James Stephenson : an oral history [sound recording]
Page  i
An Interview With Dr, James Stephenson

\ An Interview With Dr0 James Stephenson

Page  ii Table of Contents Introduction Transcript 1-62 Footnotes 63-64 Index 65-68

Page  iiiDr. James Stephenson . Dr. James Stephenson was born in St. Louis, Missouri on March 29} 1919. He took his M.D. degree from Cornell University'Medical College in 1-951? and he is presently a practicing physician in New York City. He was interviewed in his office at 66 East 83-rd Street, New Yorks Mew York, 10028, on June 18, 1968. The .interviewers were Dr. John Duffy of Tulane University School of Medicine andr.Mr. Martin Kaufman, his graduate student and research assistant, 'Dr. Stephenson was one of the most articulate of the homeopaths Mr. Kaufman and I interviewed, He was quite suspicious of our motives, however, and he only agreed to talk with any freedom after we had reassured him that he would have the right to edit the transcript. He was quite worried about my connection with'a medical school, and was apprehensive that any material we collected might be used to discredit homeopathy. Even though he talked with considerable freedom, on certain questions he insisted on speaking off the record. In editing his transcript, he restricted himself largely to clarification and made only minor changes.

Page  1ITW James Stephens on . , Tape 1 wPage 1 Oral history interview, Dr. James Stephenson, New Zork City, June t8, 1968. Interviewed by Dr. John Duffy and Mr. Martin Kaufman. JUT. Daffy: Dr. Stephenson, I thought we would do this in three general sections. First we would like to find out precisely how you got into homeopathy, what facets attracted you into it, etc.; secondly, we would like to get your definition and views OH homeopathy; and third, we would like to discuss the organization and the role of homeopathy, that is, in relation to the orthodox medical profession, and then, of course, the various options and splinter groups within it. So do you think you could start by giving some of your background?. |)r. Stephenson: My background particularly in reference to homeopathy? Yes. .When I was a sophomore medical student at Cornell, through a series of coincidences, I found out about homeopathic medicine. Dr. Elizabeth Hubbard1s name was given to me as a homeopathic physician, which 1 recorded and more or less forgot about. Then I got acute appendicitis in the middle of my sophomore year, and did not wish particularly to lose a few weeks through an operation, so I thought I would try homeopathy. She gave me a remedy, and overnight the symptoms went away, and this made me quite interested. I was probably more open-minded than the average physician in this direction, because 1 had gone into medicine late after five years in the army, and I had some background in various philosophic systems which are

Page  2Dr. Stephenson Page 2 to some extent coincident with homeopathy. yt- How did you say you came in contact with Dr. Hubbard? g^- Well, I think my wife heard of her. No, my wife heard of 2 Boericke and Tafel, and I went into Boericke and Tafel when they used to have an office down in the forties and they gave me Dr. Hubbard's name and address as a homeopathic physician. |D.- Had your wife had contact with homeopaths or homeopathic physicians? IS.- She had heard about homeopathic medicine through some friend of hers. D,- Yes,; but she had not... S.- She had not been under homeopathic treatment before, although, amusingly enough, a maiden aunt of mine told me recently that I had been briefly under homeopathic care as a young child. But my, parents never informed me of that. |D.-- Now what is your formal medical training? Your specialties as of notAT? You are a graduate of Cornell? p.- ;Yes, a graduate of Cornell Medical College. I did a year's internship and then I went right into a homeopathic preceptorship with Dr. Hubbard for three years. Before that I had attended the - ' O postgraduate course of the American Foundation for Homeopathy be- A, tween my sophomore and junior year in medical school. Or maybe between my junior and senior, I have forgotten. - Mho conducted that course? - That was conducted by a whole bunch of people. Dr. Hubbard was O/ O i on the faculty. Dr. Sutherlandf Dr. Ray Spalding, who is now deceased, Dr. McClaran, Dr.—oh, there were five or six people,

Page  3Dr. Stephenson 3 Page 3 " Dr. Julia Green, who is now dead. .- And you are in general practice I take it, right now? gf- Well, it' is always hard to answer that question. Actually I am in general practice in the sense that I see people of all ages and sexes. But I am really rather highly specialized in that' the therapies I use when I give medicines are always homeopathic. .In addition to homeopathy, I have some background in nutrition, I have worked for the New York City Bureau of Nutrition for ten years, and was trained there by Dr. Norman Jolliff, who is generally recognized as one of the outstanding nutritionists in the country. He is dead now. We had a project there called the Anti-coronary Club which was involved with the question of cholesterol and dietary control of it. So that ! really almost have a sub-specialty in nutrition as well as homeopathy. 1 am one of those physicians who feel that homeopathy really is a specialty within the field of internal medicine, and ideally should be taught in this manner. .— They would probably classify you as an internist, ,- Yes. I am an internist by practice. I am a general practitioner by the group of patients I accept. D.~ Any questions you want to ask before we go on? 3.- Incidentally, could I just add a-point there? Please understand, I am using the terms, 'internist1 and 'general practitioner1 here as defined by the American .Medical Association and their bureau of specialty colleges. These definitions, to me, are really political and not, scientific, so I would just like to get that point on record. The A.M.A. definition of 'internist' is not nee-

Page  4Dr. Stephenson .- Page 4 essarily the scientific definition of 'internist1, and there is simply no scientific reason why an internist should accept patients only of certain ages and sexes. This is a purely cultural and - political decision that was made by people in the field of internal medicine. Eeally the pediatrician is -an internist who "works with children. But I feel these specialty definitions are -"' rather arbitrary and rather unscientific. |).:- I use them in the accepted sense, and I think this... -' I am sorry if I am' being pompous, but I happen to be in the process of writing a book on medical history at the moment, and I go into this a lot, and I think it is an Important point to make. ;j),- Do you think we might ask you to state briefly your views on homeopathy, or how you conceive of homeopathy? I know that there are certain essentials that I think you might... - Well, if you could pin it down a little more. When you say homeopathy, I could talk on this for days. In fact, I'could talk for days just on the research aspect of homeopathy, which is one of my big fields. '6.- Well, obviously as a homeopathist I assume that you accept the doctrine of similars... -' Well, again could I be pompous here, and say that I am not a homeopathist, 1 am a scientist. And as such I use certain things which are of value to me. I am not committed to any doctrine, or any dogma.' I use homeopathic medicines in a particular way be- cause they usually are effective, but I am not committed to this. In other words, I think of myself as a physician who likes to use homeopathic medicines when he treats medically, but I screen my

Page  5;':. Dr. Stephenson 5 TV ' page 5 patients very carefully, and those patients not suited for homeopathy are referred to colleagues of.mine for other forms of treatment. p^- Then your treatment is not necessarily based upon the doctrine of similars. 5,- Definitely not. , D...- D° y°u think there is some validity to the doctrine? g.- Very much so, I am completely committed to it in those patients that 1 treat medically, I am sorry to jump around like this but I have spent so much time in this kind of thing, and one is always being put into doctrinal boxes if one- accepts certain terms without going down really to their incisive definition. |D.- What about the concept of dilution—not quite the correct word— but let's say the assumption that the less or smaller quantity of the drug, the better, and we are apt, I guess, to get into potency. How do you feel about this? Does it have validity? p.- Well, here again it is not so much a matter of feeling, Hahnemann introduced the use of medicines in very high dilution, as I am sure you are aware, around the early 1800's. And homeopathic physicians have been using this now for many, many years, and .they have had abundant clinical evidence that this is effective, I don't know what you have read about this new research work that has been done in the last few years with Prof. Boericke, and Dr. Smith, etc., but I have been very much involved in it. The recent work on nuclear magnetic resonance and some work done in England and Prance has indicated that, indeed, the high dilutions do exist

Page  6Dr. Stephenson ' 6 ' Page 6 physically, and that it is not only a matter of dilution, put the dynamlzation consisting of succussion and trituratlon appears to be a vital factor in producing the so-called homeopathic medicines. I am sure you have heard, from some of your other contributors that medicines are homeopathic in the manner in which they are used, not in the manner in which they are prepared. The medicine can truly only be called homeopathic if it has been tested on a healthy person, its» symptoms recorded, and if the physician then gives that medicine to a patient who presents symptoms similar to the so-called proving symptoms, this renders the medicine homeopathic. Even water can be given on this principle, so that the' dilution and succussion of .'medicine does not make them homeopathic. It just happens that homeopathic physicians introduced this method of preparing medicine into science, and it has really been tragic that it has remained in the homeopathic field so long and has not been taken.up'by other scientists for work in this, area. In the. next issue of Main Jgurrents magazine, which you will have access to in your college library, I have an article, written in conjunction with a physicist in England, that will be going into all of this. 1 think it will be a fairly definitive and up-to-date treatment of this particular question. May I refer you to that? I think that when you read that it will really state the purpose". I would just be repeating now for the tape what I have said in the article. And if that could be included as part of the interview I think it might be worthwhile. The question comes to my mind, and keep in mind that I am a layman in the field of medicine, actually. My interest is in the application of medicine. tJut when Hahnemann first appeared, he

Page  7Dr. Stephens on ' , Page 7 ' was successful primarily because he appeared in an age of excessive dosage, and therefore any practice which reduced the dosage and left the cure to nature was bound to be better than what was happening. And I think this Is true, the intervention in those'days... You are making a statement based en about six different sub-statements. Now which of these sub-statements am I to consider? , All right. Let me just say—this is my impression—that in terms of medical practice the period around 1800 was a period of excessive dosage, heroic medicine, blood-letting, blistering and purging, etc. Hahnemann came In with a practice which obviously involved none of these excessive medications. B"ow leaving out the question of the value of his treatment, I would say that even If the treatment had no value, it would have been more effective than what was happening. This is a possible premise. Whether one can go on and say that the effectiveness of homeopathy was in a sense an anarchic form of medicine... I*.- I am not saying it was, but I am saying that this would have been the case. I am saying that hypothetically this could have been the case. Now, it does seem to me that in the past 160 years or so medicine has obviously become more scientific, and I use that word in the sense that we have a better understanding of histology, physiology, etc. And we have developed some specifics, and partly, I think, because of the Influence of homeopathy, American medical practice did moderate. The orthodox practitioners.*..

Page  8Dr. Stephenson Page 8 . . . _ 9 _ Yes. i have read Shryockfthoroughly, i am well aware this is the standard doctrine Shryook offers. I don't ferappen to agree. Incidentally, nor do I agragree with your limitation of the word science to purely laboratory science. In other .words, I feel the scientific discipline can be applied to laboratory phenomena or to clinical phenomena. And I think we have gone through a period in science where the experimental laboratory investigation has occupied the center of the stage. But I am 'sure that Walter Modell, the human pharmacologist, and people like this would not accept the thesis that this was the only scientific approach. Therefore to speak of homeopathy as unscientific because it was not based on an experimental laboratory apporach, I do not happen to agree.I feel that the scientific approach is deeper than this, whether it is applied in a'laboratory or whether it is applied to humans. Well, the question I was going to ask, you see, is whether the success of Hahnemann may have been due to therapeutic nihilism.-.. slight. . Then is it possible that present day followers or those who accept some of his ideas may riot be guilty of attempting to rationalize a process of medicine or a medical theory, He may not be guilty of trying to rationalize it? Could you expand that a little for me? Well, if we could assume that homeopathy, was successful because . of its therapeutic nihilism... Yes. An assumption which I don't accept. O.K. Then that would answer the question. Now the other question which I. .. pi. .

