116 T H E B R I T I S H H O M ( E O P A T H I C J O U R N A L

acclimatized to the chemical? Surely these are questions which a true scientist would a t tempt to answer.

Provings are not the basis of homoeopathy--so says Dr. Campbell. But how else can drugs be tested? The sole criterion of a successful drug is "Does it work in man?" The questions of theory, chemistry or animal experiments are really irrelevant. The fact that the drug pictures are deficient is surely no reason to discard the hypothesis. With all the modem expertise it should not be difficult to test under modern conditions Hahnemann's hypothesis.

Dr. Campbell quotes a case where the homoeopathically indicated remedy failed to act. Might this not be due to the use of clinical instead of proven symptoms for the choice of the remedy? Is this merely an excuse? Hahnemann himself found there were exceptions, due, he suggested, to blocking by some "inherent" (miasmatic) condition. Modem knowledge of genetics, heredity and immunology surely afford ample reason for such a failure.

Hahnemann suggested a hypothesis based on fact, not theory. After 180 years and with the increasing variety of side effects, it is surely time for scientists to test this theory. The choice is simply this: Do we continue the modem approach of suppression or elimination, or "simulation" it works with vaccines, why should it not work with drugs?

C . O L I V E R K E N N E D Y

14 Wellington Place London N2 22 December 1977

To the Editor, T H E B R I T I S H H O M ( E O P A T H I C J O U R N A L

Dear Sir, I am gratified that my article should have provoked so prompt a response from a reader. However, I do not think that Dr. Kennedy has come to grips with my basic argument, which is, in a nutshell, that Hahnemann's simi|llmum principle is not scientific because it is not testable by experiment.

Anyone who disagrees with this argument must, it seems to me, do so on one of two grounds. Either he must adopt a different account of the nature of scientific inquiry from that put forward by Popper, or else he must show some way in which the similllmum principle could be tested.

Acceptance of Popper's theory of science is not, of course, compulsory. Indeed, hitherto the orthodox view has been that science is based on the principle of induction as described by Bacon (i.e. that theories are generalizations inferred from observations of regularities in nature). However, Hume showed conclusively that the principle of induction is logically indefensible, and in so doing cut the ground from the Baconian theory. Popper, in my view, has solved the difficulty elegantly and convincingly, though to explain in detail how he has done so would demand another article.

For the reasons I have stated in my article, I do not think that the simillimum principle is testable in a Popperian sense. I await with interest suggestions as to how it might be tested.

Yours faithfully, A N T H O I ~ Y C A M P B E L L

2 Bishopswood Road, London 1~6 18 January 1978