating homeopathy to an anomaly in
medicine, a cult that ultimately disappeared, a science of placebos rather than "real drugs," or
a medical heresy. It has been said that history is written by the victors, not by the defeated.
The history of American medicine is but another sorry example of this maxim.

1.2 Objectives of the study:

To study the origin of homeopathy.

To understand the usefulness of homeopathy.
To explore disadvantages of homeopathy.
To find the importance and usage of homeopathy in India.

Chapter 2.
Homeopathy in India

Homoeopathy was introduced in India when some German missionaries and physicians
started distributing homoeopathic medicines amongst local inhabitants. However,

Homoeopathy took roots in India in 1839 when Dr. John Martin Honigberger successfully
treated Maharaja Ranjit Singh for the paralysis of Vocal Cords. Dr. Honigberger settled in
Kolkata (the then Calcutta) and became popular as Cholera-doctor. Later, Dr. M.L. Sirkar, a
reputed Physician of his time, also started practicing Homoeopathy. He edited the first
Homoeopathic Journal Calcutta Journal of Medicine' in the year 1868. In 1881, many
renowned physicians including Dr. P.C. Mujumdar and Dr. D. N. Roy established first
Homoeopathic College - the Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College'. Dr. Lahiri, Dr. B. K.
Sarkar and many others made personal efforts in establishing Homoeopathy as a profession.
They are well known for their contribution to the growth of Homoeopathy not only in West
Bengal

but

also

in

the

whole

country.

Over the years, the number of amateur homoeopathic practitioners grew steadily and most of
them approached the Government to accord recognition to Homoeopathy. The turning point
came in 1937 when the Central Legislative Assembly resolved, That this Assembly
recommends to the Governor General in Council that he may be pleased to introduce
Homoeopathic treatment in government hospitals and give homoeopathic colleges in India the
same status and recognition as in the case of allopathic colleges. Later, in the year 1948, the
same Assembly adopted yet another resolution about Homoeopathy, which was followed by
constitution of the Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee. In 1949, this Enquiry Committee
submitted its report recommending that Central Homoeopathic Council be constituted. In
1952, a Homoeopathic Adhoc Committee (later re-christened as Homoeopathic Advisory
Committee' in 1954) was constituted, which was to advise the Government on all matters
related to Homoeopathy, namely homoeopathic education, homoeopathic research, regulation
of practice, pharmacopoeia, rural medical aid, drug manufacture, family planning, financial
aid to homoeopathic colleges, dispensaries, hospitals and cooperation with International
Homoeopathic Medical League. In 1973, the Parliament passed the Homoeopathy Central
Council Act for regulating homoeopathic education and practice in the country.
Ever since, Homoeopathy has grown as a National System of Medicine and
enjoys Government's support at national and state levels. Now a significant percentage of the
people opt for Homoeopathy for their ailments. Besides, there is a vast infrastructure of
hospitals, dispensaries, research institutions, medical colleges, registered medical practitioners
and reputed pharmacies all over India. Thus, India has become the world leader in
Homoeopathy with tremendous potential of manpower and institutions.
There have been a number of other well-known enthusiasts like Dr. Cooper and Dr. J. Ruther
ford Russel, two Government Medical Officers, Mr. H. Ryper, a military pensioner, Captain

May and others of Calcutta, made Homoeopathy popular among the masses of Bengal. Last
but not the least, was the services rendered by Dr. C. J. Tonnere, M.D. the French
Homoeopath, proved "Acalpha Indica" in the year 1851 was first Health Officer of the town
of Calcutta and later he established Homoeopathic Hospital. In 1861, a virulent epidemic of
malarial fever was raging over lower Bengal and it was at this juncture that the great
philanthropist, Late Babu Rajendra Lal Dutta, a layman, truly laid the foundation of
Homoeopathy and started its practice with astounding results. He converted the redoubtable
allopath and his opponent, Dr. Mahendra Lal Sircar, M.D. D.L., C.I. E. to Homoeopathy. Dr.
P.C. Majumdar, M.D. another Homoeopath of Calcutta started his practise in 1864 and laid
the

foundation

of

Calcutta

Homoeopathic

Medical

College

in

1885.

The year 1867 is also memorable for the establishment of Banaras Homoeopathic
Hospital with Shri Loke Nath Moitra as Physician In-charge. In August 1869 a homoeopathic
charitable dispensary was started at Allahabad with Shri Priya Nath Bose as the Physician Incharge of the dispensary while in another important event in 1870 the Maharaja of Jaipur sent
for Dr. Salazar of Calcutta for the treatment of his cataract. From this time onwards,
homoeopathy spread not only in Bengal, but also to other parts of India. The Rev. Father
Muller, the great Jesuit Missionary of Mangalore in the South; Mr. P. Subbarayulu, the largehearted lawyer of Kakinada in the East; and Mr. V. M. Kulkarni, the tireless telegraphist of
Bombay in the west - all these like Babu Rajendra Lal Dutta of Calcutta, are names to conjure
with in the Indian Homoeopathic world. Homoeopathic treatment proved to be highly
effective in practice and its fame spread rapidly with the opening of several dispensaries in the
second half of the nineteenth century. Now the process of its recognition by the Government
of India was started. In April 1937, Md. Ghiasud-idin, M.L.A. moved a resolution in the
Legislative Assembly for its recognition. The resolution was passed and forwarded to the
State Governments for its implementation and Bengal was the first province to constitute a
Homoeopathic State Faculty in 1943. After independence and formation of National
Government, on 17th February, 1948 Shri Satish Chandra Samanta, M.P. (West Bengal)
moved a resolution which runs as follows "This Assembly is of opinion that homoeopathic
system of treatment be recognized by the Indian Union and that a General Council and a State
Faculty of Homoeopathic Medicine be established at once". This resolution was unanimously
adopted and subsequently the Government appointed a Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee in
1948 and the Committee submitted its report in 1949. In 1952, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, the
then Union Health Minister appointed a Homoeopathic Ad-hoc Committee which functioned
up to 1954. In 1954 Government constituted a Homoeopathic Advisory Committee. In 1956

this Advisory Committee was taken over by the Minister of Health and Secretary in the
Ministry of Health became its first Chairman. Govt. of India appointed Dr. K. G. Saxena as
first Honorary Homoeopathic Advisor in 1962. A Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Committee
was established in the year 1962 to lay down the standard of Homoeopathic drugs. In 1969 for
the development of ISM & Homoeopathic drugs an autonomous council was established. On
17th December 1973, Central Council of Homoeopathy was established by the Government of
India with the enactment of Central Council of Homoeopathy Act, 1973 with the following
objectives.

King lists 16 graduates from India who studied at US schools between 1850 and 1905. The
1931 Directory reported there were "many mongrel homeopaths in Calcutta." The Supreme
Court of India recently ruled that one could practice only the system for which he is licensed
to practice. The homeopathic degree is the BHMS and DHMS- the Bachelor and Doctorate of
Homeopathic Medical Science.
There are 207 government and private institutes in India teaching homeopathy; all attached to
universities. All teaching institutions have hospitals and dispensaries attached. In all
government hospitals there are homeopathic wings. City Municipal Hospitals have a
homeopathic wing. Whether all these are very active and what sort of homeopathy is practiced
are different questions. There are an estimated 150,000 homeopathic practitioners in India.
The country is represented in the LMHI.
At the current time, there are over 120 four- or five-year homeopathic medical schools in
India. Nineteen of the colleges are maintained by the state, most of which are affiliated with
universities. An article in the World Health Forum stated that, "In the Indian subcontinent the
legal position of the practitioners of homeopathy has been elevated to a professional level
similar to that of a medical practitioner."