Page  9|:v Dr. Stephenson . -9 '„ I mean this is an assumption which I think has to be proven. ,p.#' . Frankly, I don't think a historian of science has a right to accept this unless it is proven, and really the only scientific way of proving this would be a very thorough clinical testing : of homeopathy against nothing, to show that the homeopathic medicines have no effect other than withholding medicines entirely. Since this has never been done, speaking purely as a scientist, Shryockj and frankly, you, have no right to accept this thesis as scientists, because a scientist has no right to accept an un~ ; .- proven thesis. D.- Let me ask this. The doctrine of similars is based on the assumption—and incidentally, one reason I'm operating as the devil's advocate is because 1 do want to catch your ideas on the , subject. S.- 1 know. This is standard 'Shryockianism' and it has permeated medical history in this country for many years. ).- If the doctrine of similars is based upon the reaction of a normal, aay, a healthy individual to a particular therapeutic... S.- Bight. D,- Yet it seems to me, that homeopathy, or homeopaths who belong to the Foundation insist that homeopathy has an advantage over orthodox medicine because of the emphasis upon the individual—that the drug is related to the individual—and I have heard the idea expressed that each individual tends to react differently to any particular external stimulus or therapeutic stimulant. Then could we operate on the assumption that in testing out the doctrine of similars what assurance can we have that people will respond collectively to it—to ajparticular drug?

Page  10s:;V- Dr. Stephenson 10 W:^ Well, you are arguing theoretioally about something that is .a scientific fact. People do respond collectively, and anyone who has done proving with homeopathic medicine knows this. You do get a collective response. I have done many provings. In addition, to that, you have probably seen this book of mine which is the only summary of recent provings. Now, in order to write .that., I had to go back into all literature and check the original proving records. And it is a fact that you can give an unknown substance to fifty "or a hundred people and a significant number of those people will all get the same symptoms without any collusion, D,- Now wouldn't this Justify the orthodox practice? Giving a speci-. ' fie remedy—here we have a specific diagnosis and so we give a specific remedy. ' S.,- It might. I am not interested in justifying orthodox practice. I am not concerned with it. My concern is as a homeopathic practitioner . I),*- I think it was... ;S.~ I am not responsible for what my colleagues say, or what homeo- : ' pathy as a political organizati'oii has said through the years. :,. I make up my own mind ' Q.- Well, I was thinking that Dr. Sutherland explained the difference between his practice and the practice of the ordinary practitioner is that an ordinary practitioner in dealing with a case of pneu-monia for example, would give a specific therapeutic to the patient, whereas a homeopathic physician would deal with the individual, operating on the assumption that each individual reacted differently.

Page  11> j)r. Stephens on 11 »^\-Eight. Now It would seem to me that if we accept the fact that a thera-.v ' peutic can precipitate or will generally bring a common reaction . out of people, then we can also assume that presumably this same ;::; specific may bring the same reaction in ten individuals, I*./.. Well, we can assume anything we wish, but we can't really settle V scientific questions by making philosophic assumptions. - That is true. -.. Say that your assumptions may be correct.' If so, -then it is up to you to put them to the scientific experimental test. Homeopathy .';,'-,is a rather pragmatic thing. It does work. Any homeopath, any physician, who really 'tried homeopathy.. .Let me give you. an example. o I just gave a dose of arnica to a lady in Greenwich who has had a bursitis now for two years, and she has been to everybody you can think of for this. She Is a real estate agent. I just happened to be getting some property from her. She has had no contact with homeopathy. She didn't even know what I gave her. And her shoulder is now fifty percent better than It has been in two years, and she had the best of so-called orthodox care. Now this is only one example out of thousands I could give, and which any homeopath--ic physician's practice is full of. And after one is exposed to this kind of thing one has to accept homeopathy as a pragmatic . science, And of course the counterpoise that it is my psychosomatic power that suggests this—man, if I'm that powerful as a suggestor-hypnotist, Mesmer is a pipsqueak by comparison. And to imply that all homeopathic physicians are supermen—their ability to suggest health Into patients—and not to apply an equal super- RSf .-

Page  12if.'- Dr. Stephensoa 12 : human quality to non-homeopathic colleagues, again, is scientifically incorrect. So I feel homeopathy works, I know it works. : The theoretical definitions, explanations, of how it works at the truly philosophic level, and I include here Allan Sutherland's definitions, to me are of some interest"but not of any great profit. I feel that we really are elaborating now for the first ' time a scientific -explanation, an acceptable scientific explanation of how homeopathy works. This 'has to be done, I feel, at the level of basic physics. Onee we have elicited this, then the application in the field of animal biochemistry and physiology will follow, and the last step will be human physiology and biochemistry. ' And already we are going ahead with this. - - V In.- To what extent has any rather remote scale testing of'homeopathic :; remedies been done under, let us say', controlled circumstances? Controlled conditions? This is one of the problems that I recog-riize-r-again this is a personal reaction. Obviously, I know from my own personal experience with physicians that the person under the physician does hpv confidence in the man—there is no question that this is a factor. . j^ ' 18.- My center-reaction to this always is would you say that homeopathy would be of value in treating animals? It is, believe me, animals are my best patients. I am a real general practitioner. I am* a Dr. Doolittle. I have probably on the average here fifty assorted dogs and cats that are patients. Often these animals are medicated without even their knowledge. Sometimes 1 don't even see them. I will have some anxious patient say, "So-and-so has been given up to die by .a local vet. Is there some-

Page  13Dr. Stephenson 13 p;.,,- thing I can give from the kit?" I will have this patient give this animal medicine from a kit which they have. Now the animal will get better. I wish my human patients responded as consistent- ly as my animal patients. I have treated cancers In dogs and cats -successfully, where a cancer is a very hard thing for me to treat In humans, So whenever one gets into this psychological thought transference business with homeopathy—to me this completely invalidates it. Mould you gentlemen excuse me just for a few minutes? I will be back in five minutes.- I have... li- I wonder, would it be possible, do you think, to briefly summarize ff'* ' ' clinical Investigation of the type of research that is being done in homeopathy? I know you have covered it fairly well in your writings, but I think it would be good to have it on record. |.;,- First of all, we would have to talk about different aspects of homeopathic research. We would also have to find what we mean by , research now. I would say there has been no really adequate , clinical research in homeopathy in the sense of the criteria used by the good people working In the field of human pharmacology today. The whole .business of double-blind, random sampling, etc. This has never been done in homeopathy. One of the reasons for this is because the homeopathic medicines are not diagnostically specific, they are patient specific. Therefore, .it would be very hard to find five hundred casually selected patients all of whom were indicated by the same homeopathic medicine for a particular diagnosis. So this really mitigates against that kind of human . testing. One could test the efficacy of homeopathy against the efficacy of nothing, and 1 think .this would be a very desirable thing to do.

Page  14Dr. Stephenson 14 |p.'. Would it be possible—of course I suppose you would not—I m-. ' " : started to say, if you could say hypothetically work against : 100 cancer patients—but. then you might not accept the fact, or.would you, that there may be 100 cases of cancer which could be diagnosed and which you could treat. Cancer may be too ex— treme, but something in which you have tested one group by homeopathic remedies arid another group by more traditional, methods, and one group in which presumably the disease is left to run its -". course. There has been nothing on this order. for- Not really. There has been a little fragmentary work on this r: order. In -%gland some cases of pneumonia were tested in:. Royal London Homeopathic Hospital with homeopathy as opposed to antibiotics. This is available in the .BritjLs.h,Jjomg.op.athijs Journal : back about ten years or so ago, '''here ,has-been a little work ::v done in India. p.- How large a sampling? . l,!- Like, as I remember, in the neighborhood of fifty per sample. And 9 I am sure you are aware of Mainland's work at H. Y. U. that small samplers if handled in a rigid' manner can yield statistically valid data, even down to 25 samples in the controlled experimental ".;.. group. But I am also sure that you are aware the statisticians argue among themselves as to what is a statistically significant _;. Sample. So here we go. ... . So the clinical testing hasn't really been proven out, I did some retrospective studies a number of years ago in consecutive cases of various disease diagnoses under homeopathic care. Not in an attempt to compare them with the usual

Page  15;' Dr. Stephen son 15 . * non-homeopathic method of treatment, but rather as a means of "; ' using this for basic homeopathic research, and we have made J; some interesting findings in terms of the incidence of aggrava-*:: tion running 20 to 25 percent. And the fact that the people who '. had arthritis under homeopathic care very often had a minimum of medicines indicated for them. Sodium chloride was high, and calcium carbonate, etc. But these are 'findings really of interest , to homeopaths. This really represents the bulk of the research in the field of human pharmacology in homeopathy. It was done for i> our own homeopathic research Interests, not to prove homeopathy. ''; I don't think that homeopathic physicians are that anxious to prove the effectiveness of homeopathy to their non-homeopathic colleagues. I don't really think we are ardently in the misslon-,;' ary business. Whether any scientist -should be is open to question. As far as laboratory research into homeopathy goes, have you read that paper of mine "Reviewing the Basis of Homeopathic He-search into the High Dilutions"?10 ||;- Yes. We have all of these, I was wondaring if you could summarize, though, for the tape. 1 felt this was a relatively select audience as you are probably aware. .- Eight. Have you Lisa V/urmser' s series article also summarizing the research work? - Which one is that? !-" Lisa Wunaser. I''- No, 1 haven't. ' . . l-~ She is head of the great French homeopathic pharmacy house. :'~ I should have pointed out that I am mer'Iy directing this for Mr. A

Page  16pr, Stephenson 16 '' Kaufman. pi. Oh, my apologies. Well, Mr. Kaufman, maybe, is the one who has read this stuff. p- My particular interest, really, has been more in terms of the in-stitutional development and the-relationship of homeopathy to the professions rather than the philosophy of it. I am interested in Ms- getting some of this information because 1 am sure the National I Medical Library would be happy to get it for their records. But """we have not really gone into the philosophical approach or the :/" rationale, other than to get a brief statement. ; !?>.';, I' am sorry to keep going into that. I am well aware of your his-'* to'rical needs. My father was professor of Medieval history at ; Cornell, and indeed trained Henry Gerlach. llpr- Stephens on? Carl . Stephenson? Good lord! 11 fe, So I have been brought up well within the historical field. So I am aware of your needs.but also I don't think one can divorce ''history from philosophy or from scientific approaches. So I 'hate to keep going into philosophy, but... JI-- It is not that I Mas denying it. I was really pointing out that ; I had not gone into this^as I would were 1 conducting this study ..; ;:. on my own, 1^- O.K. rfell, for the tape then. The laboratory work in homeopathy 12 really started in about the 1880',s with some work by Dr. Yaeger—- how.do you call that—chronography,. in which delicate measurements of time response were made and the effect of homeopathic medicines on this was tested. Then there was a whole batch of zoological and botanical work done in the 1910's and the 1920's, particularly in Leningrad, on the effect of homeopathic high di-

