jeggels.com

Home Page

Welcome to the website of Dr. Herman Jeggels, MD (VU Ams), MRCP (UK), FBIH (Hon), DHM (Hon), medical homoeopathic practitioner. I am a former consultant physician who declined registration as a specialist physician in order to practice in a GP setting. I studied conventional medicine at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

This website provides access to some background information concerning my practice, to questionnaires, some general information, and a map.

However, I use the image of Table Mountain seen below, which is a World Heritage Site, to present to the reader some questions on ideas, view points, and ultimately, scientific theories.

The images below are a montage of two views of Table Mountain - only two, of the many views of the mountain. The top image is the famous Blaauwberg Beach view looking south with Cape Town at its foot, while the bottom is from near Elephant's Eye Cave on Constantiaberg looking north at the rear end of the Mountain. Please tell me, on the basis of this montage of Table Mountain – which of the two views is the ONE and ONLY CORRECT, the ONLY ACCEPTABLE view of the Mountain, and for good measure, which of the two views is CORRECT scientifically speaking? Please do not think that this is a BEAUTY CONTEST - It is NOT. The Blaauwberg view is certainly beautiful, and some may be disappointed that the Elephant's Eye view shows a slanted, and not a flat top Table Mountain. It is NOT a BEAUTY CONTEST.

Thus, back to that question, which I shall answer. There can NEVER EVER be a ONE and ONLY CORRECT and ACCEPTABLE view of the mountain. To claim that is beyond words. Each view is what it is, phenomologically, and I term the above as the Table Mountain Rule, if you please.

 Table Mountain Comparative View

Now, imagine replacing the images of Table Mountain with a patient suffering from diabetes. The Blaauwberg view is then the front view of the patient, while the Elephant's Eye view is the rear view of the patient.

Thus, medical students of conventional medicine are taught to view that patient ONLY from the Elephant's Eye Cave view. However, the homeopathic view of the very same patient is the Blaauwberg Beach view. Nevertheless, the Table Mountain Rule says that the conventional view can never be the only view of a particular patient's suffering. However, conventional doctors reject other views of a patient's suffering as totally and permanently invalid, and will never discuss those views due the credibility doctrine. The credibility doctrine dictates that discussing other views gives credibility to "mumbo-jumbo, witchcraft, and 'snake doctors'." Oh dear! Similarly, the manner by which medicines are evaluated, especially via double blinded randomised controlled trials, are also accepted as the ONE and ONLY mechanism which will allow medicines to be accepted.

In this regard, Dr Richard Shryock, the medical historian, stated that dogmatism in medicine is no different to dogmatism in religion. And Paul Feyerabend criticised such rigid one-sided views of ‘science’ as a means used to "terrorise" people, which in turn leads to the "killing of minds." Furthemore, Imre Lakatos wrote that "the hallmark of scientific behaviour is a certain scepticism even towards one’s most cherished theories. Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue: it is an intellectual crime."

A therapeutic system such as homeopathic medicine is automatically, like a knee jerk reaction, dismissed by doctors of conventional medicine as UNSCIENTIFIC!! Unfortunately, doctors rarely ever study the philosophy of the sciences. If they would do so, they would know that the only true sciences are physics and chemistry. THE PROFESSION OF MEDICINE IS NOT A SCIENCE. It is a Technoscience similar to Engineering which uses very different criteria to evaluate their technologies compared to the criteria used by doctors. What I discuss in these few paragraphs is explored in detail in my published article. The title of the publication is: An Analysis of the Concept Scientific Evidence of Technologies as it Relates to NASA’s TRLs & Technoscience, Medicine, and Homoeopathic Therapeutics.

I shall here therefore briefly discuss the criteria of the Technosciences which must be employed in the profession of medicine. An example is the following: to make a glider wing, one must have a theory and methodology to make one. Once that glider wing has been made, can one re-fashion that wing via pruning here and there to make it into a jet fighter wing? NO! The integrity of that glider wing will be irreparably damaged. One has to start from scratch by having a theory and methodology to make a jet fighter wing. In summary, have a theory and methodology from the outset to make a quality product (Prof Ullman).

