|
Jose Miguel Mullen, MD, MD (H), MFHom. |
| HOMEOPATHIC
NEWSLETTER |
number two |
|
|
|
Allopathy,
Homeopathy, and Dogmatism |
|
| |
According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language, Mechanicism is the theory that everything in the
Universe is produced by matter in motion.
Vitalism, according to the same Dictionary and when referred
to Biology, is he doctrine that ascribes the functions of a living
organism to a vital principle distinct from chemical and physical
forces.
In Medicine there is room for both approaches.
Some Doctors feel more comfortable when approaching patients from a
mechanistic standpoint. They are the Allopaths. They treat
their patients with drugs, surgery or radiations. Drugs are
chemicals that interact with substances present in cells. This
interaction brings about stimulation or inhibition of the whole
cell. If this reaction happens in the sick tissues one speaks of
therapeutic effect, if in tissues other than the sick ones, of
side effects and toxicity, and if in those of embryos
and fetuses teratogenic effects. Drugs can also trigger a
berserk reaction of the immune system called allergic reaction.
Surgery treats patients by means of implanting artifacts and
removing or else repairing organs and tissues. Radiations are very
strong and penetrating beams of rays that wither any structures they
strike in their path. All of the above has been well researched, it
is understandable and is well within the mechanist paradigm.
There are other Doctors who feel more comfortable with the
vitalistic approach. For this purpose, they use methods that
guide their patients' Vital Force to achieve a state
of balance and harmony. Again here, when it comes to Homeopathy,
everything is well researched, clearly understandable and well
within the vitalistic paradigm.
Also according to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language, the second definition of dogma is a specific tenet or
doctrine authoritatively laid down. One generally associates dogma
with religions but, as we shall presently see, dogmatism can also be
found elsewhere.
The right place of dogma is religion. Most religions are based on
Revelation, that is, on something that has only been perceived
by an exceptionally respectable and saintly individual. Revelation
is then divulged and believed by the rest of the congregation.
Religions tend to be authoritative with dogmas, and believe in them
implicitly and verbatim, because nobody but the saintly seer
has exactly perceived what a particular dogma is about.
Dogma is enforced, not only by the religious authorities, but also
by the body of believers. Acceptance of a dogma implies that each
believer's search for truth has ended. There is a considerably
feeling of relief in not having to think or to doubt any more.
Besides, feeling the closeness of others who believe the same thing
brings about a feeling of warmth and of chumminess. Whenever anybody
doubts, that person creates a ripple of uncertainty that forces
believers to think and to re-evaluate their positions. And, as Dr.
Carl Jung (1875-1961) once remarked "There is no effort most Human
Beings will not undertake in order to avoid the effort of thinking".
So, whenever a doubter appears in the fold, usually it is the fold
itself that turns against the heretic with much more fury and
contempt than the authorities of that religion.
Every time any Doctor approaches any patient, be it from the
mechanistic or from the vitalistic stand-point, all those patients
are perfectly visible by the Doctors, their voices can be heard and
their words interpreted, their bodies can be smelled and palpated,
their heart sounds can be listened to, etc.
Meaning that, no matter how patients are approached, those patients
can be easily perceived by Doctors' senses, observed and studied
firsthand without any difficulty whatsoever. In other words Medicine, be it mechanistic or vitalistic, is based on observation.
There is no mystery here, nothing that only one person can see while
all the others are forced to believe because they cannot see it, no
Revelation-and consequently no need for dogma.
So what we are talking about here is two different ways of arriving
at awareness.
One belongs to the religious realm, requires faith and obedience and
is based on Revelation. Revelation leads to dogma.
In the material and scientific realm, on the other hand, and that
includes Doctors and sufferers, one reaches awareness following the
path of observation, to then reach conclusions based on
that observation.
It is extremely dangerous and destructive to base religion on
observation, as it is to base science on dogma.
In religion only one person has been able to perceive something. If
that person chooses to describe what he or she has seen he or she
will have followers, who are unable to observe anything at the
seer's level and who consequently will consider the words of the
Master as the Revealed Truth. That needs faith. Let us suppose now
for a moment that any follower, who lacks the capacity to see,
starts describing things. The result will be chaos. Now is when the
discipline of dogma comes in, for dogma is the only thing that can
restore order and the status quo in such a situation. Dogma
is also important when new facts or circumstances face a
congregation. When this happens, the congregation will turn to the
dogma and, through dogma, to their Revealed Truth; and will
afterwards accept or reject those new facts or circumstances
according to their dogma. To attempt to base a religion on
observation, then, would be patently absurd as well as dangerous to
the stability of the congregation and its collective beliefs.