Page  17IV'Dr. Stephenson 1? lutions on, enzymes. Really, there is so much~~I mean, in my ' paper I must mention forty or fifty different references, and since that paper was done there has been quite a bit of work done further. So that.., V They were actually testing the efficacy'of high dilutions on . animal tissue, nerves, etc, i Eight. They were trying to prove the efficacy of high dilutions, ""'' to show that they did exist and apparently to the satisfaction of many good scientists they did prove this quite effectively over -- and over and over again, so that I think anyone who is conversant ;..' with the existing literature doesn!t really regard homeopathic ;,- high dilutions as chimeras or figments of the-physician1s imagination, because these are experimentally demonstrated phenomena for '; seventy years now, ||- Then the second fact that 1 want you to attempt to explain is this. pv--.A F?:; Of course you have, done so in your writings. IS:'.; "" . - p- Bight. Particularly the work of a Dr. Barnard, a physicist in ..'-. England, who has advanced the thesis that the homeopathic remedies ' represent polymers, or large three-dimensional molecules similar 'to. DNA and RM'A, and that these are thermo-specifio, that is, heat ''.' labile, and they have other qualities which he derived from quantum physics. We, in the Institute (Dr. Barnard, unfortunately, '„ is dead) are conducting a whole series of programs testing out his ': theses one by one. The first thing that we have to test - first ; of all, we had to find out whether there was any existing instru-'. ment,:which would demonstrate the high dilutions, '-"-'here has been some work done in Prance, which showed that the homeopathic high

Page  18Dr. Stephenson 18 13 dilutions beyond Avogadro.'s number did have an effect on infrared absorption and on electric capacitance. However, this was done with rather primitive machinery, and when we tried to repeat it here the electronic techniques they used were so suspect and so sophisticated and subject to aberrant forms the feeling of the electronic consultant that I work with here in this was just to forget it. So, Mr. Smith working with Professor Boericke at Hahzie-rnann came up with the idea of using nuclear magnetic resonance when it was first developed about six or seven years ago, and indeed nuclear magnetic resonance has demonstrated significantly that the :high dilution beyond Avogadro's number do exist, physically.. This work has been done particularly with Professor Mosher who is head of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Delaware, for the last four years. Papers- on this have been in the Institute journal for the last two or three years. Professor Mosher is going to come to our meeting next week, and with Mr. Smith is going to present further evidence of this work. Last year checking out Dr; Barnard's thesis the first thing we had to find out was whether the so-called'KMR response occurred in the water phase of tho dilution or in the alcohol phase, the homeopathic medicines representing essentially alcoholic dilutions. However, it is in 87 percent ethyl alcohol and 13 percent water. Then, and frankly I have forgotten theoretically which phase it should.have been in from the theoretical standpoint, by using deuterium oxide—which does not have any nuclear magnetic resonance effect—in place of water, we repeated our work and shewed no effect. Which-meant that the function i^as in the water phase and not in the alcohol

Page  19, .Dr. Stephenson ' 19 pi!'.;- f- phase. And that was theoretically desirable. If it had'been in l'-: the other it would have been rather sticky at that point to go a-f.- :head with our theoretical thesis. Now we -are checking out thermal v" lability. We have had a series of dilutions prepared with moietes ': of five degrees centigrade between one going through a range of ;;.' temperatures which Dr. Barnard, advanced from quantum physics :r: theory, and vte are" checking these with nuclear magnetic resonance ;:t techniques. Professor Anna Koffler Wannamaker, who is head of the Department of Pharmacognosy at Ohio Northern University in Ada, : Ohio, is' carrying out simultaneous work on their botanical effect r . | ; using uaitra--centrlfuge techniques and .serum viscosity measure-: meats, and she -has found some very interesting work along this ¥[ line which she will be presenting at this meeting next week. And ;: Professor W. John Boyd of the Department of Biochemistry at Hahne-:% mann Medical- School, who is doing a great deal of work in muscle :; enzyme chemistry during this year, 'has done some work with vera- :; trum album alkaloids in homeopathic solutions to see what effect :V.; they have on muscle enzyme systems, and he is going to present "': this work at this next meeting. v So, I think we have a fairly rich research program going ahead '; . /* 1 "at a number of different ,/tJniversiti^s, and from a theoretical '- -" - i standpoint I am very happy because this really is the first good : research-on the high dilutions at the academic level which has ex-; Is ted in the history of American home'opathy, save for a little bit Avenue Hospital when l:.it was the New York Homeopathic, which he did on fruit flies which was very provocative. He showed that by using high dilutions of

Page  20Dr. Stephenson . 20 triturate of the fruit fly, and also arsenican album he could alter a genetic predisposition in red-eyed fruit flies to a genetically determined cancer. So that beyond a certain point this particular breed of fruit fly, which when untreated, would have a spontaneous incidence, I think, of spinal cancer in a hundred percent, were stopped from having this. And if the high dilutions can effect genetically determined cancer, the biological application of this is obvious. But this was in the 1920's, and like most homeopathic research of that period, it appeared solely in one of the homeopathic journals. This, I think, is an important point for'the record. Most homeopathic.physicians are clinicians, and they are involved primarily in treating sick people, They are not research people iri orientation .or training. And since the American Institute of Homeopathy has been largely an organ for the practicing homeopathic clinicians, only in very recent years has it had any kind of research program! worth mentioning. In the past, any research that has been done has been largely .provings, or largely some clinical application of homeopathy, There has been no basic research in pharmacology, or physiology, or physics or chemistry. Save, as I say, for Dr. Stearns1 work, and a brief session of work done by Dr. McGavick, I think, on tinctures of'various medicines on guinea pigs, etc., and demonstrating some kind of physiological action, 'but it done without any really clearly delineated research premise from which they were operating. It was pretty much data collecting stuff. Not research in any basic sense. The research in the Institute in the last ten years has been primarily concerned not with demonstrating a phenomenon, but with really investigating it from a

Page  21Dr. Stephenson 21 scientific standpoint. And frankly, trying to liberate it out of the homeopathic profession and put it into the field of chemistry or physics where it belongs. Nothing would delight me more, as Director of Research for the Institute, than to be put out of business because some*one like Professor Mosher takes over our 'program, and using government funds, which certainly are-available to him^ he goes ahead, for he can do all this in ten thousand ways better than I can. I arc only functioning as an amateur in this field. -...-. ' I was going to ask you under what auspices do you conduct your research? Obviously, research is expensive... Eight. ¥e have some funds available to us. Really I should say I am in the research jobbing business. My job is to delineate research programs, and then to try to interest people in academic centers who have research facilities available to 'them in doing this work, and give them a certain amount of money to conduct it with. And in recent years, we have been fortunate in having align-ed with .us some outstanding scientists, who have some sympathy with homeopathy, and through that sympathy have been willing to accept this very borderline kind of research, and willing to stick their professional necks out. Professor Anna Koffler Wannamaker was the first, and she has been cooperating most beautifully with us for many years. She is. an outstanding pharmacognosist—sho did some, work with Wachsraan at Eutgers, and amusingly enough, she was at Hutgers with. Albert Schatz, who discovered streptomycin when he was getting his Ph.D. under Waohsman. Schatz is now doing homeopathic research for us in another field, and came into the

Page  22Dr. Stephenson ' 22 homeopathic research completely separate from Professor Koffler. They hadn't any contact in all those years. : p:- Now as 1 understand it, you set up a research problem which ob- II''-. |p vieusly is of concern to you in terms of homeopathy, let us say, and these men then are dealing with it simply as a problem. The individuals assuming:—"This is a problem in pharmacology, or BS';' tor:: chemistry, or whatever it is." life "Bight. ' - "So'that what you are attempting to do then is'to utilize ordinary scientific facilities and personnel—an orthodox medical school, 'foundation, etc. to conduct the research. How many institutions are' involved in some phase of the work at present? At the moment in this country? Ohio Northern University, the "University of Delaware, Hahnemann Medical College, and George Washington University—-well, Professor Schatz at St. Louis University, who was also professor at the University of Santiago in Chile, :;i:s working on a program for us. . Let me ask you.another question that we have never asked... ' Also my brother, by the way. When he was at Oak Hidge--he is professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Connecticut, pi; ."in-'Storrs—and when he was still at Oak Ridge, he ran some re- . search for me on homeopathic high dilutions to.see the vanishing point one reached on a scintillation counter. Sorry to interrupt. ..'' "lou mentioned that the Foundation, and 1 .believe you work for 'the Foundation... i:- "Sight. ' ' '-.'' Has some money. I was curious. What is the basis for their... ~H

Page  23Dr'. Stephens on 23 Actually I don't work through the Foundation. 1 have no connection with it. My connection is solely with the American Institute of Homeopathy, and I knew the Foundation has come into some money recently, but 1 have never had any of that money at my disposal. j;.; Tou mentioned that you had some at your disposal. I assumed that this was- the Foundation's money. No. It is a private fund. It'is in New England. And they have about $30,000 a year to dispose of in support of medical research, of which they have been giving us about half. Also, homeopathy has always had very wealthy people connected with it, and one of the wealthy homeopathic families has offered me f 0,OOG for this year's research, and this is a family that has so much money that I think- this is a trial thing and if all goes /-/" well there may be much, more mere available. Has the results of any of this research found its way into scien-tlfic journals, as opposed, say, to the journal .of tjoe American 2 Home^opa,thjr? ffjrWell, this kind of dichotomy I completely abhor—to say the . JISffiSJiESMlS is no"b scientific. Just the way, frankly, I don't care for the term 'orthodox1 as opposed to homeopathy. I think this represents an unfortunate bias which .; really is not properly scientific, and for heaven's sake, you, as- historians of medicine, should not perpetuate this kind of bias. If anybody in the field should be unbiased, you should be. So..; /Well, certainly now, the JjHJrjoal. _of tjig. Amer_ican' Ijgd^cal Agj3j3o- A4ioa, for example, is scientific. But scientific articles

Page  24Dr. Stephenson find -their way into virology — Jgurnal. _of Cell 1 don't know what you mean by the word 'scientific1 here. You are the guy who used it, and you are going to have to define it. How why don't we get out of that particular Pandora's "box and say '%.. .that, "I am sorry to say that the homeopathic research which has ?; .'been done so far has been- reported only in the homeopathic journals-'.; [: .This is very much against my wishes. Nothing would make me happier ;;' than to see it recorded in .other journals, and indeed I hope that ?v if all goes as well as it has in the last few years, that someone ,,;. of Professor Mosher 's caliber will be putting it in something like * the Chemical journal. Because he is high up in the field. And ' Q/?y~ : this is all strictly entre nous'-'-! mean none of this is getting L --'- - - i\ i- back to Professor Mosher . . ..You people don't have any contact ': with him so that... .-.' ||t-* ip-' No. We have no contact at all. No, we are not concerned. p'-': . , If- Because he is very interested. You know he has been cagey. You ; know no hard scientist s and particularly no chemist — they are :: the most materialistic of scientists, in my experience — is going yto get out on this particular bandwagon unless he is really sure. of his grounds. So Mosher has been sort of flirting around with us now for four years, '-and I think the -honeymoon is over because he is drawing up a really big and firm research project for -this year, and I think he is willing to jump both feet into it. Once he has committed himself in that manner for a couple of years, : then I think he is going to see to it that there is an article in the non-homeopathic journals. !'- I would, just for the record, question Martin's referring to the Journal, for example, by saying scientific journal.