Timeline
In 1836 in Tanjoor, Dr. Samuel Brookling, a retired surgical officer, dispensed homoeopathic
medicines to his civilians and army officers stationed at Madras.

In 1836-1867 Dr. Mahendra Lal Sircar, learned about Homoeopathy from a layman,
Rajendralal Dutta, popularly known as Babu Rajen Dutta. He had a number of cases to his

credit. He cured Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar of asthma and also cured gangrene of the foot of
Maharani of Shorapur, and greatly impressed Raja Sir Radhakanta Deb Bahadur of Shorapur.

On 16th February 1867, Dr. Sircar wrote an article condemning allopathy titled On the
Supposed Uncertainity in Medical Science and the Relationship between Diseases and
Medicine. He was the first man to start a journal on homoeopathy India Medical Review
and to attend the first Homoeopathic National Congress conference under the chairmanship of
Dr. C. Hering.

In 1867 Dr. Salzar of Vienna was the founder of Homoeopathic education in India. He
influenced two persons towards homoeopathy namely Dr. P. C. Majumdar and Dr. B. L.
Bhaduri. Dr. Majumdar along with Dr. Roy, Dr. B. N. Banerjee and Dr. Younan established
the first Homoeopathic College in India in the year 1878 under the name of Calcutta
Homoeopathic Medical College.
Dr. S. C. Ghosh proved many drugs from the Indian herbs and gave them to his patients in
low potency with great results. He compiled a book named Drugs of Hindustan.
Unfortunately, nobody noticed this book, until 1970-1971, when the Central Council for
Research in Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy (CCRIM & H) unearthed the book and a
number of drugs were proved.

In August 1869, a Bengali named Babu Priyanath Bose started a hospital with an OPD (Out
Patient Department) in Allahabad. It was at this centre that Mr. Motilal Nehru took treatment
during his struggle for freedom.

In 1880 Father Augustus Mueller, a priest and teacher of a school founded by the Society of
Jesus in Kankanady in Manglore, started dispensing free homoeopathic drugs.

In 1902 there was an epidemic of pneumonic plague and Father Augustus Muller treated most
of the people successfully. He established a plague and leprosy clinic. Seeing this, the British
presented him with the Kaiser-e-Hind award. He also wrote a book entitled Twelve Tissue
Remedies.

In 1937 the British government had not recognised this system of medicine and it was for the
first time that M.L.A. Miyan Ghias-ud-idin passed a regulation in the Bengal Assembly to
allow recognition and patronage to homoeopathy. Thus, homoeopathy was introduced in
Bengal for the first time in the pre-independence years.
After independence, the Government was more sympathetic and on 17th Feburary1948, Sir
Satis Chandra Samanta, M.P from West-Bengal, piloted a move in the constituent assembly to
establish a Central Agitation Body i.e. Central Council of Homoeopathy. This was passed
after a modification by Mr. Mohan Lal Saxena M.P (U.P). It was supported by Dr. Pattabhi
Sitaramayya, the President of India. Some of the important items in the draft proposal given
by the representative of the All India Institute of Homoeopathy to the Government of India
was of great help to put the education of homoeopathy on a firm base.

In 1944, the Government of India set up a five member committee with the Late Dr. L. D.
Dhawale being one of its members. He requested the Government to recognise and allow
Homoeopathic practice and teaching. He wrote a book in Marathi called the Homoeopathic
Chikitsa. He was the spearhead in starting the Government Homoeopathic Hospital.

In 1946 the Council of Homoeopathy of West Bengal was established with homoeopathy
being recognised.
Dr. B. K. Sarkar, (M. D.), was a renowned teacher in Homoeopathic Philosophy at Calcutta
Homoeopathic Medical College. His contribution to homoeopathy was enormous. His
commentaries on the 5th edition of The Organon were well known. Dr. S. P. Dey compiled
one of his collections into Essay on Homoeopathy.
Dr. B. K Bose the Grand Teacher of Homoeopathy passed his M.D. from Chicago and was a
direct student of Dr. Kent. He was an excellent teacher in Materia Medica.

In 1952-1954 the National Congress Government appointed a small committee

Homoeopathic Reference Committee constituted by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, the Union Health
Minister of India (1952). Dr. J. C. Mukerjee was nominated as chairman of this committee
comprising of six homoeopathic practitioners and four allopaths.

In 1956, the need for creating a post of Honorary Advisor in the committee was felt. However,
the Government approved of this post in 1960, and Dr. Krishna Gopal Saxena was the first to
be appointed.
The Government of India constituted a Central Council of Health, which was a committee of
Health Ministers from all states and was headed by the Union Minister. This committee used
to meet once a year. It passed a resolution that each state would give recognition to
Homoeopathic colleges from 1960. Another resolution passed was that the Government of
India should constitute a body to enforce regulations and promote research in homoeopathy.
The Maharashtra Act was passed in 1960. It constituted two bodies:
1) Court of Examiners (concerned with education and new colleges).
2) Board of homoeopathy (concerned with the regulation of practice and licensing
homoeopathic practitioners).
This Act was known as the Bombay Act. Dr. Gilder was the Health Minister. The court of
examiners were looked after by Dr. M. N. Paranjpe and the Board of homoeopathy by Late
Dr. S. R. Wadia who was the president.
Dr. M. V. Kulkarni followed in the footsteps of Dr. Bhattacharya in Bengal. He started Roy
and Company in Mumbai. They were the chief importers of Mesers B & T (Boericke and
Tafel) of America and Schwabe of Germany. Bogers Boenninghausen Repertory was first
published by Roy and Company in India. He also started manufacturing homoeopathic drugs
in Maharashtra. Mr. James Fergusson, Governor of Mumbai took treatment from Dr.
Kulkarni.
Dr. S. R. Phatak, an M. D. from Mumbai University, was influenced to practise homoeopathy.
He wrote two books:
1) Phataks Alphabetical Repertory.
2) Phataks Materia Medica.
Dr. P. Sankaran died at a very young age from cancer of the liver. He acquired name and fame
internationally. In a short span of time, he wrote a number of booklets (30) on topics relevant
and important to the practice of homoeopathy. He proved the drugs Aqua Marina and Pituita.
Dr. P. Sankaran popularised low priced editions of books on homoeopathy in India (not
exceeding Rs. 10). He wrote a small card repertory and started a journal known as the Indian
Journal of Homoeopathy. Presently, it is published as the Indian Journal of Homoeopathic

Medicine which was formely edited by Dr. K. N. Kasad. Currently, it is edited by Dr.
PrafulBarvalia.
Dr. Burjor Boman Behram was an M.B.B.S., who was practising homoeopathy. He died very
recently.
Dr. U. M. Menon, though not a qualified homoeopath, acquired a lot of wealth of knowledge
from homoeopathy. He was the spearhead for starting the Bombay Homoeopathic Medical
College.
The Planning Commission of India gave free aid to colleges from 1966 onwards. Soon, 20
colleges availed of this facility. They were given aid to start libraries and laboratories. One of
the colleges to benefit from this was the Pune Homoeopathic College.

In 1966, the Central Government, under the Ministry of Health passed a bill, which was a
joint bill for setting up a Central Council of the Indian system of Medicine and Homoeopathy.
This act was passed in 1969, when Ayurveda was recognised and the Central Council of
Ayurveda was formed.

In 1970, the Government proposed a separate bill on homoeopathy. It took one year before
this bill was submitted to the parliament as new health ministers had been appointed. The
Prime Minister gave consent to pass this bill in 1971, but unfortunately, because of mid-term
elections, it was delayed.