As absurd and as destabilizing as basing the study of anything
related to science on dogma. This is so because, and unlike what
happens with religions, where only one can see and all the rest have
to believe, what is needed in science is to use one's senses and
brains. Despite of this, dogma has become a nasty parasite of
science that can twist its development and even kill dissenters. Let
me illustrate with some examples.
Dogma says that the Earth is the center of the Universe and that
everything revolves around it. Perhaps that dogma has changed of
late, but I am not aware of any modification.
Consequently, the results of observation of astronomical phenomena
had to conform to this dogma. Scientists had to figure out a model
where Earth is in the center. So they eventually came up with
something they called the theory of the spheres. In this
theory the Earth is indeed in the center, and each celestial body is
embedded in a sphere. The spheres are concentric, one inside the
other, like Russian dolls, and each sphere rotates this way and
that, to conform to the movements of the planets and stars as seen
from Earth.
Observation and evidence showed Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) that
the center of our system is the Sun, not the Earth. His conclusion
made wonderful sense. Among many other things, it unifies the
rotation of all planets around the Sun in a most elegant and
majestic fashion. But his observation and his conclusions clashed
head on with dogma, so he was smart enough to remain mum. The wisdom
of Copernicus' prudence became evident when Galileo (1564-1642)
proclaimed that the Earth was not static in the center of the
Universe, but that it actually moved around the Sun. He was asked to
either recant or else to face death. He withdrew willy-nilly,
mumbling under his breath his famous phrase "Eppur si muove"
(it moves, nevertheless). Despite of his recanting, though, he was
given a hard time for the rest of his life.
Less fortunate was Michael Servetus (1511-1553).
Dogma says that blood is a humor or something similar, and that
therefore it doesn't circulate inside the blood vessels.
Servetus observed that blood is a liquid and that it circulates
inside blood vessels. He published his finding in 1553, in his book
Cristianisimi restitutio. Dogma also triumphed here. Servetus
was less lucky than Galileo, though. He was executed by means of
being burned alive, he and his books. Some of his books, hidden
beforehand, survived.
The brothers Orville (1871-1948) and Wilbur (1867-1912) Wright were
frequently reminded that dogma said that only birds and angels could
fly. They were fortunate. They were able to destroy that dogmatic
nonsense and survive unscathed.
Dogma says that God created a male and female of each species, which
afterwards grew and multiplied.
Observation shows that DNA, present in all living cells, from
bacteria to Humans, is very similar in all organisms, with small
variations that correspond to the uniqueness of each species. The
obvious conclusion of this observation is that all living organisms
have one common ancestor.
Dogma is still fighting a losing battle to disprove the results of
impeccable scientific observations and conclusions. Our civilization
has generally evolved sufficiently as to not to kill, maim or
excommunicate dissenters any more, so this real and present clash
between dogma and scientific findings in this field remains at the
level of a rather acrimonious and often sarcastic dispute. It goes
without saying that those who believe that each species was created
one at a time absolutely boycott those who dare to dissent.
Dogma says that the Allopathic approach is the one and only
scientific Truth when it comes to diagnosis and treatment. This
dogma is currently alive and strong in the Medical establishment.
So much so that one often hears Allopaths deride Homeopathy by
stating that it doesn't adjust to any scientific method. What they
actually mean is that Homeopathy does not adjust to the scientific
method found useful for Allopathic purposes. Quite true,
since Homeopathy approaches diagnosis and treatment from a totally
different angle. This spiteful attitude is totally fallacious
because it is based, not on observation and conclusions of results
obtained through other Medical approaches, but rather on the dogma
that Allopathy is the only Truth.
Homeopathy is ignored in most, if not all, Medical Schools.
Physicians graduate not knowing what Homeopathy is about. However,
their minds have been engraved with the dogma that Allopathy
Medicine is the one and only True form of practicing Medicine.