Page  25Dr. Stephens on 25 1 am pleased... ' ' I apologize for that use of "orthodox", but It was a matter of convenience, you see.*. You may both be sticking needles in me to get reactions. I know that is'part of the -interview, but-.... But I would think the research, as I understand it—the way in which you are planning these funds, it would seem to me that the results of the research that is being done should certainly, jus- tifiably, be published' in specialized journals. I agree. I agree completely. - 1m I to assume 'that so far the results have not completely justi- fied this, or*.. . . - I don't know what justifies it. I think that it is such a touchy subject that nobody wants to get aligned with it in the scienti- fie world, other than Professor Koffler; God bless her. She 3A stood up at the meeting of the .A.A.S. in Montreal three or four years ago—I went up and attended it--and presented to this august body essentially her research under a grant from the Institute on "The Effect of Homeopathic Medicines on Botanical Growth". And she said this was an appearance -supported by the American Institute of Homeopathy, and when she finished her paper she took about five minutes for some ad-lib comments, and Waterman, the president that' year, was in the audience, and he is a close friend of hers. So she stood-up and was willing to be counted. And after her talk she said that she felt that this group of people should be much more open-minded toward research done in fields which are not completely orthodox because it is

Page  26J-:. Dr. Stephenson 26 '-the unorthodox field that holds, in many.oases, the future re.-J search developments. As historians of science, you are aware of f the fact that it is these peculiar little offshoot things like ):.: 'Mlchaelsen1 s and Morley's work, which they were so ashamed of be— h ^cause it was against existing dogma that they apologized for it [; after giving that first paper in Cleveland for the next, what, \\ thirty years, until Einstein came out with his theory of relativity, f which justified it. So this is science. And I think this is 'the ;/: reason that homeopathy is having difficulties. It has been pushed F into an unfortunate siding—maybe it has pushed itself into it to ;';-' some extent. -But these are clinicians. You know I don't think ,-i'. clinicians can be criticized too much for not developing the basic :: aspect of their scientific research because they just aren't oriented that way. I think, rather, it is to the shame of the i basic chemists and physicists that for so. many years now they *" have ignored the homeopathic high dilution principle on purely ,-.. theoretical biased grounds. Bather than a good scientist saying, |: "O.K. This doesn't jibe with theory, but let's get into it, and if!*'- see what goes OKU" p - . fe» Well, I can understand, of course, that one in science is leery ;; of anything that has- a cult connotation, and rightly or wrongly S; this is true of homeopathy. On the other hand, it does seem to 1 me that once .they have done their work, and if their work is valid, they certainly ought to have no reluctance to publish the results. 1~- Sight. . - . . . I assume that this is the theory you are operating on, and that eventually if you can say homeopathy concurred in this sort of work that it will pay off in terms of 'tangible benefits.

Page  27Dr. Stephenson . - 2? (-Bight. One of the problems, of course, here, is that scienti-:; fie magazines have editors, and editors determine policy. And K' Dr. Barnard and I, before we submitted this paper to Main urreirts— ii sent it to every outstanding scientific journal in Europe and this / country. They all turned it down. The nicest turn-down we got was ?: from Walter Msdell's Jw^nal^ _of Human Pharnjaoglogy. And I think : there may have 'been some justification. He said it was too the ore-I:1- ticsl and lacked experimental data. But there are a lot of theore- ; tical papers that are accepted, but they are not on homeopathy. If this had been the same volumeof theory on some very fashionable topic like DMA, say, I am sure it could have been published. So we have editorial advisors to function against as well as the researcher's reluctance to stick their neck's out, but I have great :; hopes that Professor Mosher will. I think Dr. Boyd will. I think Dr. Schatz will. Dr. Koffler already has. IS- Yes, I'think there might be an advantage in the sense if they :;. simply stick to their results in terms of what you say. The ; orthodox mind does not relish something completely different, fe- 'I agree, I agree. If- I believe that one, has to work through the standard Journals, or (* the standard sources of communication. fc* I agree completely. And 1 have instructed them to that point, >, They don't need to mention homeopathy in any way. They don't even need to mention where the funds are from. Just so they get the data out. It will come, 1 think, within the next five years. ?; And once we have a couple of solid articles like that homeopathy won't be so controversial because then the basic scientists will

Page  28Dr. stephenson 28 take over and carry it en from there. , So 1 feel that American homeopathy is in a transitional period now, moving away .from a hundred percent clinical thing in a disadvantaged position "because it was only clinical. After all, psychoanalysis has had a similar problem because it is only a clinical specialty moving into a field of clinical, application of laboratory demonstrated phenomena. ||.- I would still wonder—assuming, you see, that what you hope " /" comes true—whether this would lead to what I feel is essential — where one could establish, homeopathic treatment by a sound pro-.gram of clinical testing. I think you are saying, in effect, that this has not been done simply because there has not been enough interest In it. People felt that it was not worthwhile. / You feel that your present program actually will stimulate ?; more clinical and laboratorj''' research"? |S.- Sight. 'I'he clinical probably will be last. By rights it should '' move from physics and chemistry to animal work and last to '; humans. Also, don't forget the people working in the field of : homeopathy. I am sure you are aware of the sociological struc-' ture of the homeopathic physicians. In the initial phase, ?; from its Introduction here in 1825 until about the 1880!s, most ;;. homeopathic physicians were by and large well-trained physicians. ?D.- Eight, They were also the intellectuals of the day. 1$..- Right. Trained as good scientists of. the day because, frankly, s;: they were not trained In homeopathic medical schools. They were people of the caliber of Constantine Bering,, who was assigned the job of repudiating homeopathy, and who was such an

Page  29Dr. Stephenson 29 honest physician that In the process of investigating. It he became one of Its major- adherents. .Arid so on through. "Hahne-manri was a damned good physician, an excellent scientist for his day, and was rated as one of the best chemis'ts in Europe by the authorities in his day. But there was an unfortunate view among homeopathic physicians that there should be special schools set up to train homeopathic physicians, and with the founding of the Allentewn Academy in 1830,'you remember it was, 71 ' one them had this phenomena come in. And frankly, physicians then went into homeopathy who did not have the proper training in science because the homeopathic medical schools from the beginning did not have as high standards for entrance as many of the good non-homeopathic medical schools had. And so from the 1880's until fairly recently, of the bulk of the physicians trained in homeopathy many of them were just high school,graduates-—few of them had any good scientific training behind them, and as people they came from the same kind of sociological background as many osteopaths have In this country. The growth of osteopathy and homeopathy Is quite parallel, so that they were . primarily from smaller towns, primarily clinicians, and primarily people from 1 would say—certainly not from the intellectual classes or from the professional classes—by and large mostly from fairly humble working class; agricultural, without-any personal tradition of scholarship or Intellectuality. So that their approach to medicine naturally reflected their own formal academic training and their personal orientation. Now in the last twenty or thirty years in this country there have been

Page  30Dr. Stephenson 30 attracted into homeopathy a fair number of 'physicians who are not graduates of homeopathic medical schools, who have had a fairly good background in science, and who come from—in their own personal origins—they come from professional, and many people with some interest in—1 don't mean to sound like a Brahmin now, but I think one has to be aware of these things, and I think one reason that homeopathy is groing ahead more in certain areas now than it has in the past is because the older group of physicians have died off, and now there is a group of these, frankly, better-trained people, who are able to exert their influence in homeopathic circles in the Institute. In previous years maybe there were always a few like this, but since the membership was so large, they couldn't exert much, influence, but now with the atrophy of homeopathy people like this can have effect. ?D,- I would agree that homeopathy in the nineteenth century attracted men with a more philosophical turn of mind, 'i'here is no question of this, I think. You look at the caliber of the men. And I think your analysis is correct that from 1880 on the Intellectual level and the cultural level has tended to decline, Now, of course, I would riot agree that the homeopathic schools were necessarily much below those of the standard schools, because all levels were low. But I know that medical education was at a fairly low level, and... S.~ But they were never as good as the Ivy League ones, although ;" 16 ; Boston University was—pretty good. 'Q,- Yes. I think that is true. I suspect that the reason that

Page  31: Dr. Stephenson ' 31 homeopathy was the most successful In the sense that at that time the intellectual physicians on the basis of curiosity were not so 'bound to the profession primarily because the profession itself was still a little amorphous, and there were not the hard and fast lines, and It had, not achieved what It feels to be Its present scientific level, and I use that word in quotes. Mo doubt, I was interested to hear you say that it is now beginning ;?. to attract a number of minds, because the impression we have s- been gathering in our'brief travels is that the reverse Is true — ;>: that homeopathy is on its way out. fg»- Yes. ' . SEr- ' ' D.- But I was pleasantly surprised to see a relatively young man like yourself. 1 would like for you to elucidate- on this a little bit. Where are other individuals? pS.- Well, I wasn'j. so much speaking in terms of youth, as in back- SSV- " ~" '": ground. I would say It would be a safe statement that up until 19^0..see, first of all, there was the split in homeopathy be- tween the American Institute and the International Hahnemannian Association, and really the intellectuals in homeopathy went, to a large extent, with the "International Hahnemannian Association. '-Chere was great fighting between the two groups which was emasculating homeopathy since that split back in the 1890's. Since the split has been healed in recent years, the... end of Tape lo. 1.

Page  32Dr. Stephenson Tape No, 2 32 g;~ This Is tape 2. The Interview with Dr. James Stephen-sen, New York City, June 18, 1968. Ji|^_ Well, anyway I was saying—the more thinking element within homeopathy has been able to exert mere influence on the American Institute of Homeopathy in recent years. Se that now. if one looks at the composition of the American Institute--say its trustees and the people who are active in it—Instead of seeing as In the past that 99 percent of the members are graduates of 17 homeopathic medical schools, now you have, well, Dr. Panos, who is -a graduate of Ohio State, which is non-homeopathic, Dr. I Q : Bubbard, my preceptorship, is a graduate of Columbia which is non-homeopathic, I am a graduate of Cornell which is non-homeo- 19 pathic_. Dr. Allan Neiswander is a graduate of Ohio State, I 20 believe, which Is non-homeoparhic. Dr. Bond is a graduate of the University of Illinois, which is non-homeopathic. Dr. Henry 21 ' Williams, I think was at Columbia, but I know he is a graduate 22 of a .good non-homeopathic medical school. Dr. William Guttman , ' ' ' ' 23 is a graduate of the University- of Vienna, as is Dr. Whitmont. I could probably think of some more. In other words, there is now functioning at the governing level in the American Institute of Homeopathy a group of people who have the education and background and the personal interest to make possible, I think, a more sophisticated and viable research and information program than has been the case in the, past. Now I may be speaking out of ignorance because I am fairly new in homeopathy, and I don't really know that much about the structure of the Institute back in the 30!s or 20's, but 1 discussed-this premise with some of the older members and they have tended to agree with It. Also,

Page  33Dr. Stephenson ' 33 I think this may account for the fact that we have a more viable research program now than ever before "because the Institute has people connected with it now who are interested enough to back such a program and who knew enough about such a program to . mount it, and that was not the case before. Before there were a few researchers that the clinicians in the Institute brought J" 2fy in like Dr. Thomas H. McGav-st-ck and Dr. 80yd of Flower, but these are people who remained full-time researchers and who never . really were practicing homeopathic physicians. JJD. ~ What about the faculty at Hahnemann? ?' " '1i,- I don't know much about that. All I know is that other than Professor Boericke, who for years did this work in basic homeopathic research, they really haven't done that much. They did I' some province many years ago, but then Hahnemann ran into the f: political pressure of the A.M.A. which I am sure you are aware u- of. III'.- Yes. I' |f.,- .At a certain state in the development of the power of the.'A.M.A. PI-. . ~ . as soon as they got tries Plexner report which, as you know, was purely advisory under the Carnegie Foundation, it was first made the basis for licensure examination by the state of Alabama, and from then on other states accepted this A.M.A, classification, Heally this was the end of therapeutic freedom!'"in this country, because it meant that the states were accepting the criteria of a political medical organization, for all admissions to medical licensure. This would be comparable to the states requiring that a minister had to have a license in

