Paper remedies have become a bit of a thing amongst people using Homoeopathy, mostly as a way of getting hold of remedies that either may take time, or may be expensive or difficult to get. It's created a bit of a problem for Homoeopathy generally, as their use tends to invalidate or at the very least challenge several important aspects of Homoeopathic philosophy and practice.
I thought I'd ramble a bit about them here. None of this is meant as a direct criticism of those who use such remedies, instead it is a discussion of what equating them to Homoeopathic medicines might mean.
1. Homoeopathy is clearly defined as ‘what a substance can cause it can cure’. Paper remedies have not been proven to cause symptoms. There is no Law of Similars being used. The name of a remedy is not a thing that can or has been proven for medicinal purposes. Even if they have a healing effect, it is not a homoeopathic one. The majority of cases I see where healing is said to take place, does not do so according to direction of cure, does not usually display the homoeopathic aggravation, does not provoke a healing crisis. I have never seen palliation either, but many people seem to report it, so I have to accept ‘something’ is happening with them. Hahnemann stated that disease can be altered by an act of will or faith, and I would even be willing to accept that another person could use their own will to enact a change. Is it Similarity at work though? Palliation without aggravation isn’t the homoeopathic process. It is often seen in herbal medicine, orthodox medicine, all sorts of other kinds of therapies.
2. The idea that the name of the remedy has some kind of power is a slippery path for us. Do different names for the same substance all do the same thing? Do partial names work as well as full names? Do common names of substance work as well as the Latin or Greek names? Speaking from my own experience in clinic, why is it that when I do not have the remedy, but I speak it to the patient (and then wait several weeks for the remedy to arrive) that the patient does not then improve? What if I write it down for them to obtain from a pharmacy close to them, and they wait a week to obtain it, that there is no improvement in their case? I HAVE seen a mild palliation I relate to hope and relief, which I also see when people get apparent good news from orthodox doctors as well. This does not last long, does not cure, and they are either the same or worse when the remedy finally arrives and then does everything I expect when given (Aggravation! Healing crisis. Movement of symptoms in the correct direction. Amelioration according to the hierarchy of symptoms/organs). Can I simply put ‘healing’ on the bottle and expect it to work? Can I simply think of remedies and cure people around me? What if I misspell the name of the remedy? This cannot be considered part of the science when none of these questions have been examined scientifically and answered within the scope of our own principles.
3. How does writing a number relate to the process of potentization? If someone writes 30 instead of 30c, how does the paper remedy know they don’t mean 30x? We have a rigorous method of making remedies, and we know that if not done properly can affect the quality of the medicine and therefore of the cure. How does a paper remedy get around the need for this careful structured process? We have a gap in our understanding of how potentizing exactly does what it does, so does that mean we can chuck it away completely as an unnecessary complication? Accepting paper remedies as the same as homoeopathic remedies provokes serious ramifications for us, and they need to be considered and dealt with if you are willing to do that.
4. As Masaru Emoto’s experiments showed us, words with strong positive meanings can affect water. As can music, chemicals, prayer. However, he only showed that the ability of the water to organize itself into more ‘pleasing’ forms, and that negative influences created chaos and disorder or ‘ugly’ forms. He specifically did experiments on homoeopathic medicines and found they created the same shaped crystals each time, according to the specific remedy. This was DIFFERENT to his other experiments where the crystals did not show such a specific reliable pattern. If you wish to use his observations and conclusions to justify the use of paper remedies in place of homoeopathic ones, you should be ready to accept all of what those observations imply. The words can only produce pleasing, ordering of the water, only properly made remedies create specific structures.
5. I believe the logical consequences for accepting paper remedies into homoeopathic practice would be these. It rewrites homoeopathy into something else.
a. The substance is irrelevant, the source of the substance is irrelevant.
b. Potency has nothing to do with the process of potentization, of dilution, of trituration.
c. Similarity has nothing to do with the original substance, and therefore with the connections of that substance to other substances, to groups, to kingdoms