Most graduates don't have it clear in their minds what Homeopathy
is. Take this anecdote as an example: a patient of mine needed
surgery, so I dispensed her Arnica 30 CH to ease her pre- and
post-operative distress. The Surgeon went ballistic. He told the
patient "You can't take that! Chinese herbs interfere with surgery!"
Homeopathy is not welcome in most Hospital settings. Which is a pity,
considering how useful it would be to complement both Homeopathy and Allopathy for the benefit of in-patients. All the more because
Homeopathy is at least as useful as Allopathy in many instances
(such as in most patients suffering from chronic diseases), and even
more helpful in some (such as in many patients bearing viral
diseases, where the usefulness of Allopathy is very limited). To
boot, Homeopathy virtually lacks side effects and toxicity and is
very inexpensive.
If this one and only Truth dogma did not exist,
Homeopathy would be taught in Medical Schools.
As far as the Doctors, whose minds wouldn't have been polluted by
dogmatism, their first reaction would be one of curiosity what
does Homeopathy have to offer? followed by perplexity is this
serious? Let's find out followed by more perplexity.
Homeopathy has been around for the past 200-odd years all over the
world. If it is quackery, could it have fooled seven consecutive
generations of patients, including people as sensate and as well
advised as are the members of the British royal family, the Mahatma
Ghandi and so many others? More perplexity. I don't
understand how it works. Like cures like, increasing capacity with
decreasing doses, Research based in making healthy people ill makes
no sense to me. Next a question Does it work? Followed by
footwork onto Homeopathic Physician's offices and Homeopathic
Hospitals, all the latter unfortunately only abroad; for there are
currently none in America. In all of these places, interested
Allopaths would find that Homeopathy does indeed work wonderfully in
a variety of patients afflicted by divers diseases, that in many
instances it works much better than Allopathy, and that Homeopathy
has limitations, too. Then would come the inevitable thought How
could we integrate Homeopathy with Allopathy? How would patients
fare with such an integration?
And just imagine how much in-patients would benefit, and how
Hospitals' costs would plummet as the consequence of such
integration.
|
|
|
|
If
you've been too long under the sun... |
|
| |
...despite of all you have heard ad nauseam regarding the
thinness of the ozone layer and all the rest, and are now suffering
the consequences of your excessive and reckless exposure to the
mercies of Old Phœbus, and consequently your skin is scorching
and/or on your head is bursting, here are a few remedies you may
find helpful. Some are more useful for sunburn, some for
sunstroke and some for both.
Again here, remember to use potencies of 12 CH or higher (i.e., 13
CH, 14 CH, etc.). Also re-member that, in Homeopathy, we measure our
remedies in potencies instead of using milligrams and
the like, as Allopathic Medicine does.
In case of sunburn or sunstroke consult immediately your doctor
or any other qualified health care provider.
Belladona.- Useful for the acute phase of both sunburn
and sunstroke.
The patient is agitated and his or her skin is hot, dry and red.
Pupils are dilated and the mouth and throat are red and dry,
although the patient is thirstless. The patient complaints of
throbbing and burning all over. There may be fever of sudden onset
that can be high and accompanied or not by delirium. The latter may
be violent, and the patient may have to be restrained. There may
also be seizures.
There is little or no swelling.
Apis mellifica.- Useful mainly for sunburn.
There is swelling and redness in the skin; although the redness here
is rosy, instead of the vermilion hue usually associated with
Belladona.
The pain tends to be stinging and burning, instead of burning and
throbbing.
Eyelids may be swollen and red, and there may be complaints of
piercing pains in the face.
Here, too, there is no thirst, although the patient may become
thirsty when having a chill, something that usually happens in the
evening.
Urine may become scant and burn when voided; particularly at the end
of urination.
The patient feels worse when exposed to any kind of heat, and better
when uncovering, exposing him or herself to cool air or taking a
cold bath.
Cantharis.- Useful mainly for sunburn, that can be
very severe and accompanied by blisters.
There may be unendurable burning and itching of the blistered skin,
that becomes raw and smarts when the patient scratches and breaks
the blebs. Raw surfaces may easily become infected.
There may be fever and delirium, that can be severe.
There is constant urgency to urinate. Urine can be bloody, and may
be voided drop by drop amidst cutting and scalding pain.
Glonoinum.- Extremely useful mainly for sunstroke. It
follows Belladona well.