Page  34!'- Dr. ' Stephenson 3^ : accepting the criteria from one church for the license to be granted. And the A.M.A, was very clever. They didn't'push their gun too far. They were playing for cooperation with the homeopathic group, and bit by bit by bit they used their political "leverage more until in the 30' s—and nothing Is In writing, you will never find this anywhere in writing, but I have been told this verbally by many people of-the older homeopathic group who were involved at that level of decision at the time it happened—representatives from the A.K.I, went to places like Flower, they went to places like Hahnemann, and said, "If you continue teaching homeopathy on an undergraduate level, you will lose your Class A rating." And if they lost their Class A rating, it would have meant that their graduates could no longer be accepted for state licensure examinations. .So they knuckled under. And this really, I think, was one of the major causes of the demise of homeopathy in this country. IS.- Well now, I can see how this would hurt homeopathy from a very practical standpoint, but I would still wonder why they could not continue on with research, jf:.- They couldn't do anything. ' Even to research. Anything. What it meant was that researchers connected with these institutions went in fear of their jobs because the word was passed down from on high - "Hands 'off homeopathy." ip:.- Hew has Hahnemann done as a research institution, period? ||»- I gather It has done quite well in recent years- !- 1 really don't know. I... jf.- what1 s-his-name—start's with B—who introduced heart surgery : here even before Michael Defiakey. He did some of the early werk t-t/

Page  35Dr. Stephenson 35 heart surgery and it was at Hahnemann. I guess they have done some very good research in many areas, but in homeopathy-nothing.' Dr. Griggs, who probably you are interviewing, he's the 'grand old. man1 of homeopathy in the Philadelphia area. He is like ninety-something.-If,- What was his name? . Si' . - ' Jf,_ Dr. Griggs. G-r-i-g-g-s. S-K. ' - fR ' ' ' m,- Do- you know his first name? !|; ' ' ' jjj.- William. William Bentley Griggs. He is blind and half deaf, : I believe, and has about a fourth wife who really rides olese herd on him. If you can get past her to him. But he is the "'; oldest living graduate of'a Homeopathic Medical School, And "' in addition to that he is the American who has done the most in ; homeopathic provings. He was in charge of the Hering Proving Laboratory in Philadelphia, and has done more provings than any- one else in this country, alive or dead. Anyway, Dr. Griggs was thrown off as Director of this Hering Laboratory back in ;; the twenties or thirties because they were'doing homeopathic provings. This was at Hahnemann. And Dr. Griggs told Hie— and he practically cries when he says it—that when he was removed from that post his records were seized by the University and destroyed, and a number of very valuable provings which he had already conducted were lost^ jf- Well now, 1 must confess that this jolts me. Jf.- Well, frankly it jolted me, when I first heard it, Bfl?---' if.- But 1 would question it, you see. I am not quite sure precisely if:, why should this have been the case. jl~ Well, I have been asking myself that, but I think anyone with

Page  36Dr. Stephenso!! . " 36 any knowledge of medicine, aim 3e !9 e'*-g, etc., shouldn't b too surprised that medical innovators were treated in this manner. leu know Harvey didn't cfare publish his findings until after his death. And I can show you a lovely quote from... J5.~ You are wrong; on Harvey. I thought this was—before—maybe it wasn't until after his death until he was an old man—he sat on those. j).- He published fairly early actually. 163^, 1 think, or somewhere in that period. His work was accepted. There were others, I; I think you could cite some other examples. if- ' ' p.- I am wrong on that. I will have to check it, IS.- You were wrong on Harvey. Now, I would assume that Hafanemann ;'; as a homeopathic college with presumably a homeopathic board of trustees, while it might, say, submit to subtle pressure or direct pressure, in terms.of licensing its graduates—I am not passing judgment on this. I can understand that this conceivably could be the case. On the other hand, why should they wish to destroy evidence that might justify homeopathy? S:S.- Because they didn't wish to justify it. They wished to kill. And 1 think with a little thought we can understand why this is. One has te go back to the fact that homeopathy is a clinical specialty. And as soon as a group of clinicians start to get int-tb:-'hospital and medical school business they are forced to hire non-clinicians. And since the non-clinicians are committed to a full-time life with the institution, whereas the clinicians spend only part of thlr life in the institution—a large-part of their life is in their office—automati-

Page  37Dr, Stephenson 37 cally there develops a separation of interest. The full-time non-clinicians—the pathologists, the radiologists, the physiologists, the anatomists, the pharmacologists, etc., are non-homeopathic in training. They really are non-homeopathio in . interest because they are net clinicians. Only the clinician really would be interested in homeopathy. They are committed to an institutional way of life. They have a close bond with their scientific colleagues-who couldn't care less about homeopathy, and homeopathy becomes an embarrassment for them, and becomes a professional deterrent because they are subjected to the kind of academic 'looking-down-noses' that the world of Academe is full of, and'to be a professor of Anatomy at Hahne-mann Medical College means automatically you are on a lower rung of the ladder professionally than the same fellow that you, went to get your Ph.D. in1 Anatomy with, who happend to be a professor at Harvard, Yale, or Cornell. Mow I think it is asking too much of human nature to expect that people will function in this kind of deleterious psychological atmosphere and not be biased toward producing a way of life that will make them happier. And when the eventual push for power comes between clinicians and the non-clinicians in a hospital or an institution, and when they start to jockey for political pressure with the trustees who run it, it is- just a matter of time before the non-clinicians win out. And as soon as the non-clinicians win out, then homeopathy becomes a dirty ward. And this has been the case at every homeopathic medical school I know of in this country. At Flower?

Page  38Dr. Stephens on 38 Flower, certainly. William Gutmann' was professor at Flower. I was on the staff. Dr. Hubbard was on the staff. We were all thrown out because we were homeopaths. 'i'hey never say it. You know, they just discontinue your appointment after a certain period of time. But we knew darned well it was because we were homeopaths.. We were all good scientists. If we had chosen to' do the orthodox kind of thing we would probably be professors, er heads of our departments. So,- I think this is just'human nature. Scientists are human beings. And I think this is the climate which has produced in this country the atrophy of hotneo-pathy. Historically, I think it was the result of particularly two most unfortunate things, two things'which were, incidentally, unique to the United States. Number one, the formation of homeo-pathic medical schools. I don't thi-nk this ever should have ben done. Homeopathy should have been kept as a postgraduate specialty for duly licensed and trained physicians, which was always the case in Europe. '^;hre are only homeopathic medical schools in this country, in Latin American, and in India. Everywhere else throughout the world-.homeopathy is a postgraduate specialty. And number two, the most unfortunate example of accepting the sectarian opinion as to a medical school from a sectarian group like the A.M.A. by official state legislatures. Again, this is unique to this country. In all other countries, any .graduate of a medical school is accepted for a, licensure examination, as far as I know. In fact, in many countries if you graduate from a medical school you automatically get a license. This whole business of having to take-state licenses and the lack

Page  39Dr. Stephenson 39 of reciprocity between them is pretty much an American phenomenon. m.- Yes. I know this is true. . , !/:.. is,!- And it is a lousy phenomenen which physicians are trying, gradually to do something about. So I feel these two factors, unique to this country, were the roots of the destruction of American homeopathy. sp,- It is rather irenio in this country that boasts about its in- K 'dividual liberty and freedom that we still have the strictest J medical licensure laws, |S.- Yes. It sure is, 0.- The British have always been far more liberal in this respect. And anyone can practice, providing he of course doesn't claim to be something he isn't, .- This is really spreading, you know—the angel in tho office, the devil in the home. And you find this same phenomena in Catholic countries. In Catholic countries--! hope neither of you are Catholic, but in any event—where you have strict control by the Church of every act of the individual you have the great'freedom for individual licensure, in terms 'of individual license. These are countries where you have only with great difficulty any stable political organizations, because each person is a political power- unto himself. You know the definition of a political party in France is when three E'rench-men get together it is a new political party. And I really think that is a factor here. Where we have the great religious freedom we have to have dogma somewhere, and 1 guess our medicine

Page  40Dr. Stephenson ' fyQ is fulfilling that role, fl,- What is the status of homeopathy in Europe, would you say? it _ f|,- I don't know much about it. it depends on hew one defines ff status again—legally, or . culturally? i)'.- ' I think—let's say this—I think one can say that homeopathy has declined in the United States, without question. Are you in a position to say whether this has b sen true in Europe, or do- you know? ' . , J|v- I think it has declined in England because of the British medical system. It has declined sinee England has become socialis- tic, I believe. And one reason for that is similar to the ; situation here. For instance, as part of the social system, the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital had to have a director ).. of a certain medical stature. So they were forced for the; first time in their history to bring in a non-homeopathic physician as a director, because again, homeopathic physicians were clinicians. Most of them were G.P's. in the English use of the term, almost without exception, because in England, in many cases, the specialist really is not a clinician. Ha is a research man usually connected with a hospital, who is more research-oriented than clinically-oriented. %t as part of the socialization of England they set up these programs for hospitals and for the Boyal London Homeopathic Hospital to be approved they had to have a man of this stature, and they now havo a non-homeopath running the hospital. And because the homeo-..' pathic physicians were net recognized as a specialty, the homeopathic training program has suffered. Young people don't see why they should spend three or four years in additional train-

Page  41Dr. Stephenson *KL ing for a specialty that will not give them any professional or economic advantages other than being just a G.P., when they could spend that same time and be a notch up in the rank of the bureaucratic medical ladder. So, England is having troubles. I don't think this is the case in Prance, or in Germany, where 1 gather homeopathy is quite flourishing, and always has. |0;.- would it be true to generalize that as state medicine flourishes It it may actually work to the detriment of any divergent groups. if?,'' . fgi- This isn't; just state' medicine. Bureaucracies don't look with favor on divergent groups because the first thing a bureaucracy does, usually before it takes over a profession, is wait for that profession te be largely focused in one direction, because it likes to take everone thing, not a group of quarreling people. fl>,- .Of course the democratic government operates on the consensus |f.' anyway that... |S.- That is right. . PI.' . S3.,- One of the points you are making is the minor role of the clinical group within an institution, I have had relatively little experience in medical schools—this is my third year at Tulane and I was in an orthodox history department prior to that time. What Impresses me is that the two clinical departments, medicine and surgery, seem to dominate the school. fS..- I wish you were right. Now.,... ffi.- This is the impression I get. Now whether this is only true |?: of Tulane or not, but... 1:S.._ well, here we^ are in semantics again. There are research clinicians, and there are practicing clinicians. You are correct. The clinical and surgical departments do dominate most medical

