Dana Ullman2013-05-23T13:56:31-04:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=dana-ullmanCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Dana UllmanGood old fashioned elbow grease.Lincoln and His Team of Homeopathstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21778082012-12-23T17:21:20-05:002013-02-22T05:12:01-05:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/
Before Lincoln was elected president, in 1854 he was retained as a lawyer to prepare a state legislative proposal to charter a homeopathic medical college in Chicago.[15] Chicago was the home of the American Medical Association, which had been founded in 1847 in part to stop the growth of homeopathy, and therefore, Lincoln's job was no simple effort.
Yet many of Chicago's most prominent citizens and politicians participated on the board of trustees of the proposed Hahnemann Medical College, including Chicago's mayor, two congressmen, an Illinois state representative, a Chicago city councilman, the co-founder of Northwestern University, the founder of Chicago Union Railroad, and several medical doctors who were homeopaths.[15] Despite significant opposition, Lincoln was successful in obtaining a charter for the homeopathic college.
Today, the Pearson Museum at Southern Illinois University has an exhibit of a 19th-century doctor's office and drugstore; included in this exhibit is a homeopathic medicine kit from the Diller Drug Store of Springfield, Ill. The exhibit notes that Abraham Lincoln was a frequent customer of the drug store and a regular user of homeopathic medicines.[11]
Lincoln's Cabinet Members
Of special significance, Lincoln surrounded himself with advocates for homeopathy, among them the postmaster general, the secretary of the treasury and his most trusted advisor and Secretary of State, William Seward. Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury, may have had his life saved by homeopathy after being treated for cholera in the summer of 1849 when a cholera epidemic was rampant.[14] Montgomery Blair, Lincoln's postmaster general, was the head of the National Homeopathic Hospital in Washington, D.C.[12]
Ultimately, what befell William Seward is a classic story to illustrate conventional medicine's attitude toward and actions against unconventional medical treatments and the physicians who provide them. It is first important to realise that the American Medical Association in the 19th century was so threatened by homeopathic medicine that the AMA created and enforced an ethics code that barred AMA members from consulting with homeopathic doctors or homeopathic patients.
On the famed night that Lincoln was assassinated, Seward was stabbed in a multi-person assassination plot against the Union. The assassin gained entrance to Seward's home and to his personal bedroom by claiming to have a delivery of medicines from his homeopathic doctor, Tullio S. Verdi, M.D.[13] Thanks to the medical care provided by U.S. Surgeon General Joseph K. Barnes, M.D., Seward survived. However, according to John S. Haller, some members of the AMA wanted to censure Dr. Barnes for associating with Verdi, a homeopath, in providing Seward's medical care.[8]
Lincoln's Leader of the Union Army
On Nov. 1, 1861, Lincoln appointed Major General George Brinton McClellan (1826-1885) to command the Union army during the Civil War. However, in late December McClellan contracted typhoid fever, which left him unable to go to his office to conduct business. According to military historian Ethan S. Rafuse:
During the first week of McClellan's illness, two homeopathic doctors arrived from New York to tend the ill general and his father-in-law and chief-of-staff, Randolph B. Marcy, who was also ill. McClellan's employment of homeopathic treatments is one of the more interesting sidelights of this episode, particularly in light of the fact that the general came from a family of prominent physicians.
Despite this serious illness, General McClellan remained active, giving regular orders to his subordinates, arranging for troop movement and supply transport, meeting with the president on a weekly basis, issuing court martial orders, and even providing commendations to officers. By January 2, he seemed to be much better and shortly afterwards had no noticeable physical limitations. McClellan lived another 23 years.[19]
Despite the success of homeopathic treatment on the military leader of the Union army, that very month, January 1862, according to Rafuse, "The Army Medical Board rejected requests by homeopathic doctors to serve in military hospitals, arguing that to grant this request would invite applications from all types of 'quacks' and 'charlatans' claiming medical expertise." The problem with this false critique is that homeopathic doctors at that time graduated from various leading conventional medical schools or select homeopathic medical schools, such as Boston University, Hahnemann Medical School (in Philadelphia), or the New York Homeopathic Medical College (many famous medical schools today started off as homeopathic medical colleges).
Reasons for the Animosity
The public today does not adequately understand the degree of animosity that conventional doctors had toward homeopathic physicians. The reasoning for this animosity is probably best described in the words of one doctor to an AMA meeting:
"Too many wives of conventional physicians are going to homeopathic physicians. And to make it worse," he added, "they are taking their children to homeopaths too."[5]
Homeopathic physicians were not simply competitors to conventional physicians; homeopaths were medically trained and could not be considered "uneducated" or under-educated. Further, inherent in homeopathy is a profound respect for the "wisdom of the body," and therefore, homeopaths tend to maintain a significant skepticism of and criticism for using powerful drug treatments that tend to suppress symptoms and push a person's disease deeper into his/her body and mind.
The conventional medical community was also threatened by the fact that homeopathy was attracting so many U.S. cultural leaders. The strongest advocates for homeopathy tended to be educated classes and wealthy Americans as well as the abolitionists, the literary greats (including virtually all of the leading American transcendentalist authors), and the suffragists (homeopaths admitted women into their medical schools and associations several decades before the conventional doctors did).
In the 19th century, the AMA did not enforce the many ethical code or professional health care violations of its members, therefore allowing physicians to prescribe mercury in dangerously high doses, enabling physicians to blood-let their patients to death, and even engage in treatment while inebriated. And yet, the AMA was ridiculously strict in their enforcement of their ethical code against any interaction with homeopathic doctors or their patients.
One AMA member got kicked out of his local medical society for consulting with a homeopath who also happened to be his wife.[18]
Typhoid fever caused more deaths during the Civil War and the Spanish-American War than the deaths caused by bullets.[20] History shows that homeopathy gained widespread popularity in the United States and Europe from its successes in treating various infectious disease epidemics of the mid- and late-1800s, including typhoid epidemics.[3],[5] Despite these good results, the AMA's influence on governmental regulations led to stipulation that graduates of homeopathic medical colleges could not receive a military commission.[18]
Thankfully, the antagonism toward homeopaths was not as severe during World War I; almost 2,000 homeopathic physicians were commissioned as medical officers. Even the American Red Cross authorized a homeopathic hospital unit.[6]
Recent research has confirmed the clinical efficacy of homeopathic medicines and the cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatment, as determined by what is widely recognized as the most comprehensive report ever conducted on homeopathy -- and this report was commissioned by the government of Switzerland.[2]
A detailed article in the famed Archives in Internal Medicine has verified that the small doses used in homeopathic medicines are no smaller than many hormones and cell-signaling agents, which are widely recognized to have profound biological effects on daily human functioning.[7] Further, a wide and multi-disciplinary body of modern scientific evidence has confirmed the biological power of homeopathic nano-doses.[1],[4]
In a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, Dr. Paul Starr wrote about homeopathy in the 19th century, asserting, "Because homeopathy was simultaneously philosophical and experimental, it seemed to many people to be more rather than less scientific than orthodox medicine." Although Lincoln surrounded himself with advocates for homeopathy, that didn't protect the medical science from his famous wit. He described homeopathy once as "medicine of a shadow of a pigeon's wing."[18] This exaggerated metaphor is reference to the very small doses sometimes used.
Considering the honored place accorded homeopathy by many cultural heroes and the growing body of basic science research and clinical evidence, it is unsurprising that homeopathic medicine is more popular today than at any other time worldwide.
And it seems appropriate to end this article on Lincoln's association with homeopathy by citing U.S. writer and friend to many presidents, Mark Twain. In an article for Harper's Weekly, he warned others of the dangers of conventional medicine ("allopathy") and thanked the advocates of homeopathy:[17]
When you reflect that your own father had to take such medicines as the above, and that you would be taking them today yourself but for the introduction of homeopathy, which forced the old-school doctor to stir around and learn something of a rational nature about his business; you may honestly feel grateful that homoeopathy survived the attempts of the allopathists [conventional physicians] to destroy it, even though you may never employ any physician but an allopathist while you live.
Part two of this article will provide more information about Abraham Lincoln and his team of homeopaths.
References
[1] Bell, I; Koithan, M. "A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive System." BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012, 12:191 doi:10.1186/1472-6882-12-191.
[2] Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011.
[3] Bradford, T. L. The Logic of Figures or Comparative Results of Homoeopathic and Other Treatments. Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1900.
[4] Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. "Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non-zero Asymptotes: A Nanoparticulate Hypothesis Based on Froth Flotation." Langmuir. 2012 Nov 13;28(45):15864-75. doi: 10.1021/la303477s. Epub 2012 Nov 1.
[5] Coulter, H. L. Divided Legacy: A History of the Schism in Medical Thought. Volume I: The Patterns Emerge-Hippocrates to Paracelsus. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 1973.
[6] Dearborn, F. M. American Homoeopathy in the World War. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Homeopathy, 1923.
[7] Eskinazi, D., "Homeopathy Re-revisited: Is Homeopathy Compatible with Biomedical Observations?" Archives in Internal Medicine, 159, Sept 27, 1999:1981-7.
[8] Haller, J. S. The History of American Homeopathy: The Academic Years, 1820-1935. New York: Pharmaceutical Products, 2005. p. 192
[9] Hill, B. L., and Hunt, J. G. Homoeopathic Practice of Surgery and Operative Surgery. Cleveland: J. B. Cobb, 1855.
[10] Hughes, T. A Boy's Experience in the Civil War, 1860-1865, 1904.
[11] Karst, F. "Homeopathy in Illinois," Caduceus, Summer 1988, pp. 1-33.
[13] "Other Days," Homeopathic Recorder, 1887, p. 6.
[14] Niven, John. Salmon P. Chase: A Biography in Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.p. 126.
[15] Spiegel, A. D., and Kavaler, F. "The Role of Abraham Lincoln in Securing a Charter for a Homeopathic Medical College," Journal of Community Health, 2002, 27(5):357-380.
[16] Starr, Paul. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic, 1982.
[17] Twain, M. "A Majestic Literary Fossil," Harper's Magazine, February 1890, 80(477):439-444.
[18] Ullman, Dana. The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2007.
[19] Rafuse, Ethan S. "Typhoid and Tumult: Lincoln's Response to General McClellan's Bout with Typhoid Fever during the Winter of 1861-62." Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Vol. 18 Issue 2, Summer 1997.
[20] Wershub, Leonard Paul. One Hundred Years of Medical Progress: A History of the New York Medical College Flower and Fifth Avenue Hospitals. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1967. p 175
Special thanks to Jeanine and Guy Saperstein for their ongoing support for my educational advocacy work for homeopathy.
Footnotes:
(1) Other members of the homeopathic hospital's board of trustees included Morrison R. Waite, Chief Justice (from 1874-1888), and Hon. Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary of State (under Grover Cleveland) and Ambassador to England.
(2) McClellan's father was a prominent surgeon, author, and educator, and his uncle and older brother were highly respected members of the regular medical profession. McClellan's use of homeopathic treatments can be attributed to his wife, Ellen Marcy McClellan. One doctor who treated the general was Ellen's uncle, Erastus E. Marcy, the founder and editor of the North American Homeopathic Journal, who was a leading advocate during the 1840s and 1850s.
(3) The story of Hughes, however, is very interesting because he practiced in Richmond, Virginia, where many leading Union officers became his patients, including General Peter Michie, the federal quartermaster general in charge of all supplies for the Union army. Another homeopathic doctor who served soldiers of the Confederacy was Samuel Hunt, MD, of Georgia.
For more on natural health, click here.]]>Homeopathy Vindicated as Cost-Effective by Swiss Governmenttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13405062012-03-23T08:41:28-04:002012-05-23T05:12:01-04:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/ My previous article highlighted a remarkable report on homeopathic medicine conducted by and for the government of Switzerland. This previous article described the significant body of evidence from multiple sources that verify the efficacy of homeopathic medicines, while this new article focuses on another body of evidence reviewed for the Swiss government that investigated the cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatment.
In this day and age of economically-challenging times for both individuals and governments, this report from the Swiss government has confirmed the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatment. The fact that homeopathy is also widely recognized as one of the safest methods of medicine is but one additional special benefit for this natural medicine.
Ultimately, the Swiss government's report was the most comprehensive review to date of any governmental body on the scientific evidence on homeopathic medicine. The Swiss' "Health Technology Assessment" was a thorough analysis of a wide variety of clinical studies and laboratory research.(1) The report also reviewed the body of evidence on cost-effectiveness research for homeopathic care, and it even conducted its own cost-effectiveness study among Swiss physicians and patients.
Drawing cost data of participating physicians from Swiss health insurers, this review included all expenditures covered from consultation costs (diagnostic and therapeutic procedures), costs for medication (directly dispensed or prescriptions), costs for external laboratory analyses, and costs for physiotherapy.
The Swiss report found that total practice costs for physicians who specialized in homeopathic medicine had an overall 15.4 percent reduction in overall health care costs associated with their practice, as compared with physicians who practiced conventional medicine as well as those physicians who practice other "complementary and alternative medicine" treatments (but not homeopathic medicine). (2) The significant reduction in health care costs from homeopathic treatment represents a potential savings in hundreds of millions of dollars or more in many countries.
The authors of the Swiss report noted patients seeking homeopathic and alternative health care treatment tended to have more chronic illness (greater than three months) and more serious illness, factors that would usually lead to higher health care costs, but it was also discovered that the homeopathic patients tended to be younger, which would usually lead to lower health care costs.
This significant 15 percent saving from homeopathic care confirmed from an independent Dutch study that analyzed claims from a major health insurer which also found a 15 percent reduction in health care costs associated with alternative medical care by physicians who were trained in homeopathic medicine, acupuncture, or anthrosophical medicine (Kooreman, Baars, 2011). The health economists who conducted this research concluded that the lower costs resulted from fewer hospital stays and fewer expensive prescription drugs. It is of further importance to note that the authors also found that patients who go to physicians who practice complementary and alternative medicine live longer lives too.
The Swiss government's report on homeopathy also referenced numerous studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of homeopathic vs. conventional medical care for people suffering from specific health problems, including female fertility, rheumatoid arthritis, otitis media, respiratory allergies, and dyspepsia. Of special significance was the truly substantial difference between the costs of homeopathic treatment of women experiencing fertility problems as compared with women seeking conventional medical care. A study of children with upper respiratory tract infections found that children who received homeopathic treatment had fewer recurrences and lower antibiotic consumption than children using conventional treatment. Further, an economic assessment of 569 patients with rheumatic disorders found that 29 percent could stop taking their conventional medications, 33 percent could reduce their dependence on drugs, and only 6 percent chose to increase their medication once homeopathic treatment began.
A report from the German government was also cited in this Swiss study because it compared hospitalization rates of female patients who sought care from conventional physicians as compared with those females who from homeopathic physicians. This study found that female patients were six times more hospitalizations from conventional physicians as from homeopathic physicians.
In addition to reduced health care costs from homeopathic treatment, the report also noted reductions in various indirect costs, including some studies showing reduced days off from sickness in those patients under homeopathic care.
The Swiss report further discovered that patients reported better quality of the patient-physician relationship and fewer adverse side effects with physicians who practiced CAM, thus, leading the report to conclude higher cost-effectiveness for this type of medical practices.
The "appropriateness" of homeopathy as a health care option was also evaluated in the Swiss report, which the authors have divided into two sections: demand/use and safety. Based on the high demand of the Swiss population for homeopathy and the high levels of safety that is widely known about homeopathy, the Swiss report asserts that there is substantial appropriateness for homeopathy for the Swiss public. Surveys estimate that 57 percent of the Swiss population uses complementary and alternative medicine, and about 40 percent of all medical practitioners in Switzerland prescribed alternative and complementary medicine treatments and 62.5 percent were "in favor of CAM" (Rist and Schwabl, 2009).
The Swiss government also funded a study of more than 3,000 people that compared "patient satisfaction" from those who sought care from a homeopathic physician vs. those who sought care from a conventional medical doctor (Marian, Joost, Saini, et al, 2008). Patients of homeopathic physicians were significantly more often "completely satisfied" (53 percent vs. 43 percent) with their treatment than patients of conventional doctors, without significant differences in the fulfillment of their treatment related expectations. This study also discovered that patients who sought treatment from a conventional doctor had almost four times as many serious side effects as those who sought homeopathic treatment.
Besides finding reducing costs to homeopathic treatment, the Swiss report referenced a significant number of randomized double-blind clinical studies showing efficacy of treatment from homeopathic care. Of greater significance, they found that 20 of 22 systematic reviews (meta-analyses) detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy, with at least five reviews yielding results indicating clear evidence for homeopathic therapy. Although the Swiss report is not available online, interested readers with an interest in research published in peer-review medical journals will benefit from reading the numerous articles that I have published at this website in the past.
The Swiss report acknowledged that some clinical studies do not show positive results for homeopathy, though the authors of this governmental report note that most of these studies were conducted in a way that ignored some important principles of homeopathy, setting themselves up for a negative outcome and thereby creating a false-negative result. Skeptics of homeopathy commonly refer to a select group of seemingly high-quality studies that show that homeopathic medicines did not work, but these skeptics ignore the fact that many of these studies did not use the correct medicine for the condition. For instance, one study used a homeopathic dose of a medicine for weight-loss when it is well-known that there is no one remedy that will work for everyone who wishes to lose weight.