On 3rd April 1972, it was introduced in the Rajya Sabha. A Joint Select Committee under the
chairmanship of Smt. Purabi Mukhopadhayay (M.P. West Bengal) was formed. This
committee worked for all the colleges.

On 19th December 1973, the President gave his consent to the bill and thus the
Homoeopathy Central Council Act 1973 was passed. The necessity of this bill was felt long
back because most of the states had recognised colleges but the course was not established.
Therefore, there was a lot of confusion as doctors could not migrate to other states to practise.
This Act achieved the following:
(1) Standardisation of education.

(2) Standardisation of practice.

During this time, the Government of India constituted a research organisation called the
Central Council for Research in Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy (CCRIM & H).

In 1972, the Central Research Institute at Calcutta was established by the Government of
India and three regional research institutes were set up at Delhi, Kottayam and Orissa.
In this year, the research council was divided into three independent bodies:
1) Central Council for research in Ayurveda.
2) Central Council for research in Unani.
3) Central Council for research in Homoeopathy.
The headquarters of the Central Council for Homoeopath was at Ghaziabad in Delhi.
Presently, there are 200 units and 10 regional institutes.
The Central Council of Homoeopathy along with other recommendations, formed a uniform
syllabus for diploma, degree and linked courses (diploma holders of new course and diploma
holders of old course). They were called D.H.M.S., B.H.M.S. and B.H.M.S. (graded degree)
respectively.

INDIAN INSTITUTES

1. National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata

The National Institute of Homoeopathy (NIH) was established on 10 December 1975 in

Kolkata as an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India. The Institute has been offering Degree courses in Homoeopathy since
1987 and Postgraduate courses since 1998-99. The NIH was affiliated to the University of
Calcutta up to 2003-04 and is affiliated to the West Bengal University of Health Sciences
from 2004- 05 onwards The NIH also conducts regular Orientation Training courses for
Teachers and Physicians.
The BHMS course is of 5 years duration (including one year compulsory Internship). The
MD (Hom) course is available in three subjects viz. Organon of Medicine, Repertory and
Materia Medica. Six seats are available in each subject.
The In Patient and Out Patient Departments in the NIH provide subsidised and in some cases
free medical services to patients. Specialized clinics with clinical pathology, radiology, ultrasonography and ECG investigation facilities are available. Facilities for sophisticated
biochemical investigations are also available. The NIH has 60- bed Hospital, of which 10
beds are earmarked for surgery and 10 for maternity cases. In addition to the 60 beds, there
are 8 Air-conditioned pay cabins. A 6-bed paediatric ward has been opened recently. The
Institute has a fully equipped operation theatre. New equipment and instruments, such as
pulse oxymeter, diathermy, portable X-ray, Horizontal sterilizer and an O.T. lamp have been
added. Orthopaedic surgery is also available. The hospital has a Labour Room and undertakes
antenatal and post-natal care of the mother and child.

2. Department of AYUSH

Department of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homoeopathy (ISM&H) was created in

March,1995 and re-named as Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha
and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) in November, 2003 with a view to providing focused attention
to development of Education & Research in Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha
and Homoeopathy systems. The Department continued to lay emphasis on up gradation of
AYUSH educational standards, quality control and standardization of drugs, improving the
availability of medicinal plant material, research and development and awareness generation
about the efficacy of the systems domestically and internationally.

Objectives:

To upgrade the educational standards in the Indian Systems of Medicines and

Homoeopathy colleges in the country.

To strengthen existing research institutions and ensure a time-bound research

programme on identified diseases for which these systems have an effective treatment.
To draw up schemes for promotion, cultivation and regeneration of medicinal plants

used in these systems.

To evolve Pharmacopoeial standards for Indian Systems of Medicine and
Homoeopathy drugs.

2.1 Development

Late Dr. Madhab Chand Banerjee, L.M.S. was perhaps the first regular homoeopathic
practitioner in Delhi. He started practice in 1909 and was very popular. In 1920 Rai Sahib Dr.
Daya Shanker Kayastha who had obtained his M.D. Degree from Michigan in U.S.A. got
converted to Homoeopathy and for several years taught the subject to a number of official in
the Govt. of India by holding regular classes in the Central Secretariat, and later at his own
clinic in Chandni chowk. At the same time, Dr. Yudhvir Singh also started his practice in
Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He first started a free homoeopathic dispensary with the help of Mir
Mohd. Hussain Sahib, Municipal Commissioner, in 1928. Following the partition of India, a
number of homoeopathic practitioners from the Punjab came and settled in Delhi. Among
them the late Dr. Diwan Jai Chand and the late Dr. V.D. Kashyap, both converts from
Allopathy soon became distinguished in their work and gave a fillip to Homoeopathy in
Delhi. Among the past stalwarts of Homoeopathy in Delhi are the late doctors Rup Narain,
Rajinder Kumar, P.S. Sehga, Bishamber Das and P.N. Bhatnagar. Thereafter a large number of
practitioners set up their private practice and a number of free dispensaries were opened, some
of them were aided by the Delhi Municipal Committee and Delhi District
Board.
Legislation and Government help. The Delhi Homoeopathic Act was passed in 1956 and came
into force on 1.10.1956 through the good offices of Dr. Yudhvir Singh, who was the then
Health Minister of the short-lived Legislative Assembly in Delhi in those days. Under the Act,
a Board of Homoeoapthic System of Medicine, Delhi was established in November
1961.Nehru Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital was affiliated to the Board and the
Board awarded the Diploma qualification after completion of 4 years course. With a view to
prepare the cadre of teachers/examiners etc., the Board had conducted a Diploma
Examination allowing private candidates to take the final examination for the first three years
beginning from 1965. A large number of private practitioners from all over India and one
from Sri Lanka availed this opportunity and they were awarded D.H. S. Diploma. 60 to 70
free and charitable dispensaries were functioning in Delhi during the year 1977 - 78 of which
some of them were started by the Delhi Corporation and the New Delhi Municipal
Committee, in addition to the dispensaries run under the Central Govt. Health Scheme for the
benefit of Central Govt. Servants. Of these, Dr. Yudhvir Singh Homoeopathic Charitable Trust
managed the largest number of dispensaries from the funds of Charitable Trusts, particularly,
of the Jain Community and a few were receiving grant in aid from the Delhi Corporation and
the

DelhiAdministration.

Twenty-eight homoeopathic dispensaries were opened in 1978. On December 1993

Legislative Assembly of Delhi was constituted and the then Delhi Administration Offices
were converted to Govt. of National Capital of Territory of Delhi Offices. With this Delhi had
a new outlook towards its overall development including health, sanitation, education,
transport, law and order etc. This Government constituted a "Homoeopathic Advisory
Committee" under the chairmanship of Dr. K. G. Saxena in 1994 for the development and
expansion of Homoeopathy in Delhi. Govt. of Delhi had designed various Plan Schemes for
the development and expansion of Homoeopathy and the initiative taken in the past few years
is commendable. Directorate of Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathy was
established in Delhi on 1st August 1996 with a separate wing of Homoeopathy in the premises
of Nehru Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital was a step towards the development of
the infrastructure. Since then this Directorate has accomplished a lot for expansion of
Homoeopathy in Delhi. The present infrastructure of Homoeopathy comprises of two
homoeopathic colleges Nehru Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital and Dr. B. R. Sur
Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Homoeopathic Dispensaries, a research and
development Centre (Dilli Homoeopathic AnusandhanParishad) and a Statutory Body (Board
of Homoeopathic System of Medicine). Govt. of Delhi has also started 24 new homoeopathic
dispensaries and now there are 52 homoeopathic dispensaries on list. The year 1998-99 was
marked with the installation of the Statute of Dr. Hanhememnn on 10th April by the Home
Minister of India on his 234 th birthday at the Gummad Park in Defence Colony, New Delhi
to give due recognition to the Founder of Homoeopathy. On 1st October Govt. of Delhi had
taken over the institution of Dr. B. R. Sur Homoeopathic Medical, College and Research
Centre from a private management.