The essence of the profession of medicine is "a right and good healing action taken in the interest of a particular patient", and if your medicine, incapable of achieving that technologically, your medicine is "inauthentic and a lie" (the late Prof Edmund Pellegrino). It boils down to outcomes for the particular unique patient. However, conventional medicine makes medicines which works across all persons, not specifically for the unique problems of a particular patient. There are indeed very useful conventional medicines such as Lignocaine, e.g., the local anaesthetic used so often by Dentists. Homeopathic medicines are designed to work very specifically for the unique symptoms and signs of a particular patient, which is a demand of Prof Pellegrino.

Medicines which work in general are valid indeed, however, one do not know the outcome for a particular patient. Sir Bradford Hill admitted to that flaw of randomised trials and asked whether such a method exist because conventional medicine does not have a theory and methodology to make individualised medicine. Thus, to answer Sir Bradford Hill: Yes, there is such a method - that method is the homeopathic method which has a theory and methodology for individualised medicines. Furthermore, Prof Bruce Charlton wrote that one cannot extrapolate from medicines which work in general, to the particular patient.

Therefore, conventional doctors use, for instance, their own "grammar" (theory and methodology) to make and experiment on their medicines. However, they insist on experimenting on homeopathic medicines by using their own grammar, and not the grammar of homeopathic medicines. This is similar to insisting on learning the Japanese language via using only the English grammar. One learn a language via that language's own rules, but doctors want to force their "grammar" onto other treatment systems. Some people would call that authoritarian.

Then please consider the following: homeopathic medicines spread due to their exceptional effectiveness in treating epidemics such as cholera. That means that homeopathic medicines are mature products like a registered Airbus A380 passenger aircraft which flies with fare paying passengers. Does anyone doubt whether that Airbus CAN really FLY? How can one doubt that that flying and landing Airbus A380 CAN FLY? Does that make sense? Never! Thus, conventional doctors ask the same question of homeopathic medicines which allowed 88% of patients having severe stage 3-4 cholera to survive during the cholera epidemic of 1853-1854 in London, while under conventional medicine only 54% of patients survived. Please note that the London homeopathic hospital only opened its doors in 1850. Then, why do you want to see if a medicine can work when it already worked so fantastically more than 170 years ago? A 2016 article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine once more studied that cholera epidemic: Selective suppression by the medical establishment of unwelcome research findings: the cholera treatment evaluation by the General Board of Health, London 1854.

 

Therefore, one must come to the conclusion that doctors can also be quite silly, and sometimes, dogmatic and authoritarian. Doctors are not drawn from a special breed of persons, or from the planet Mars. They are from the same society as their patients. They certainly have had the ability to study and pass a medical course, period. It would be wonderful if they are more open-minded. But that may be wishful thinking, unfortunately. Especially when Thomas Kuhn wrote that scientific education does not result in a person with an open mind. That person has to study the black box of that science and will only think inside the box, only tinkers inside the box, and will only investigate what has been accepted inside the box. But that person will not think outside the box, and often is not allowed to think outside that box. Only the work of an Einstein managed to overthrow the black box. Thinking outside the box can result in academic suicide - investigating and accepting homeopathy will result in academic suicide, as Dr Marvin A McMillen, MD wrote. Even your sanity has been questioned as far back as 1847. Thus, "The educated physician is justified in rejecting homoeopathy without testing it at the bedside...If the medical man who seriously sets about their verification does not endanger his reputation for soundness of mind, he at any rate compromises his character as a thoroughly educated physician and a man of well-balanced intellectual faculties.’ [New York Journal of Medicine, IX (1847), 228.]. What more can one say?

One final issue for this home page which I have rewritten substantially during the COVID19 Lockdown of 2020, is to remind the reader of this old topic which was on a previous version of the home page. Thus, on the 25th September 2013 I added a page on my response to an editorial published in the March 2012  issue of the South African Medical Journal by Prof van Niekerk in which he termed the homeopathic system as a mystica, or a religious belief! Prof van Niekerk responded to my paper, however, he refused to publish my response to his, which can now be accessed here.  He used his editorial powers to reject my rebuttal, but his response can never go unchallenged, even belatedly.

I thank you for visiting my website - stay safe and healthy, please.

© Dr. HJD Jeggels 2006. Updated March 2013; April 2016; May 2020, during the COVID19 Lockdown.