Page  42Dr. Stephenson ij-2 schools. But the clinical departments In most medical schools ares being largely taken over by full-time men who are primarily research-oriented. The part-time men who are clinically-oriented on the outside, who have private practices, are gradually being shunted 'out, and the new direction here, particularly with government funds being funneled 'into the medical schools, is toward the schools being staffed entirely by full-time clinicians. Yes, I know that, Who—they are not really to function primarily as clinicians, but because of some research desires they have in one direction or another. And I hear this all the time from my colleagues out of homeopathy. So the part-time man is being forced out, and we seem to be moving in the direction of the continental European pattern where the hospital is entirely separate from the community. When a patient goes to the hospital he becomes thea property of the hospital. There is no such thing as being on the staff of a hospital, or having a local practice in the neighborhood.. The local practitioner surrenders his patient to the hospital, and then the patient is delivered back te him often with -little liason as to what has been done. And to some extent the lecal practitioner is functioning as the screening agent for the hospital. Now this is a pattern which has always been the case on the Continent, yet it never was the case in England,. But with the direction at Johns Hopkins of the continental German system of medicine, and particularly with the Plexner repert:, which set a further standard for continental medical practice, because these were Plexner1s .criteria* Thus,

Page  43Dr. Stephens em kj American medicine has become, in a sense, Continentalized and Germanized more and mere, and moved toward this position away from our traditional British heritage. I know that many physi- t clans are sad about this. With the impace of socialized medicine and the government moving in mere and more, it is harder and harder to fight this kind of current. And homeopathy suffers with it. i),- You mentioned the struggle "between the American Institute of ;;: Homeopathy and the International Hahnemann Association. Do I; yeu know anything about that, or are you... ft . ~" |fe ||'.- I came in on the end of that. Shortly after I joined the In- UK.- "; ternational Hahnemannian Assoclatien it was disbanded, and its ?: members all jeined the American Institute, |B. ~ 1 knew that had happened and I was just wondering whether you 1"" had gathered'a few impressions as to... i* pi; |S.- Well, pretty hysterical impresslens. I can remember--! mean it was far apart. It was almost like'a quarrel, say between Catholicism and Protestantism in the middle, ages. I felt complete vituperations from people in one oamp: or another, violent emotional sterras, scientific meetings breaking up into arguments, and people storming out of the room, to the point where sometimes they wouldn't even speak. I remember when 1 joined the International Hahnemannian Association and told some of the members that I wished te join the Institute and get the Institute Journal, they were horrified] They wondered what 1 was doing. it-"- What wera the basic issues?

Page  44Dr. Stephenson " 44 IT |l - '" '.. -" 1- The high dilution, initially. But then, many ether issues, Th Institute largely turned into a political old-scheol-tie-erganization. Again, like the osteopaths, the bulk of the graduates of the homeopathic medical schools never practiced homeopathy. They went out and became G.P.'s or specialises of one variety .or another, and onee a year they would get to- gether for a kaffee-klasche, and "bring the wife and the kids and have a nice week's vacation. .And that was what the Institute meetings degenerated into. Whereas the International Hahnemannian people, who really were working clinical homeopaths, wanted to get together and work. But these things were : compromised and the two organizations came together. !),- The name 'International1 'did not mcsan tee much. It was pre- dominantly an American organization, was it not? S.- Right. But it was International in a way. There were international members. |a.- You touched on one of the things, excuse me, Martin. 1 am dominating it. Do you have seme questions? ML- "Well, not really, on this section. You. joined somewhere between 1951 and 1959? Is that... IS,- The International? K.- You graduated in fifty... - . S.. - Yes. I had to have five years of what they called Hahnemannian practice before I could subm.it my thing -for acceptance. Probably be about '58 that 1 joined the International. ..- At this time there still was strife? f|.— Oh yes. Fifty-four and fifty-five, lets of strife.

Page  45Dr. .Stephens on ^5 I take it that this had been overcame In the two or three- years between the time yu joined and 1959 when the Jlomejpathlc .der merged into the Journal of the_ Amercan p.- Wo. It hasn't been overcome to any large extent. Bridges had I bean made, and I think everybody saw the writing on the wall, . , SQ- they felt, "Well, we have to get together." But I think : many people had reservations. I would say it was a stormy courtship, in the next few years.,' But now It is pretty good, But there are still old guard elements in the Institute and periodically if the board of trustees is made up predominantly of these elements — men who are in their sixties, seventies and . - eighties, who have been practicing small-town general practitioners for, like fifty years, and who don't. have any kind of scientific training or background — and 'when they get to determining the policy of the Institute It can get pretty rocky for a year ; - . or so, because, you know, they think along certain lines, and frankly, 1 think along- other lines, and Dr. Panes thinks along J" other lines. So that there is still conflict Inherent in the organization which only will cease "when some of these people go ;- to their reward. And every year this happens with more and more, so that just In terms of attrition the governing power In the Institute has to fall In the hands of people like myself because there are no young homeopathic medical school graduates much, coming into the Institute. Really, it has been taken over to a. large extent by the younger members of the- International Hahnemannian Association. |f- It seems ironic that your group suffers from the same preblem

Page  46„ Dr. Stephenson k6 which beset the American medical profession; a dichotomy be- '. tween practitioners and the academicians. This, of course, is : always true. I gather that, on a lesser scale, you have some- !:-. what the same problem. |S.- Sight. ||C»~ wll, let's get on to another aspect of pretty much1 the same thing. During the early 1950's, which is really before you be- "" came deeply involved in organizational work, there was a movement within homeopathy to gain acceptance as a therapeutic specialty within the A.M.A, . . ' S.~ Right. $.- What are your feelings en this? p.- I was very much in favor of it. As a matter of fact I'was one ;.;.. of the persons who suggested this.. I didn't think it would r ever happen, but I thought we might as well make- the effort. iX,- Well., did this pre-suppose then the feeling that the A.M.A. g was ready to accept homeopathy as a-specialty? ,- The A.M.A. had ceased to oppose homeopathy in the 1890's, or i' . whenever it was. D.- Yes. Sight. B.- Before then, -no member' of a homeopathic organization ceuld be elacted to membership in a county A.M.A. .organization. So really, tacitly the A.M.A. accepted homeopathy then. And in its official pronouncements, save for some self-elected prophets, o like Morris Fishbein, the A.M.A. did not make any statements centra-homeopathy. So officially they have been going hand in hand, in a way, since then.. But the concept of homeopathy as a

Page  47Dr.' Stephensen , . if-7 specialty is not something the A.M.A. has ever accepted, and I didn't think they ever would. Some ef the members of the Institute felt that this would be a good thing te try,, and vie and we were turned down. So then we said, "All right, if the A.M.A, won't take us, let's set up our own criteria", which we 4 did. And the Board of Homeopathic Therapeutics was set up 'f- '> then with their own criteria. And after all, this isn't such : an unusual thing. 1 think the American Urelegical group has remained out of the A.M.A. They have their own specialty f training system, and their own diploma system. So to belong J!; : ts the A.M.A. is riot de 8-igueur for all physicians. ': It.- What are your personal relations with the A.M.A.? Both state H .. and local societies? **!*' „ !$.- My own? 1 do net belong to any. of these organizations. P0r f:v' || many reasons. Number one, I do not approve of their basic !? " ; ' ' . . - 1: policies. I belonged to them briefly wften I was on the staff fe; * Si;". IT., ef Flower, because here again, one has to. belong te the A.M.A. fc befere you can have a hospital appointment, fJ'»- Does this exclude you frsm practically all hospitals? fL- Yes. I have no hospital appointments. But 1 don't need it, ;;, As a hsraeepathic physician, I try. to ke 'p people out of the hss-,:' pitals. Even when I was on the staff there I didn't use it that much, frankly. In a way. it'always griped me to have. compromised my. principles for that, because I did' not approve of the A.M.A.'s ;; codo of ethics. T-. think it is completfely medieval and it is futile. And you can1^, honestly belmig to the-State Seciety and not support the code of ethics. Plus the fact that you are sub-

Page  48Dr. Stephenso*! 48 ject to censorship by the A.M.A. if you belong to the Ssciety and say something they dsn't approve of, i'hen you are called on the- carpet. So for all these reasons I choose not te belorag to it. I like t'o be in a pesition where I can do and say as I wish. ' ' fl,- It is interesting that talking to homeopaths is having an S; effect en me in the sense that I have always had some qualms about a strict licensure program, and without agreeing with any of.your ideas at all, necessarily, I am convinced that we do need to leave roam for free spirits in this oppressive society, - There is an.increasing need to let people have a measure of ,;/ freedom. - . ' ' |j.~ Yet in the period when there was freedom—from 18^-0 to 1900— you had men like John Suahanan -selling over 30,000 diplomas, $25 a head, . . . iAfell, there is a difference between freedom and license. ' . - W$ll, this is the primary reassn why state licensure was necessary, and why the simplf graduation from medical college was no criteria at all, when one could purchase a diploma... ;*- Seme truth there... . ft.- 1 used the expression limited freedom, I think that there are certain basic requirements one can put in, but the point is it got much beyond that.,. Eight. You see, our concept here.......As I am sure you are aware, ^2n England the position is that the State has the right to require that anyone who uses a certain title have certain qualifications and no one can use that title unless he has these quail-

Page  49Dr . Stephenson ^9 fications. But they do not feel that it is the order of the State to deny any person from having any kind of therapy that they wish as long as that person is aware of the qualifications of the therapist. So, in England if you wish to "be what is called an 'un-licensed practitioner1 and sell rain water at fifty dollars a-bottle and someone is idiot enough to buy-it, you can do this, and ns one will censuro you for it. But in this country because of the big~brother attitude—however in God's-name that got started here—suddenly the.government is in the business of interposing itself between the citizen and his right to have a therapy, and the government is the one who is saying, "You, citizen, can have only these therapies which we approve, and these other therapies which we don't approve.are denied you." And the PDA'is merely continuing this kind of w oppressive control in its. handling of medicines and drugs now. So, as 1 say, I don't know how the united States, "The land of the free, and the home of ithe brave," has gotten to this phase K of medical practice. ' . |D.- There was one question that came to my mind... |fL- Well, there is one mere aspect. During the early 1950's, which really may be before your time within the organizations, . chiropractors and naturopaths, especially from the West Coast, tried to set up medical, schools using the name homeopathy. |S,~ Homeopathy? They, still are, -4.- Are they still? Could you list some specifics on this? f>.~ In recent years there was an attempt to de this as far as I know. -nd in instances like this 'suddenly the homeopaths be-

Page  50Dr. Stephenson 50 come extremely enamered f licensure and state control. In other words, this is politics. This is who is hurting at the moment. And 1 don't see why nafcurepaths and chiropractors ',_ shouldn't have the right to set up schools and call themselves homeopathic if they see fit. 1' mean 1 really believe in therapeutic freedom, not just as medical prerogative, but cer-:. tainly the average homeopaths doesn't'. I can remember before ;;: the A.M.A. accepted osteopaths, when it was brought up at one t' . of the meetings sf the Institute whether we should admit es-\- teopaths to membership in our organization, and it was the 'f: feeling of the members definitely not. So that, by and large, the feelings of the members of the American Institute I think have reflected outside of homeopathy the same political views » that the average physician has had.' Indeed, most members of the American Institute are members of the American Medical Association, because they are not all that ardently enamored of homeopathy. They do it occasionally, ||,- How do you think home spathic education should be conducted? On . tf; the undergraduate level, graduate course, or.,.? |? _ ' R,- Well, 1 think it should be conducted just like any therapeutic education ideally, '''here sheuld be undergraduate courses in it, presented in unbiased manner, factually, and there should be good graduate programs in it, in institutions, P>- Now under tho existing circumstances do you feel that this i' summer program is effective or would you... |»~ No, it is the best -fci*}>il is available. I think the most effective training program of the Institute is the precepterships