Research System in Homeopathy

Government of India established the CCRIM&H in 1969. 1978 it was dissolved and four
independent Research councils were established. CCRH was constituted on 30th march 1978.
Now it acts as an autonomous organisation.
Aims & Objectives of the research council. To formulate aims and patterns of research on
scientific lines in Homeopathy. To undertake research or other programmes. To initiate,
develop and coordinate scientific research in fundamental and applied aspects of

Homeopathy. To exchange information with other institutions, associations and societies

interested in the objectives similar to those of Central Council and especially in observation
and study of diseases. To promote and assist institution of research for the study of diseases,
their prevention and cure, especially with emphasis for covering the rural population of the
country. To prepare, print, publish and exhibit papers, posters, pamphlets, periodicals and
books for furtherance of the objectives of the Central Council and contribute to the literature.
To offer prizes and grant scholarships in furtherance of the objectives of the Council;
Central Council of Research has a network of research units and centers in different states of
the country. There are about 60 research units supported by CCRH spread across the country.

Funding
The total budget allocated by government of India for the development of Indian system of
Medicine and Homeopathy has been increasing overtime. In the first plan, budget allocated
for ISM&H was just Rs 0.40 crores which has increased to Rs. 59.13 crores for the single year
1999- 2000.
During 8th and 9th plan, resource allotted for the development was Rs 104.43 crores and Rs
266.35 crores respectively. These figures show the growing realization by government of the
importance of alternative system of medicines.
Currently, the budget allocated to ISM&H is Rs 95.94 crores for the development and
expenditure of four central research councils, of which Homeopathy accounts for 16.43 crores
alone. In this context it would be interesting to note that in some European countries also
funds have been allocated for furthering research in the field of Homeopathy. Governments in
four countries of Europe - Norway, Germany, Netherlands and United Kingdom have granted
funds for research work in complementary and alternative medicines. For example, in Norway
government allocates a total of 2 million Kroner, and majority of this goes to research projects
on Homeopathy and acupuncture. While in Germany 6 million German mark have been given
for research on Homeopathy.

Hospitals and Dispensaries

Hospitals and dispensaries are the important part of infrastructure of the any medicine system.
Their growth in a country can be taken as the indicator of growing importance and popularity
of the system among masses. This growth provides justification for the increased focus and

expenses on the medicine system as whole. Studying the past few years trend we can say that
there has been an increase in the number of homeopathic dispensaries and hospitals. The
number of hospitals owned by the government till 1996 were greater than the number owned
by other private and voluntary organisation, but this difference was very small. Government
actively participates in setting up of the dispensaries and managing them.

CHAPTER 3.
Research Methodology

This study is based on secondary data

SECONDARY DATA

Secondary data are those data, which are already published. It may be useful for many other
people than the researcher who has published it. There are various sources of secondary data
collection. There are various sources of secondary data like research papers, periodicals,
encyclopedias, published researches, database companies etc. relations, prices etc.
I majorly used the source the world shares its knowledge with, internet and also from some
books that helped me understand the intricacies of conducting a survey and understanding
consumer minds.

Research Design: Descriptive research

Descriptive research is used to describe characteristics of a population or phenomenon being
studied. It does not answer questions about how/when/why the characteristics occurred.
Rather it addresses the "what" question (What are the characteristics of the population or
situation being studied).

Chapter 4.
Findings

4.1 Advantages of Homeopathy:

Homeopathy is a stream of treating diseases by administering small doses of organic
substances that would give rise to the symptoms of disease in a healthy person. In other

words, the basic guideline of homeopathic remedies is curing the like with the like' - the
substances responsible for a disease are also the remedy for the same disease. The various
aspects, especially the advantages, of homeopathy have been discussed in this article.

Effectiveness
It has been proved that homeopathic remedies are effective in the treatment of all possible
types of health conditions in millions and millions of patients across the globe.

Consistency
In effect, the same homeopathic remedies have been employed to treat the same health
conditions, depending on the same signs and symptoms. It is worth mentioning here that
homeopathic remedies never go out of fashion, and they also never vanish from the shelves on
the ground that they are no more valuable.

Naturalness
Homeopathy does not make use of man-made products, but depends on the curative attributes
of plants and, animal substances as well as minerals. They are utilized in their entire, normal
condition, and never in the form of separate chemicals.

Safety
Homeopathy is almost non-toxic, devoid of any adverse side effects whatever. Using
homeopathic remedies does not present any hazard of toxicity, even if an individual consumes
several bottles of this medication, or one ingests the wrong medication by mistake. In
addition, in the case of homeopathic remedies there is no drug residue, dependence or
accumulation of endurance, even when they are used for a prolonged period of time.

Non-invasiveness
Homeopathic medications work in the form of catalysts, facilitating all the natural processes
of the body, instead of getting in the way of delicate and normal functions. In this regard,

homeopathic remedies are very mild, instead of being vicious or unstable. On the contrary,
they actually comply with as well as conserve the complicated means of the biological
structures.

Non-suppression
Several conventional therapies stop or deteriorate the immuneas well neurological responses
by means of just getting in the way of the different normal processes of the body. Such type of
restraint is said to result in more grave problems afterwards. On the contrary, homeopathic
remedies do act, but never hold back, even when they are used to treat pain or inflammation.
Ease of use
Despite the intricacies of employing homeopathic remedies on a specialized level, for grave
ailments, homeopathy may also be effectually employed even at home with some essential
medications.

Family-based medicine
Homeopathic remedies are most appropriate for both children and elderly. In addition, they
are also suitable for enduring treatments wherein there is an extremely genuine concern
regarding the toxicity as well as the adverse side effects caused owing to the use of other
interim as well as long-term medications.

Individuality
The metabolism, reactions, biochemistry as well as the symptoms of disease vary extremely
from one individual to another. In every manner mentioned here, homeopathy employs a
remedy that precisely suits the requirement of an individual, instead of regularly using the
same medication in all instances of any specific ailment.

Acute prevention
It is important to note that homeopathic medications may be employed to thwart the
commencement of several conditions, counting nausea, allergic reactions and contagious
ailments likecold and measles. These remedies may be used to avert excessive straining of the

muscles, avoid any stage fright as well as a cure for the likely effects of intemperance, late
night outings or even working too hard.

Chronic prevention
Professional homeopathic treatment has the ability to do away with several latent chronic
ailments even before they start on, or also has the aptitude to thwart their advancement in the
initial phases.

Constitutional change
Dissimilar to any other recognized medical system, homeopathy has the ability to alter the
basic, inborn disadvantages as well as the vulnerabilities on the physical as well as
psychological levels.

Broad scope
In addition, the use of homeopathic remedies in common conditions also has the aptitude to
facilitate in treating several health conditions, inclusive of chronic ailments, wherein there is
no likelihood of any medical cure.

Integrative
Homeopathy acts in harmony with regular therapeutic care, or with the full range of
unconventional as well balancing medicine, counting nourishment.

Cost effectiveness
Homeopathic remedies are amazingly low-priced in comparison to the conventional
medication, or even vitamins, which makes homeopathic remedies the choice of people in
several developing nations across the world. One of the major reasons for the value of
homeopathic medication is that they are not patented of proprietary products like the
conventional medications, which are sold at high prices by the pharmaceutical firms in the
absence of any competition.

