Modern Homoeopathy

E-Newsletter July 2008

 

Interview with Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak (Director CCRH, New Delhi)

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewed by Dr. Pawan S. Chandak

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak:  Dear Dr. Nayak, Welcome  to modernhomoeopathy.com !.

We are feeling happy to have you with us today. 

Nowadays many homoeopaths are using patents, combinations, biochemics, mother tinctures at a time. What do you think, due to such things is there any chance of suppression?

What's your view towards concept of suppression as told by Dr. Hahnemann.

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: Disease producing power (pathogenetic power) of a medicine is its disease curing power – this is the basic premise on which the realm of Homoeopathy is built.  Unless we know the pathogenetic power of any medicine through proving, it cannot be used homoeopathically. Since the pathogenetic power of the patents, combinations, biochemic medicines & mother tinctures, when given together is not known through Proving, the practice of such medicines should not be considered as Homoeopathy. Such practice may palliate the complaints for the time being only to reappear again, particularly when not  prescribed on the basis of law of similarity.    Repeated palliations may lead to suppression sometimes.

The principle of use of bio-chemic medicines is quite different from that of Homoeopathy. Some of the research studies have shown good results of bio-chemic medicines when used alone. Some physicians use biochemic medicines s.o.s. or along with homoeopathic medicines and they claim success. A good number of homoeopathic doctors have used organopathic medicines in mother tincture form empirically. Besides, doctors also use mother tincture of certain medicines to bring down blood pressure, blood sugar, etc. either alone or along with constitutional medicines. But the golden rule is: any medicine to be administered to the patient, has to be proved first, following the methodology of Drug Proving in order to ascertain its pathogenetic effects.

Dr. Hahnemann has discussed about suppression in the ‘introductory part’ of the Organon of Medicine; in Aphorisms 38 & 39 while dealing with the phenomena when two dissimilar diseases meet together; in Aphorisms 201 & 202 while speaking about the one-sided local diseases.   He has also talked about suppression in his master piece `Chronic Diseases’ in the chapter `Nature of Chronic Diseases’. 

            To my opinion, suppression results when any sign of the disease manifested in the surface of the body is removed without correcting the morbid susceptibility. Such morbid susceptibility can be corrected by a similar medicine as prescribed through homoeopathic treatment. Indiscriminate use of patents, combinations, mother tinctures etc. may lead to palliations and repeated palliation may contribute to phenomenon of artificial suppression. If real cause is not addressed, the diseases keep on getting worse, despite a few superficial symptoms being relieved.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Can you please tell us about your life from childhood till now.

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: My life from childhood till now is full of bitter and sweet memories. Hailing from a lower middle class family of farmers, my grandfather and father had to sacrifice a lot to take care of my education. My performance in school was upto my satisfaction, but not promising during college education, prior to my homoeopathic career. I am proud of being an alumnus of Dr. Abhin Chandra Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneswar, the first Govt. Homoeopathic Medical College of Orissa where I pursued my Diploma Course in Homoeopathy. Two years’ life in National Institute of Homoeopathy, an autonomous body of the Govt. of India, as a student of 2 years Dip. N.I.H. Course was quite memorable where the teachers of high repute and academic excellence provided adequate clinical material to grow. My service career started as a Medical Officer for a short period, in the Govt. Homoeopathic Dispensary in Orissa. Thereafter, I joined my coveted teaching job as a Lecturer in Govt. Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneswar (now re-named as Dr. Abhin Chandra Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital) and subsequently served as Associate Professor, Professor and Principal-cum-Superintendent. You can well imagine the joy and satisfaction one can derive when he has the privilege of becoming a teacher in the same College where he was a student once. Getting the recognition from the Govt. of India, Deptt. of I.S.M.& H. (now called AYUSH) as a model college in Homoeopathy, with tremendous support of my colleagues and students when I was the Principal of the said college, is the greatest satisfaction in my life. I never dreamt that I would become the Director of CCRH. With the patronage of the Deptt. of AYUSH, the opportunities and challenges in the Council are enormous when compared to State Govt. service. The mandate of the Council is huge, the Govt. as well as the profession expects a lot from the Council. With the cooperation and support of my colleagues, I am trying to accomplish the objectives; while I have succeeded in a few areas, the failures are also many. Nonetheless, I am optimistic.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Also tell us any special reason behind your interest & conversion to Homoeopathy?