Page  51Dr. Stephenso!! 51 which I had, where one works with a .practicing homeopathic physician. I was with Dr. Kubbard for three years. I must : have been with her -sixty or seventy heurs a week far three years, One really learns the art of medicine this way. And since home9-pathy is largely a clinical art, one doesn't really need a lot of laboratory basis to practice- it. One can learn it in this manner. This is the way.psychoanalysis is 'taught. Tho medical : sciences which are really clinical.can be learned through pre-c'eptorships. The ones which are largely experimental or surgical—those need, residencies. And - it is riot coincidental that the first medical residencies in this country were introduced at Jshn.s Hopkins in the Department of Surgery, because' surgeons : are committed to institutional training. Clinicians are not. : In fact, I think really institutional training is bad fesr clinicians in many ways because .it teaches a kind, of impersonal relationship with patients which institutiens have, but which one !" ''. cannot have in a doctor's office. So I feel that internists have suffered by the institutisnal residency training they have been required to have in this country. Excuse my going off ints areas which are net homeopathic, but these are germane ts some extent. Iff;';. |K.~ May I get pact for a, few minutes? The relatienship sf hsirieo- pathy te nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy. In your lecture, I believe in 1953, ysu said that homeopathy' can be seen through the twentieth century advances in physics and science. I-wonder if yeu would care to elaborate on that? P 26 . ;9.~ :'ll} first of all, that was 1958. And my thinking certainly

Page  52Dr. Stephenson 52 wsuld be much different now, ten years later. Particularly, since hardly any research work in which I have been involved for the last five years existed at that time. So 1 really was talking in a vacuum, using whatever material was available. Also., -1 was talking philosophically then for lack of anything better to do, because there wasn't really any valid experimental data on the high dilutions that 0ne could refer to. In '58 1 may not even have been aware that mst of the data was buried in the literature, until 1 brought it out in that little summary paper. So, I would think completely'differently from that paper now. Now we have seme facts to work frm, and I would always rather philosophize about facts than just airing nothings. In terms of answering your question on philosophical premises, I think ene can do this fairly well in terms of relativity physics because the homeopathic high dilutions in their essence cause a relationship between the medicine and the diluting material, ^nd in a sense they say that the therapeutic effectiveness of the' medicine must be carried in the diluting material and not in the original medicine. This is viewing the medicine-.dilutant relationship in a larger context than it is viewed in the orthodox "pharmacology" where- this relationship is used solely in terms -of the original solute, not in terms of the solid, So that this is applying te the field, of pharmacology a relational view just as Einstein viewed 'the field of physical phenomenon in a larger csntext than did Maxwell er Hewten. Se I think this would be' an application te pharmacology of relativistic ideas, as opposed to mere particularistic. This, to'me, is the major

Page  53 Dr. Stephenson ' 53 application In this area. !!|.- Earlier—actually before we got started In the interview—you ' said that you felt that homeopathic research ceuld have, some natural defense or security implications. Would you care to elaborate en this? "|.- iiight. It is se far-fetched I don't even, know whether I want ' t to talk about it. It would prebably sound really screwy to you. but....If one takes the thesis that the homeopathic medicines work as the interposition of an energy field around medicine in whose presence the molecules and solvent arrange themselves into a constant reproducable- pattern, then one is moving out of the field of physical matter, concrete lumps of matter, into energy field concepts. Then ene has to say that human beings in ad~ ; dition t.o their atoms are energy fields. And "that there is a : . whole field—a whole area—of human physiology in.which humans as energy fields are to be evaluated, which will be coming in. There has been some work done on this by Seeker at Syracuse'. I have forgotten the reference—it is in this article in the Main. Cuj?rejcrfcs^--has done work with salamanders in which he shows that salamanders will net regenerate normal limbs if the limbs are cut off and then they are exposed to alternating magnetic fields.' There has been quite a bit of work done .on the effect on humans of changing magnetic pslarities in the earth, particularly reflecting alterations in the Hcaviside layer, and bursts of solar plasma coming in to the Merth and South Pole which occurred in periodie intervals. Bielegical effects can be traced statistically to this kind- of energy field phenomenon.

Page  54Dr. Stephenssn 5^ |; One then might be able te msve into the' field of defense in : terms ef energy field effects n humans with warfare applies.-{ tiens. And it may be that materials csuld be produced which K weuld be of value In defense efforts, through succussion and ;:: dilution. And I would, rather*gs Into any mere detail- In this ; /I L. at the moment. But frankly I':-.have been cencerned about this for -some time. I have been cencerned that the Russians who read : our literature weuld get on to same of this stuff and start working on it, or somebody who Is opposed to. us, I guess the Chineso are more eur opposition at the- moment than the Russians, I'he Russians are doing a lot of work in this area. You knew they have Speranski, the great physiologist. Russian physiol- 27 0gy Is built around Speranski's work, and Speranski 'thinks very much aleng these lines. I read Russian, so I have some knowledge of Russian literature in this area. And Russia has ; done much more work In ESP really'than we have. And whp knows what defense applications they are going to make of this stuff? Yu know -anybody who reads science fiction can ge off on these things. |.~ Hight. It is certainly a fascinating possibility. 1 guess we |;: , ' can say that is beyend the realm ef home opathy. Yes, at the moment. But... .- Eight. 11'.~ De yeu think that the trend within medical science has been te- wards er away frem the ideals of homeepathy? - .Well, medical science—here; 1 gather yeu are excluding homeopathy? I gather that and again 1 am unhappy with It.

Page  55Dr. Stephenson 55 mt~ Well, home spa thy Is net standard medical practice. f|.- You are going to have to brush up-your semantics on this a little bit frem that assumption. 'Let's say that as it is, avowed medical therapy has Incorporated unto Itself elements from many, many facets of homeopathy; I have a paper en this-- 28 "The Homeopathic Pharmacolegy," I think, in which I relate the basic elements of homeopathy, and then their historical inclusion into the bsdy of medicine one "by one. 'So, I weuld say that rnest af the basic elements that have made up the- practice of homeopathy have already been included by physicians, by so-called orthedex medicine, withbut any recegnitism of their source sr acknowledgement of their source. Such as? ' Such as Pasteur's work. Did you-read that nice little quote ef 29 mine from "Stain Behring 0n Pasteur In which he said that Pasteur was practicing homeopathy. Pasteur's basic principles represented hsmeepathy, so what better word to call It than homeopathy? The use of a highly attenuated substance te prevent the Illness which it wsuld produce in the healthy—what is this but homeopathy? And ¥on Behring had guts enough to stand up and say this in front of one of the major medical congresses In Europe. Of course Immunology presumably is the... Sure—allergy.. But the homeopathy don't have any monopoly on 'the.similar principle. This has been kicking arsund for a long time. The Vedic physicians delineate this thoroughly, as dt the Greeks, but Hahnemann first engineered this into a ssphii-ticated medical therapeutics. The only unique principle of homes-

Page  56Dr. Stephenson 56 pathy is the sucoussion of medicines. Even the use of serial dilutions has been used by other physicians, ^ut the introduction of succussion by Hahnemann was historically unique-as far as I know. I have never been able to run it down in anything: " ' 30 else. Suddenly he just announced it, in an issue of the Or.ga.non, around 1806 or 1815. He didn't succuss his original medicines, although they were all triturated, I suppose, but the business of hand succussion came in later. And where he got it from he didn't say. So that really how can one talk about homeopathy being accepted by so-called orthodox medicine, when all of the other principles, of homeopathy were not unique to homeopathy. In other words, I think one -has to take things in their historical framework. nd orthodox medicine doesn't really accept such things. Medicine is'made up of a continuing series of discoveries, each standing on the shoulders of the other. Some of the outstanding discoveries have represented re-discoveries of things which people had said before, and then were gone. After all, Einstein's relativity physics really represents the application of good mathematics to a kind of relativistic philosophy which you can find in the Vedas and the Upanishads, and Plato, This is a'large relativistic way of viewing things. But Einstein gave it mathematical formulation. Hahnemann gave practical engineering formulation to the concept of similar treatment which had been kicking around for a long time. The concept of iQdividualization? as opposed to generalization. Have you read 31 . Professor Guttentag's article on this? . ' .~ Yes.

Page  57Dr. Stephenson 57 0.- Well, 1 think he gives a good historical genesis of these two things. One of which is very important in homeopathy. The concept of using natural medicines as opposed to synthetic medicines, again certainly is not unique -to homeopathy. Pharmacology in the West has moved from a period primarily concerned with chemical unnatural substances until now, by and large, the average , pharmaceutical research organization is spending a large part of their efforts investigating botanical substances. So we are ;. right back into botany and natural substances again. :',p.- 1 can't recall from my readings whether the research that you t have mentioned dealt specifically with succussion as such.... I the value of succussion. |S.- Yes, it has. |D.- Yes. I believe they were, as I recall, specific in which they... S 1 remember something on dilution. Giving examples... p.- Yes. We checked our succussion, too. Professor Koffler. I set I up a program for 'her of twenty-five permutations of succussion and dilution. You know, no succussion, five stages of dilution, etc., on onion, with sulphur, in various degrees of dilution. And we have all this data. Succussion appears to be an important part of it. The nuclear magnetic resonance work was done on succussed and unsuocussed things, and 'the unsuccussed dilutions did not have nearly the effect that the succussed ones did. But, interestingly enough, they .still had some effect. j:l,~ Well, let me ask you, what do you think the prospects of homeo- I pathy are? Does homeopathy have a future? The average homeo- 1 path today is.proudly approaching seventy. |P.~ That is right. You mean in this country?

Page  58Dr. Stephenson 58 lj{,- Yes. There are' very few homeopaths being trained today. There are no homeopathic medical schools. Very few are being enlisted through the American Foundation of Homeopathy1s postgraduate courses. Does homeopathy have a future? *?.- Well, homeopathic practice, but what do you mean by future? *.: Do you mean will it increase in number, or maintain its numbers? |K.~ well, yes, IS.- Well, which? |K.- ^"ell, either, or both. ID.- I would hope that we can maintain a certain number of practicing homeopaths. Certainly as long as .1 am alive homeopathy will exist in New York City. I am good for a few more years. And there are a"few people in their forties scattered around the country. Dr. Henry N. Williams in Pennsylvania, Dr. Panos in 'Washington, Alien Neiswander in Los Angeles. So, through us, it is good for another twenty, thirty, or forty years, anyway. If it reaches a point where there are just five or ten practitioners in the country, it will still be in existence through our efforts. And there are a few people who come in. We have a'Rumanian doctor in his forties who has come into New York City and has started practicing homeopathy in the last year or so, The larger cities5 I think, probably always will have homeopathic practitioners. One needs a large population to practice something like homeopathy, because it is so specialized, I have a little local practice in Greenwich, but this never will amount to much. How .many people in Greenwich really will want homeopathy? So in terms of its continuing to exist as a practice I think It will. If the research work goes along well, I think

Page  59Dr. Stephenson ' 59 this could produce a regeneration of homeopathy in this country and indeed throughout the world. It could give it a sound scientific foundation for the first time in its. existence. And I think as soon as this comes about, then, automatically, good scientists will be attracted to it. It may be that homeopathy as I practice it will be modified in terms of these new developments. But I don't think it will just die out as long as this research work is going on. If suddenly a large amount of money became available, then even clinical research could be done. You know, if you really had enough -money, like millions, an awful lot could be done. And this is.always a possibility. Because then all you need is one department and one University, who,, for a certain amount, is going to run some good controlled clinical tests on homeopathy. -Where there is a homeopathic physician in the neighborhood, where you take five hundred or a thousand-patients with this diagnosis or that, and you do all the randomization and the double-blind bit, it could be done, .But it takes a lot of money'and a lot of time. And so far homeopathy has not had that kind of money available. We always manage to antagonize our wealthy people. John D. Rockefeller, Sr. was homeopathic. Sure. You know he died when he was about 95 because his physician, Dr. Austin, wasn't around, or that is what they say. He was down in Florida and got another heart attack and got pumped full of digitalis and- died. But John D., Jr., who I guess wasn't 'too happy with his father, hates homeopathy. He went out of his way to oppose it. He wouldn't even hear the word around the house. So, after John D.', Sr.