Scientific
Misconstructions notwithstanding, homeopathy is definitely equally scientific as any other
typical medicine. In fact, the efficacy of homeopathy is never based on animal studies, which
have little or no bearing for humans. In addition, homeopathic remedies are not prescribed on
the basis of experiential or chance discovery of the results. On the contrary, they are based on
a coherent, methodical scrutiny of the consequences of the medications on healthy as well as
ailing individuals.

4.2 Techniques of Homeopathy:

Ever since Hahnemann's time, homeopathy has been both a medical theory and a medical
method. It is worth spending some time looking at these terms more closely. The methods of

homeopathy are its corpus of techniques used to treat the sick. It includes material medica,
dosage, pharmacy and a range of theories upon which practice is based. These include law of
similars, minimum dose Hering's Law suppression and miasms. The theory content of
homeopathy means its medical ideology or philosophy. As well as the above theories, it also
embraces the meaning content, patterns and wider significance within the ideas, methods and
clinical results.
The primary goal of homeopathic philosophy is not theoretical, but pragmatic - to deepen,
enrich and guide good practice. While homeopathy is unquestionably a philosophical system
in its own right - and has had a life of its own - that is not its primary quality or function. It is
primarily a clinical method aimed more at curing sick folks, than winning adherants to its
creed. Thus theory should not dominate or smother method. Method always comes out top
and should be the dominant force. Method is paramount. That is one view. Although you
could also argue that it does seek to gain converts as well as cure the sick. So it might be
viewed as a twin-track approach.
However, it is also true that theory cannot be ignored and is still a very important element. It
must be yoked in with method. Indeed, you can easily take the opposing view, that without an
underlying philosophy, method is just shooting in the dark. Theory tends to keep method pure
and 'on track'. If you ditch theory then method tends to degenerate into allopathised mongrel
forms. If you ditch method then theory tends to ossify into dogma. Both are necessary and
complement each other. The ideology of homeopathy is highly relevant to its method, but the
two work best together.
The main concepts of homeopathy are both theories and methods at the same time. For
example, Hering's law, minimum dose, law of similars, potentisation and miasms - these are
all at the same time both methods and theories about medicine. They exist happily at both
levels within homeopathy and they enrich and support each other. Why is this? It mainly
stems from the fact that homeopathy was based in its inception both upon ideas and upon
observations. It is just as firmly rooted in methods, experiments and actions, as it is in theories
and ideas. Hahnemann makes this very clear. What he perhaps did not make so clear is that
theory is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. It should always be slightly subordinate to
method and should always be confirmed and enhanced through practice. Theory is in fact a
distillation of ideas derived from practice and confirmed and amended through practice.
Hahnemann

Hahnemann did not start out as a theoretician, pontificating from high ground about the best
and ideal form of medicine or its philosophical basis. He did do that, but it came second. It is
hard to say with absolute certainty, but his clinical experiments probably came first and these
were then followed at a later stage by his theoretical rantings. Important and much overlooked
point: those rantings were always derived from practice and confirmed by it. Thus he was
never speaking from a purely theoretical level, but always based upon the sound bedrock of
practice, of clinical experience. Ideas were amended through practice, revised, extended,
embellished, corrected and altered only through practice. Practice, practice, practice. Thus he
provided, created and perfected chiefly a clinical method, but greatly enriched, underpinned
and supplemented by theoretical writings. This is a very important point: theory always
follows method and is its subordinate. It also reflects an aspect of the man: he was both an
excellent experimental scientist and a powerful thinker and writer.
In another sense you could argue that the ideas preceded the methods. And there is some truth
in this. It is true of many areas of research and is often difficult to establish with any certainty
whether the ideas or the experiments came first. The problem is in trying to trace the origin of
a system, part of which comes out of someone's head and their reading and thinking and part
of which comes out of the experiments and observations they undertake on the practical level
in the real world. Inevitably, it is usually a mixture of both. Then in addition, there is also the
wider cultural element and how a person has drawn upon concepts and belief-patterns within
the society and times they lived in. No doubt these were all influences impinging upon
Hahnemann as a person.
For example, in Hahnemann's case it is very difficult to know with certainty to what degree he
leaned upon Paracelsus. That is a separate though interesting strand. He left behind little
evidence of any substantial interest in occultism or mediaeval medicine, so it is more likely
that he devised homeopathy partly through practice and partly through his own mind just
thinking things through. And for that there is abundant evidence right through his life - he had
a brilliant, searching and restless inventiveness to his mentality. He was very perceptive and
very original in almost everything he did. It therefore remains unlikely that he copied
Paracelsus. And it is often impossible to trace back to its source an idea that has taken root in
someone's mind and then borne fruit many years later.
Some people are good at making things but they can't teach it. Emulators must simply observe
them very closely in order to become good or to work out why they are so good. Others are
good at describing and teaching but cannot do it very well. Some rare beings are good at
doing and at describing and teaching. Hahnemann was in this latter category. He combined a

genius for doing new things and for teaching them, describing them, and for analysing the
meaning and significance of what he was doing. He was well rooted in both worlds - theory
and method, both as a keen observer and experimenter but also as an articulate and competent
theoretician. He explored and stressed both aspects - we should try and follow his lead and
strive to be strong in both areas.
The reasoning behind theory and method is very interesting and focuses upon how
Hahnemann discovered homeopathy in the first place. It rests chiefly upon his brilliant
critique of allopathy. What are the origins of that critique?
Hahnemann first discovered for himself the appalling ineffectiveness of allopathic practice.
As a physician, as a compassionate man and as a parent, that fact depressed him very greatly.
But working on a theoretical level this inspired him to search out and identify the underlying
reasons for its ineffectiveness. That could only be revealed through clearly identifying and
enunciating its underlying creed or philosophy. He must have spent a great deal of time just
thinking and reflecting about allopathic medicine - its methods and its whys and wherefores.
He must have done that to have arrived at the conclusions he came to.
One thing that is wonderful about Hahnemann is that he resolutely believed that a rational
form of medicine could be developed and he meticulously searched it out. Many would have
just given up and done something else, but he soldiered on, translating medical texts from
many languages, unearthing data from the past and experimenting on a practical level.
Though it is true that he gave up medical practice for a time, he never gave up the hope of
finding a medical path superior to allopathic drugging.
His critique asserts that allopathy is based chiefly upon three ideas: polypharmacy, strong
doses and the law of contraries. He identifies all three as the root causes of its ineffectiveness.
Then he chooses the opposite medical creed - single drugs, small doses, and similars, which
he provisionally identifies as the most likely features of an effective and superior medical
path. What is so interesting is that he uses the very creed of his enemy - allopathy - as the
basis for first setting his feet down onto clean Paracelsan sand! I shall return to this point.
His clinical practice therefore both suggested and confirmed his theoretical ideas. He felt fully
justified in vilifying allopathy because at both levels he could see that it was fundamentally
incorrect. Incorrect as a method because it didn't work, and therefore incorrect as a creed.
What is so striking and modern about his approach is that he attacked a method that didn't
work and then decided that it must contain suspect principles that underpin the technique and
form the cause of why it didn't work. That whole approach is so modern and so scientific that

it has gone unnoticed. Thus through his powerful analysis of allopathy he came to conceive an
outline sketch of the most probable qualities of a superior method - similars, small doses and
single drug. He then tested this method and found it very useful.
Through continued experiment he became more and more convinced that it was the best of the
two - what he termed a 'rational healing art'. This increased his confidence and widened the
gulf with allopathy. This is why Hahnemann criticised so forcefully both the methods and the
ideology or creed of allopathy. He had successfully unearthed its essence and shown it to be
incorrect through testing its opposite creed and showing that the latter was both more
effective and more predictable. No-one before Hahnemann had done this. No-one before had
so clearly identified and laid bare the underlying creed of allopathy and chosen from its basis
an opposite creed and then systematically investigated it and pushed it through into a new
system. That was a remarkable achievement.