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: My father was initially in favour of pursuing general education, but my brother-in-law, Dr. Natabar Naik, who is a renowned homoeopathic practitioner of Orissa, prevailed upon all of us to pursue homoeopathic education. Although I had the required marks to get admission to Allopathic Medical College in our state, my brother-in-law convinced me that Homoeopathy being a new course, would provide better opportunities to grow than Allopathy. He proved to be correct.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Who is the man behind you in your homoeopathic life? I mean who is your Guru or Teacher or Guide or Inspirer?

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: Besides my brother-in-law Dr. Natabar Naik, who inspired me to enter the arena of Homoeopathy, all my teachers of Govt. Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneswar & National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata have immensely contributed in my career. Notable among my Gurus are: Dr. Paritosh Rakshit, Dr. Narayan Rao and Dr. Kamala Kanta Kar (all former Principals) at Bhubaneswar College and Dr. K.P.Muzumdar (former Director), Dr. S.P. Dey and Dr. S.K.Dubey etc. at National Institute of Homoeopathy

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak:  What is your opinion about the present trends in Homoeopathy as regards various approaches, hypotheses and beliefs with respect to classical homoeopathy and the concept of single dose and single remedy etc.?

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak:  People follow different religions to achieve one goal, i.e. to have blessings of the Almighty. Similarly, a few homoeopathic doctors have been trying to advocate different approaches to attain the same objective, i.e. to cure the patient. Each concept has pros and cons. So long as they adhere to the fundamental doctrines of Homoeopathy, it is o.k. By and large, it is found that the homoeopathic doctors of the present time follow Classical Homoeopathy (prescribing similimum on the basis of symptoms totality), Clinical  Homoeopathy (giving single remedy to all identical cases), Complex Homoeopathy (applying mixture of different medicines) and Isopathy ( a method of curing a given disease by the same contagious principle  that produces it) in their practice. But, the most ideal one is Classical Homoeopathy, which is based on certain fundamental principles of which the three most important are: law of similia, law of simplex and law of minimum.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Please tell me in brief about your personal experience or problems you have faced in homoeopathic practice in India.

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: India is the pioneer country in the world where Homoeopathy has gained the official recognition of Govt. in the field of education, research and drug development. Large number of homoeopathic colleges, hospitals, dispensaries, research organisations, private practitioners, patient clientele, followers as well as lovers of Homoeopathy in India add to the credibility of Homoeopathy. The figures are still on the rise. But, we have to improve the quality of education, research and drug standards to achieve excellence. Some of the problems I encountered in my past homoeopathic practice are: ensuring the quality of homoeopathic medicines; getting the true portraits of the patients, analyzing and evaluating their symptoms and rigidly applying the law of similia to reach at the similimum.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak:  What's your views towards necessity for reproving of homoeopathic medicines which were proved during Hahnemann’s time?

Is it really necessary and if yes, can it bring change in our Materia Medica with new discoveries?

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: There is necessity for reproving of homoeopathic medicines, in our country keeping in view the varying ecological, environmental, psychological, nutritional factors etc. If the true pathogenetic power of the drugs can be ascertained through appropriate methodology, under scientific scrutiny, then the new findings can be valuable additions to the Materia Medica. CCRH has already re-proved 70 medicines on a standard protocol, data of which have been published in the form of books and articles in Council’s journal.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Is there any necessity for up-gradation of 6th edition of Organon of Medicine?

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: Science is never a closed chapter.   There is always scope for improvement, progress and development.    Dr. Hahnemann, in a attempt to perfect the system of therapeutics, had revised his master piece, `Organon of Medicine’ six times, during his life, although the 6th Edition was published posthumously.  A good number of homoeopathic physicians even today question the validity and contents of the 6th edition of Organon of Medicine.   To my opinion, the original observations and ideas embodied in Organon of Medicine, written by Dr. Hahnemann, need not be distorted but kept intact.     We should not make change only for change sake.    On the other hand, scientific research cannot be made static and new thoughts and ideas may be incorporated to enrich our literature.   In the process of scientific validation of Homoeopathy, further research is required on modern parameters without compromising the doctrine of Homoeopathy.   New books can be authored by reputed clinicians and research scholars which could be valuable additions to the homoeopathic literature.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Your views regarding importance of diagnosis of disease in Homoeopathy. Is it must?