The bottom line is that large numbers of the Swiss population use homeopathic medicines and select other natural therapies. After a nationwide referendum in May 2009 that found a two-thirds majority (!) favoring the integration of CAM into the Swiss health system, the Swiss Minister of Health approved reimbursement by the government's health program for five leading natural therapies, including anthroposophic medicine, homeopathy, neural therapy, phytotherapy/herbal medicine, and traditional Chinese medicine, for a test period until 2018.
The Swiss report noted that one of the first health economic studies to compare homeopathic and conventional medical treatment was conducted in 1900 (Bradford, 1900). This book, simply entitled The Logic of Figures, compared the morbidity (disease) and mortality (death) rates in homeopathic vs. conventional medical hospitals, as well as these rates in mental institutions and penitentiaries in which either homeopathic OR conventional medical services were provided. Much to the surprise of conventional medicine, the death rates were typically two to eight times higher in those patients who received conventional medical care as compared with those who received homeopathic treatment (literally hundreds of hospitals' records were compared). Of special interest were the impressive results that patients received from homeopathic medicines in the treatment of the many feared infectious diseases, including cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, scarlet fever, pneumonia, and influenza.
In addition to the above research conducted for the Swiss government, other researchers in North America have found efficacy and cost-effectiveness of various "integrative health practices" (Guarneri, Horrigan, Pechura 2010). Data supporting the efficacy and cost effectiveness of an integrative approach to healthcare comes from three sources: medical research conducted at universities, studies carried out by corporations developing employee wellness programs, and pilot projects run by insurance companies.
The most famous words from Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, were "First, do no harm." In the light of the fact that homeopathic and various integrative health practices being so much safer than conventional medical strategies, it may be time for governments and insurers to follow the lead of the government and people of Switzerland.
FOOTNOTES:
(1) Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003.
(2) The researchers of this cost-effectiveness study provided statistical adjustment for seven cofactors that would lead one treatment to have an economic advantage over the others, such as when a population of patients is younger or older than another groups.
Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077
Guarneri, Erminia (Mimi); Horrigan Bonnie J; Pechura Constance M. The Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of Integrative Medicine: A Review of the Medical and Corporate Literature. Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing - September 2010 (Vol. 6, Issue 5, Pages 308-312, DOI: 10.1016/j http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(10)00144-8/abstract; full article: http://www.bravewell.org/content/IM_E_CE_Final.pdf
Marian F, Joost K, Saini KD, von Ammon K, Thurneysen A, Busato A. Patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care: an observational study comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008 Sep 18;8:52. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/52
Rist L, Schwabl H: Komplementärmedizin im politischen Prozess. Schweizer Bevölkerungstimmt über Verfassungsartikel «Zukunft mit Komplementärmedizin» ab. Forsch Komplementmed 2009, doi 10.1159/000203073. (Translation: Complementary medicine in the political process: The Swiss population votes on the Constitutional Articlehttp://www.ayurveda-association.eu/files/swiss_referendum_on_cam_-_forschkomplementmed_2009.pdf
Become a Facebook Fan of Dana Ullman and Respect for Homeopathy]]>The Swiss Government's Remarkable Report on Homeopathic Medicinetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12586072012-02-15T08:56:57-05:002012-04-16T05:12:01-04:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/ In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland's national health insurance program.
The Swiss government's inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country's health insurance program.
It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.
Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government's health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland's national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government's constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).
The Swiss Government's "Health Technology Assessment"
The Swiss government's "Health Technology Assessment" on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the "real world effectiveness" as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).
And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called "internal validity") and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called "external validity"). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not "work," the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy... or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).
After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhöft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006)
The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.
The authors of the Swiss government's report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only nine "high quality" conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Lüdtke, Rutten, 2008).
The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in "evidence based medicine," has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were "unscientific" or "unproven" because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.
In my view, for a treatment to be determined to be "effective" or "scientifically proven," a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn't is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government's report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.
The next article will discuss further evidence provided in this report from the Swiss government on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic care.
---
REFERENCES:
Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011. http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2/page/1 (This book is presently available from the German office of the publisher, and it will become available via the American office as well as select booksellers in mid- to late-February, 2012.)(NOTE: When specific facts in the above article are provided but not referenced, this means that these facts were derived from this book.)
Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077
Dacey, Jessica. Therapy supporters roll up sleeves after vote. SwissInfo.ch, May 19, 2009. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Therapy_supporters_roll_up_sleeves_after_vote.html?cid=670064
Linde K, Jonas W. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Lancet 36:2081-2082. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67878-6. http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673605678786.pdf
Lüdtke 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. http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(08)00190-X/abstract
Rist L, Schwabl H: Komplementärmedizin im politischen Prozess. Schweizer Bevölkerungstimmt über Verfassungsartikel «Zukunft mit Komplementärmedizin» ab. Forsch Komplementmed 2009, doi 10.1159/000203073.
(Translation: Complementary medicine in the political process: The Swiss population votes on the Constitutional Article "The future with complementary medicine"
http://www.ayurveda-association.eu/files/swiss_referendum_on_cam_-_forschkomplementmed_2009.pdf
*Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003.
For more on natural health, click here. ]]>Disinformation on Homeopathy: Two Leading Sourcestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9696272011-10-03T11:43:23-04:002011-12-03T05:12:02-05:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/ my previous article provided some detail about this effort. It is next important to give specific examples of two leaders behind this disinformation.
Two of the leading antagonists to homeopathy are James Randi (U.S.) and Tracey Brown (UK). This short article is not meant to be exhaustive on the disinformation campaign against homeopathy, but providing profiles of these leading antagonists to homeopathy will hopefully shed light on the nature of their information and how trustworthy they may or may not be.
Please know that this review and critique of Mr. Randi and Ms. Brown is not an ad hominem attack on these two individuals. I have a great amount of respect for Mr. Randi as an entertainer and magician, and Ms. Brown is a highly-competent public relations professional. They may also be quite lovely people too, but whether they are nice or lovely or entertaining or competent is not the point of this article. Instead, this article reviews their actions, their priorities and the organizations that they have represented, all of which are reasonable and appropriate areas for critique and are not personal attacks on who they are.
James Randi, Magician Extraordinaire and Master of Deception
James Randi is a first-class magician who appeared many times on the "Tonight Show" with Johnny Carson and who, more recently, has become famous for supposed "debunking" of various paranormal phenomena and "pseudoscience." However, one must remember that in order to become an accomplished magician, James Randi became an expert in having people look at one hand while he was creating "magic" (or clever deception) with the other.
Randi receives a lot of press because of his $1 million "challenge" to anyone who claims to provide hard evidence for homeopathic medicine or other "paranormal" phenomena. Although few serious researchers have taken Randi and his "prize" seriously, I participated in an experiment with which Randi was connected in 2003, and this experience taught me much about him. I should first say that I had no expressed desire to win his prize, and even if this experiment had a positive result, I would not have received any monetary award.
Mark Golden, a producer for John Stossel and ABC's "20/20" program, asked me to participate in a merging of "reality television" and "science." He asked if there was a laboratory experiment that could be conducted to prove that homeopathic medicines had biological activity (or not) ... and to add a little more TV drama to it, Golden told me a successful result could lead to winning $1 million to a homeopathic organization from James Randi. I told him there were several such experiments, but one study was particularly noteworthy because it was conducted by Professor Madeleine Ennis, a former skeptic of homeopathy who was a professor of biochemistry at Queens College in Belfast, Ireland. Further, I told this producer that three other universities had replicated her experiment (Belon, Cumps, Ennis, 1999; Belon, Cumps, Ennis, 2004).
I agreed to participate in the experiment if Professor Ennis conducted the study or served as a consultant to the study to assure that it was correctly conducted. The producer agreed. I was therefore flown to New York to be interviewed, and a month later the study was to be conducted. Professor Ennis is a highly-respected researcher, and she told the producer and me that she had no interest in conducting a "TV science experiment," but she would review the protocol of the researcher they chose to use.
When Professor Ennis was ultimately sent the protocol, she was shocked at what she received. This protocol was not her experiment (Ennis, 2004). In fact, it was clearly a study that was a set-up to disprove homeopathy. Ennis noted that certain chemicals used in the experiment were known to kill the specific types of cells that the experiment would be counting. Further, she listed egregious problems with this study (Ennis, 2004) and asserted that the "researcher" who created this new study had seemingly never previously conducted and published a study in his life. Actually, the researcher who created this study and who was to conduct it was a lab technician without a graduate degree and without any previous publication history.
Professor Ennis and I also learned that this same researcher had conducted the same faulty experiment for the BBC, which sought to discredit homeopathy (BBC, 2002). The narrator of this BBC program explicitly asserted that this TV experiment was a "replication" of Professor Ennis' previous study, though this assertion was sheer fabrication.
I then contacted "20/20's" producer, Mark Golden, to alert him of this problem, and he simply told me that he promised to "consult" with Professor Ennis, but he was not obligated to do what she (or I) wanted. Although I had assumed that working with a producer at "20/20" would assure high ethical and journalistic standards, I began to wonder if my assumptions were correct. As it turned out, I also neglected to realize the impact of working with a team connected to John Stossel, a reporter who was previously caught fabricating a "study" on organic foods that incorrectly asserted that there was no difference between organic and conventional foods (Dowie, 2001).
In Stossel's commentary on homeopathy, he had the audacity to assert that the "university scientists who reviewed the test protocols and said they were 'technically sound' and 'meticulously conducted.'" (Stossel, 2003) Although Stossel acknowledged on air that I objected to the study before it was started, he neglected to mention that the expert who his producer agreed to consult with this study had equally strenuous concerns.
It is more than a tad ironic that John Stossel frequently used and even popularized the term "junk science" on "20/20," and I began to wonder if he was engaging in it himself.
Prior to actually conducting this research, the researcher wrote me saying, "Without agreement by all participants on the manner of how things were done, the outcome of the experimentation is indeed virtually meaningless." And yet, he and the "20/20" team continued to conduct this junk science experiment with an outcome that indeed was meaningless.
It is further confusing that the "Amazing" James Randi or any of his many followers never commented about the quality of this study, even though they are known to ridicule virtually any and every study that has had a positive result from a homeopathic medicine. It certainly makes sense for a magician to want to expose frauds and charlatans. And yet, if Randi was truly serious about exposing frauds and charlatans, it is quite curious that he has chosen to go after alternative medicine rather than Big Pharma and Big Medicine when there are many more egregious frauds that occur regularly and with much greater impact on society.
It is inappropriate to say that Randi (or anyone) should not expose any type of fraud, but it is reasonable to ask: Is there a "method" to deciding to focus on one rather than the other? Even though Randi prides himself on uncovering frauds and hoaxes, he seems to turn a blind eye when he himself may be involved in what could be deemed a fraud or hoax.
As for Randi's $1 million "prize," one can and should look at the rules for this award that specifically give the James Randi Educational Fund (JREF) a clever way to avoid paying anything. Rule No. 4 asserts, "At any time prior to the Formal Test, the JREF reserves the right to re-negotiate the protocol if issues are discovered that would prevent a fair and unbiased test" (Randi Prize, 2011). As it turns out, a more recent effort to test homeopathy with a protocol agreed upon by Randi and famous Greek homeopath George Vithoulkas was delayed so long by Randi that it led to the impossibility to the trial (Vithoulkas.com). In Randi's defense, he does not wish to comment on the past or what he said or agreed to previously (Randi.org 2008).
James Randi is not just a homeopathic and alternative medicine skeptic, he is also a climate change denier (Randi.org). A large number of his followers have had a seriously difficult time accepting his stance, and yet these followers defend him by asserting that he is not really a "scientist" and cannot be expected to understand these complex issues (Myers, 2009). These followers argue that Randi is competent enough to declare with certainty that many homeopathic and alternative treatments are "bunk," and yet, like cult members, his followers ignore the fact that he is neither a scientist nor a physician and cannot be expected to understand the complex issues of the healing process.
If James Randi had serious concerns about fraud and deception in medicine and science, one would think that he would not be silent on the rampant chicanery considerable fraud regularly committed by conventional medical and "scientific" researchers and by Big Pharma companies. However, Randi is a great magician, and he is clearly a recognized expert at misdirection.
The advantage of Randi's climate change position is that he stands with and by Big Oil and Big Corp. To quote the church lady, "How convenient."
It is, however, more than a tad ironic that James Randi himself seems to have become a victim (or an accomplice) to a deception in his personal life. Randi's long-time companion, Jose Luis Alvarez, was arrested in early Sept. 2011 for identity thief (Franceschina and Burstein, 2011). This news story carries the additional irony that a master of fraud detection has himself been deceived (my personal condolences and my recognition that any person can be deceived). However, in this case, the man posing as Jose Luis Alvarez had, with Randi's help and advocacy, once pretended to be a "medium" in Australia as a media stunt and test of the "new age" community there. Randi and "Alvarez" got significant media coverage for this hoax.
The old adage that people teach what they themselves need to learn seems to have special meaning here.
Tracey Brown: Science Educator or Big Pharma PR Agent?
Most people probably have not heard of Tracey Brown, the director of Sense About Science (also known as SAS), a British organization that has campaigned against homeopathic medicine and in favor of GMOs in foods.
Prior to Ms. Brown's involvement at Sense About Science, she was a senior analyst in the "Risk Analysis Unit" of the leading British public relations company, Regester Larkin, a company known to represent Big Pharma, Big Oil and Big Multinationals. However, Ms. Brown does not list her former employment at Regester Larkin at the SAS website. To her credit, however, she does not hide the fact that more than one-third of the money that SAS raised between 2004 and 2009 was derived from the pharmaceutical industry.
Ms. Brown's bio at the SAS website also does not mention her former connection to "Living Marxism," which began in 1988 as the journal of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), and later became the glossy LM Magazine. The demise of LM was linked to its denial of one of the atrocities for which Bosnian Serb military leader Ratko Mladic is currently awaiting trial at the International Criminal Court. In the mid-1990s the respected British TV news organization ITN scored a major scoop when it filmed a secret concentration camp operated by Mladic's forces. LM claimed that this footage was fabricated. Concerned about its reputation with the numerous news organizations to which it had sold the footage, ITN took LM to court, and won. The fine and costs imposed on LM led to its bankruptcy. A year or so later, this far left group reemerged as a libertarian organization with a strong anti-regulation and anti-environmental bent, and an aggressively pro-GM (genetic modification) stance (Goldsmith, 2010).
Although big corporate clients would stay far away from communist organizations, the anti-regulatory stances of libertarian organizations are a completely different matter. Ms. Brown's former and present Big Pharma and Big Corporate clients and funders probably loved it when she asserted, "that everything is made of chemicals, that synthetic chemicals are often much safer for human health than so-called 'natural' ones, and that unfounded anxiety about chemicals is encouraging people to buy into ideas and 'remedies' that make little scientific or medical sense" (Brown, 2006).
Indeed, as much as Ms. Brown and SAS want to reduce our fears about the new chemicals that various industries make that presently surround us, it appears they believe that we should increase our fears about using various natural medicines that do not fit their worldview. What is so remarkable about some skeptics of homeopathy is that they spin the well-known safety of homeopathic medicines into severe "risk" and "danger" if people choose to use them. Such skeptics (or "medical fundamentalists," as they more aptly should be deemed) commonly assert that anything that delays "real" medical treatment is dangerous, despite the fact that medical treatments today have known significant side effects. (Milgrom, 2008)
In 2010, SAS and a collaborating organization, the Merseyside Skeptics Society, gained significant media attention by promoting demonstrations that ridiculed homeopathy by asserting that "there is nothing in homeopathic medicine." Although the Merseyside Skeptics Society is also called "Skeptics at the Pub," one would think that the media would easily recognize the low level of discourse that would emerge from a group with this name, but not when professional public relations people are pulling some strings. The demonstrators each imbibed an entire bottle of a homeopathic medicine to "prove" that there is nothing in it and, strangely enough, to show that they could not commit suicide by ingesting it. It is a tad ironic that these demonstrators equated the ability to commit suicide with a drug as a way to prove that it provides therapeutic action! And these demonstrations were further shown to be "unclear on the concept" of homeopathy, because ingesting a whole bottle of a homeopathic medicine would not prove or disprove anything. At best, it may be akin to using a nail instead of a needle to attempt to disprove acupuncture (clearly, this is garbage in, garbage out thinking).
SAS also played a major role in the 2010 biased and antagonistic report on homeopathy by the British House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee. In fact, Tracey Brown was one of only six participants in the hearings for this report, even though she is not an expert on the subject nor has she seemingly ever published a single article on the subject in a peer review journal. A report from this committee was issued recommending that the National Health Service stop funding for homeopathy and homeopathic doctors. This report was only of an advisory nature, and because the Health Minister has already expressed his support for consumers' right to choose their own health care, including homeopathy, this report provided no meaningful effect on the access to homeopathic medicine in England.
