Homeopathic medicine is at present one of the leading alternative
therapies practiced by physicians in Europe (particularly France,
Germany, UK, and Italy) and Asia (especially on the Indian
subcontinent)(EU Commission, 1997; Prasad, 2007). Since homeopathy's
development as a medical specialty in the early 1800s, it has been a
leading alternative to orthodox medicine internationally, and it has
posed an ongoing threat to the scientific, philosophical, and economics
of conventional medical care.
The homeopathic approach to healing
maintains a deep respect for symptoms of illness as important defenses
of a person's immune and defense system. While conventional medicine
often tends to assume that symptoms are something "wrong" with the
person that need to be treated, inhibited, suppressed, or biochemically
manipulated, homeopaths tend to assume that symptoms are important
defenses of the organism that are most effectively resolved when
treatments nurture, nourish, or mimic the symptoms in order to initiate a
healing process. Ultimately, these two different approaches to healing
people have led to various conflicts.
It is common, for instance,
for homeopaths to question the alleged "scientific" studies that
conventional drugs are "effective" as treatments because of concern that
many of these treatments tend to suppress symptoms or disrupt the
complex inner ecology of the body and create much more serious illness.
Just as opiate drugs of the 19th century gave the guise of healing,
homeopaths contend that many modern-day drugs provide blessed short-term
relief but create immune dysfunction, mental illness, and other chronic
disease processes in its wake. Further, the fact that most people today
are prescribed multiple drugs concurrently, despite the fact that
clinical research is rarely conducted showing the safety or efficacy of
such practices, forces us all to question how scientific modern medicine truly is.
Homeopaths
contend that increased rates of cancer, heart disease, chronic fatigue,
and various chronic diseases for increasingly younger people may result
from conventional medicine's suppression of symptoms and disease
processes. It is therefore no surprise that conventional physicians
and Big Pharma have a long and dark history of working together to
attack homeopathy and homeopaths.
The
antagonism against homeopathy began when the highly respected Saxon
physician Samuel Hahnemann, MD, first developed the system in the early
1800s. Hahnemann was a translator of leading medical and pharmacology
texts and the author of the leading textbook used by pharmacists of his
day.
Despite Hahnemann's high stature in medicine, pharmacology,
and chemistry, his strong critique of conventional medicine led to
personal attacks against him by orthodox physicians as well as by the
apothecaries (the drug makers of that time) who were philosophically and
economically threatened by Hahnemann's work. When homeopathy arrived in
America in 1825, it grew rapidly due to its widely recognized success
in treating infectious disease epidemics that raged in the early and
mid-1800s. Then, when the American Institute of Homeopathy became the
first national medical organization in 1844, a rival organization
developed that proposed to stop the growth of homeopathy (Rothstein,
1985, p. 232). That organization called itself the American Medical
Association.
Paul Starr's Pulitzer Prize-winning book,
The Social Transformation of American Medicine, acknowledged the stature that homeopathy achieved in America in the mid-and later 19th century:
"Because
homeopathy was simultaneously philosophical and experimental, it seemed
to many people to be more rather than less scientific than orthodox
medicine" (p. 97).
U.S. President William McKinley even
dedicated a special monument to Dr. Hahnemann in Washington, DC, in
1900, which still stands today as the only monument in America's capital
to the deeds of a physician.
However, because of the economic,
philosophical, and scientific threat that the paradigm and practice of
homeopathy represents, the vitriol and antagonism still exists. It is
therefore enlightening to expose the disinformation that is spread about
homeopathy and then understand WHO is leading this disinformation
campaign (the second-part of this article will name names and discuss
two individuals, one from the USA and one from the UK, who are presently
leaders in the campaign against homeopathy).
The Myths Spread about HomeopathyLike
other propagandists, the homeopathy deniers seek to create
disinformation by using three straightforward techniques. First, the
homeopathy deniers make a simple false accusation, a lie, and repeat it
constantly and consistently in an attempt to make it a new "truth".
Second, this repetition is then done within the context of some
legitimizing element. In the case of the homeopathy deniers, that
element is a corruption of normal science, an analysis of scientific
evidence that creates reasons (excuses) to exclude high quality studies
that show positive results (even those studies that have been published
in leading conventional medical journals), and a mis-use of the concept
of skepticism. The homeopathy deniers ignore or downplay the
substantial body of evidence from basic science and clinical research,
from outcome studies, from cost-effectiveness studies, and from
epidemiological evidence, and only quote from those studies that verify
their own point of view, rather than reviewing the entire body of
evidence.
The third component of the technique is to sell the lie
to a vulnerable population in an attempt to have repetition from that
group. In the case of the homeopathy deniers, the vulnerable groups are
often young students of science, who are enamored with the language and
elitism of their newly learned craft, but who lack the deep
understanding and experience to realize that they are being "used" by
the deniers. The homeopathy deniers also play on the fears of those
older and established scientists and physicians and who are led to
believe that "if homeopathy is true, then everything about modern
medicine and science is false." This over-simplification of reality is
commonly repeated. However, just as quantum physics does not "disprove"
all of physics, but rather, it
extends our capability to
understand and predict events on extremely small and extremely large
systems. Likewise, homeopathy does not disprove all of modern
pharmacology but
extends our understanding of the use of extremely small doses of medicinal agents to elicit healing responses.