Paracelsus
Now some people say that Paracelsus had done much the same thing 250 years previous. This
is a claim we need to look at more carefully. It is not quite true that Paracelsus had done the
same thing. Paracelsus had certainly criticised allopathy both at a theoretical level and as a
method, and he adopted and stressed a range of unorthodox ideas (e.g. law of similars), but
unlike Hahnemann he had mainly done all that emotionally, irrationally, chaotically and
unsystematically - which was his way. A way that was peculiar to him and valid for him - and
a way that is still valid for some. But he failed to articulate any clear, rational or wellreasoned alternative to allopathy. Much of what he wrote is very obscure and contradictory
and can in no way be regarded as a tidy medical system with a consistent and rational
philosophy. Moreover, it is only understandable and of interest now in the light of Hahnemann
and homeopathy which came later. It was neither of interest nor understandable to medics at
the time. So it was not a clear system that predates homeopathy as a well-argued and rational
ideology. It was a mixed bag. If it had been a clear system it might well have been adopted
more widely. The fact that it wasn't is one piece of evidence against it.
It might more realistically be seen as 'a preparation for Hahnemann', a clearing of debris,
levelling of ground and the building of basic foundations for homeopathy. But it never went
any further than that. It was a foundation for a new house that was never actually built. There
were no walls, no rooms and no roof. On a theoretical or ideological level it is perfectly true
that Paracelsus predates Hahnemann and forms a sound basis of ideas upon which

Hahnemann built his 'house of homeopathy', but it is misleading to then say that Hahnemann
copied Paracelsus or that he derived homeopathy from Paracelsan medicine. In a sense he did
do that. In another sense he just made parallel discoveries (mainly through direct insight and
experiment) and built up a system with strong similarities to Paracelsus. His system was built
up chiefly through experiment based upon some ideas from Cullen and Paracelsus, amongst
others, and from his critique of allopathy. But it is over simplistic and misleading to say that
homeopathy was first produced by Paracelsus and then perfected by Hahnemann.
It probably is true that Hahnemann magicked the 'white dove' of homeopathy out of the 'black
hat' of Paracelsan medicine, but it is very much Hahnemann's white dove and not that of
Paracelsus. I stress this point at some length because it has been an oft-repeated claim, even in
his lifetime, that Hahnemann was a copier and imitator of Paracelsus - a charge he vigorously
denied. If it was true he might have admitted it. That he denied it repeatedly indicates that it
was probably more of a coincidence. That he became angry at these accusations does show
that he may have been denying something. Of course, to those who swim in the wider river of
history of ideas it is difficult to deny some link between Paracelsus and Hahnemann - they are
profoundly similar people - and Hahnemann knew about Paracelsus in depth, but that does not
inevitably mean that there is a strong causal link between them.

Conclusion
In conclusion, then, method and theory are very important elements within homeopathy and
they complement each other very well. One should try not to overstress one over the other.
Both are essential aspects. The overstressing of theory has been a common and regrettable
tendency in homeopathic history. If anything we should stress method slightly more than
theory, bearing in mind that it is through method that Hahnemann arrived at and confirmed his
ideas, and not the other way around. While striving to become competent in both, it is method
that should take precedence and follow Hahnemann's lead: homeopathy is primarily a medical
method rather than a medical theory.
It is also clear that the damaging and divisive tendency towards dogmatism, which has
erupted frequently in its history, damages homeopathy in the public eye. And it derives largely
from stressing theory at the expense of method. But by stressing method as the central fact of
homeopathy we can be broad church, remain undogmatic and be open to all influences. We
can become like the unprejudiced observer so beloved both of Hahnemann and of science.

We should strive to copy Hahnemann who was say 55% a good practitioner and 45% a good
thinker and philosopher. By combining both we become strong overall. Overemphasis of
theory leads to damaging and divisive dogmatism. To avoid that and to be faithful to our art,
we should strive to be good practitioners first and foremost just like Hahnemann, Kent and all
the greats. Sound knowledge of both theory and method are essential to our achieving that
objective.
The methods of homeopathy have built up over 200 years a vast corpus of experience and
clinical data from many practitioners in different lands, that supports and confirms the
medical theories and techniques which Hahnemann delineated in detail in the Organon and
Chronic Diseases. The theories support the clinical data. Thus the two sets of information
mutually support and underpin each other. Those methods and theories can be traced back to
Hahnemann's brilliant critique of allopathic drugging. Indeed, they are entirely based upon
that critique, which in embryo form was expressed as 'single drugs, law of similars and
minimum dose'. That phrase is still in super-compressed format a good definition of what
homeopathy is, what its methods are and what its theory of disease is all about as compared
with the views and methods of allopathy - its natural opposite.
In this essay I have tried to show the central importance of theory and method and to briefly
sketch out the origin of homeopathy both in the work and in the mind of Samuel Hahnemann,
while also hinting at some of the wider cultural perspective he was working in.

4.3 Limitations and Risks associated with Homeopathy:

Homeopathic medicines are indeed powerful tools but they are not effective in treating all
diseased states. Some conditions do not respond to micro doses because they require surgical
intervention, others require immediate and certain relief of symptoms, others are addressed by
simple nutritional or lifestyle changes, still others are relieved only upon reduced exposure to
certain environmental stresses---and then, there are those who don't experience improvement
from homeopathic medicine for unknown reasons.
At the turn of the century some of America's leading surgeons were homeopathic physicians.
Homeopaths are thus not against surgery since, they, like other medical professionals,
recognize the special value of surgery in certain circumstances. Homeopathic medicines,
however, can be of great value in reducing the need for surgery in certain circumstances, and
at other times, the medicines can be invaluable in helping the person heal after the surgery is
completed.
Homeopathic medicines may not also be appropriate for some symptoms which are lifethreatening and call for immediate, sometimes heroic means of treatment. Certain cases of
asthma where breathing is significantly impaired, meningitis which requires immediate
antibiotic treatment to avoid possible brain damage or death, and various other conditions
require conventional medical treatment to assure survival. This isn't to say that homeopathic
medicines are of no value in these conditions. In fact, homeopathic medicines may reduce the
need for conventional medical treatment even in certain of these cases. Micro doses may
effectively treat a serious attack of asthma, may cure the serious infection without the need for
antibiotics, and may rapidly relieve various other life-threatening symptoms. However, since
the homeopathic medicines require strict individualization to obtain the best results, one
cannot always depend on them for rapid, effective relief of symptoms. There is general
consensus amongst homeopaths that homeopathic medicines can still be used in emergencies
either on the way to the doctor or hospital and/or in conjunction with the heroic conventional
medical treatment.
Homeopathic medicines are also ineffective in treating some conditions which cry out for
simple nutrition and lifestyle changes. A woman may be anemic from a lack of iron in her
diet. Homeopathic medicines may be prescribed to deal with some of her symptoms and may
even be used to help her assimilate iron from her food more efficiently, but until she gets iron,
she may experience persistent symptoms.