Any rational person should be very suspicious of this "report." The Science and Technology Committee normally consists of 14 members of Parliament, and yet this report was only approved and signed by a "majority" of only three members, with one vote against the report (the vast majority of this committee did not take this investigation seriously). Of the three votes in favor, two members were so newly-appointed to this committee (to stack the deck?) that they did not attend any of the hearings. The remaining "yes" vote was from Evan Harris, a medical doctor and devout antagonist to homeopathy. Ironically, shortly after this vote, Harris was voted out of office from a general election by a 20-something-year-old candidate who had no previous political experience. This report was not exactly a vote of and for the people.
Tracey Brown is a public relations expert, and with significant funding from Big Pharma and its attendant foundations and trusts, she and Sense About Science have maintained a high profile in the media. Hopefully, people will understand on what side her bread is buttered.
Medical Fundamentalism: An Unscientific Attitude
Brian Josephson, Ph.D., won a Nobel Prize in 1973 and is presently professor emeritus at Cambridge University. Josephson asserts that many scientists today suffer from "pathological disbelief" -- that is, they maintain an unscientific attitude that is embodied by the statement "even if it were true I wouldn't believe it" (Josephson, 1997).
Josephson wryly responded to the chronic ignorance of homeopathy by its skeptics saying, "The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments."
In the new interview in Science (Dec. 24, 2010), Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, also expressed real concern about the unscientific atmosphere that presently exists on certain unconventional subjects such as homeopathy, "I am told that some people have reproduced Benveniste's results (showing effects from homeopathic doses), but they are afraid to publish it because of the intellectual terror from people who don't understand it."
Montagnier concluded the interview when asked if he is concerned that he is drifting into pseudoscience. He replied adamantly: "No, because it's not pseudoscience. It's not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study."
Luther Burbank, the botanist and agricultural scientist, perhaps said it best:
"I have never known a clergyman or a professor who could be more narrow, bigoted, and intolerant than some scientists, or pseudo-scientists ... Intolerance is a closed mind. Bigotry is an exaltation of authorities. Narrowness is ignorance unwilling to be taught. And one of the outstanding truths I have learned in my University (of Nature) is that the moment you reach a final conclusion on anything, set that conclusion up as a fact to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away, and refuse to listen to any new evidence, you have reached an intellectual dead-centre, and nothing will start the engine again short of a charge of dynamite ... Ossified knowledge is a dead-weight to the world, and it does not matter in what realm of man's intellectual activities it is found... Any obstinate clinging to outworn doctrines, whether of religion or politics or morality or of science, are equally damning and equally damnable." (Buhner, 2004, p. 21)
If the subject of this article intrigues you, British chemist and homeopath Lionel Milgrom has written an excellent and detailed analysis of the myths that medical fundamentalists spread on homeopathy (and specific individuals who are the worst offenders) (Milgrom, 2010).
Thomas Kuhn, the great physicist and philosopher of science and author of the seminal "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," asserted that "paradigm shifts" seem only outrageous or revolutionary to those people who have invested themselves in the old paradigm... but to all others, the paradigm shift is a natural evolutionary development to virtually everyone else. The deniers of homeopathy are simply "too invested" personally and professionally in the old medical and scientific paradigm, while the rest of us consider the maturation of medicine and science as long overdue.
It has been said that dinosaurs tend to yell and scream the loudest before their fall... and it seems that we are all witnessing evolution at work.
Belon M, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Sainte-Laudy J, Roberfroid M, Wiegant FAC. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial. Inflammation Research 1999; 48: s17-s18.
Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Ste-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activity. Inflammation Research 2004; 53:181-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15105967
Buhner, Stephen Harrod. The Secret Teachings of Plants: The Intelligence of the Heart in the Direct Perception of Nature. Rochester, VT: Bear & Company, 2004.
Dowie, Mark. Food Fight. The Nation. January 7, 2002. http://www.thenation.com/article/food-fight Dowie, Mark. A Teflon Correspondent. The Nation. January 7, 2002. http://www.thenation.com/article/teflon-correspondent
Josephson, B. D., Letter, New Scientist, November 1, 1997.
Lüdtke 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.
Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com . He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, "Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines." His most recent book is "The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy" (the foreword to this book was written by Dr. Peter Fisher, the Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.]]>The Disinformation Campaign Against Homeopathytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9529672011-09-14T11:14:06-04:002011-11-14T05:12:01-05:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/
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, M.D., 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, and this organization worked relentlessly to diminish the popularity and influence of this natural medicine.
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, D.C., 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 U.S. and one from the UK, who are presently leaders in the campaign against homeopathy).
The Myths Spread about Homeopathy
Like 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,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 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 as 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; Lüdtke 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 percent 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 fundamentalists 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 U.S. and another from the UK will be 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.
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).
(3) Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction by Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED), and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy.
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. http://www.homeopathy.org/files/HomeopathyandNanoparticle.pdf
Elia V, and Niccoli M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10415834/
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. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v27884306836g251/
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. http://www.similima.com/homeopathyresearch/thesis108.pdf
EU Commission report evaluating implementation of Homeopathy Directives 92/73 EEC and 92/74/EEC, 1997.
Lüdtke 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18834714
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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371564
Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589
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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14973976
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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16360778
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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=17544864&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google]]>Is it Unhealthy To Be Too Obsessed With Health?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8687982011-06-08T17:17:58-04:002011-08-08T05:12:01-04:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/"A halo only has to fall a couple of inches to become a noose."
Farmer's Almanac
If there were an organization called Healthaholics Anonymous, it would probably be immensely popular. A growing number of people are becoming more than concerned about their health; they are becoming obsessed with it. These people are not just interested in exploring specific health strategies -- they are "into" them. They are "into" macrobiotics, "into" massage or "into" yoga. Such people can become neurotic or needy kneaders and being "into" yogic postures can create special problems, because it may be difficult to get out of them.
There is a real difference between concern about health and obsession with it. Some people obsess about nutrition but oversimplify the subject and believe that there are only two types of food: those that cure almost everything and those that cause slow, painful death. Some people obsess over stress management strategies, but spend so much energy managing their lives that they neglect to live them. Some people obsess with vitamins, but turn useful supplements into potentially dangerous substances by taking huge doses of them. And some people obsess with meditation but end up sitting on all of their other needs.
The most common obsession in the health area is with food. Anyone who starts to research the various theories about nutrition ultimately discovers that almost any food is thought to be poison according one school of thought or another. Meat is poison to vegetarians, milk products are poisons to vegans, tomatoes and eggplant are poisons to macrobiotics, cooked foods are poisons to the raw foodists, and on and on.
Anyone can think of one reason or another that any food may not be good for you, but one can also consider ways that most food provides certain benefits. Meats may have too much fat, but they are also a densely packed with numerous nutrients. Eggs may have cholesterol in them, but they have lecithin in them that helps digest cholesterol and other fats more effectively. Cooked foods may lose certain nutrients, but such heating of food can make some of its nutrients more easily assimilated. Ice cream may have a lot of fat, but it can be an important "mental health food."
Perhaps most dangerous for people obsessed with nutrition is the amount of fear that they ingest with their meals. Fears of pesticides, hormones, fluoridation, chlorination, radiation and heavy metals are ingested with every meal. While the negative effects of these toxic ingredients are very real, one can only wonder if the state of fear experienced by some people is poisoning them more than the foods and drinks that they ingest.
Obsession with exercise is also common. Although this obsession may seem more beneficial than harmful, the dark side of exercise fanaticism is evident when exercise dominates a person's life. When you begin to live for the gym or your 50 miles a week, when your personal relationships begin to suffer because your exercise routine always comes first, when you exercise in spite of injury or start climbing the walls when you can't work out, you may wake up one morning to discover that the only thing left in your life is exercise. And this is seriously unhealthy. I believe that the purpose of good health and exercise is to enrich your life -- not for exercise to become your life.
Exercise addiction is particularly problematic when you become obsessed solely with workouts and neglect other valuable ways to build and maintain health. The athlete who eats junk food and the bodybuilder who can't relax are two stereotypical examples of this obsession. Although there are certainly worse addictions than exercise, any action that limits a person's freedom diminishes his or her health.
One way to detect if you are obsessed with health is if you are passionate about a single health discipline -- be it nutrition, exercise, homeopathy, herbs or yoga -- but ignore other health strategies. Health is feeling whole; it is a balance of the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual aspects of our being.
It is certainly healthy to be concerned about your health, but obsessions and addictions fragment the wholeness of health and ultimately disrupt the quality of your life. As members of Healthaholics Anonymous might some day say, "May God grant me the serenity to accept the health conditions I cannot change, the courage to heal myself of the ones I can and the wisdom to know the difference."
Dana Ullman, M.P.H., is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com . He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (the Foreword to this book was written by Dr. Peter Fisher, the Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.
]]>Homeopathic Alternatives for Children with ADHDtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8624922011-05-19T06:21:00-04:002011-07-19T05:12:01-04:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/The Washington Post reported on a large, multi-center, federally funded study that "confirmed there were zero long-term differences between children who were continuously medicated and those who were never medicated" (Vedantam, 2009).
Hyperactivity and its related syndromes (attention deficit disorder, or ADD; and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD) have become America's number-one childhood psychiatric ailment. One of the common drugs to treat children with ADD and ADHD has been Ritalin, and its used has become so common that some people are calling it "vitamin R."
It is initially surprising and confusing to learn that Ritalin is an amphetamine-like drug. One would think that this type of drug would make hyperactive children even more hyperactive. However, when Ritalin is prescribed to children who are already hyperactive, it tends to slow them down. Ironically, the use of a drug that causes symptoms similar to those of the patient is actually the basic principle of homeopathic medicine (treating "likes with like").
Ritalin and a select number of conventional drugs (including digitalis, nitroglycerin, colchicine, allergy shots and vaccination) are all known to cause the various symptoms that they are known to treat. Despite this fact, none of these drugs is considered a true "homeopathic medicine" because homeopaths use much smaller and safer doses of their medicines; additionally, a homeopathic medicine is individualized to the patient and the unique syndrome of whatever disease the sick person experiences.
Although Ritalin and other psychiatric drugs given to children with ADD or ADHD may provide short-term benefits, research to date has found that these drugs do not provide long-term benefits. However, even scarier is the fact that even Newsweek noted, "There are no definitive long-studies to reassure parents that this stimulant isn't causing some hidden havoc to their child." And many people today believe these drugs do create havoc.
The most common side effects of ADD/ADHD medication are restlessness, anxiety, tremors, headaches, allergic reactions, dizziness, abdominal discomfort, heart arrhythmia, increased blood pressure and psychosis (including hallucination). Children who take these drugs are also known to experience a reduced appetite, and in part as a result of this, some children experience a dramatic reduction in height. When a drug can have such deleterious systematic effects as reducing a child's height, one has to acknowledge that such drugs can create other significantly serious impacts on the lives of the children who take them.
Clearly, it makes sense for parents and doctors to explore and even exhaust safer methods of treating ADD and ADHD before resorting to conventional drugs. Homeopathic medicines provide one viable alternative, and several double-blind studies published in medical journals have confirmed good results and much safer treatment. That said, it should be acknowledged that at present, there has been only a handful of studies testing homeopathic medicines, and not every study showed efficacy of treatment. However, because some studies have shown benefits of homeopathic care, and because these medicines are so safe, it is reasonable to consider homeopathic treatment before resorting to more risky therapeutic measures.
More research is certainly warranted. In the meantime, readers will benefit from knowing that there are different ways that homeopathic medicine is practiced, and although one style of prescribing these natural medicines may be shown to be effective in one or more studies, these results do not necessarily mean that all methods of using homeopathic medicines are similarly effective. Likewise, when a study shows no obvious benefits from one strategy to using these medicines, this does not necessarily disprove the entire system of homeopathy.
In other words, just because one antibiotic is not effective in treating an infection does not mean that another antibiotic won't be effective.
The challenge that homeopathy presents is that, like acupuncture, it is largely dependent upon the clinician and his or her knowledge of their system of healing, and his or her ability to find the individually chosen treatment for patients and their idiosyncratic ailment. Despite the complexity of providing individualized homeopathic treatment, children will more likely benefit in the long run when their parents explore safer therapeutic measures.
A Study Comparing Homeopathic Treatment and Ritalin
Numerous studies testing Ritalin have found it to be effective in the short term. The question then becomes: how does homeopathic treatment compare with it?
A study in Switzerland evaluated 115 children (92 boys, 23 girls) with an average age of 8.3 years at diagnosis of ADD/ADHD (Frei and Thurneysen, 2001). The children were first treated with an individually chosen homeopathic medicine. Children who did not improve sufficiently on homeopathy were changed to Ritalin and evaluated after 3 months. After an average treatment time of 3.5 months, 75 percent of the children responded favorably to homeopathy, attaining an improvement rating of 73 percent. Twenty-two percent of the children were treated with Ritalin and attained an improvement rating of 65 percent.
The children were evaluated according to the Conners Global Index (CGI), which is the most respected scale that measures the degree of hyperactivity and attention deficit symptoms. The children who responded to the homeopathic medicine experienced a 55-percent amelioration of the CGI, while the children who responded to Ritalin experienced a 48-percent amelioration of the CGI. Three children didn't respond to homeopathy or Ritalin, and one child left the study before completion. The researchers concluded that homeopathic treatment was comparable in its benefits to Ritalin -- and homeopathic medicines simply do not have the side effects that Ritalin has.
Because this study was not placebo-controlled, one does not know if the good results are from the homeopathic medicine or from the homeopathic interview (or a combination of them both). In any case, this study showed that 75 percent of the children with ADD/ADHD benefited from the "package of care" provided by homeopaths, a better result than the "package of care" provided by conventional pediatricians. Although skeptics of homeopathy insist that homeopathic medicines are placebos, these skeptics unwittingly suggest the metaphysical thesis that each homeopath is magically endowed with special healing powers, especially since most people who seek homeopathic treatment experience chronic problems for which long-term conventional medical treatment has not provided adequate resolution.
A Major Study Published in the European Journal of Pediatrics
Although the previous study was not double-blind or placebo-controlled, this next study was both -- and even more. It included a sophisticated research design that included a "crossover" effect -- that is, half of the patients begin with a placebo treatment, while the other half begin with a homeopathic treatment, and then, after 6 weeks, the groups each receive the other treatment. This sophisticated design therefore seeks to compare each child under homeopathic treatment with that same child under a placebo.
The famed European Journal of Pediatrics published an article that included two studies: a clinical observation study followed by a randomized, double-blind trial. These studies concluded that homeopathy has positive effects in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Frei, Everts, von Ammon, et al., 2005). A total of 83 children aged 6 to 16 years, with ADHD diagnosed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV criteria, were recruited.
Prior to the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study, the children were treated with individually prescribed homeopathic medications. The 62 patients, who achieved an improvement of at least 50 percent in the Conners' Global Index (CGI), participated in the trial. The responders were split into two groups and received either homeopathy for six weeks followed by placebo for six weeks (arm A), or vice-versa (arm B).
At the beginning of the trial and after each crossover period, parents reported the CGI and patients underwent neuropsychological testing. The CGI rating was evaluated again at the end of each crossover period and twice in long-term follow-up. At entry to the crossover trial, cognitive performance, such as visual global perception, impulsivity and divided attention, had improved significantly under open label treatment (p<0.0001). During the crossover trial, CGI parent-ratings were significantly lower (this means the child was "better") under homeopathic treatment (average 1.67 points) than under placebo (p=0.0479). Ultimately, the CGI and parent ratings showed a 37-percent and 63-percent improvement over the long-term observation period of 14 weeks (p<0.0001). The teachers also found an improvement in the homeopathic treated group vs. placebo in the CGI by 28 percent and in the teachers' rating scale by 37 percent.
An interesting feature of this study was that the homeopaths only met with each child once and carried out follow-up visits only with the child's parents. This strategy was to minimize the child's contact with the homeopath in order to minimize possible psychological support from the clinician.
A Double-Blind Study Using a New Unconventional Style of Homeopathy
It should be freely acknowledged that not all studies verify the efficacy of homeopathic medicines. Because the results of homeopathy are best evaluated when these medicines are individually selected to each patient, some clinicians are simply better and more accurate prescribers of these medicines.
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted with 43 children between 6 and 12 years of age who met the DSM-IV criteria for ADHD (Jacobs, Williams, Girard, et al., 2005). The 43 subjects were randomized to receive a homeopathic consultation and either an individualized homeopathic remedy or a placebo. Patients were seen by homeopathic physicians every six weeks for 18 weeks. In this pilot study, a new, unconventional style of homeopathy was practiced by the physicians, called the "Bombay method" (also known as the "Sensation method").
There were no statistically significant differences between homeopathic remedy and placebo groups on the primary or secondary outcome variables, including the Conner Global Index scale and various other scales. However, there were statistically and clinically significant improvements in both groups on many of the outcome measures.
This pilot study provided no evidence to support a therapeutic effect of individually selected homeopathic remedies in children with ADHD. The researchers concluded that a therapeutic effect of the overall homeopathic package of care (the homeopathic encounter and homeopathic medicine) was beneficial and warranted further evaluation.
A Double-Blind Study Comparing Homeopathy and Placebo
John Lamont, Ph.D., a psychologist in Southern California, conducted a trial of 43 children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Lamont, 1997). He randomly assigned half of the children to receive a placebo and the other half to homeopathic treatment. The researcher, the parents and the children did not know which child was given the homeopathic medicine or the placebo.