The whole body throbs with every heartbeat. The patient feels as if
all the blood had rushed to the heart or the left side of the chest,
and from there to the head. Headaches are throbbing and unbearable,
and may be followed by mental confusion and unconsciousness. Pain
may beat in the patient's head in sync with the pulse. Long sleep
may relieve the headaches, and stimulants and local heat may worsen
it.
Every jar makes the head feel as if it would burst. This is the
reason why Glonoinum patients need to sit immobile for hours
if necessary, usually with legs crossed, elbows in knees and face
resting in hands. Their need of remaining motionless is such that
they don't want to be talked to and, if they need to answer, they
will whisper their answer through their teeth and so remain as still
as possible as they talk
The patient's face may be purple or bright red.
Natrum carbonicum.- Useful for the chronic effects of
sunstroke in patients never well since having suffered it.
Summer heat brings about weakness, and the patient's head hurts in
the heat of the summer and also after the slightest mental exertion.
(Bibliographic information obtained in part
from the Materia Medicæ of Drs. Kent, Boericke and Vijnosky; and
from the Repertories of Drs. Kent, Boericke and Murata).
|
|
|
|
Is
Homeopathy Scientific? |
|
| |
A treatment is said to be scientific when
found to be useful, and when that usefulness can be
repeatedly verified.
The only way of finding out about usefulness is through Research.
The best definition I know of Research is that it consists in asking
Nature a question in a language Nature understands, and then
interpreting Nature's answer to that question.
Obviously, questions are phrased differently according to each
Researcher's outlook.
Allopathy, being mechanistic, considers that health is a situation
of balance between matter and energy, and that diseases trigger
imbalance in any organ or tissue. This localized imbalance is what
causes diseases. If left untreated, diseases may become generalized
and put a patient's life in jeopardy.
The Research question here, then, is addressed at diseases, how
those diseases affect or alter matter and energy in a particular
organ or tissue, and how the treatment under study may interfere
with the alterations brought about by the disease. The purpose of
this form of Research is to find a chemical, or a form of Surgery or
radiation that may bring under control or eradicate a certain
disease, and so cure it.
The subjects in whom these studies are carried out are bacteria and
cells in culture, animals and Humans ill with the disease under
study.
To sum up, in Allopathy the main priority is to cure diseases. There
is also a lot of interest in preventing them. For reasons of space,
I will deal exclusively here with lines of Allopathic Research
planned with the aim of curing diseases.
Homeopathy, being vitalistic, is interested in the relationship
between the Vital Force and the Whole individual. It considers that
there is health, balance and harmony when this relationship is good
but that, when the relationship is bad there is an overall state of
imbalance. An overall state of imbalance brings about a loosening of
the grip the Vital Force may have on a particular organ or tissue.
The devitalized organ cries for help and this cry is interpreted as
distress by the patient and as a disease-syndrome by the Physician.
The Homeopathic cure consists in finding a remedy capable of
correcting the patient's overall imbalance. This correction allows
the Vital Force to regain a good grip on the ill organ and tissue. A
strong grip restores balance and harmony in the Whole patient and so
the disease afflicting him or her will simply vanish.
The Research question here is addressed to the overall patient's
imbalance, how it has been brought about, and how Homeopathic
remedies can correct it. But since in Homeopathy like cures like,
the remedies capable to correcting any particular form of imbalance
must be the same ones capable of producing it.
Which is why Homeopathic Research is carried out in healthy male and
female Human volunteers, and why the purpose of the study is to
alter their balance (and thus make them sick) by administrating them
the remedy under study. Ill individuals are not used in these
studies. This is so because, as Dr. Hahnemann, the creator of
Homeopathy, correctly pointed out, it would take a "master observer"
to be able to discriminate the changes brought about by the progress
of the disease from those triggered by the remedy being tested.
Homeopathy doesn't use bacteria, cells in culture or animals for its
experiments.
To sum up, what we intend in Homeopathy is to correct the overall
imbalance that produces all kinds of diseases. We regard an
individual disease as an electrician would an overheated fuse. We
won't touch the disease/overheated fuse, but will work to correct
the imbalance of the whole installation that causes the fuse to
overheat. We know that the disease ailing the patient (or the excess
heat in the fuse, if you wish) will dissipate once the whole patient
becomes balanced.
Homeopathic Research is carried out through experiments called
Provings.
First we prepare Homeopathically a product of any origin by means of
triturating or diluting and then shaking it, thus transforming that
product into a Homeopathic remedy.
