RICHARD PITCAIRN

Richard Pitcairn

I became interested in homeopathy after finishing my PhD in immunology at Washington State University. I had learned a great deal on how the immune system worked and how it could go wrong, but very little on how to make it work better. When I came across some books on homeopathy I realized that this could be a way to enhance the mechanism of resistance and recovery from illlness so that grabbed my interest and resulted in continued study. It took some time to grasp it, but once I did then it went easier. The book by George Vithoulkas was very critical in my coming to understand what homeopathy was and how it worked. I am forever grateful for it.

As I began my study, I acquired what books I could find, mostly by going to book stores. I found out there were some conferences and attended some, mostly Vithoulkas and others. Not a large number, perhaps three or four altogether. I did not find them very helpful, so when there was an announcement at one of the conferences in San Francisco, that a training program was starting for doctors, the program in Berkeley with Roger Morrison, Bill Gray and others, I saw this as my opportunity to really get into it. But when I approached them about joining I was told a veterinarian could not do this work. So, again, I studied on my own.

In hindsight it was really the best thing for me as I learned from the masters — Hahnemann, Kent, Lippe, Boger, Boenninghausen, and others. I studied their works, how they did their cases, and applied that as best I could in my practice. As I gradually became more accomplished and seeing the results in the clinic, I realized that many of the contemporary teachings of today are not accurate, and in contradiction to Hahnemann’s teachings. Since I had confirmed Hahnemann’s guidance in my own work, I stayed with the essential principles he laid down. So this was really the best outcome for me because if I had taken some of these other trainings I would have been misled and likely no longer using homeopathy.

The greatest impact, not surprisingly, was Hahnemann himself. He was extraordinally dedicated, committed to only ethical and compassionate work. The answer to him, as to how real healing could be accomplished, was a spiritual response, the method of homeopathy an answer to his committment. I have also learned of the great contributions of others, and especially have learned from Boenninghausen, Hering, Allen, Kent, Lippe, Jahr, Hempel and Boger. But there are many others that are great sources of guidance in this work. That we have the references of the last 200 years to draw from is an incredible gift.

I would very much like to see homeopathy return to the method of Hahnemann. As Hahnemann himself tells us, when a medical system is “born” in consciousness, it has an identity, an essence, and this essence is prior to the manifestation in time and space — the books, practitioners, schools, etc.
What Hahnemann gave birth to can be aligned with, further developed, made stronger. It still exists.
Instead the “modern” homeopathy has altered this, brought in contrary ideas, moved away from the ethical committment that was a foundation to Hahnemann’s work. So I continue to hope that these movements away from alignment with homeopathy will eventually peter out and it will be realized, once again, what it is we need to do.

You can read more about him here