The evaluations of improvement were based on parent or caretaker ratings of ADHD behaviors. A simple 5-point scale was used: Much worse (-2); a little worse (-1); no change (0); a little better (+1); much better (+2). Parents or caretakers were contacted by telephone 10 days after the remedy or placebo was taken and again after two months.
To avoid any potential influence from the homeopath, he had no further contact with children except during the initial testing and case-taking interview. Even the medicine was not given directly to the patient by the homeopath but was sent via the mail.
All children in the experiment came from foster homes or from parents under the supervision of social workers. The average age was 10, and there was a mixture of races: 47 percent Hispanic, 35 percent Black and 18 percent Caucasian.
The children were only accepted into the trial if they fit the specific criteria for ADHD, as determined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV). Children who were on medication for ADHD could be accepted for the study but only if they had been on this medication for at least six weeks. The latter condition was determined because Dr. Lamont didn't consider it wise to admit children new to medication in the trial, as it then could not be ascertained whether improvement was the result of their conventional or homeopathic medicine.
Half the children were given an individualized homeopathic medicine, and half were given a placebo that resembled a homeopathic medicine for 10 days. After this, the half that was given a placebo received an individualized homeopathic medicine. Neither the children nor their parents were told that they might be given a placebo, because the researcher did not want to influence the parent or the child with the knowledge that the second round of medicines would be the "real" ones.
Only the 200C potency of an individualized homeopathic medicine was used, based on the homeopath's small pilot study of 15 patients in which a trend was observed that the 200C was more effective than 30C.
The mean improvement scores after 10 days were .35 for the placebo group and 1.00 for the homeopathically treated group (p=.05). The greatest improvements were noticed by the third day, while a smaller number showed improvement after 10 days.
Children who were initially given a placebo were given a homeopathic prescription after 10 days and then compared with their earlier score. The mean improvement scores were .35 for the placebo group and 1.13 after a homeopathic medicine was given (p=.02).
When parents reported that improvement from the treatment was not obvious, the homeopath prescribed a second or a third remedy. When comparing the results after these remedies, improvement from the homeopathic group was 1.63 and from the placebo group was .35 (p=.01).
Besides the improvement 10 days after the homeopathic medicine, follow-up interviews observed that the majority of children treated homeopathically experienced sustained and increased improvement in their condition. In total, after two months, 57 percent of children experienced continued improvement; 24 percent showed improvement for several days or weeks following homeopathic treatment, but relapsed by the two-month interview; and 19 percent said that they only observed improvement while taking homeopathic treatment (one could guess that this improvement was primarily from the placebo effect).
A second homeopathic remedy was given to 18 of 43 subjects, and seven required a third remedy. Phone calls were made 10 days after each remedy, and if it seemed that the remedy was not working, a different medicine would be prescribed.
Only three children were dropped from the trial, and this was the result of changes in dosage of anti-ADHD prescription after homeopathic treatment.
In summary, this study showed that the effects of the homeopathic medicine were relatively rapid (usually within three days) and a two-month follow-up found that 57 percent of the children experienced sustained and increased improvement.
The Cochrane Collaboration Review
The Cochrane Collaboration is an internationally respected group of researchers who evaluate research. In their review of homeopathic treatment of children with ADD/ADHD, they concluded, "There is currently little evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy for the treatment of ADHD" (Coulter and Dean, 2007). It is important to note that they stated that there was "little evidence," not "no evidence," that homeopathic medicines have been shown to be effective in the treatment of children with ADD/ADHD.
Further, it should be noted that the Cochrane Collaboration maintains a very high standard for their definition of "efficacy," and they commonly note that there is "little" or "no" evidence for various commonly used conventional medical treatments, despite the billions and billions of dollars spent on them by individuals, insurance companies and governments.
The additional challenge to homeopathy and to homeopathic research is that various studies testing this system of medicine are often substantially different from each other, making it more difficult to evaluate them together. Because of this, the Cochrane researchers recommended "more targeted research to test different treatment protocols."
Because virtually no money is granted to homeopathic research by governments, and because the "homeopathic industry" is so small in comparison to Big Pharma, there is considerably less research conducted with homeopathic medicines.
Still, the Cochrane Collaboration's review of homeopathic research on children with ADD/ADHD rightly acknowledged the high-quality research in some of the above studies (Frei, et al., 2005; Jacobs, et al., 2006), and they acknowledged that various studies in homeopathy utilize different styles of homeopathic treatment.
Ultimately, both physicians and parents need to be reminded of Hippocrates' most famous dictum: "First, do not harm." Although Hippocrates directed this wisdom to physicians, it is certainly good advice for parents, too.
The Link Between Pesticides and ADHD
An article on this subject would be remiss if it also did not mention and reference some extremely new and important research that has suggested a strong connection between pesticide exposure in children and ADD/ADHD (Bouchard, Bellinger, Wright, et al., 2010). Published in the famed journal Pediatrics, this group of Harvard researchers and others showed that organophosphate exposure, at levels common among U.S. children, may contribute to ADHD prevalence.
More specifically, using cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2000-2004) that were available for 1139 children who were representative of the general U.S. population, the researchers found 190 children who met the criteria for ADHD.
Six concentrations of urinary dialkyl phosphate (DAP) were measured to determine body burden. The researchers uncovered the fact that one or more metabolites were detected in roughly 94 percent of the children tested. A common chemical called dimethyl alkylphosphate (DMAP) was present in 64 percent of the children studied. The children with the highest concentrations, especially of DMAP, were twice as likely to have ADHD as those with undetectable levels.
Ultimately, a 10-fold increase in urinary concentrations of organophosphate metabolites was associated with a 55- to 72-percent increase in the odds of ADHD, which means that children with a higher concentration of these chemicals were 55- to 72-percent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD.
Organophosphate pesticides have been linked to neurodevelopmental issues in the past, including memory problems, concentration difficulties and hyperactivity. Researchers have conducted similar studies on children regularly exposed to pesticides, like those living on or near commercial farms. This study was a first of its kind in that it did not isolate its research on children with a known exposure.
This new research did not investigate anything to do with homeopathy. However, previous research in animals and humans who were exposed to environmental poisons has shown benefits from homeopathic medicines (Ullman, 2011).
Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman, ND, MSW, and Robert Ullman, ND, Ritalin Free Kids: Safe and Effective Homeopathic Medicine for ADD and Other Behavioral and Learning Problems, Edmonds, WA: Picnic Point Press, 1996 (Note: The authors of this book are no relation to the author of this article).
Dana Ullman, MPH. Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants., New York: Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam, 1992.]]>Homeopathy For Radiation Poisoningtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8426642011-04-03T09:50:08-04:002011-06-03T05:12:01-04:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/Introduction:
A homeopath by the name of Emil Grubbe, M.D. (1875-1960) was the first person to use radiation to treat a person with cancer (Dearborn, 2005).
In January 1896, Grubbe was a student at the Hahnemann Medical College (of Chicago, a famous homeopathic medical school). He gave radiation treatment to Mrs. Rose Lee, a woman with breast cancer.
Grubbe got the idea of using radiation as a treatment for Lee's breast cancer from Reuben Ludlam, M.D., a professor at the homeopathic medical school. Ludlam knew that Grubbe had previously experimented with X-ray as a diagnostic procedure so much that he developed blisters and tumors on his hand and neck as a result of overexposure to this new technology.
Because one of the basic premises of homeopathic medicine is that small doses of a treatment can help to heal those symptoms that large doses are known to cause, Ludlam suggested to Grubbe that radiation may be a treatment for conditions such as tumors because it also causes them.
This incident is but one more example from history in which an insight from a homeopathic perspective has provided an important breakthrough in medical treatment.
Even though Grubbe had to have one hand amputated early in life due to the high exposures received from his early experiences with radiation, he ultimately lived a long and full life of 85 years, in part due to the homeopathic treatment he received throughout his life. Grubbe also had a long and distinguished career as a professor of electro-therapeutics and radiography at Hahnemann Medical College, and he is thought to have become the first professor of Roentgenology in the world (Hodges, 1964).
True to his interests in conveying his discoveries to all doctors, Dr. Grubbe served as professor at four different Chicago medical schools, including homeopathic, eclectic, and allopathic medical schools.
Grubbe's contribution to medicine and science was further enhanced by the fact that he was the first to use lead as a protection against radiation exposure.
The point of this introduction is to confirm that homeopaths have a long history of using homeopathic medicines in the treatment of people who have been exposed to radiation ... including many people, such as Emil Grubbe who were exposed to significant amounts of radiation and lived long and fruitful lives.
In these opening remarks, I also want to urge us all to avoid spreading fear within ourselves and to others. Although it is good to be prepared for potential disasters, it is important to avoid exacerbating these emotions by overfeeding them.
With the media-promoted concerns about radiation drift from Japan and the real and exaggerated fears that many people are experiencing now, the first homeopathic medicine that people today may consider taking is Arsenicum album 30C. Arsenicum album is a leading homeopathic medicine for anxiety and fear, especially around health issues and about being poisoned. Taking a single dose whenever one notices these strong emotional states is reasonable, but consider repeated use if recommended to do so by a professional homeopath.
Conventional Thinking as a Reasonable First Step
The official line about the type and intensity of radiation exposure we face seems to change every day everywhere. People can and should consider this issue when evaluating and determining what they will do.
The American Center for Disease Control (CDC) ( recommends potassium iodide for helping prevent the absorption of radiation into the thyroid gland and provides good, practical information. Essentially, they recommend that people over 12 years of age take 130 mg of iodine in order to flood the thyroid, thereby disabling it from absorbing radioactive iodine. Such actions are certainly prudent if and when there is evidence of radioactive iodide, though to date, exposure to it has not been a public health concern. My discussion of what my family and I will be doing to protect and/or treat exposure to radioactivity is in addition to the CDC recommendations.
Please note, however, that potassium iodide seems to only protect against iodine-related radiation, not other types of radiation from cesium, strontium, nitrogen, and tritium. Further, the Japanese are working to reduce radiation emission by dousing the container with graphite and borax, both of which may change the nature of the emissions.
Scientific Evidence for the Homeopathic Treatment of Environmental Poisons
Before discussing the history of use of homeopathic medicines for exposure to radioactivity, it is first important to know that there is a significant body of research to show the benefits of homeopathic medicines in treating environmental exposures of toxic substances.
Back in 1994, a highly respected group of researchers reviewed 105 animal studies that evaluated the ability of homeopathic medicines to discharge heavy metals from the bodies of mice (Linde, Jonas, Melchart, et al, 1994). This review found that the best results were in the studies that were deemed to be scientifically rigorous. When evaluating only these higher quality studies, the researchers found a significant reduced death rate from exposure to toxic minerals (arsenic, mercury, cadmium, bismuth) when homeopathic doses of these substances were given to the animals (as compared with those given a placebo).
Since 1994, more than a dozen new studies have confirmed these results. A group of university researchers in India have conducted a body of laboratory trials testing the effects of heavy metals on mice which were given homeopathic doses of these toxic substances after exposure (Datta, Mallick, Khuda-Bukhsh, 2001; Mallick, Chakrabart, Khuda-Bukhsh, 2003; Banerjee P, Mallick, Chakrabarti, Guha, et al, 2003; Bhattacharya, 2003; Bhattacharyya SS, Pathak S, 2008; Human and Experimental Toxicology, 2010). * (*It is not appropriate to list all of the studies here, but people with an interest in this subject can review the references in these articles.)
At present, arsenic in groundwater has affected millions of people globally distributed over 20 countries. In parts of West Bengal (India) and Bangladesh alone, over 100 million people are at risk, and supply of arsenic-free water is grossly inadequate.
Attempts to remove groundwater arsenic by using orthodox medicines have mostly been unsuccessful. A potentized homeopathic remedy made from arsenic (Arsenicum album 30C) was administered in a double-blind, placebo-control study to a group of groundwater arsenic affected people, and the arsenic contents in urine and blood were periodically evaluated (Khuda-Bukhsh, AR, Pathak, S, Guha, 2005; Belon, Banerjee, Karmakar, et al, 2007). The activities of various toxicity marker enzymes and compounds in the blood, namely aspartate amino transferase, alanine amino transferase, acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, lipid peroxidation and reduced glutathione, were also periodically monitored up to three months. The results are highly encouraging and suggest that the drug can alleviate arsenic poisoning in humans.
Based on this research, it is reasonable to ask if homeopathic doses of radioactive elements and other substances with apparently similar effects are useful.
Experimental Evidence from Homeopathic Treatment of Radiation Exposure
There is not a significant body of studies evaluating the use of homeopathic medicines in the treatment of radiation exposure, but there are a couple of experiments about which people may benefit knowing. Hopefully, knowledge about these previous studies will encourage researchers to replicate them.
Homeopathic research has evaluated the effects of homeopathic medicines to protect against radiation (Khuda-Bukhsh, and Banik, 1991a, 1991b). Albino mice were exposed to 100 to 200 rad of X-rays (sublethal doses) and then evaluated after 24, 48, and 72 hours. Ginseng 6X, 30X, and 200X and Ruta graveolens 30X and 200X were administered before and after exposure. When compared with mice given a placebo as treatment, mice given any of the above homeopathic medicines experienced significantly less chromosomal or cellular damage. Ginseng 30X and 200X, in particular, had significant and sometimes substantial benefits.
In addition to the evidence for the benefits from homeopathic doses of ginseng is other research testing crude doses of it which find that it repairs DNA after radiation exposure (Kim, Lee, Cho, et al., 1996).
In another study, albino guinea pigs were exposed to small doses of X-ray that caused reddening of the skin. Studies showed that homeopathic honeybee (Apis mellifica 7C or 9C) had a protective effect and a roughly 50 percent curative effect on X-ray-induced redness of the skin (Bildet, Guyot, Bonini, et al., 1990). Apis mellifica is a homeopathic medicine for redness, swelling, and itching, all of which are common symptoms that crude doses of bee venom cause ... and thus, homeopathic doses will be found to be effective in treating these symptoms.
Derived from the homeopathic literature and clinical experience over the past many decades, some other potential homeopathic remedies for radiation exposure are listed below, though it is highly recommended to seek out professional homeopathic care to determine the best dose and potency schedule:
Radium bromatum
X-ray
Uranium nitricum
Strontium carbonicum
Calendula ointment
Cadmium sulphuratum
Cadmium iodatum
Ceanothus americanus
Several of the above medicines are derived from radioactive substances, while others have become known after many decades of clinical experience.
Cadmium sulphuratum, for instance, is a well-known homeopathic medicine used to treat people with cancer who experience side effects from radiation treatment.
Cadmium iodatum might be considered for those people exposed to radiation who did not protect the thyroid with crude doses of potassium iodide. Ceanothus is a leading remedy for spleen problems, and because the effects of radiation are known to affect the spleen, this remedy may be an important one for radioprotection. Calendula (marigold) is a well-known herbal and homeopathic medicine. Highly respected research has found excellent results in using Calendula ointment on people who experienced radiotherapy-induced dermatitis (skin rashes) (Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz, 2009).
It should be noted that homeopaths tend to think of themselves as a part of a health care team. As such, they work with other health and medical professionals as well as public health officials to provide options for people and communities so that safe and effective health care can be available.
Important Reference: People who want reference to and description of hundreds of clinical studies published in peer-review medical and scientific journals, could consider getting an ebook that I wrote titled "Homeopathic Family Medicine: Evidence Based Nano-pharmacology" .
My thanks to J. Satti, P.hD, a radiation physicist, and Francis Treuherz, FSHom. for their comments and editorial input to this article.
References:
Banerjee P, Bhattacharyya SS, Pathak S, Naoual B, Belon P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Comparative Efficacy of Two Microdoses of a Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsenicum Album, to Ameliorate Toxicity Induced by Repeated Sublethal Injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice. Pathobiology 2008;75:156-170. DOI: 10.1159/000124976.
Banerjee, P.; Biswas, S. J.; Belon, P.; Khuda-Bukhsh, A. R. A Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsenicum Album 200, Can Ameliorate Genotoxicity Induced by Repeated Injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice. Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A, Volume 54, Number 7, September 2007 , pp. 370-376(7). DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0442.2007.00945.x
Belon P, Banerjee A, Karmakar SR, Biswas SJ, Choudhury SC, Banerjee P, Das JK, Pathak S, Guha B, Paul S, Bhattacharjee N, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Homeopathic remedy for arsenic toxicity?: Evidence-based findings from a randomized placebo-controlled double blind human trial. Sci Total Environ. 2007 Jul 10.
Bhattacharya S. Homeopathy reduces arsenic poisoning in mice. New Scientist. October 22, 2003.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4305-homeopathy-reduces-arsenic-poisoning-in-mice.html
Bildet, J.,Guyot, M., Bonini, F., et al. (1990) "Demonstrating the Effects of Apis mellifica and Apium virus Dilutions on Erythema Induced by U.V. Radiation on Guinea Pigs," Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy, 1:28.