Then we administer that remedy, every day, until the healthy
volunteers experience changes. The trial is discontinued immediately
at this point, and every single change experienced is
carefully recorded.
The sum total of changes found in Provings, whether normal
(i.e., desire for fruit, fear of thunderstorms, coldness, etc.), or
pathologic (heartburn, numbness, palpitations, insomnia,
etc.), will then become the profile of the remedy. Each of
the changes, whether normal or pathological, are known as
symptoms.
Dr. Hahnemann strongly recommended that the person in charge of a
Proving should become a prover him or herself, and thus personally
experience the changes brought by the remedy.
Aside from Provings, information about Homeopathic remedies also
stems from two other sources, namely, personal characteristics of
patients who respond to treatment and changes brought about by
intoxications with material doses of the product used to prepare the
Homeopathic remedy.
Evidence obtained from these two sources may be useful. Sometimes.
But the most important thing when deciding a treatment is always the
profile of the remedy as found in the Provings.
The evaluation of a Proving is perforce totally different from that
of an Allopathic experiment.
In Allopathic Research, the experiment takes place outside
the Researcher. Objective changes found in the experiment must
afterwards be brought into the mind of the Researcher where it
becomes subjective knowledge. Subjective knowledge must be a
mental replica of the experiment, as exact and as unbiased as
possible. Most of the provisions present in an Allopathic Research
protocol are aimed at preventing distortion along the path each bit
of information has to follow from the experimental field through the
Researcher's senses and into the Researcher's mind. Statistical
evaluation is also indispensable here, because it is the only way a
Researcher can know whether the changes found in the experiment were
caused by the experimental procedure or by random chance.
Much of the minutiae so indispensable in an Allopathic Research
protocol can safely be dispensed with in Provings. Here there is no
way to confuse changes due to the remedy with those due to chance,
after having experienced those changes in oneself. In Homeopathy,
Research happens inside the Researcher from beginning to end.
There is no trip here between outside objective evidence through
senses into inner subjective knowledge. All knowledge gathered in
the experiment is subjective, obtained by means of becoming
aware of the changes each prover perceives within him or herself
along the experiment, and immediately registered by the prover's
mind. That awareness is immediate and exact, and not the replica of
anything objective. Here the mind of each prover can register many
changes simultaneously, unlike what happens in Allopathic Research
where only one change or variable can be studied at a time. This immediate
awareness also allows each prover to understand the changes that are
happening in the other provers. Let me give you an example: You
remember clearly how you felt the first time you held your firstborn
child in your arms. And consequently you know, and intuitively
understand, what every other male feels in such a situation.
Each prover knows that the changes he or she is experiencing
during the Proving are due to the remedy and not to chance. Pretty
much like the new father knows perfectly well that what he feels
when holding his child for the first time is mainly to love,
clumsiness, perplexity, fear and confusion, but not chance.
Statistical evaluation poses a problem in the evaluation of
Homeopathic experiments. Two, actually. The first problem is related
to the nature of the Homeopathic experiment, the second with
shortcomings of statistical methods.
A statistical evaluation is superfluous in a Proving due to the very
nature of the experiment. One can harbor doubts when intellectually
attempting to interpret the results of an Allopathic experiment,
wonder if results are valid or due to chance, and need a statistical
evaluation to clarify the matter. On the other hand a prover, like a
first time father, knows darned well that what he is becoming aware
of happening inside is the real thing, and not something due to
chance. All the more when seeing similar changes in other new
fathers or provers.
Secondly, I don't know of any statistical method capable of
simultaneously evaluating several inter-related variables in the
same experiment. All the methods I know of are good to adequately
evaluate only one variable or change per experiment, and that only
if the experiment is well behaved.
And a Proving means a lot of changes, or symptoms, or variables, all
happening at the same time during the same experiment. For instance,
in the case of the polychrest Lycopodium clavatum, over
400 symptoms can well appear in each Proving.
Once properly studied, a remedy is administered to patients who
suffer from an overall form of imbalance similar to that found in
the Provings of that particular remedy.
So far, we have learnt about the profile of approximately 3,000 +
remedies in this fashion.
Some have been thoroughly researched, and are called polychrests.
Others have been insufficiently studied, and are known as small
remedies.