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: Selection of medicine is mainly based on the uncommon, peculiar and characteristic symptoms of a patient. To know the uncommon symptoms, the physician has to ascertain what are the common symptoms of a disease which is possible by correct diagnosis of the case. Besides, the knowledge of disease also helps us in selecting the right potency of the remedy and follow a correct repetition schedule. It also aids to determine the diet, life style and ancillary measures (general management) for the patient. Although we argue that the concept of prognosis in homoeopathic parlance differs from that of Allopathy, nonetheless, we must remember what will happen to the patients of diabetic mellitus, hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis, if proper therapeutic interventions and general measures are not resorted to, after doing correct diagnosis. Diagnosis also helps the physician to prescribe organopathic remedies, in certain cases, after ascertaining the seat and stage of the disease. If the disease is infectious, patient needs to be advised for isolation. The patient has also the right to know from the attending physician, what disease he/she is suffering from. Moreover, diagnosis is also essential for record-keeping, statistical analysis, research, documentation, paper presentation and to issue medical certificates, death certificates and for medico-legal purposes etc.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Preventive medicine are distributed in various Epidemics like Chikungunya, Viral fever, Conjunctivitis. Do you agree to Genus Epidemicus concept of Dr. Hahnemann? If not, then why? Doctors like Dr. Praful Vijaykar disagree Genus Epidemicus concept. Please comment.

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: The genus epidemicus was found to be useful by Dr. Hahnemann during the epidemic of scarlet fever. It was also found useful during the influenza epidemic of 1919. The Council has recently conducted a double blind placebo controlled study on the Chikungunya / viral fever epidemic in Kerala. The genus epidemicus was Bryonia and the verum group has shown statistically significant results over the placebo group. However, we need to apply the principles of Homoeopathy to identify the genus epidemicus in each individual epidemic as and when occurring in any part of the world. Simply application of any homoeopathic medicine which has been found to be useful in previous epidemics would violate the homoeopathic principles and its efficacy cannot be determined. I have no comments if somebody disowns the concept of genus epidemicus.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: What's your opinion about the miasmatic classification made by some homoeopaths like Cancer Miasm, Malaria Miasm, AIDS Miasm?

Is it necessary to make separate classification rather than Hahnemannian classification of Psora, Sycosis, Syphilis?

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: I strongly follow the Hahnemannian classification of miasms and do not subscribe to arguments in favour of Cancer miasm, Malaria miasm and AIDS miasm etc. If we go on adding to the list of miasms on the basis of nosology, then it will be an endless affair; the number of miasms may be as many as number of diseases. If somebody, has any problem in putting a particular patient / disease into the domain of a particular miasm, in view of diverse character/nature/ signs & symptoms of more than one miasm, then Dr. Hahnemann has shown us the way to consider those as “complex disease”, where two or three miasms may be lurking behind.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: What advice will you give to the younger homoeopathic generation, when there are different Schools with different opinion all over the world like Sankaran, Predictive Homoeopathy, Vithoulkas, Sehgal group etc.

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: All these different schools of Homoeopathy have devised their own methods to prescribe. All of them take the shelter of Organon of Medicine, and make their own interpretations. My advice to the younger generation is not to restrict themselves to one particular school of thought. At first, they should learn the fundamental principles of Homoeopathy advocated by Hahnemann. Then they may try and learn what other schools teach. In their clinical practice, they should try these methods on the sick, and verify which method helps him to reach at the similimum and bring success. Accordingly, they should take their own decision, which method is best. Being unprejudiced is the first requirement of a true physician. A homoeopathic physician should be honest, true, hard working and eager to learn, not a blind follower.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Tell us more about the Research work done by you. As the present Director of CCRH, please highlight the research activities of your Council.

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: I have, in the past, conducted a study on ‘Bowel nosodes in Cervical Spondylosis’ when I was the Principal-cum-superintendent at Dr. AC Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Orissa. The results of the study have been published in the Indian Journal for Research in Homoeopathy, Vol 2, Jan-March 2008 and also uploaded on Council’s website www.ccrhindia.org .

Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) is an autonomous body of the Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India.