Datta, SS, Mallick, PP, Khuda-Bukhsh, AR, Comparative Efficacy of Two Microdoses of a Potentized Homoeopathic Drug, Cadmium Sulphoricum, in Reducing Genotoxic Effects Produced by Cadmium Chloride in Mice: A Time Course Study, BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2001;1:9.
Dearborn, F. Encyclopedia of 20th-Century Technology (2 vols.). New York: Routledge, 2005.
Hodges, P. C. The Life and Times of Emil H. Grubbe. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1964.
Human and Experimental Toxicology, July 2010 (this entire issue to devoted to "Hormesis and Homeopathy" -- hormesis is the study of low-dose effects: http://het.sagepub.com/content/vol29/issue7/
To access free copies of these articles, see: http://www.siomi.it/siomifile/siomi_pdf/BELLE_newsletter.pdf
Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, van Haselen R, Fisher P. Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004845. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004845.pub2.
Khuda-Bukhsh, A.R., Banik, S. (1991a) "Assessment of Cytogenetic Damage in X-irradiated Mice and its Alteration by Oral Adminis¬tration of Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Ginseng D200," Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy, 1,4/5:254.
Khuda-Bukhsh, A.R. Maity, S. (1991b) "Alteration of Cytogenetic Effects by Oral Administration of Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Ruta graveolens in Mice Exposed to Sub-lethal X-radiation," Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy, 1, 4/5:264.
Kim TH, Lee YS, Cho CK, et al. Protective effect of ginseng on radiation-induced DNA double strand breaks and repair in murine lymphocytes. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 1996 Aug;11(4):267-72.
Linde, K., Jonas, W.B., Melchart, D., et al. (1994) "Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Serial Agitated Dilutions in Experimental Toxicology," Human and Experimental Toxicology, 13:481-92.
Mallick, P, Chakrabarti (Mallick), J, Bibhas, G, Khuda-Bukhsh, AR. Ameliorating Effect of Microdoses of a Potentized Homeopathic Durg, Arsencium Album, on Arsenic-Induced Toxicity in Mice. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2003,3:7.
UPDATE (April 12, 2011): The original article posted here had 3 short paragraphs about Paul Curie, MD, a leading French homeopath, whose grandson, Pierre Curie, and Pierre's wife, Marie Curie, conducted fundamental research on radium and X-rays, leading Pierre and Marie to win the Nobel Prize. I had referenced a source that asserted that Paul Curie had experimented with small doses of radium, but I have seen discovered that this reference had mistaken Pierre's brother (Paul) with their grandfather. I have deleted the above erroneous 3 paragraphs.
]]>The King's Homeopath?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8274992011-02-27T12:25:21-05:002011-05-25T18:35:25-04:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/I believe what prevents men from accepting the homeopathic principles is ignorance, but ignorance is criminal when human lives are at stake. No honest man faced with the facts of homeopathy can refuse to accept it. He has no choice. When I had to face it, I had to become a follower. There was no choice if I were to continue to be an honest man. ... Truth always demands adherence and offers no alternative.
--Sir John Weir, physician to King George VI and to four generations of British monarchs
"The King's Speech" depicts the compelling story of King George VI and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue. Lionel Logue was neither a physician nor a conventional speech therapist, but his treatment strategies were impressively successful.
The British Royal Family has been known for being exceedingly conservative and embodying traditional ideals of family and public service, but they are also known to have special appreciation and even advocacy for certain unconventional treatments that really worked, whether conventional medicine accepted them or not. Such were their experiences with Mr. Logue's speech therapy and the respected and widely practiced, but often misunderstood science and art of homeopathic medicine.
King George VI was neither the first nor the last of the British royals to use and benefit from homeopathy. Queen Adelaide (1792-1849), wife of King William IV, first made public her special interest in this "new medicine" in 1835. Other British aristocrats shared the queen's interests, including the Marquess of Anglesey who crossed the British Channel to go to Paris for treatment by the founder of homeopathy, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843).
Queen Adelaide had been suffering from a serious malady that the court physicians couldn't cure. The queen called for the services of one of Hahnemann's oldest and most faithful colleagues, Dr. Johann Ernst Stapf (1788-1860), who cured her, creating the first of many supporters of homeopathy among British royalty.
Various kings and queens of Great Britain since Queen Adelaide have openly sought medical care from homeopathic physicians. Queen Victoria (1837-1901) was treated by Dr Frederick Quin, the personal physician/homeopath to Prince Leopold of the Belgians, who was the great uncle of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's much loved husband. A recent popular movie, "Young Victoria," chronicled their love affair.
Princess Mary, who later became Queen Mary (1865-1953), wife of King George V, headed the fundraising efforts to move and expand the London Homeopathic Hospital. King George V(1865-1936) was appreciative of homeopathy because it provided him with the practical benefit of treating his seasickness, a condition that he tended to experience because he was so fond of sailing.
King George V was known to have treated for this condition with Tabacum, a homeopathic dose of tobacco that was prescribed by his homeopathic doctor, Dr Sir John Weir (1879-1971).(1) Because smoking of tobacco is known to cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea, homeopathic doses of this medicine can help to relieve common symptoms experienced with seasickness.
During more recent times, a study published in a medical journal published by the American Medical Association found that Cocculus compositum (aka Vertigoheel, a mixture or formula of homeopathic medicines) was as effective as a conventional drug for dizziness...and was safer.(2) This study showed that homeopathic treatment showed a clinically relevant reduction in the mean frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo (dizziness) attacks.
Ironically, his son, who later became King George VI (1895-1952), had a completely different experience with tobacco. In contrast, he was chronically addicted to tobacco which led to his early death. Still, King George VI was appreciative enough of homeopathy that he named a prize racehorse Hypericum, after a notable homeopathic medicine for injury to nerves.
King George VI was an expert user of homeopathic medicine, and in 1948 he showed his profound appreciation for this system of medicine by granting royal title to the London Homeopathic Hospital. It was deemed the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital for many decades, until 2010, when its name was changed to become the Royal London Hospital for Integrative Medicine.
The wife of King George VI was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002), who bore two daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon become known as 'Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mother,' to differentiate her from her daughter today's Queen Elizabeth II (1926- )
The Queen Mother was particularly appreciative of the homeopathic medicine, Arnica. She asserted, "I think Arnica is the most marvelous medicine and every doctor, including those not trained in homeopathy, should use Arnica." She realized that some people are skeptical of homeopathy, but she knew that such skepticism was common in people who didn't understand homeopathy or had simply not used it. She commonly used Arnica on her dogs whenever they injured themselves and encouraged her friends to use it.
Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne in 1952 and has been a long-time patron to the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, which underwent a $35 million refurbishing in 2005. When Queen Elizabeth II visited the Hospital in 2000, she looked straight at the picture of Sir John Weir, who was his homeopathic physician, and said "he did a lot of good for my father." To keep up with the times, in 2010, this hospital changed its name to Royal London Hospital for Integrative Medicine.
The early growth of homeopathy in Britain in the mid-1800s became possible in large part through royal support and British aristocracy. The first British homeopath to British royalty, Dr. Frederick Quin, was a son of the Duchess of Devonshire (1765-1824), and thus himself an aristocrat. When Quin began his full-time homeopathic practice in London in 1832, he primarily treated members of his own noble class.
Today, the homeopath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Dr. Peter Fisher, who is also medical director of the Royal London Hospital for Integrative Medicine.
Other European Monarchs' Love for Homeopathy
Ultimately, Sir John Weir was not only the homeopathic physician to King George VI, he also provided homeopathic treatment for six other monarchs, including King Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor, George VI, Elizabeth II, King Gustav V of Sweden (1858-1950), and King Haakon VII of Norway (1872-1957).(3)
It is worthy of note that British royalty were not the only nobles to embrace and advocate for homeopathy. In the mid-19th century, a remarkable 77 homeopathic physicians served as the personal physicians to monarchs and their families.(4) More detail about these physicians and their treatment of various monarchs are readily available.(5)
Napoleon III and Empress Eugenie of France were known advocates of homeopathy, and in fact, Napoleon III bestowed the Knight's Cross of the Legion of Honor upon his family's homeopathic physician, Dr. A.J. Davet, as well as upon Dr. Alexandre Charge for his remarkable results using homeopathic medicines in treating patients with cholera and upon Dr. J. Mabit for his work as the head of a hospital in Bordeaux where he consistently found that homeopathic treatment was effective.
Numerous kings, queens, and dukes from Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Prussia were known advocates for homeopathy as were Czar Nicholas and Czar Alexander II of Russia. Despite the immense power that these monarchs had at that time, the resistance to homeopathy from conventional physicians was so strong that these monarchs were unable to overcome the economic power of the doctors and pharmacists of that era. One reporter noted that even the czars of Russia were unable to breakdown "the Chinese wall by which the medical hierarchy surrounds its domain".(6)
Still, these monarchs could exercise their free will with any health care, and they consistently chose homeopathic treatment, making homeopathy "the royal medicine."
References:
(1) Morrell P. Tobacco: Two Royal anecdotes. BMJ. 29 January 2001, 322:203. http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7280/203.2.extract/reply
(2) Weiser, M, Strosser, W, Klein, P, "Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study," Archives of Otolaryngology¬¬¬¬--Head and Neck Surgery, August, 1998,124:879-85. Although Tabacum is a leading medicine in homeopathy for vertigo/dizziness, this ingredient is not in this specific homeopathic formula medicine. The homeopathic medicine formula, Vertigoheel/Cocculus compositum, has been found to be effective for various ailments for which dizziness is a leading symptom.
(3) In 1939, King Haakon VII of Norway bestowed upon Sir John Weir the Knight Grand Cross of St. Olav, the highest honor granted by his country (Homoeopathy, 1939). Homoeopathy, Knight Grand Cross of St. Olav, March 1939, p. 96.
(4) Everest, Rev. T. R. A Popular View of Homeopathy. New York: William Radde, 1842.
(5) See the chapter "The Royal Medicine: Monarchs' Longtime Love for Homeopathy" in
Ullman D. The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2007.
(6) Historical and Statistical Report of the Rise, Progress, and Present Condition of Homeopathy in Russia, Transactions of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1876, vol. II.
]]>Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize Winner, Takes Homeopathy Seriouslytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8146192011-01-30T11:49:00-05:002011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/
In a remarkable interview published in Science magazine of December 24, 2010, (1) Professor Luc Montagnier, has expressed support for the often maligned and misunderstood medical specialty of homeopathic medicine. Although homeopathy has persisted for 200+ years throughout the world and has been the leading alternative treatment method used by physicians in Europe, (2) most conventional physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used.
Most clinical research conducted on homeopathic medicines that has been published in peer-review journals have shown positive clinical results,(3, 4) especially in the treatment of respiratory allergies (5, 6), influenza, (7) fibromyalgia, (8, 9) rheumatoid arthritis, (10) childhood diarrhea, (11) post-surgical abdominal surgery recovery, (12) attention deficit disorder, (13) and reduction in the side effects of conventional cancer treatments. (14) In addition to clinical trials, several hundred basic science studies have confirmed the biological activity of homeopathic medicines. One type of basic science trials, called in vitro studies, found 67 experiments (1/3 of them replications) and nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive. (15, 16)
In addition to the wide variety of basic science evidence and clinical research, further evidence for homeopathy resides in the fact that they gained widespread popularity in the U.S. and Europe during the 19th century due to the impressive results people experienced in the treatment of epidemics that raged during that time, including cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, scarlet fever, and influenza.
Montagnier, who is also founder and president of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention, asserted, "I can't say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules."
Here, Montagnier is making reference to his experimental research that confirms one of the controversial features of homeopathic medicine that uses doses of substances that undergo sequential dilution with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution. Although it is common for modern-day scientists to assume that none of the original molecules remain in solution, Montagnier's research (and other of many of his colleagues) has verified that electromagnetic signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic biological effects.
Montagnier has just taken a new position at Jiaotong University in Shanghai, China (this university is often referred to as "China's MIT"), where he will work in a new institute bearing his name. This work focuses on a new scientific movement at the crossroads of physics, biology, and medicine: the phenomenon of electromagnetic waves produced by DNA in water. He and his team will study both the theoretical basis and the possible applications in medicine.
Montagnier's new research is investigating the electromagnetic waves that he says emanate from the highly diluted DNA of various pathogens. Montagnier asserts, "What we have found is that DNA produces structural changes in water, which persist at very high dilutions, and which lead to resonant electromagnetic signals that we can measure. Not all DNA produces signals that we can detect with our device. The high-intensity signals come from bacterial and viral DNA."
Montagnier affirms that these new observations will lead to novel treatments for many common chronic diseases, including but not limited to autism, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis.
Montagnier first wrote about his findings in 2009, (17) and then, in mid-2010, he spoke at a prestigious meeting of fellow Nobelists where he expressed interest in homeopathy and the implications of this system of medicine. (18)
French retirement laws do not allow Montagnier, who is 78 years of age, to work at a public institute, thereby limiting access to research funding. Montagnier acknowledges that getting research funds from Big Pharma and certain other conventional research funding agencies is unlikely due to the atmosphere of antagonism to homeopathy and natural treatment options.
Support from Another Nobel Prize winner
Montagnier's new research evokes memories one of the most sensational stories in French science, often referred to as the 'Benveniste affair.' A highly respected immunologist Dr. Jacques Benveniste., who died in 2004, conducted a study which was replicated in three other university laboratories and that was published in Nature (19). Benveniste and other researchers used extremely diluted doses of substances that created an effect on a type of white blood cell called basophils.
Although Benveniste's work was supposedly debunked, (20) Montagnier considers Benveniste a "modern Galileo" who was far ahead of his day and time and who was attacked for investigating a medical and scientific subject that orthodoxy had mistakenly overlooked and even demonized.
In addition to Benveniste and Montagnier is the weighty opinion of Brian Josephson, Ph.D., who, like Montagnier, is a Nobel Prize-winning scientist.
Responding to an article on homeopathy in New Scientist, Josephson wrote:
Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy: criticisms centered around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water's structure.
Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.
A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste's colleague Yolène Thomas and by others to be well established experimentally, known as "memory of water." If valid, this would be of greater significance than homeopathy itself, and it attests to the limited vision of the modern scientific community that, far from hastening to test such claims, the only response has been to dismiss them out of hand. (21)
Following his comments Josephson, who is an emeritus professor of Cambridge University in England, was asked by New Scientist editors how he became an advocate of unconventional ideas. He responded:
I went to a conference where the French immunologist Jacques Benveniste was talking for the first time about his discovery that water has a 'memory' of compounds that were once dissolved in it -- which might explain how homeopathy works. His findings provoked irrationally strong reactions from scientists, and I was struck by how badly he was treated. (22)
Josephson went on to describe how many scientists today suffer from "pathological disbelief;" that is, they maintain an unscientific attitude that is embodied by the statement "even if it were true I wouldn't believe it."
Even more recently, Josephson wryly responded to the chronic ignorance of homeopathy by its skeptics saying, "The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments."
In the new interview in Science, Montagnier also expressed real concern about the unscientific atmosphere that presently exists on certain unconventional subjects such as homeopathy, "I am told that some people have reproduced Benveniste's results, but they are afraid to publish it because of the intellectual terror from people who don't understand it."
Montagnier concluded the interview when asked if he is concerned that he is drifting into pseudoscience, he replied adamantly: "No, because it's not pseudoscience. It's not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study."
The Misinformation That Skeptics Spread
It is remarkable enough that many skeptics of homeopathy actually say that there is "no research" that has shows that homeopathic medicines work. Such statements are clearly false, and yet, such assertions are common on the Internet and even in some peer-review articles. Just a little bit of searching can uncover many high quality studies that have been published in highly respected medical and scientific journals, including the Lancet, BMJ, Pediatrics, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Chest and many others. Although some of these same journals have also published research with negative results to homeopathy, there is simply much more research that shows a positive rather than negative effect.
Misstatements and misinformation on homeopathy are predictable because this system of medicine provides a viable and significant threat to economic interests in medicine, let alone to the very philosophy and worldview of biomedicine. It is therefore not surprising that the British Medical Association had the sheer audacity to refer to homeopathy as "witchcraft." It is quite predictable that when one goes on a witch hunt, one inevitable finds "witches," especially when there are certain benefits to demonizing a potential competitor (homeopathy plays a much larger and more competitive role in Europe than it does in the USA).
Skeptics of homeopathy also have long asserted that homeopathic medicines have "nothing" in them because they are diluted too much. However, new research conducted at the respected Indian Institutes of Technology has confirmed the presence of "nanoparticles" of the starting materials even at extremely high dilutions. Researchers have demonstrated by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions. (24) In the light of this research, it can now be asserted that anyone who says or suggests that there is "nothing" in homeopathic medicines is either simply uninformed or is not being honest.
Because the researchers received confirmation of the existence of nanoparticles at two different homeopathic high potencies (30C and 200C) and because they tested four different medicines (Zincum met./zinc; Aurum met. /gold; Stannum met./tin; and Cuprum met./copper), the researchers concluded that this study provides "concrete evidence."
Although skeptics of homeopathy may assume that homeopathic doses are still too small to have any biological action, such assumptions have also been proven wrong. The multi-disciplinary field of small dose effects is called "hormesis," and approximately 1,000 studies from a wide variety of scientific specialties have confirmed significant and sometimes substantial biological effects from extremely small doses of certain substances on certain biological systems.