Exposure to environmental toxins is becoming a major modern problem. Although

homeopathic medicines may be effective in helping a person re-establish health after exposure
to many toxins, real improvement in health isn't likely if exposure continues. For instance, a
woman with a skin rash went to a homeopathic physician. From her symptoms, the doctor
prescribed Sulphur30. The condition temporarily worsened in a classic response according to
Hering's Law, then got better, only to return within two weeks. The homeopath gave a
stronger dose of Sulphur, and she once again experienced a similar pattern of exacerbation,
relief, and return of her symptoms. Upon obtaining more detail about the woman's job at a
food processing plant, it was discovered that she worked at a dried fruit plant which sprays
sulphur on the fruit as a preservative. She was experiencing a sulphur proving. Her skin
finally improved after she changed jobs.
Probably the greatest frustration for a homeopath (and to the patient as well) are those people
who, for some uncertain reason, are not responding effectively to homeopathic medicines.
Homeopaths often initially assume that the cause of the lack of reaction is that they have not
correctly analysed the case and thus are not giving the correct medicine. Experienced
homeopaths know that certain medicines sometimes are valuable when the indicated medicine
does not cure. Since it is generally recommended to try these medicines one at a time and
allow a month or more between medicines,* finding an effective remedy may take several
months. When people with chronic indigestion, headaches, arthritis, or other persistent
symptoms are not receiving adequate treatment with conventional drugs, delay isn't a major
problem, since they have already been waiting for curative care for years or even decades. But
a patient in pain and discomfort might understandably seek an alternative to homeopathic care
before a "similimum" (most similar medicine) can be found.
Different schools of thought in homeopathy recommend varying lengths of time between
different medicines and doses. Some homeopaths prescribe daily doses of a medicine and may
change the dose or the medicine at any time, while others prescribe a single dose or a couple
of doses and then wait one or more months before changing the dose or the medicine.
Generally, those homeopaths who give repeated doses of medicine in a week or a month
prescribe low potency medicines, that is, the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, or 18th potency. When careful
analysis of a patient's health history, present lifestyle, and potential environmental exposures
does not indicate any obvious reason for nonresponse to a micro dose, homeopaths may either
consult with another homeopath or refer the patient to some other type of health practitioner.
People often ask: Are there conditions which homeopathy treats most effectively, and which
conditions does it not tend to have great success? These are difficult questions that can best be

answered by the cliche that homeopathy does not treat diseases, only people. Case histories in
homeopathic books and journals describe successful treatment of just about every acute and
chronic disease. Many homeopaths assume that there are no incurable diseases, only incurable
people.
To those familiar with basic homeopathic principles, it is sometimes confusing to go to a
health food store or pharmacy and see homeopathic medicines sold for specific conditions.
Most homeopathic manufacturers make mixtures of homeopathic medicines, called
"combination remedies" or "complexes," where generally 3-8 substances which are
commonly given for a certain type of condition are placed together in a single medicine. It is
assumed that this new combination of medicines will be helpful to a broad number of patients
suffering from a specific complaint. Although many consumers find these medicines to be
helpful, there is general consensus in the homeopathic community that the individually chosen
medicine works more often and more effectively.
These parameters are quite simplistic since a large number of chronic diseases become
incurable once they have progressed to a certain stage. Homeopathic medicines may then
alleviate pain and discomfort and may slow down the pathological process, but it is
questionable if cure is possible under any kind of treatment.
As for the dangers of the homeopathic medicines, it is widely recognized that their greatest
danger may be only their delaying the use of other potentially effective medical treatments.
Since most homeopaths are medical doctors or some other licensed medical professional, they
generally know when conventional medical care is required or when referral to a specialist is
indicated.
Another potential danger of homeopathic medicines arises if a person continues to take a
medicine when it is not indicated. A small percentage of such people may experience a
"proving"---the symptoms produced in overdose of the sub substance. These symptoms may
occur, as previously described, even with high potencies. Homeopaths do not consider the
symptoms of a proving to be a major danger since they usually end shortly after the person
stops taking the medicine. Some homeopaths stop a proving by prescribing the same medicine
in a higher (more dilute) potency, and some homeopaths give a medicine which is known to
antidote the symptoms of the medicine being proven. Because a proving is possible when a
person isn't taking the correct medicine, it is recommended not to take a medicine longer than
one week unless under professional homeopathic care.

The first time an American medical journal ever published a case suggesting that there is
danger in taking homeopathic medicines was in a recent letter to the editor of the New
England Journal of Medicine. In the case reported, a patient took eight doses in two hours as
recommended by a chiropractor and shortly thereafter experienced severe epigastric pain
which was later diagnosed as pancreatitis (a potentially dangerous disease). It should be noted
however the remedy prescribed by the chiropractor was a "combination medicine" (with 19
different ingredients) and that it was prescribed for the treatment of cancer. Although the
patient's health history was not described in the letter, one might assume that he wasn't
healthy prior to treatment, and one should not necessarily assume that the medicine caused
this condition.
There is general consensus that homeopathic medicines are safe, though like carrot juice,
vitamins, and many "natural" substances, can be misused. Homeopathy is promoted by the
National Center of Homeopathy as "The Safer Medicine." There is little disagreement on this
fact.
Certain homeopathic products (called nosodes or homeopathic immunizations) have been
promoted by some as substitutes for conventional immunizations, but data to support such
claims is lacking. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
(NCCAM) supports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations for
immunizations/vaccinations.
While many homeopathic remedies are highly diluted, some products sold or labeled as
homeopathic may not be highly diluted; they can contain substantial amounts of active
ingredients. Like any drug or dietary supplement that contains chemical ingredients, these
homeopathic products may cause side effects or drug interactions. Negative health effects
from homeopathic products of this type have been reported.
A 2007 systematic review found that highly diluted homeopathic remedies, taken under the
supervision of trained professionals, are generally safe and unlikely to cause severe adverse
reactions. However, like any drug or dietary supplement, these products could pose risks if
they are improperly manufactured (for example, if they are contaminated with
microorganisms or incorrectly diluted).
A 2012 systematic review of case reports and case series concluded that using certain
homeopathic treatments (such as those containing heavy metals like mercury or iron that are
not highly diluted) or replacing an effective conventional treatment with an ineffective
homeopathic one can cause adverse effects, some of which may be serious.

Liquid homeopathic remedies may contain alcohol. The FDA allows higher levels of alcohol
in these remedies than it allows in conventional drugs.
Homeopathic practitioners expect some of their patients to experience homeopathic
aggravation (a temporary worsening of existing symptoms after taking a homeopathic
prescription). Researchers have not found much evidence of this reaction in clinical studies;
however, research on homeopathic aggravations is scarce. Always discuss changes in your
symptoms with your health care provider.

4.4 SWOT Analysis of Homeopathy:

Strength:
The homeopathic medicines are useful for those who are allergic to allopathic medicine.
There are lots of chemical products, which are harmful to human body. Penicillin and NSAID
(non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) product are the top most and on the other hand they
have some side effects. Sometimes, threatening situation arise, after taking those kind of
drugs. Homeopathic treatment has been shown effectively in treating many diseases.
Influenza sufferers in a double-blind study found that they were twice as likely to recover in
48 hours when they took homeopathic remedies. Studies have been published in British
medical journals proven, that the homeopathic medicines were effective for treatment of
rheumatoid arthritis. Homeopathic remedies are effective in treating infections, respiratory
diseases, heart disease, depression and nervous disorders, migraine headaches, allergic
condition, arthritis, and diabetes. Homeopathy is a good treatment for acute and chronic
illnesses. If the disease are found in the early stages and where there is not severe damage
(irreversible changes). Homeopathy can be used to assist the healing process after surgery. It
is safe and good for new born baby. Even, it is better than modern medicine for pregnant
women. Allopathic medicine has many side effects in pregnant women. Also homeopathic
medicine is work as a prophylactic medicine. It works like immunizations, if it is given at the
time of epidemic.
Homeopathy relies on a generally recognised broad range of remedies, for which the
manufacturing methods are clearly defined. The availability of these remedies is of general
interest and in the homeopathic field they are generally accepted principles for use in patients.