Aurum metallicum (included in this Newsletter), for instance,
is a polychrest.
When obtaining a Homeopathic History, the overall profile of each
individual patient (meaning the sum total of the profiles of the
patient + of the patient's disease + of the patient's circumstance)
is matched against the profile of Homeopathic remedies researched
mainly by means of Provings.
The patient is then prescribed a remedy the profile of which best
matches his or her profile, following the Homeopathic Principle of
like cures like. If the treatment is successful, that remedy
will bring the patient into balance. In most instances, this new
found balance will make the patient's disease disappear.
I suppose what I have described so far is enough to conclude that
Homeopathy is scientific.
At the beginning I mentioned that a correct treatment, aside from
being useful, must be repeatedly verified.
I would like to briefly discuss repeatability here.
Dr. Hahnemann created Homeopathy over 200 years ago. He proposed the
principle of like cures like, invented the method of succussing
(that is, of triturating or diluting and then shaking) to prepare
Homeopathic remedies, conducted Provings in himself, friends and
patients and also dispensed Homeopathic remedies to patients whose
imbalance resembled those found in Provings.
Ever since, all over the world, and with monotonous and very
enjoyable regularity, Homeopathic Physicians find results that range
from improvement to complete recovery every time a patient receives
the remedy that corresponds to his or her profile.
|
|
|
| Profiles of Homeopathic
remedies: Aurum metallicum |
|
| |
| Caution - This remedy
should be prescribed, and its effects should be followed up,
only by experienced Homeopathic Physicians, Sometimes,
Homeopathic remedies may produce a momentary aggravation before
improvement starts. In Aurum patients, such an
aggravation may lead to suicide. |
Aurum is the gloomiest remedy of the whole
Materia Medica. It feels unloved, forsaken, and crushed by guilt.
Its self-esteem is close to zero.
Aurum patients live shrouded in dejection, and believe that
their lives have no sense whatsoever. The latter brings about a
feeling of failure. Aurum will do everything within its power to
eliminate its awareness of senselessness and failure. It constantly
erodes whatever remains of Aurum's self-love, -respect and
-confidence.
Aurum is unable to find happiness or sense in everyday
endeavors, even though it strives to do everything perfectly. So
Aurum will aim, again and again, at the most altruistic and
impossible goals, and will use all of its immense energy and will
power to attain them.
Aurum will inevitably fall short. When such a thing happens,
all that stupendous energy back-lashes against the patient. Negative
and destructive now, and fed by the ever present awareness of
failure, that energy will blast to smithereens the last
shreds of Aurum's self-respect and -esteem with a vengeance.
The patient will feel guilty, totally unworthy of love and
happiness, and a total failure-and will believe very strongly that
his or her life really has no purpose or sense whatsoever. Suicide,
always lurking close to the surface, is often attempted during these
moments of abject despair.
Typically, Aurum patients are hyper-responsible and
extraordinarily goal-oriented hard workers, highly esteemed by their
superiors, pillars of church and society and wonderfully responsible
family members.
One day, though, and to everybody's surprise and consternation,
Aurum may jump out of a high story window.
Such is Aurum's craving of happiness and love that it will
never forgive or forget those who become an obstacle in the
attainment of their precious joy. And egos of Aurum patients
are so fragile that they will become devastated and frenzied by
contradiction.
Their self-directed fury and destructiveness will also target many
of Aurum's organs and systems. This tendency is particularly
noticeable in their heart and bones, primary targets of diseases
that afflict Aurum patients. It is as if Aurum would
wish to destroy everything in its physical body, including the bony
frame that gives the body its shape and distinctive appearance as
well as the heart, always starved for love and recognition.
Moods swing wildly between moroseness, frantic striving,
self-directed fury, crushing guilt and dejection. These devastating
swings happen secretly, though, because Aurum patients are
incapable of sharing their true feelings for fear of rejection.
Instead, these patients will always display an outward appearance of
being strong, energetic and on the go until the moment when, without
any warning and for no apparent reason, overwhelmed by their inner
conflicts and demons, they will suddenly jump out of a window and
kill themselves.
(Data for this section was obtained in part
from the Materia Medicæ of Drs. Kent, Boericke and Vijnosky).
|
|
|
|
Edited by Jose Miguel Mullen, MD, MD
(H), MFHom.,
Homeopathic Physician. |
|
|