A special issue of the peer-review journal, Human and Experimental Toxicology (July 2010), devoted itself to the interface between hormesis and homeopathy. (25) The articles in this issue verify the power of homeopathic doses of various substances.
In closing, it should be noted that skepticism of any subject is important to the evolution of science and medicine. However, as noted above by Nobelist Brian Josephson, many scientists have a "pathological disbelief" in certain subjects that ultimately create an unhealthy and unscientific attitude blocks real truth and real science. Skepticism is at its best when its advocates do not try to cut off research or close down conversation of a subject but instead explore possible new (or old) ways to understand and verify strange but compelling phenomena. We all have this challenge as we explore and evaluate the biological and clinical effects of homeopathic medicines.
REFERENCES:
(1) Enserink M, Newsmaker Interview: Luc Montagnier, French Nobelist Escapes "Intellectual Terror" to Pursue Radical Ideas in China. Science 24 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6012 p. 1732. DOI: 10.1126/science.330.6012.1732
(2) Ullman D. Homeopathic Medicine: Europe's #1 Alternative for Doctors. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/homeopathic-medicine-euro_b_402490.html
(3) Linde L, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843.
(4) Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.
(5) Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476.
(6) Ullman, D, Frass, M. A Review of Homeopathic Research in the Treatment of Respiratory Allergies. Alternative Medicine Review. 2010:15,1:48-58. http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/15/1/48.pdf
(7) Vickers AJ. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Reviews. 2009.
(8) Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5.
(9) Fisher P, Greenwood A, Huskisson EC, et al., "Effect of Homoeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis (Primary Fibromyalgia)," BMJ, 299(August 5, 1989):365-6.
(10) Jonas, WB, Linde, Klaus, and Ramirez, Gilbert, "Homeopathy and Rheumatic Disease," Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, February 2000,1:117-123.
(11) Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34.
(12) Barnes, J, Resch, KL, Ernst, E, "Homeopathy for Post-Operative Ileus: A Meta-Analysis," Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 1997, 25: 628-633.
(13) M, Thurneysen A. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2005 Dec;164(12):758-67. Epub 2005 Jul 27.
(14) Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, van Haselen R, Fisher P. Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2.
(15) 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.
(16) 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.
(17) Luc Montagnier, Jamal Aissa, Stéphane Ferris, Jean-Luc Montagnier, Claude Lavallee, Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81-90.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/fulltext.pdf
(18) Nobel laureate gives homeopathy a boost. The Australian. July 5, 2010. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/nobel-laureate-gives-homeopathy-a-boost/story-e6frg8y6-1225887772305
(19) Davenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, et al. (June 1988). "Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE". Nature 333 (6176): 816-8.
(20) Maddox J (June 1988). "Can a Greek tragedy be avoided?". Nature 333 (6176): 795-7.
(21) Josephson, B. D., Letter, New Scientist, November 1, 1997.
(22) George A. Lone Voices special: Take nobody's word for it. New Scientist. December 9, 2006.
(23) Personal communication. Brian Josephson to Dana Ullman. January 5, 2011.
(24) 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.
(25) Human and Experimental Toxicology, July 2010: http://het.sagepub.com/content/vol29/issue7/
To access free copies of these articles, see: http://www.siomi.it/siomifile/siomi_pdf/BELLE_newsletter.pdf
]]>Homeopathic Medicine: My 'I Have a Dream' Speechtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8061922011-01-08T11:41:53-05:002011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/
Just prior to her death, Coretta Scott King went to Mexico to a hospital that specialized in alternative medicine. Her family told the media that she was specifically interested in homeopathic treatment. It is rarely surprising when "cultural heroes" seek homeopathic treatment at some point in their lives.
In fact, there is a significant body of literature that shows that 11 U.S. Presidents and various world leaders, six popes and various leading clergy and spiritual leaders, Nobel Prize Laureates and other leading scientists and physicians, literary greats, sports superstars, musical geniuses, world-class artists, women's rights leaders, philanthropists and corporate leaders, and monarchs from all over the world have used and/or advocated for homeopathy.
Further, history has confirmed and dozens of modern surveys have verified that people who seek homeopathic treatment tend to be more educated than those who do not.
I have a dream that Hippocrates's wisdom of "First, do no harm" will be operationalized by the inclusion of natural and homeopathic medicines in primary care.
I have a dream that augmenting the body-mind's own immune and defense system will be a primary goal of medical treatment.
I have a dream that health care professionals will strive for "integrative health care," that is, the use of various natural therapies and conventional medicines, in efforts to create safer and more effective health care results.
I have a dream that people will understand that no disease is "local" or isolated from the whole person and that all disease is part of a syndrome that can and must be understood in this more complex context.
I have a dream that people will really respect the wisdom of the body-mind and realize that our symptoms are our organism's best effort to respond to stress or infection.
I have a dream that people will become aware of the real problems that result from using conventional drugs that suppress symptoms, thereby disrupting the body's defensive efforts and pushing the disease deeper into the organism.
I have a dream that people will appreciate the multi-factorial nature to most disease processes and that people will no longer be fooled by oversimplified single-causational factors to disease.
I have a dream that a diverse body of scientists and health care professionals will develop guidelines that will help assess "overall quality of life" improvements -- not just symptomatic differences, as a means to determine if treatments really work.
I have a dream that a diverse body of scientists and health care professionals will soon explore the dimensions of and potential for ancient and futuristic concepts of "energy medicine", not only for medical applications but for varied technologies that will help create a healthier, sustainable planet.
I have a dream that biggest critics of natural medicine will apologize for continuing a history of antagonism that should never have started in the first place.
I have a dream that homeopathy and natural medicine's history of success in treating many infectious epidemic diseases will help us reduce antibiotic use and provide a safer tool for treating people with infections.
I have a dream that the homeopathic principle of similars, which has long been utilized in vaccination and allergy treatments, will be appreciated for its power in augmenting immuno-competence.
Let health and freedom ring from the home to the clinic to the hospital.
Let health and freedom ring from the pharmacy to the health food store.
Let health and freedom ring from doctors, from patients, and from insurance companies.
Let health and freedom ring from drug companies, drug regulators, and health policy experts.
Let health and freedom ring from the media and from the internet.
I have a dream today.
Any other dreamers out there?
]]>Exploring the Research on Homeopathic Treatment for Fibromyalgiatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7811442010-11-12T08:30:27-05:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/
Well-designed high quality scientific studies published in the British Medical Journal and in Rheumatology (the journal of the British Society for Rheumatology) have confirmed the real benefits of homeopathic medicines as distinct from a placebo.
Fibromyalgia is not considered to be a "disease" by the conventional medical standards but is recognized and referred to as a "syndrome." Although there are no specific blood tests, x-rays or any other type of technology that is presently accepted by conventional medicine for diagnosis of this condition, the diagnosis is based on clinical findings from the history and physical exam (pain in tender points).
Fibromyalgia was previously called "fibrositis," but this name was changed when it became evident that inflammation was not a part of this condition. In 1990 the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) established criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia as a product of a well-designed, multi-center study of the condition (Wolfe F et al, 1990). As defined by ACR, fibromyalgia must include:
A history of widespread pain for at least three months. Widespread pain must have all of the following: pain in the left side of the body, pain in the right side of the body, pain above the waist and pain below the waist. In addition, axial skeletal pain (cervical spine or anterior chest or thoracic spine or low back) must be present.
The patient must report feeling pain in 11 of 18 tender sites on digital palpation (with 4 kg of force) which are located bilaterally on the body.
Lastly, the presence of a second clinical disorder does not exclude the diagnosis of fibromyalgia.
The syndrome of fibromyalgia can cause stiffness, fatigue, myalgias (muscle pain), subjective numbness, headaches (often migraine), dizziness, paraesthesias, IBS-like gastrointestinal disturbances, memory and concentration problems, sleep disorders and various states of anxiety and depression (Chakrabarty and Zoorob, 2007).
A recent meta-analysis of the efficacy of fibromyalgia pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments found that there was no clear indicator that specialized care provided more than the same moderate efficacy obtained in primary care settings with routine treatments (Garcia-Campayo J et al, 2008). Recommendations for the conventional medical management of fibromyalgia typically are based on a program that emphasized education, use of antidepressants and/or muscle relaxants, exercise and cognitive therapy best accomplished when the patient and healthcare providers work as a team (Goldenberg, et al, 2004).
In 2004, Goldenberg et al published results from an extensive literature search of fibromyalgia treatment trials and found no evidence for efficacy of opioids, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics, melatonin, calcitonin, thyroid hormone, guaifenesin, dehydroepiandrosterone or magnesium. Since this article's publication, duloxetine (Cymbalta), milnacipran (Savella) and pregabalin (Lyrica) have attained FDA approval for treatment of fibromyalgia, although as is typical, each of these drugs is known to cause a variety of side effects, including significant fatigue, dizziness, nausea, headache, insomnia, sexual problems (that can even last for years after stopping drug treatment), weight gain, excessive sweating and constipation. The most serious adverse effects cases, admittedly rare, are uncontrolled hypertension, hepatotoxicity (liver toxicity) or suicide. Even more problematic is the fact that each of these drugs is known to create a wide variety of minor and serious symptoms if or when the patient tries to stop taking the drug.
In 2010, a systematic review of the most recently used conventional drugs for fibromyalgia was published in a leading scientific journal (Clauw, 2010). Although some drugs had beneficial effects, the author acknowledged the significant limitations of these benefits and the need to utilize other treatment options. He wrote, "Because of the modest overall analgesic efficacy seen with any class of analgesic drug in any chronic pain state, we should be particularly aggressive about using more non-pharmacological therapies in treating patients with chronic pain."
Conventional physicians are usually forced to use combinations of drugs to control the numerous and varied symptoms expressed by fibromyalgia patients, though the use of multiple drugs concurrently generates additional pathology and further challenges when the patient wishes to slow down or end the medication. Further, little research has been conducted to date evaluating the use of polypharmacy methods for these patients (thus, whatever research has been conducted on individual drugs becomes questionably relevant to those patients taking multiple drugs).
Fibromyalgia affects women 10 times more often than men, and is most common in women 20-50 years old (Chakrabarty and Zoorob, 2007). This condition also has been observed in children and adolescence and is more common in relatives of patients with fibromyalgia, suggesting the contribution of both genetic and environmental factors, which naturopathic and homeopathic practitioners are especially trained to address and manage effectively.
Homeopathic Treatment:
Homeopathic medicine is a 200+-year-old system of medicine that utilizes specially prepared doses of medicines made from various substances of the plant, mineral or animal kingdom. Each medicine is prescribed for its capacity to cause, if given in overdose to healthy people, symptoms similar to those that the sick person is experiencing. Because basic physiology recognizes that symptoms represent defenses of the body (and mind) in its efforts to fight infection and/or adapt to stress, a homeopathic medicine is selected for its capacity to mimic a person's own symptoms, thereby augmenting their own defensive response.
Just as vaccines and allergy treatments are in part based on this same premise -- whatever a substance causes in overdose, it will elicit an immune response when taken in small doses -- homeopathic medicines are a system of helping the "wisdom of the body" defend and heal itself.
In homeopathy, ALL ailments are considered "syndromes," that is, all disease is a constellation of physical and psychological symptoms, and each patient has his or her own subtly different syndrome of a disease. The fact that people with fibromyalgia tend to have sometimes slightly or overtly differing symptoms from each other is no significant problem for homeopathic treatment. In fact, homeopathic treatment tends to be easier when patients have idiosyncratic or unusual symptoms.
The good news for fibromyalgia patients who receive homeopathic medicines is that these remedies are not known to cause direct drug interactions with any conventional drugs the patient may be taking. The pharmaceutical lobby decries homeopathy for its lack of effect: the problem for them is that if one unfathomable homeopathic treatment works, their argument is in tatters. Patients are also spared some of the conventional drug artillery used to limit symptoms. Further, because people with fibromyalgia tend to have distinct and unusual symptoms, this situation actually makes it easier for homeopaths to treat them successfully.
Other advantages homeopathy has over conventional drug therapies are lower cost and the avoidance of the usual GI, headache and CNS side effects as well as reactions that can be life threatening.
However, newspapers, magazines and even books on fibromyalgia, typically ignore studies showing the efficacy of a homeopathic medicine in its treatment. This omission occurs despite evidence of its significant efficacy as verified in several studies published in major medical journals. In addition to the scientific evidence for homeopathic treatment, surveys of people with fibromyalgia tend to show that homeopathic medicines is one of the more popular alternative treatments used by people suffering from this ailment. For instance, Dietlind et al (2005) found that 10 percent of patients answering a survey on their use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine for fibromyalgia symptoms reported using homeopathy.
Scientific Evidence for Homeopathy
The first controlled trial testing the homeopathic treatment of patients with fibromyalgia was an impressive and sophisticated double-blind "crossover" trial that was published in the prestigious British Medical Journal (Fisher et al, 1989). A crossover trial is a sophisticated method to test the efficacy of a treatment because each patient's results with the "real treatment" are compared with that same patient's results with a placebo. While most double-blind studies compare one group of people who receive the "real treatment" with another (hopefully similar) group of people who receive a placebo, crossover trials compare the results of each person and his/her response to real treatment with his/her response to placebo.
Because of the nature of a crossover trial, the researchers chose to accept into this study only patients that fitted the symptom-syndrome for needing just one homeopathic medicine that tends to be one of the most commonly indicated remedies for fibromyalgia patients. The researchers found a surprisingly high percentage of patients (42 percent) whose symptoms indicated a need for this medicine, Rhus toxicodendron (Rhus tox).
After the researchers found 30 patients who seemed to fit the symptoms of Rhus tox, half of the subjects were given a placebo during the first half of the experiment, while the other half were given the homeopathic medicine. Then, halfway through the experiment, each subject's treatment was switched.
The homeopathic dose of the medicine used was 6C. The researchers specifically chose to use a low potency dose of this medicine for this trial because these less potent doses provide short-term results. Over 200 years of homeopathic practice have found that homeopathic medicines that are of a higher potency -- that is, those that have undergone a greater number of dilutions, with vigorous shaking of the solution in between dilutions -- have a longer term effect [1]. Because halfway through this study each subject was given either a placebo or a homeopathic medicine, the researchers only wanted to use a medicine that provided a short-term result and this is precisely what their results confirmed.
The researchers found that there was a substantially significant degree of improvement in the reduction of tender points and improved pain and sleep when the subjects were taking the homeopathic medicine, as compared to when these same subjects were taking a placebo. In other words, twice as many people experienced significantly less pain or significantly improved sleep when they were taking the homeopathic medicine as compared to when they were taking the placebo.
Iris Bell, M.D., Ph.D. and her colleagues at the University of Arizona School of Medicine conducted a study funded by National Institutes of Health which resulted in four articles published in peer-review medical journals (Bell et al, 2004a; Bell et al, 2004b; Bell et al, 2004c; Bell et al, 2004d). The primary clinical results from this study were published in the highly respected journal, Rheumatology (published by the British Society for Rheumatology), and it found statistically significant results from homeopathic treatment. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 62 fibromyalgia patients received an oral daily dose of an individually chosen homeopathic medicine (or a placebo) and were evaluated at baseline, two months and four months (Bell, et al, 2004a).
The study found that 50 percent of patients given a homeopathic medicine experienced a 25 percent or greater improvement in tender point pain on examination, whereas only 15 percent of those who were given a placebo experienced a similar degree of improvement. After four months, the homeopathic patients also rated the "helpfulness of the treatment" significantly greater than did those who were given a placebo. It is therefore not surprising that the study also showed that the average number of remedies recommended by the homeopaths was substantially higher to those in the placebo group as compared with the real treatment group.
One special additional feature of this trial was that the first dose of medicine was given by smell and that both groups were monitored with EEG. The researchers found that there was a significant and identifiable difference in the EEG readings in patients who were given the real homeopathic medicine as compared to those given the placebo (Bell et al, 2004b; Bell et al, 2004c). Each patient had three laboratory sessions, including at baseline, at three months and at six months after initial treatment. The researchers found that the active treatment group experienced significant increases in the EEG relative alpha magnitude, while patients given a placebo experienced a decrease in this measurement.
Another unique feature of this study was that it included an optional crossover design, allowing patients who had initially been prescribed one treatment (placebo or medication) to switch to the "other" treatment (Bell et al, 2004d). The researchers found that 31 percent of those patients who had been prescribed the real medication chose to switch, while 41 percent of those patients who had been prescribed the placebo chose to switch.
The combined evidence of clinical improvement along with physiological response to the homeopathic medicine gives these results additional significance.
The newest randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing "usual medical care" compared with usual medical care plus adjunctive care by a homeopath for patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS)(Relton et al., 2009). Adjunctive care consisted of five in depth interviews and individualized homeopathic medicines. The primary outcome measure was the difference in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total score at 22 weeks. ("Usual care" refers to one or more of the following: physiotherapy, aerobic exercise, analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antidepressants.)