Page  60Dr. Stephenson 60 - died, that was the end. of the Rockefeller's association with homeopathy. John D,-~sure, he would be treated homeopathically, but when he was investing money with his interest in petroleum, which was making synthetic medicines, he set up the Bockefeller Foundation not to investigate homeopathy, but to investigate thing's that were going to put money in his pocket. This demon-- strates one of the big- problems with homeopathy. It is very cheap. The medicines cost in the neighborhood -of 500. And we do not live in a culture where things that are cheap do well. >' f>. - True, . |. - Something that is cheap and simple, where you can treat people without a lot of x-rays, without a lot of blood, tests, where you can treat them in an office without sending them, to some hospital, where you can give them benefits even.if you .have not done a diagnostic work-up, or if you don't honestly know what caused their'trouble—our culture is out of step with this kind of- thing. People don't really like that. They want to go to the hospital and be- stuck, and. have the x-rays, and go home and say they spent three hundred dollars to get over something. if.- Of course this is traditional in medicine itself-. After all, the customers want to be bled and purged. How many other homeo- ' paths are there in New York? Practicing homeopaths'? Do you know? Yes. The real practicing homeopaths, there are about three or four—oh, five. Do you know the youngest of the group? I think it is. Dr. Sofrin. Yes, he is about 48; How old is he? - 48. Oh, 49.

Page  61-,. Dr.- Stephens on 6l p.- And the others would range from...? $,- Guttman is in his sixties. whitmont is in his late fifties. Sofrin is, I think, in his late forties, early fifties. Dr. Abraham Sieger is very ancient. He is in his eighties. -Or. Kanner is over in Brooklyn who practices a little .bit of homeopathy. Then I think there are a few people who nractice homeopathy here that 1 don't know. T.hose who never go to the medical meetings, never write a paper, etc. _J5,~ I would assume that you would take a dim view of laymen prac- - ticing homeopathy? . ';,- yell, it depends. It depends upon what they are treating. One I can get into trouble with homeopathy if it is used ill-advisably, But the treatment -for home things, you know; arnica for cuts, j apas for bee stings, etc. X am in favor of this. I even have I little instruction manuals for my patients, and they can go to I Boerlcke and T'afel and get medicines in certain potency for !/ ' home treatment. |D'.- The only problem with lay practice is the danger of the wrong diagnosis, and this is a problem. IS.- That is right. : p.- 1 think one can again make a difference between routine problems, !S»- Bight. If it's acute stuff, that is O.K. Constitutionally, no, I am not in favor of that. But it is a blessing. A little. Aconitum with a head cold. Aconitum and Gelsemium take care of most colds. Arnica is like a miracle for cuts and sprains, or pre-parturn or post-partum. Ky ladies who go into the hospital to have babies—over and over they tell me their' obstetricians

Page  62Dr. Stephenson 62 are amazed how they do. I give them a little arnica to take . before and after. They don't have- bleeding. They don't have discomforts. Their labors are about half the normal time. It makes an enormous difference, . And this is something one can do by one's self at home. I think I am probably going to have to start seeing patients fairly soon. K.- Pine. ' D.~ 'We are just about to the end of the tape. Anything you would like to ask....-'.-' .K.- I think'we"have pretty much covered the field. Thank you very much, Dr..». '.'.' S..- Thank you for your courteous attention. . I am awfully sorry if I have been so picky about not answering generalities, -but 1 just can't do It, I think 'that it is-not-good for homeopathy to'be discussed at the level of unthought out generalities. There is much too much of it. D.- Yes5 I agree, and I think you are quite right in asking us to be a little more specific, and obviously your answers are going j/ to be more valuable If we ask you a specific question. |- . End of Tape No. 2 ' :

Page  63Dr. Stephenson 63 .- ..,-.; .. . Footnotes ' ; - . .. 1.: Elizabeth Wright, Hubbard, a leading New. York City homeopath:, died in 1967, -,-;. 2. Boericke and Tafel,: homeopathic pharmacists, .Philadelphia.- ..,..-. 3. Allan Sutherland, Brattleboro, Vt'., ed., .Homeopathic Recorder :;., and Journal of:.American .Institute .of Homeopathy. 4. Leading- figure in American homeopathy, .died recently. 5.".Founder of American^Foundation for. Homeopathy, now deceased. 6. Samuel Hahnemann, German physician and therapist--founder of homeopathy. ,, ..,- ' . ^ ;-,./.... .-...-: . ..-.. 7. Richard H. Shryoek,;. Deyelopment of Modern Medicine (New York, 1947). 8. Drug used as topical pain killer and. as preventive taken internally. 9.: .Donald Mainland, M.D.^ (1902--), New York. City physician. , : , 10. "Fresh.Evidence forVa Biophysical Field," Main Currents, XXIV (968), 115-22. 11. French physicist, in 1948 investigated action of microdilutions in physics. :. '-.- ' -:.-.. v ;: ;. , :.-,„.. ;.:..;. 12. G. Yaeger, in =1880 .tested effects of microdilutions on/speed of nerve transmissions. 13. 6.12 X 1023. Theoretical level of dilution. Above that level, none b.f the original substance can be :detected. 14. American Association f or ithe Advaneement of Science . ' , : 15. Constantine He'ring (1800-1880), early American homeopathic medical educator. 16. Homeopathic Medical College until 1918

Page  64Dr0 Stephenson 54 17. Maesimund. B. Panos, M.D., Washington, D. C., Ohio State, 1957. 18. Elizabeth Fright Hubbard, M.D., New York City, died in 1967. 19. Alien C. Neiswander, M.D.,, Alhambra, California, Ohio State, 1942. 20. Wilbur K. Bond, MD, Greensfork, Indiana, graduate of University 'o'; Indiana, 1930. : ; ' 21. Henry N. Williams, M.D., Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Columbia University, : 1941. " ''' . 22. William Guttman, M.D., New York City, Vienna, 1925= 23. Edward C. Whitmont, M.D., New York City, N. Y. 24. Thomas E, McGavack, M.D., Martinsburg, West Virginia. 25 = ,.Linn J. .Boyd, M.D..., Yonkers, New York. 26. Lecture, February 25, 1958 to Boston Homeopathic Layman's League, published, by Homeopathic Information.Service, 1964. 27. A. D. Speranski, Russian physiologist. 28. Lecture published^ by Homeopathic Information Service, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, 1964. 29." Emil 'Von Behring (1854-1917), discoverer of tetanus anti-toxin, cited in James Stephenson, Homeopathic Pharmacology (Chestnut Hill, Massachus'etts, Homeopathic Information Service, 1964), p. 8. 30. Organon :der Rationellen Heilkunde, Samuel Hahnemann's major work, the most basic homeopathic reference. 31. Otto Guttentag,, M.D. , "Trend towards Homeopathy," Bulletin o:f the .., ... .History, of Medicine, ¥111 (1940), 1172-1193.

Page  65Dr. James Stephenson INDEX Aconitura, 61 Allentown Academy, 29 American Foundation for Homoeopathy, 2, 22-23, 58 , ' American Institute of. Homeopathy 20, 25, 31, 43-45, 50 American Medical Association, 3, 33-34, 38, 46-48, 50 Ant1coronary Club, 3 Arnica, 11 Austin, Dr., 59 Barnard, Dr., 1?-18, ,2? Becker, Dr., 53 Board of Homeopathic Therapeutics, 47 Boerlake, Professor Garth, 5, 18, 33 Boericko and fafel, Pharmaceutical House, 2 Bond, Dr. Milbur, 3"2 Boston University, 30 Boyd, Professor John W,, 19, 2?, 33 British. Homeopathic Jojurnal» 14 Buchanan, John, 48 Carnegie Foundation, 33 Chemioa.1 Jota.rnal. 24 Cornell UaiTersity, 16, 37 DeBakey, Dr» Michael, 34 DIA, 17, 27

Page  66Dr. Stephenson 66 Fishbein, Dr. Morris, k6 Flexner. HgESEit 33 Gelsemium, 61 George Washington University, 22 Gerlaeh, Henry, 16 Green, Dr. Jmlia, 3 Griggs, 'William Bent ley, 35 Gmtteiitag, Otto E,, 56 Guttman, Dr. -William, 32, 38, 61 Hahnemann, Samuel C, , 5-6, 8, 56 Hahnemann leaical College, 22, 33-35, 3? Harvard . University ,37 ; ;. Harvey, William, 36 Her lag, Conetantlne, 28 Her ing Proving Laboratory, 35 Hubbard, Dr. "Elizabeth Wright, 1-2, . 32, 38, 51 International Hahnemnnian Assooiation, 31, ^3-^5 Johns. Hopkins.'University, 51 Jolllff, Dr.'Horman, 3 of Cell . of .Human, PharnaaQlogy;. 27 .the America Ins.titjuteu of

Page  67Dr. Stephenson 67 M. j g. America Medical Association, 23 Kanner, ' Dr. , 61 Koffler-Warmaraaker, Professor Anna, 19, 21-22, 25, 5? Main, .6, 2?f 53 Mainland, Donald, 14 McClaran, Dp*., 2 MoGavlxft,: Dr. -Thomas H,., 20 Mesmer, E. '.P. .Ant on, 11 Mosber, Professor, 18, 24, 2? . Nelswander, DP. Alien, 32, 58 New- Xork .City 'Bure.au of Nutrition, 3 Ohio Northern University, 22 Panosy Dr.- Maeslmund, 32, 45, 58 Hieger, Dr. Abraham, 61 BNA, 1? Rockefeller, John D.., Jr., 59 Rockefeller, John i),, Sr.» 59 Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, 14, 40 Sehatz, Dr. Albert, 21-22, 2? Semmelweis, Ignaz P.., 36 Shryock, Richard H. , 8, 9 Smith, Dr. A. Dwight, 5

Page  68Dr. Stephenson 68 Smith, Mr., 18 Sofrin, Up.., 60, 61 Spalding, Dr. Bay, 2 Speranskl, A. D., 5^ Stearns, Dr., 19-20 Stephenson, Carl, 16 Sutherland, Dr. Allan. D., 2, 10 University of Delaware, 22 Whitmont, Dr.., 32, 61 Williams, Dr. Heary, 32, 58 Wurmser, Lisa/ 15 laeger, Dr. G., 16 Xale University, 3?