Weakness:
The main weakness of homeopathy is neglected by Insurance companies and government. If
the insurance companies cover homeopathy medicine then it may possible for lot of people to
show interest on homeopathy. Insurance companies can show interest because this is efficient
and at the same time cost effective can also be very effective. Marketers can first target the
population, who are familiar with the Homeopathy medicine, where immigrant population is
more, later they can expand their market.The pharmaceutical development of homeopathic
remedies traditionally followed two separate main lines, according to the German and the

French homeopathic pharmacopoeias together with their traditions. Often solutions for
pharmaceutical issues are still influenced by traditional sentiments. In some cases there is a
tendency to indifference among stakeholders. (Nothing will change after all). Quality
improvements are not possible without cooperation of suppliers of raw materials as 90% of
remedies are based on raw materials with a natural variability. In addition, an enormous
amount of different remedies is still used. However, due to the principles of homeopathy, one
remedy cannot simply be replaced by an alternative one.Negotiating with government, such as
homeopathy will be covered under prescription drug plan of Medicare and Medicaid, because
prescription drugs are taking significant part in overall cost of Medicare and Medicaid. As the
Homeopathic medicine is available for less cost than allopathic medicines.

Opportunities:
There are many opportunities for homeopathy in India. Right now, health care cost is the
prime issue in India, because the cost of health care is high. There are many reasons for that,
but one of them is cost of the drug. The drug cost of homeopathic medicine is very low
compare to allopathic medicine. Anybody can afford the homeopathic medicine because it is
too cheap and easily available. Second most valuable opportunity has low side effects.
Homeopathic medicine has a low side effect compare to allopathic medicine. It is consider as
an alternative medicine in many countries and in some countries it is practiced under
naturopathy. Last but not least opportunity is high immigrant population from homeopathic
using nations. In India, many people came from the country like Europe, and china where
homeopathy is commonly used. So it is easy to market homeopathy in India.

Threats:
The first is the opposition from the different in rest groups like the Indian Medical Association
and the different Pharmaceutical Corporations. These groups have a big disadvantage, if
homeopathy sustains in India. They are the main opponent of homeopathy. The lack of
information about the homeopathy is a very big disadvantages that marketers going to face.
The next challenge is the strict discipline that is required while taking homeopathic
medicines. You cannot take homeopathic medicine 30minutes before and after taking food.
You cant eat onion and garlic while you are on homeopathic medicine. Even more, you are

not allowed to drink coffee, while you are taking homeopathic drugs. There is much other
discipline which you need to follow when you are on homeopathic treatment.

Chapter 5.
Conclusion and suggestions

Conclusion
Homeopathy has come out as an alternative of allopathy and other streams of treatment.
Homeopathy has been proven effective in curing various diseases over the past century.
Homeopathy is mostly followed in India, Europe and China.
India through Department of AYUSH India is trying to expand homeopathy.
Homeopathy has certain advantages like
1. It can be used by pregnant and nursing women;
2. It can be used by children and infants;
3. It does not interfere with medications taken by a person;
4. If an incorrect remedy is selected, it is completely safe and will not harm the person at all;
5. Other than occasional, mild, and short-lived symptom aggravations which pass quickly and
tend to be followed by improvements in the symptoms of a person, there are no side-effects of
homeopathic remedies. This symptom aggravation is actually regarded by homeopaths as a
sign that the correct homeopathic remedy has been selected and usually results in symptom
improvements;
6. It can be used for chronic or acute conditions;
7. It is an individualized system of medicine which treats the person, not merely the
symptoms. The symptoms, however, are addressed when using this approach and are
typically improved;
8. Homeopathy is a holistic approach to healing: one that involves the body, mind, emotions,
and spirit of the person being treated;
9. Homeopathic remedies are readily available and can, therefore, be used by anyone;
10. Homeopathic remedies are typically inexpensive and therefore provide an affordable
approach to healing;
11. Homeopathic remedies can be stored for long periods of time;

12. Homeopathic medicine is non-invasive; and

13. There are many studies proving the effectiveness of homeopathy, when used correctly.
Homeopathy is a sophisticated medical science which individualizes a substance based on the
totality of a person's symptoms. A person's unique pattern of symptoms, his/her headache,
stomach ache, constipation, low energy in the morning, sensitivity to cold, irritability at the
slightest cause, and fear of heights are all interrelated. No matter what the individual
symptoms are, they are recognized as primarily an intrinsic effort of the organism to adapt to
and deal with various internal or external stresses. Methods that simply suppress, control, or
manage symptoms should be avoided since such therapies compromise the innate tendency of
the organism to defend and heal itself. The side effects which these suppressive treatments
cause are actually direct effects of the treatment. Homeopathic medicines, on the other hand,
are prescribed to aid the organism in its highly sophisticated efforts to heal. Inherent in the
homeopathic approach is a basic respect for the body's wisdom; it is thus no wonder that it is a
safer medicine.

At a time in our civilization when it is essential to develop practices that strengthen the
immune and defence system, homeopathic medicine is quite naturally gaining popularity.
Homeopathy embodies the characteristics of a medical science one could hope and dream for
in the 21st century...and the best news is that we do not have to wait until the 21st century to
draw upon of its benefits.

Suggestions
I would like to suggest the following things for improvement in Homeopathy
1

Homeopathic services should be available nationwide.

Homeopathic treatment should be covered under medical and insurance policies.

Number of Homeopathic Institutes in India should be increased.

Department of AYUSH should provide extra facility to senior citizens.

Various promotional tools should be used to encourage Homeopathy.

Homeopathy Department should be opened in every leading hospitals.

Awareness about Homeopathy should be spread especially in rural areas.

Free Treatment to Economic Weaker Section (EWS).

Bibliography

BOOKS

Ardeshir T. Jagose (2008): HOMOEOPATHIC WORLD: INCLUDES HISTORY OF

MEDICINE, 3rd edition, The National Book Depot, Gorakhpur.

WEBSITE

http://www.echamp.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Regulation/Report_on_Emea_fuer_23.

Mai_2007.pdf
http://www.herbs2000.com/homeopathy/1_advantages.htm
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_theor.htm
http://www.homeoint.org/site/delhihomeo/historyindia.htm
http://www.homeopathic.com/Articles/Introduction_to_Homeopathy/The_Limitations

_and_Risks_of_Homeopathic_Med.html
https://www.homeopathic.com/Articles/Introduction_to_Homeopathy/A_Condensed_

History_of_Homeopathy.html
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_pro/india.html

MAHARAJA AGRASEN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

ATTENDANCE FOR PROJECT REPORT
Name of the student

: Shubham Jain

Class

: BBA III-B

Roll No.

: 6114701713

Name of the Supervisor

: Mr. Jagat Jyoti Barua

S.No.

Date

Time

Progress Report

16th Aug 2014

9:00 a.m.

Initial discussion of
title.

16th Aug 2014

12:30 p.m.

Finalisation of the
title.

29th Aug 2014

9:00 a.m.

Finalisation of the
chapter scheme.

12th Sep 2014

9:00 a.m.

Finalisation of
chapter 1.

26th Sep 2014

9:00 a.m.

Finalisation of
chapter 2 & 3.

10th Oct 2014

9:00 a.m.

Finalisation of
chapter 4.

12th Oct 2014

9:00 a.m.

Finalisation of
chapter 5.

17th Oct 2014

9:00 a.m.

Final Draft.

24th Oct 2014

9:00 a.m.

Approved draft went

for binding.

10

31st Oct 2014

9:30 a.m.

Signature
of student

Final submission of
report.
*Minimum (8out of 10) 80% attendance compulsory.

Coordinator

Signature of
Supervisor