History
is replete with orthodox medicine and science being steadfastly
resistant to different systems of medicine and paradigms of healing.
Although , the average physician and scientist tends to be threatened by
new ideas, a common attribute of leading physicians and scientists is a
certain openness and humility due to the common and even expected
evolution of knowledge.
It should be acknowledged upfront that homeopathic
practitioners, patients, and users of these natural medicines are often
surprised and amazed at the results they experience in the treatment of
themselves, children, infants, animals, and even plants. In my
observations over the past 40 years, most people are skeptical about
homeopathy until they try it and see for themselves...and there are then
good reasons that tens of millions of people all over the world use and
rely upon these natural medicines for a wide range of acute and chronic
ailments. That said, the challenge is not just trying homeopathy, but
first learning something about it so that you can use it correctly and
effectively.
Sadly, however, the homeopathy deniers tend to spread disinformation about homeopathy, including the following myths:
Myth #1: "There is no research that shows that homeopathic medicines work."Such
statements are a creative use of statistics, or what might be called
"lies, damn lies, and statistics." Actually, most clinical research
studies conducted with homeopathic medicines show a positive outcome.
However, if "creative statisticians" evaluate only the smaller number of
large studies, a positive result is less likely, not because homeopathy
doesn't work, but because these larger studies tend to dispense only
ONE homeopathic medicine for everyone in the study, without any degree
of individualized treatment that is typical of the homeopathic
method.[1] To claim that homeopathic medicines do not work using only
these studies is as illogical as to say that antibiotics are ineffective
just because they do not cure for every viral, fungal, or bacterial
infection.
Myth #2: "The research studies showing that homeopathic medicines work are 'poorly conducted studies'." Wrong!
Studies showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines have been
published in the Lancet, the British Medical Journal, Pediatrics,
Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Cochrane Reports, Chest (the
publication of the British Society of Rheumatology), Cancer (the journal
of the American Cancer Society), Journal of Clinical Oncology (journal
of the Society of Clinical Oncology), Human Toxicology, European Journal
of Pediatrics, Archives in Facial Plastic Surgery, Archives of
Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,
and many more.[2] ALL of these studies were randomized, double-blind,
and placebo controlled. Further, because of bias against homeopathy,
these studies have been scrutinized rigorously, perhaps even more
rigorously than is usual.
The weak response from the homeopathy
deniers is that the above studies are "cherry-picked." Well, it seems
that there are a lot of "cherries" (clinical studies that verify the
efficacy of homeopathic medicines). Also, numerous of the above leading
medical journals have published meta-analyzes of clinical trials on
specific diseases and have shown that homeopathic medicines have
significantly more benefits than does a placebo. And further, the
deniers erroneously equate the "negative" studies evidence that the
whole system of homeopathy does not work, when, in fact, these studies
are usually of a preliminary nature that explored the use of one or a
small handful of remedies for a specific condition.
Ironically,
the one review of research that the homeopathic deniers most commonly
assert as strong evidence that there's no difference between homeopathic
medicines and placebo (Shang et al, 2005) has been shown to be bad or
certainly inadequate science (Walach, et al, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Rutten,
2009, Rutten and Stolper, 2008; Ludtke and Rutten, 2008).
Myth #3: "12C is like one drop in the entire Atlantic Ocean." Pure
fantasy (and fuzzy math)! In fact, the 12C dose requires 12 test tubes,
and 1% of the solution is drawn from each of the 12 test tubes. It is
also very typical for the "deniers" of homeopathy to assert with a
straight face that the making of a single homeopathic medicine requires
more water than exists on the planet. It seems that the skeptics are so
fundamentalist in their point of view that they consciously or
unconsciously mis-assume that the dilutions used in homeopathy grow
proportionately with each dilution; they assume that each dilution
requires 10 or 100 times more water with each dilution -- which they
don't, and even the most elementary articles and books on homeopathy
affirm this fact. Sadly (and strangely), most of the skeptics of
homeopathy seem to read each other's misinformation on homeopathy and
have a propensity to spin the reality of what homeopathy is in ways that
misconstrue it.