A total of 47 patients were recruited. Drop out rate in the usual care group was higher than the homeopath care group (8/24 vs 3/23). Adjusted for baseline, there was a significantly greater mean reduction in the FIQ total score (function) in the homeopathic care group than the usual care group (-7.62 vs 3.63). There were significantly greater reductions in the homeopath care group in the McGill pain score, FIQ fatigue, and 'tiredness upon waking' scores. The study also found a small effect on pain score (0.21, 95 percent CI -1.42 to 1.84) (despite what may be considered a relatively small effect on pain, this degree of benefit resembles the small to modest effect from conventional medications described above); but this trial found a surprisingly large effect on function (0.81, 95 percent CI -8.17 to 9.79). Of additional importance, there were no reported adverse events from homeopathic medicines.
Ultimately, the homeopathic treatment of patients with fibromyalgia requires individualized care by clinicians who are adequately trained in homeopathy. This condition is too complex for 'self-care treatment' or for treatment by clinicians who have not received professional training.
The body of scientific evidence showing efficacy of individualized homeopathic treatment in the care of patients with fibromyalgia suggests significant benefits. If you or someone near and dear to you has fibromyalgia, consider getting professional homeopathic care for both safe and effective treatment. Further, although fibromyalgia is not officially considered a type of arthritis, a review of homeopathic research found patients with this more common ailment also benefit from homeopathic treatment (Jonas, et al, 2000).
A Note to and about Skeptics of Homeopathy:
Skepticism of homeopathy, like skepticism of any subject, can be healthy, except when this skepticism is based on ignorance of the subject and except when one maintains a closed mind or denies good scientific evidence. Sadly, the vast majority of people who express skepticism about homeopathy do not maintain a "healthy skepticism" but tend to be uninformed, misinformed, and simply in denial about homeopathy and the body of evidence that confirms its benefits.
It is more than a tad ironic that those people who hold themselves out as "defenders of medical science" tend to have such an unscientific attitude towards homeopathy. These people tend to show evidence of both ignorance about homeopathy and (worse) arrogance about their viewpoints. These people who are "medical fundamentalists" love to attack homeopathy saying that "there is no evidence that homeopathy works." In fact, they make this assertion so often that they have gotten some people to actually believe them. Needless to say, anyone who says that there is no scientific evidence that homeopathic medicines work is simply proving their ignorance of the subject (as this article on fibromyalgia validates) or verifying their propensity for misinformation.
These fundamentalists also love to assert that "there is no plausible mechanism" for how homeopathic medicines work. Such statements display a serious ignorance of medical history because people who say this ignore the fact that it was only relatively recently did physicians understood how aspirin worked, and yet, no doctor (or patient) chose to not use this drug simply because the mechanism of action was not adequately understood.
Whenever good scientists or physicians make reference to the many clinical and laboratory studies that verify the efficacy of homeopathic medicines, the "deniers" assert that the scientist is only "cherry-picking" the good studies and ignoring the others. In reference to fibromyalgia, there have been no studies that have shown that homeopathic medicines don't work. The only studies that have been conducted to date have shown efficacy of homeopathic treatment. Obviously, there is no cherry-picking here.
Sadly, many people who claim to be skeptics are simply representatives of Big Pharma. In England, the leading anti-homeopathy organization, Sense about Science, is led by a former public relations expert who has a long history of representing Big Pharma companies (SourceWatch.org - see link in References).
Some "deniers" are audacious enough to suggest that the "weight of evidence" evaluating homeopathy shows that these medicines do not have any benefit beyond that of a placebo. Was Thomas Edison's discovery of electricity false because 999 experiments failed to produce electricity and only one that was successful? Is the weight of evidence that he failed?
Deniers will inevitably assert that Edison's discovery is proven every day, and yet, homeopaths likewise will say that homeopathy is proven every day by the hundreds of millions of its users worldwide, including many of the most respected scientists, physicians, corporate leaders, political leaders, clergy and spiritual leaders, literary greats, sports superstars, and every day average people.
The bottom line about research on homeopathy is that the denialists tend to evaluate a study by determining whether it was "well-conducted" according to inappropriate scientific standards. They do not evaluate whether the homeopathic medicine tested was the RIGHT medicine for the patient or not. For instance, if a researcher gave every patient the SAME drug no matter what disease they had, this study would not be a good test of that drug, even if it was "well-designed" (ie, it was randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled). And yet, it is common for these denialists to assume that just because a study testing homeopathy was well-controlled does NOT mean that it was a fair or adequate test of the homeopathic method.
People still skeptical about homeopathy might benefit from reading of body of previous articles that I have written at this website. More specifically, there is a body of evidence showing efficacy of homeopathic treatment of respiratory allergies, influenza, and many other conditions. Of additional importance is the fact that homeopathic medicine today is the leading alternative therapy used by physicians in Europe and that dozens of surveys have confirmed that patients who use homeopathic medicines tend to be significantly more educated than those who do not .
Perhaps the best evidence to verify the value of homeopathic medicines and the serious threat that homeopathy plays occurred in mid-2010 when the British Medical Association deemed homeopathy to be "witchcraft" (Donnelly, 2010). Because history confirms that "witches" were women healers, herbalists, and intuitives who were a threat to local doctors and the church, many of us who are involved in homeopathy are honored to be aligned with witches.
Finally, it may be appropriate for the medical fundamentalists to heed to words of the founder of homeopathic medicine, Samuel Hahnemann, M.D. On his gravestone are the Latin words, "Aude sapere," which translates as "dare to taste, to experience." Indeed, despite whatever skepticism one has, the proof is in the pudding. Try it yourself and see for yourself.
Special appreciation to June Riedlinger, R.Ph, Pharm.D., ND, who contributed to an earlier version of this article.
REFERENCES:
Bell IR, et al: Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology, 43:577-82, 2004a.
Bell IR, et al: EEG alpha sensitization in individualized homeopathic treatment of fibromyalgia, Int J Neurosci.114(9):1195-1220, 2004b.
Bell IR, et al: Electroencephalographic cordance patterns distinguish exception clinical responders with fibromyalgia to individualized homeopathic medicines. J Alt Comp Med, 10(2):285-299, 2004c.
Bell et al, Individual differences in response to randomly assigned active individualized homeopathic and placebo treatment in fibromyalgia: implications of a double-blinded optional crossover design. J Alt Comp Med, 10(2):269-283, 2004d.
Chakrabarty S, Zoorob R: Fibromyalgia, Am Fam Physician, 76:247-54, 2007.
Clauw DJ. Fibromyalgia Drugs are 'As Good as it Gets' in Chronic Pain, Nat Rev Rheumatol., 2010;6(8):439-440.
Dietlind L, et al: Use of complementary and alternative medical therapies by patients referred to a fibromyalgia treatment program at a tertiary care center, Mayo Clin Proc, 80(1):55-60, 2005.
Donnelly L. Homeopathy is witchcraft, says doctors. The Daily Telegraph, May 15, 2010.
Fisher P et al: Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia), BMJ, 299(6695):365-6, 1989.
Garcia-Campayo J, et.al: A meta-analysis of the efficacy of fibromyalgia treatment according to level of care, Arthritis Research & Therapy 10(4):R81-96, 2008. Clin-eguide: Drug Information. Facts & Comparisons 4.0., St Louis, MO, 2009, Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Goldenberg DL, et al: Management of fibromyalgia syndrome. JAMA 292:2388-95, 2004.
Jonas WB, Linde K, and Ramirez G, Homeopathy and rheumatic disease, Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, February 2000,1:117-123.
Relton C, et al: Healthcare provided by a homeopath as an adjunct to usual care for Fibromyalgia (FMS): results of a pilot randomized controlled trial, Homeopathy 98(2):77-82, 2009.
[1] People who are interested in understanding how and why homeopathic medicines have this increased effect will benefit from reading, "The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: Historical and Scientific Evidence" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/the-case-for-homeopathic_b_451187.html). Further, interested individuals will benefit from reviewing the writings of Professor Martin Chaplin, a world renowned expert on water: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html and http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html.
Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com . He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (the Foreword to this book was written by Dr. Peter Fisher, the Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.
]]>Homeopathy: A Healthier Way to Treat Depression?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7407202010-09-29T07:00:00-04:002011-11-17T09:02:45-05:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/
On a much more serious note, depression can be a temporary passing experience or a deeply disturbing condition that may lead to suicide. Except in cases of minor depressive states, professional attention is generally recommended to help a person go through this emotional experience in a conscious manner.
The Real Dangers of Conventional Medical Treatment
Recent studies published in leading medical journals have seriously questioned the efficacy of conventional pharmaceutical treatment of people with mild or moderate depression.
In early 2010, major media reported on a significant review of research testing antidepressant medications.(1) What is unique about this review of research is that the researchers evaluated studies that were submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), though the researchers discovered that many studies submitted to the FDA were unpublished (they found that the unpublished research consistently showed negative results of antidepressants).
This meta-analysis of antidepressant medications found only modest benefits over placebo treatment in published research, but when unpublished trial data is included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance.
Perhaps most startling about this research is the fact the FDA only requires drug manufacturers to provide them with two positive studies on depression to attain FDA-approval status, even if these same drug companies submit many more studies with negative results. Such information forces consumers to question the efficacy of "FDA approved drugs," and it explains why so many conventional medications eventually get withdrawn from marketplace.
At the same time that the above review research was published, another review of research was published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), and they found similar results, "The magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medication compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms."(2) These researchers did find benefits from the use of antidepressants in the treatment of severe depression, but because the majority of people taking antidepressants today do not have "severe depression," it is prudent for many people with depression to talk to their doctors about safer and more effective alternatives.
Sadly (and strangely), when conventional doctors today do not obtain adequately effective results with one drug, they often simply prescribe more drugs in hopes that one of them, or their combination, will be more effective (whether this increased use of drugs is effective or not, there are certain "benefits" that drug companies receive from this strategy). However, increasing research is finding that "polypharmacy" (the use of multiple drugs concurrently) may lead to worse, not better, results. New research has shown that polypharmacy with psychotropic medications in suicidal adolescent inpatients has been linked to a significantly increased risk for early readmission.(3)
Presented at Ohio State University and Nationwide Children's Hospital, the researchers found that suicidal adolescent inpatients receiving three or more different classes of psychotropic medications had a 2.6-fold increased risk of being re-admitted within 30 days of discharge.
Cynthia A Fontanella, PhD, the lead researcher, asserted, "Our finding that polypharmacy was associated with an increased risk of readmission is concerning, although not surprising." Even though the serious problems with polypharmacy are known and expected, polypharmacy is growing in mental health care, not decreasing.
Other researchers discovered a disturbing trend among the over 13,000 visits of outpatients with mental disorder diagnoses: the number of psychotropic medications prescribed increased in successive years. Visits in which two or more medications were prescribed increased from 42.6 percent in 1996-1997 to 59.8 percent in 2005-2006, and those in which at least 3 medications were prescribed virtually doubled from 16.9 percent to 33.2 percent.(4)
Why Mental Illness is Increasing
There are numerous theories for why the number of people suffering from mental illness is increasing and why it is afflicting people at younger and younger ages. The homeopathic analysis for this epidemic is unique and may provide additional insight as to why this is occurring.
Like most observers of health and medicine today, homeopaths do not believe that there is simply one reason for the increase in mental illness, though many homeopaths assert that iatrogenesis (doctor-induced disease) plays a much greater role than is commonly recognized.
Homeopaths, like modern-day physiologists, understand that symptoms of illness represent the body's defenses in its efforts to adapt to and respond against infection, environmental assault, or stress of some kind. As discomforting as symptoms can be, they still represent the living organism's best efforts at the time to try to defend and heal him or herself. Such defenses are an innate part of our evolutionary efforts to survive. The symptoms that a person experiences are a part of the body's innate wisdom, commonly referred to as "vis mediatrix naturae" (the healing power of nature).
Using conventional medications to inhibit or suppress a symptom may be effective temporarily, but THIS is often the "bad news." Because symptoms as diverse as fevers, coughs, nasal discharges, or even high blood pressure are recognized by physiologists as adaptations and defenses of the body, drugs that inhibit these symptoms may provide a short-term benefit, but such drugs also reduce the person's ability to get over the illness. More significantly and more seriously, conventional medications may actually suppress the disease process and the wisdom of the body, thereby creating a deeper and more serious illness.
The irony to "modern scientific medicine" is that the evidence that doctors proudly show that a drug "works" is often actually evidence that the drug is effective in suppressing, not curing, a specific symptom (there are, of course, many exceptions to this general observation, such as antibiotics, but antibiotic drugs create other problems about which this writer and many others have commented already).
For over 200 years homeopaths have observed the ability of many conventional drugs to suppress acute illness into more deep chronic illness. During this time, homeopaths have also found that this disease suppression also creates more and greater mental illness. When reviewing the side-effects of many drugs, it is not uncommon to find that drugs are known to lead to various states of mental illness from depression to delusion to suicidal propensities.
Just as suppressing one's emotions often leads to a later explosion of these emotions to someone who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, suppressing physical symptoms can lead to a more serious physical disease or a more disturbing mental illness. Using drugs to provide temporary relief does have some type of cost, and the cost is usually a later and more serious ailment.
Homeopathic Treatment of Depression
The Menninger Clinic is world-renowned as one of the leading mental health centers for research and treatment. Most people don't know it, but the founder of the Menninger Clinic, Charles Frederick Menninger, MD, was originally a homeopathic physician. He was even the head of his local homeopathic medicine society and was so frequently impressed with the results that he got from homeopathic medicines, he once said, "Homeopathy is wholly capable of satisfying the therapeutic demands of this age better than any other system or school of medicine." (5)
Numerous studies have shown benefits in using the herb, St. Johns wort, to treat mild to moderate depression. However, homeopaths generally find that it is preferable to prescribe individualized homeopathic remedies to each patient to attain better long-term sustained results without having to take continual doses of any medicine (natural or otherwise). In fact, a recent study published in a medical journal published by Oxford University Press found that individualized homeopathic treatment is as effective and is safer than Prozac in the treatment of people with moderate or severe depression.(6)
This study included 91 outpatients with moderate to severe depression who received an individually chosen homeopathic medicine or fluoxetine (Prozac) 20 mg/day (up to 40 mg/day) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind double-dummy eight week trial. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in MADRS depression scores (MADRS is a commonly used observer rated depression scale, with a score of 32 representing the "severe depression"). The average MADRS of patients in this study was 29.
The mean MADRS scores differences were not significant on the fourth (p=0.654) and eigth weeks (p=0.965) of treatment, which suggests that the two methods are treatment are equally effective. There were also no significant differences between the percentages of response or remission rates in both groups. The study also found a higher but non-significant percentage of patients treated with Prozac reported troublesome side effects, and there was a trend toward greater treatment interruption for adverse effects in the Prozac group.
Those people who claim to be "skeptics" of homeopathy will be surprised and impressed to know that two specialty medical journals published a double-blind and placebo controlled study on mice and found that one of the medicines in the above study, Gelsemium sempervirens, had anxiety-related effects.(7)(8)
Jonathan Davidson, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Duke University, conducted a small study of adults with major depression, social phobia, or panic disorder. He found that 60 percent of the patients responded favorably to homeopathic treatment.(9) When one recognizes the considerable safety of homeopathic medicines and the benefits that some patients get from this safer method of treatment, it is remarkable that the majority of psychiatrists and psychologists do not yet refer appropriate patients to homeopaths prior to prescribing powerful conventional drugs for them.
A clinical outcome study of interest involved 14 physicians of the United Kingdom's Faculty of Homeopathy (13 NHS GPs and 3 private practitioners) who treated a wide variety of people with chronic ailments.(10) The outcome scores from 958 individual patient conditions having two or more appointments found that 75.9 percent experienced a "positive outcome," 14.7 percent had no change, and 4.6 percent experienced deterioration in health. Patients with the highest positive scores (over 50 percent of patients who self-scored a +2 or +3 on a 7 point Likert scale from -3 to +3) were achieved in the treatment of anxiety, catarrh, colic, cystitis, depression, eczema, irritable bowel syndrome, and PMS. A total of 63.6 percent of patients with depression self-scored a +2 or +3 result from homeopathic treatment.
In early 2010, Alexa Ray Joel, the daughter of singer Billy Joel and actress/model Christy Brinkley, supposedly tried to kill herself by taking a homeopathic medicine, called Traumeel. Anyone with the simply elementary knowledge of homeopathy knows that one cannot commit suicide taking homeopathic medicines due to the extremely small doses in these medicines. Even homeopathy's most ardent skeptics must have had a good laugh at this media report.
After the initial media report about Alexa Ray Joel's suicide attempt, she went public with the fact that she suffered from depression as a result of a break-up in a relationship. And yet, Ms. Joel did not correct the misunderstanding of homeopathic medicine or the assertions made claiming that she (or anyone) could kill themselves with a homeopathic remedy. Sympathy is certainly appropriate for anyone who experiences such emotional trauma from the break-up of a love relationship to consider suicide. However, we should be wary of actions that inappropriately seek to tarnish the reputation of good companies or safe medicines.