The main research areas of the Council are:

1.      Clinical Research

2.      Clinical Verification

3.      Drug Proving

4.      Drug Standardization

5.      Survey, Collection and Cultivation of medicinal plants

6.      Basic and Fundamental Research (in  collaboration with institutes of excellence).

Apart from these, the Council is also monitoring the research projects under the Extra-Mural Research (EMR) Scheme of the Department of AYUSH. Council also regularly brings out research publications and IEC material for general information as well. The Council has recently launched the Indian Journal for Research in Homoeopathy (IJRH), which is the first peer reviewed research journal of Homoeopathy in India.

Council also participates in health melas, and other public health activities. Last year, the Council organized a national campaign on ‘Homoeopathy for Mother and Child Care’ in collaboration with the Department of AYUSH.

The details of the activities of the Council are available at the website of the Council, www.ccrhindia.org

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Views regarding combinations in Homoeopathy? Are you in its favor or not? If in favor, then why? Any research based justification can you give for it? Is it going to harm the Hahnemannian concept of Single medicine or Organon of Medicine ?

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: Please see my answer for Q. No.1

Use of single, simple medicines is one of the cardinal principles of Homoeopathy. The combinations have not been proved in the compound form. As such, the use of combinations is not in accordance with the principles of Homoeopathy. A true similimum would lead to cure. A partial similimum would lead to partial annihilation of complaints and would require another medicine. As for patents and combinations, since these have not been proved, their therapeutic effects cannot be ascertained. Sometimes the patents and combinations may afford relief to the patients if any or some of the ingredients of such patents/combinations bear similitude with the patient’s complaints. A few industries have made clinical trials on their patents & combinations through their R & D divisions. But, it is not proper to comment on their results without proper scrutiny.

            To summarize, the use of combinations violates the provisions of Organon of Medicine including the concept of single medicine.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: In CCRH you are doing good work on new Drug proving? Is it necessary? Any special finding you got. Tell us in detail.

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: The Council is focusing on conducting proving of indigenous drugs. Some drugs are new whereas re-provings of some partially proved drugs have also been undertaken. The drugs proved by the Council are being clinically verified. Proving of 76 drugs has been completed. There are two publications of the Council specifically on Drug Proving. Also, Council has published monographs on 11 drugs, comprising of drug proving symptoms. Once these drugs are used frequently, these would be valuable additions to the homoeopathic materia medica.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: What's your opinion on the concept of 'Unprejudiced Observer'? How do you apply in your practice or what direction will you give to your students?

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: Being unprejudiced is one of the pre-requisites of a true homoeopathic practitioner. Sometimes, we are biased from the good results obtained in the past, after the application of a particular medicine in a disease condition. Once we achieve success in one case, we do see similarities with other cases. But we must attempt to overcome this weakness of ours. We need to try to treat each new case afresh, free from any conjecture, only then one can conceive the individuality of the case and select a proper remedy. The same principle I followed in my practice and taught to my students when I was a teacher.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Now many new medicines are emerging that have not been proved yet. What is your take on this issue? There are a lot of debates on this issue. 

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: Many new drugs, which have not been proved are being used by many homoeopathic physicians. Use of such drugs does not fall completely into the homoeopathic domain as per its principles. All drugs should be proved on healthy human beings to completely explore their therapeutic potential. Only then these medicines can be put to test through clinical verification.

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak: Any books or publications by you?

 

Dr. Chaturbhuj Nayak: One book ‘Primary Homoeopathic Treatment of Common Ailments’ compiled by me, in Oriya, was published by the Government of Orissa. I have published more than 150 articles in various journals, magazines, souvenirs and newspapers to popularize homoeopathy among the profession and the common man. During my four year tenure as Director of CCRH, the Council has made some publications, which include 3 mongraphs, 3 compilations on Drug Provings, 2 books on Drug Standardization, one book on Collaborative studies conducted by the Council, one compilation on Medico-abstracts on Cancer, one handbook on Medicinal Plants in India used in Homoeopathy, 3 booklets on Homoeopathy for Mother and Child Care. Also, Council has published souvenirs and proceedings of various seminars held during these 4 years. Various IEC material have been published including booklets, handouts, posters, etc. Council has also made regular publications of Quarterly Bulletin (now re-launched as Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy), CCRH News and Current Health Literature Awareness Services (CHLAS).

 

 

Dr. Pawan S. Chandak:  Thank you so much for sharing your life and thoughts with us today. It has been a pleasure to hold this discussion and I hope the interaction will continue in future too to support our common goal of promoting homeopathy. Thank you!