jeggels.com

HJ160

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.

Important Notice: Regrettably, from Friday 6 November 2020, Telkom created some havoc with our practice. Instead of cancelling our April 2020 request to cancel our ADSL internet line, Telkom terminated our telephone line. Nevertheless, from 15 November 2020 our VOIP telephone is active, having as number: 087 700 1621. Furthermore, scheduling appointments is most convenient telephonically, rather than a to-and-fro messaging via email. Nevertheless, we still apologise for this mishap caused by Telkom. Unfortunately, our VOIP telephone service provider does not provide voice mail options. Inconsequence, please call or send an email with your queries.

On 8 April 2021 a peer-reviewed article of mine was published in the Homeopathic Links Journal. HG-AVNBThe title is: The Reversibility of a High-Grade Atrioventricular Block Treated Homeopathically. In summary, a female patient refused to have a pacemaker placed by a cardiologist, which she truly required for the complete heart block which she suffered from. She recovered by means of the different homeopathic medicines prescribed.This patient's case is the first of its kind, since there is no literature evidence of a similar outcome by means of medicines. For more information, please view the image of the abstract to the article, to the right.

Nevertheless, it is 2021, one year into the COVID19 pandemic. Information on the pandemic can be accessed via the following South African Government website.

The global homoeopathic fraternity is represented by the Liga Medicorum Homeopathica Internationalis, or The LMHI. The LMHI wrote to the World Health Organisation offering the assistance which doctors employing homeopathic medicines can provide during this pandemic: https://www.lmhi.org/Documents/News/LMHI_Letter_WHO_COVID-19_Apr.5.2020%20(1).pdf

Lastly, on influenza epidemics, or pandemics, one can access four, two hour webinars, presented by the world renowned practitioner and lecturer on all things homeopathic, Dr Robin Murphy ND. The webinars can be accessed via the website of The Center for Homeopathic Education, based in the UK, and they can be viewed for free, after registration. The webinars are worthwhile viewing.

Now back to this website of mine, which provides access to some background information concerning my practice, to questionnaires, some general information, and a map. But first, the matter of Ideas and Theories.

On the matter of Ideas and Theories, 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.

Table Mountain Comparative View

The images 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 speakingPlease 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.

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. But, the Table Mountain Rule says that the conventional view can never be the only view of a particular patient's suffering. As one can imagine, 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!

In a similar vein, the manner by which medicines are evaluated, especially via double blinded randomised controlled trials, are also accepted as the 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’ are employed to "terrorise" people, which results in the "killing of minds." Furthermore, 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."

But what is science? It is not scientific, one gets snarled at, and expected to tremble in one's shoes, since one has committed a mortal crime, and is in for an eternal punishment. Oh dear! What is this mythical thing called 'science'? Erwin Chargaff wrote: "Science is the attempt to learn the truth about those parts of nature that are explorable. Science, therefore, is not a mechanism to explore the unexplorable; and it is not its task to decide on the existence or nonexistence of God or to measure the weight of a soul. It is very unfortunate that science has become extremely arrogant - this started at the time of Darwin, but is getting worse - and that scientists arrogate to themselves a special right to speak out loudly, and often stupidly, on almost any topic." Einstein wrote: "All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking." Thus, what is termed science is a human endeavour and product. Because of that, Einstein stated: "We should take care not to make intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." Thus getting snarled at for differing thoughts, points to making a god of our mind and thoughts. One last quote from Einstein: "It is abhorrent to me when a fine intelligence is paired with an unsavoury character."

How does one then evaluate the usefulness of the different views? The most important way is to subject them to a true test (verification or demonstration), and not an experiment. Thus, evaluate the outcomes of each view in real-life - Not under experimental conditions. But unfortuately, conventional doctors are so smitten by their, Oh so Johnny-Come-Lately introduced experimentation, that the difference between a true test and experimentation can never be entertained in their smitten state. They are not only smitten, but have accepted, or have to accept it as dogma, otherwise, there's the door to irrelevance, and credibility loss.

Nevertheless, one must also take into account that each view can have different means and methods to attain their respective outcomes. Even though true tests are not performed, homeopathic medicines are automatically, like a knee-jerk reaction, dismissed by my conventional colleagues as unscientific! Unfortunately, they rarely ever study the philosophy of the sciences. If they did, 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. To understand what was just discussed, including true tests, is explored in detail in my published article, An Analysis of the Concept Scientific Evidence of Technologies as it Relates to NASA's TRLs & Technosciences, Medicine, Homeopathic Therapeutics.

I shall nevertheless briefly discuss one criterium 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, 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, at a particular moment in time, 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 (Naturally, Not Only Cholera Epidemics). 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 responded with an Unreferenced Opinion Piece, then refused to publish my response to his opinion piece. My rejected referenced response to his can be accessed here. In essence, 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. All one can hope for is for all to stay safe and healthy.

© Dr. HJD Jeggels 2006. Updated March 2013; April 2016; May 2020, during the COVID19 Lockdown. Updated December 2020, January, and April 2021.