Myth #4: "There is nothing in a homeopathic medicine. It is just water." Ignorance
and direct disinformation. First, a large number of homeopathic
medicines that are sold in health food stores and pharmacies are what
are called "low potencies," that is, small or very small doses of
medicines, most of which are in a similar dose to which certain powerful
hormones and immune cells circulate in our body. Second, using samples
of six different medicines made from minerals, scientists at the
Department of Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology have
consistently confirmed that the starting substance is still present in
the form of nanoparticles of the starting minerals even when the
medicine has undergone hundreds of serial dilutions--with vigorous
shaking in-between each dilution, as per the homeopathic method
(Chikramane, Suresh, Bellare, 2010).[3] Further, leading chemistry and
physics journals have published other research to confirm that there are
differences between water and "homeopathic water" (Elia and Niccoli,
1999; Elia, Napoli, Niccoli, et al, 2008; Rey, 2003)
Myth #5: "If we do not presently understand how homeopathic medicines work, then, they cannot work. It's witchcraft." Lame
on face value. How many more times in history do scientists and others
need before they realize that we do not understand a lot of nature's
mysteries, but our lack of understanding does not mean that the
mysteries are not real. Calling homeopathy "witchcraft" clearly is
someone's fear of what they do not know or understand, and a common
observation from history is that whenever one goes on a witchhunt, a
witch is found (one way or another). The fact that there is a small but
significant body of basic sciences research that has shown physical and
biological effects from homeopathic medicines tends to be ignored
(Endler, Thieves, Reich, et al 2010; Witt, Bluth, Albrecht, et al,
2007). To publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals is not a common
practice from witches (or warlocks).
Dr. Karol Sikora is a
respected oncologist and dean of the University of Buckingham medical
school (in England). Sikora has expressed serious concern about the
"Stalinist repression" that certain skeptics of homeopathic and
alternative medicines engage (Sikora, 2009). Sikora has harshly
criticized "armchair physicians" and others who seem to have little or
no experience in using these treatments with real patients. One
other critical piece of evidence to show and even prove the
unscientific attitude of the homeopathy deniers is that they now wish to
close off all discussion of the efficacy of homeopathic medicines (Baum
and Ernst, 2009). These medical fundamentalist actually discourage
keeping an open mind about homeopathy. One must question this
unscientific attitude that select antagonists to homeopathy embody...and
one must even wonder why they maintain such a position.
The
second part of this article will provide further specific evidence of
the unscientific attitude and actions from those individuals and
organizations who are leading the campaign against homeopathy. A leading
antagonist to homeopathy from the US and another from the UK will
discussed in order to shed light on this important debate in health
care. Stay tuned to find out who they are and why they maintain their
point of view.
REFERENCES:>Baum M, Ernst E.
Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy? American Journal of
Medicine. 122,11:November 2009. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009/03.038.
Chikramane
PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, and Govind S. Extreme homeopathic dilutions
retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy.
Volume 99, Issue 4, October 2010, 231-242.
Elia
V, and Niccoli M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous
Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879,
1999:241-248.
Elia
V, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Marchettini N, Tiezzi E(2008). New
Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely Dilute Solutions. A
Conductivity Study at 25?°C in Relation to Ageing. Journal of Solution
Chemistry, 37:85-96.
Endler
PC, Thieves K, Reich C, Matthiessen P, Bonamin L, Scherr C, Baumgartner
S. Repetitions of fundamental research models for homeopathically
prepared dilutions beyond 10-23: a bibliometric study. Homeopathy, 2010;
99: 25-36.
EU Commission report evaluating implementation of Homeopathy Directives 92/73 EEC and 92/74/EEC, 1997.
Fisher
P, 2006. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 March; 3(1): 145-147.
Published online 2006 January 26. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nek007
Ludtke
R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy
highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.
Prasad R. Homoeopathy booming in India. Lancet, 370:November 17, 2007,1679-80.
Rey L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 323(2003)67-74.
Rothstein WG. American Physicians in the 19th Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1985.
Rutten L, 2009.
Rutten
ALB, Stolper CF, The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: The importance
of post-publication data. Homeopathy. October 2008,
doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09/008.
Shang
A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D,
Egger M. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects?
Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and
allopathy. The Lancet. 366,9487, 27 August 2005:726-732.
Sikora K. Complementary medicine does help patients. Times Online, February 3rd 2009. Online document at:
Starr P. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic, 1982.
Vickers
A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating
influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub3.
Walach
H, Jonas W, Lewith G. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo
effects? Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2081; author reply 2083-6.
Witt
CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The
in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a
systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. 2007
Jun;15(2):128-38. Epub 2007 Mar 28. From 75 publications, 67 experiments
(1/3 of them replications) were evaluated. Nearly 3/4 of them found a
high potency effect, and nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive.
FOOTNOTES[1]
Although individualization of treatment is one of the hallmarks of the
homeopathic method, there are exceptions to this common rule. For
instance, there have been four large randomized, double-blind, and
placebo-controlled studies that have shown that homeopathic
Oscillococcinum is effective in treating people with influenza or
influenza-like syndrome (Vickers and Smith, 2006).
[2] References
to these and other studies can be found in the following article: The
Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: Historical and Scientific Evidence --
[3]
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction by
Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED), and chemical analysis by
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy.
About the author:America's leading advocate for homeopathic medicine and author of The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (Foreword by Dr. Peter Fisher, Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Learn more about homeopathy and Dana's work at
Dana has authored 9 other books, including
Homeopathy A-Z,
Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants,
Discovering Homeopathy, and (the best-selling) Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD).
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
