Excerpt from the book: "Do you think that Hahnemann's Homoeopathy is an overnight discovery? Please go through the Organon of Medicine, you will see that almost one-third of the book tells about what is the role of vital force in human body, why and how vital force produces disease, what miasm is, how suppression occurs with dissimilar medicines, why a physician should treat the man (or vital force or immune system), not the disease, etc. Have you noticed why Hahnemann spent so much of his effort to explain these concepts? Why did he not simply tell "disease should be cured only by those that can artificially produce similar disease symptoms"? Hahnemann certainly was aware of the pathogenic effects of his claimed-medicines on human body. If a substance produces some artificial diseases, how could he claim that the same substance will cure the same natural diseases? Apparently, such claim is insane, illogical and paradoxical. Why would he make such an apparently idiotic comment which would turn him into a laughingstock? Do you think that Hahnemann claimed it whimsically without any reasoning or any logic? No! It was Hahnemann's well-thought and decisive claim which is quite coherent with his version of immune system (vital force, which he describes so ardently in almost one-third of the Organon of Medicine) and with the modern immune system also....""Obviously a modern immunological interpretation of Hahnemann's explanation provides a very clear scenario of why the weaker natural dynamic disease disappears and no longer exists for the vital principle. Earlier in this book, I have shown that Hahnemann's concepts such as vital force, vital principles, miasm, disease agent, etc are, indeed, the philosophical predecessors of the modern immunological terminologies such as immune system, immune functions, states of immune deficiencies, pathogens, etc. However, let us propose a modern interpretation of Hahnemann's postulation: .....If the immune system (vital force) detects two (almost) similar threats simultaneously, the immune responses (actions of vital principles).... "I have told earlier that the version of vital force which Hahnemann advocated was very difficult for his contemporary scholars to grab. Despite this difficulty, Hahnemann will not be remembered for his 'like cure like' theory so much as for his philosophy of 'vital power'. I do not know how the story of Cinchona made it place in the history of Homoeopathy. 'Like cures like' was not Hahnemann's sole discovery. Rather what is laudable in Hahnemann's attempt is to explain it from biological and medical point-of-view and to place this principle (Law of Similar) on a solid philosophical ground. (I believe someone concocted the story of Cinchona in order to establish Homoeopathy as a sudden miraculous discovery like Newton's apple or Madam Kurri's X-ray. Indeed, such stories are meant for satisfying the commoners' hunger for a cheap and easily palatable gossip which helped them to keep aside the heavy painful burden of philosophical thoughts behind the invention.) Hahnemann's pathology is nothing extraordinary; it is nothing spiritual, supernatural and metaphysical. It is almost compatible with modern pathology. Hahnemann lacks the knowledge of germs because it was discovered after his death. Yet he filled up this lack with almost similar terms, "Disease agent", "external factors", "intrinsic factors", etc. For Hahnemann, soul and body are meaningless without each other. Without body, soul is beyond explanation and without soul, body is lifeless. But currently there is a trend among the homoeopaths to solely depend on the mind or soul; it is nothing but their attempt to hide their failure to perceive the complex physical realities. Throughout his whole life, Hahnemann loathed any metaphysical speculation about the therapeutic methods which existed in his contemporary medical sector. See how some of his overenthusiastic followers have taken Homoeopathy to a..