Why Homeopathy Makes Sense for Depression
Homeopathic medicines are not prescribed based on the person's diagnosed disease but on the unique way the person experiences his or her disease. In other words, homeopathic medicines are prescribed based on the SYNDROME of various physical and psychological symptoms, not just a single symptom or disease label. Although the selection of the correct homeopathic prescribing is more complex than the use of conventional drugs or even many herbal preparations, the system of prescribing that is individualized to the whole person is intellectually sound... and its results are often significant if not substantial.
The premise behind homeopathy is that symptoms of illness are not just something "wrong" with the person but are actually efforts of their bodymind to fight infection and/or to adapt to stress. Instead of using large doses of pharmacological agents to inhibit or suppress symptoms, very small and specially prepared doses of medicinal substances are individually prescribed to a person for their unique ability to cause in overdose the similar symptoms that the sick person is having. By finding a medicine that matches the symptoms of the sick person, the medicine supports and augments the body's defenses. Ultimately, homeopathy is what Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, called "medical aikido" because it goes with, rather than against, the force of the disease. It is also a type of "medical biomimicry."
There is, indeed, much more that could be said about the sophisticated system of healing that homeopathy embodies and on the historical and scientific evidence that verifies its safety and efficacy, but the above information and insights provide a good introduction to why people with mild to moderate depression might be consider seeking professional homeopathic care.
REFERENCES:
(1) Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, et al. (2008) Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med 5(2): e45. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045
(2) Fournier JC, DeRubeis RJ, Hollon SD, Dimidjian S, Amsterdam JD, Shelton RC, Fawcett J. Antidepressant Drug Effects and Depression Severity: A Patient-Level Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010;303(1):47-53. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/1/47?home
(3) Fontanella CA, Bridge JA, Campo JV. Psychotropic medication changes, polypharmacy, and the risk of early readmission in suicidal adolescent inpatients. Ann Pharmacother. 2009 Dec;43(12):1939-47.
(4) Mojtabai R, Olfson M. National Trends in Psychotropic Medication Polypharmacy in
Office-Based Psychiatry. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67:26-36.
(5) Menninger, C. F. The Application as Well as the Similar, Transactions of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1896, pp. 317-324.
(6) Adler UC, Paiva NMP, Cesar AT, Adler MS, Molina A, Padula AE, Calil HM. Homeopathic individualized Q-potencies versus fluoxetine for moderate to severe depression: double-blind, randomized non-inferiority trial. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 Aug 17. http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep114v1
(7) Bellavite P, Magnani P, Zanolin E, Conforti A. Homeopathic Doses of Gelsemium sempervirens Improve the Behavior of Mice in Response to Novel Environments. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 Sep 14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19752165?dopt=Abstract
(8) Magnani P, Conforti A, Zanolin E, Marzotto M, Bellavite P. Dose-effect study of Gelsemium sempervirens in high dilutions on anxiety-related responses in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2010 Apr 20.
(9) Davidson, J, Morrison, R, Shore, J, et al., Homeopathic Treatment of Depression and Anxiety," Alternative Therapies, January, 1997,3,1:46-49.
(10) Mathie, RT, Robinson, TW. Outcomes from Homeopathic Practice in Medical Practice: A Prospective, Research-Tarageted, Pilot Study, Homeopathy. 2006,95:199-205.
Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com . He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (the Foreword to this book was written by Dr. Peter Fisher, the Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.
]]>Our Planet, Our Selves: The Earth's Symptoms and What to Do About Themtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6693692010-08-05T07:00:00-04:002011-11-17T09:02:45-05:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/
-- Gregory Bateson
Our planet is not called "Mother Earth" for only symbolic reasons. We have been born to and from this Earth. We are not simply on this planet but of this planet. Unless we learn to take care of our home, we will all be prematurely buried six feet deep under it.
Just as the human body can become ill, so can a planet's body. Global pollution is turning the Earth prematurely gray. Our planet is presently experiencing a global warming, a fever and inflammatory condition that is slowly cooking us all. The life-giving blood of the planet is in great disorder as a result of water pollution, and the planet's respiration is being choked by air pollution. Our planet's most efficient oxygen-manufacturing plants are the rain forests, and they are being wiped out at an alarming rate, and anemic soil conditions are creating biological malnourishment and chronic fatigue, turning lush plant life into desert.
The more complex web of life on our planet is, the more stable and sustainable it is. And yet, the overuse of pesticides (like antibiotics) indiscriminately kills both "pests" and "friends" alike. Worst of all, pesticides over-simplify and destroy the complex web of life, often turning a "solution" into a greater problem.
Overpopulation is creating congestion, a type of constipation in which increased waste build-up leads to diminished capabilities of storage and elimination. Toxic waste sites have become the planet's newest infections, resulting in corrosive materials opportunistically oozing and seeping out wherever they can.
Of greatest long-term potential danger to our Mother Earth is nuclear waste storage, which creates a hereditary disturbance that can strike at the heart of the planet's life. Such storage becomes the Earth's legacy. It is a Pandora's Box that must never be opened, and yet, we can only hope that time and circumstance does not disturb or open it.
Like the human body's response to symptoms, the planet's symptoms are its efforts to call attention to a problem, reduce it and to attempt to heal itself. Sometimes, however, the stress is persistent, and the Earth cannot heal itself adequately or rapidly enough against the ravages of our progressive human race. It adapts, it deforms itself and it rids itself of any vulnerable life form, even if it means destroying its children to save itself.
Ignoring symptoms of the Earth or simply providing short-term "solutions" that suppress (or bury) the problem does not create real healing. Biomimicry (the application of technologies that mimics nature's wisdom) uses nature as a model and as a mentor for sustainability. The closer that our technologies mimic nature's sophisticated, evolved state, the more likely these technologies will be a part of the real solution and less likely to create new problems.
Humans may indeed be clever, but nature has wisdom.
Human health is more dependent on the health of the planet than the planet is dependent on human health. Until and unless we learn to live in harmony in our home planet, we will be expelled from this once pristine Garden of Eden.
We are finally waking up to the need for a healthy home, both for our own and our planet's benefit. It is now becoming patriotic to conserve energy, to recycle, and to use biodegradable products, though some individuals and companies are just pretending to be green as a clever marketing tool ("greenwashing").
There are innumerable decisions that each person makes every day that can slightly and sometimes greatly reduce the Earth's resources. We must make these decisions more consciously so that we learn to live in greater harmony with our home.
Acting as individuals, we must also try to reduce the toil and trouble that our lifestyle creates for our environment. We must also encourage the companies for which we work and other companies with whom we do business to become ecologically concerned, both in the products they create and how they manufacture them. Ultimately, every action and every purchase must be considered for their environmental effect.
Although these efforts are vital for our survival and for that of our children, we must do more. Due to the already present environmental problems, we must now go on a "planetary diet." We must extend our efforts beyond simply maintaining the Earth as it is to ways that will help the Earth recover from her severe illness. It is incumbent upon us all to encourage governments to make more forthright efforts to clean up the mess we have created.
It has been said that one person's right to wave a fist ends where another's nose begins. Because everything in this home planet is so interconnected, our nose, metaphorically speaking, is actually much larger than most of us realize, not just to fists but to various environmental assaults. The effect of everyone's actions has repercussive and cascading effects. Unless we learn to live lightly on our planet, our children will carry the heavy burden of our conscious and unconscious indiscretions.
]]>Energy Medicine: Futuristic Healing With Ancient Rootstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6324182010-07-07T08:50:00-04:002011-11-17T09:02:45-05:00Dana Ullmanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/
-- Lewis Thomas, M.D., former President of Sloan-Kettering Institute, and author of Lives of a Cell (from which this quote is taken).
The study of energy medicine is the study of the "many working parts lacking visible connections." The forces and fields that connect organ to organ, body to mind, and mind to nature are not always visible. This invisibility does not mean that they do not exist. It may only mean that we have not even looked for it or have not yet developed the technology to objectively see, feel, or measure these interconnective forces.
The traditional definition according to physics refers to energy as "the capacity to do work" or as "a measurement of activity." This meaning of energy is appropriate in conceptualizing energy medicine as long as the definition of "work" or "activity" not only includes the gross changes in biochemical and physiological systems but also includes the changes in energy levels and field phenomena that affect human health. Modern understanding from chaos and complexity theories confirms that even subtle changes in energy levels and field phenomena have the capacity to catalyze significant biological transformations.
At the same time that energy medicine practitioners have begun to explore the fields and forces within the organism that have self-organizing and self-healing capacities, practitioners of modern medicine have begun to recognize self-regulating processes within the organism that work to defend and heal the individual. Both groups are perhaps uncovering the same field phenomena. Whatever one calls this self-healing/self-regulating capacity, this inherent defensive and survival strategy helps the organism act with wisdom in adapting to all stresses and to heal and transform itself as it acquires greater complexity and biological strength.
Ultimately, the concepts of energy medicine are futuristic, even though many of the most popular modern-day energy medicine practices are hundreds or even thousands of years old. Thinking of the health and life of living organism in the light of energetics and field phenomena represents an important shift of perspective, and a predictable evolutionary step in the development of science and medicine.
Energy Medicine East and West
This invisible yet ubiquitous self-healing/self-regulating system or field within the organism has been given various names at different times in history and in different cultures. Hippocrates called it "physis" (from which the word "physician" was derived); Paracelsus called it "archeus"; the modern-day scientist and discoverer of vitamin C, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, called it "syntropy" (which he defines as "the drive in matter to perfect itself"); the Chinese have referred to it as "ch'i"; the yogis as "prana"; homeopathic physicians -- "vital force"; and naturopathic physicians -- "vis medicatrix naturae" (translated as "the healing power of nature").
Although reference to an energy flow within the organism may sound esoteric to some people, it is equally difficult for others to consider the body to be some type of biochemical machine. As famed science and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov once wrote, "Science theories tend to fit the intellectual fashions of our times." Concepts of energy in medicine and healing are at once ancient AND futuristic. It indeed may be time for the present to catch up with the past and the future...
It is easy to remember that before microscopes were developed, many people had difficulty believing in the existence of bacteria. It is not surprising that many people today have difficulty accepting the possibility of an energy system within the body since, like the invisible microbes before Leeuvenhoek's times, we haven't yet developed the technology to see it. As science develops more and more sophisticated technologies that help us observe the action of smaller and smaller processes (cells, then intracellular parts, then molecules, and then atoms), it seems obvious that understanding energy processes and fields will be a natural evolution for scientific endeavors.
It is not an easy task to assess energy flow within the human body. Many of the health practices that are based on this type of assessment have taken hundreds or thousands of years to develop into coherent workable systems.
Acupuncture, for example, has developed over the past 2 - 3000 years, and its international popularity and stature is significant and undeniable. In order to evaluate the status of human energies, the acupuncturist uses pulse diagnosis with other diagnostic tools. The quantity and quality of this energy flow informs the practitioner about the degree of pathological penetration and suggests the susceptibility of the person to certain conditions prior to their actual manifestation. The five-element theory in Chinese medical practice along with other important principles of healing can guide the acupuncturist to finding the significant acupuncture points on the body that will balance the ch'i, thereby increasing or restoring its quantity and/or quality and augmenting the healing process.
Understanding how meteorologists predict the weather may actually be a useful metaphor for a better understanding of the practical workings of the energy flowing through the body. Meteorologists predict the weather by measuring wind patterns and high and low air pressure. By doing do, they predict where clouds will go and if and where it will rain. Wind and air pressure are forces, or energies, and if experts ignore these invisible forces and only watch and evaluate those elements of nature that can be seen (clouds), their skills at predicting weather will be embarrassingly poor. By understanding and observing how energy flows, experts can then predict how matter will be influenced and how it will behave.
Likewise, acupuncturists can predict disease processes when too much or too little energy pervades specific meridians. Acupuncturists use their needles to help move the ch'i from areas where there is much to areas that are under-nourished, creating more balance and health. Understanding and working with bodily energies is not just some "woo-woo" concept but has practical diagnostic and therapeutic value.
In a parallel fashion, homeopathic medicine has spread to virtually every country in the world, and it is often considered a Western energy medicine. Like his/her Chinese counterpart, the homeopath utilizes a detailed body-mind symptom analysis to assess a person's constitutional state of health. The person's health is evaluated by assessing obvious and subtle symptoms, with greater emphasis placed on those unique symptoms that differentiate one person's disease from another. Homeopaths commonly inquire about a person's sensitivity to hot or cold temperature, influences of time of day or night on health, motion or position of the body, food desires or aversions, sleeping habits, sweating patterns, emotional or mental states and how each of these phenomena influence individual symptoms and a person's overall state of health. In so doing, homeopaths treat each person and his/her disease and his/her unique syndrome of the disease.
Just as physics and music verify that there is hypersensitivity from "resonance" (a "C" note will be hypersensitive and will vibrate when a "C" note from another instrument is played), homeopaths observe that sick people become extremely hypersensitive to medicines that cause in overdose a similar syndrome of symptoms that they are experiencing. Over 200 years of experience by hundreds of thousands of physicians and billions of patients have experienced the power of homeopathic medicines, and, surprisingly, have observed that the more often a homeopathic medicine undergoes the pharmacological process of serial dilution, with vigorous shaking of the solution between each dilution, the medicine becomes stronger with fewer doses needed and actually lasting longer.
Present laws of physics and chemistry (called "Avogadro's number") assert that in all probability one should have no molecules remaining after 24 dilutions of 1:10. And yet, many homeopaths prescribe medicines that have undergone 30, 200, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 or more dilutions (with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution). At first blush, one might assume that there is "nothing there," and yet, there is not only a body of evidence from the basic sciences and from clinical trials, there is also a body of evidence to suggest that there is something unique that happens when double-distilled water is vigorous shaken in glass vials.
Rustum Roy, Ph.D., the esteemed professor emeritus of material sciences at Pennsylvania State University, and Martin Chaplin, Ph.D., of London South Bank University, are two leading experts on water, and they (and many others) assert that the nature and structure of the water changes as a result of the bubbles and nano-bubbles that are created in the shaking process. Roy asserts that the bubbles and nanobubbles change the pressure in the water to achieve 10,000 atmospheres, a highly pressurized water. Further, an impressive group of scientists from Harvard, the US Armed Forces, and other research institutes have found that the shaking process in glass vials typical in the making of homeopathic medicines has a significant impact on the prolongation of enzymatic activity, thereby clearly differentiating it from plain water. (1)
Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize in medicine/physiology in 2008 for his discovery of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), has recently published research that has given significant support for homeopathy and homeopathic pharmacology.(2) Montagnier utilized electromagnetic signals made from bacterial DNA that were serially diluted in water that was "highly agitated" after each dilution in water (this process of dilution with agitation is the same as the manufacture of homeopathic medicines). Montagnier even noted that the effect from these extremely small doses was entirely negated if the medicine was subjected to heat or freezing, a similar observation found in homeopathic medicines.
[It is not the purpose of this short article to explain in technical detail how homeopathic medicine may act, though it is important to say that people who assert that the effects of homeopathic medicines are just water or that there are no viable explanations for how homeopathic medicine may work, are simply uninformed or misinformed. Readers are highly encouraged to read my other blogs for accessing information about the body of basic science evidence, clinical trials, epidemiological evidence, and outcome studies that verify the biological activity and clinical efficacy of homeopathic medicines. Readers are also encouraged to study the field of "hormesis" which is a broad and highly researched body of evidence that studies the biological influences from various low dose effects. (2)]
Ultimately, for over 200 years homeopaths internationally have confirmed that sick people have a hypersensitivity to a specific medicinal substance that, if given to healthy people in toxic doses, will cause the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing. Like acupuncture and other energy systems of medicines, the heightened power and effect of those homeopathic medicines that have undergone greater potentizations (the process of serial dilution with vigorous shaking in-between dilutions) may be the result of what the homeopaths call the "vital force" becoming sensitive to and resonant with the medicinal agent. Because symptoms of illness are adaptive and defensive responses of the body to fight infection and/or adapt to stress, homeopathic medicines are matched and selected for their ability to mimic and augment this effort to elicit a healing response, thus leading some people to refer to homeopathy as "medical aikido" and "medical biomimicry."
Ancient and Modern Applications of Energy Medicine
Therapeutic touching practices seem as old as records of history. Certain sensitive therapeutic touch practitioners, like many psychics, seem to see energy patterns (or auras) around and through people from which susceptibility to disease can be diagnosed. The gaps in energy patterns, the degrees of density and the colors emitted from the body together provide diagnostic information. Band-aiding gaps in energy patterns, 'tonifying' the energy's overall density and balancing the field that emanates from them are therapeutic methods used to manipulate forces and fields that stimulate a healing process.
Initially, these beliefs and claims appear metaphysical. But research in biological science and environmental medicine is beginning to explain the influence of field effects, bio-electrical processes and biological hypersensitivity upon human health.
The use of electrical current to stimulate wound healing and bone regeneration is stirring the medical community with its successes and implications. Researchers find small doses of electrical current that mimic the electrical potential from the wound or bone can stimulate its healing. Others find that imposing an electrical field to a recently amputated limb, say in a frog, can lead to appreciable regeneration where slower regeneration would normally occur. The significance of this research is that it begins to show the special curative value of changing electrical fields within an organism to influence biochemical and physiological function.
Specialists in environmental medicine have looked at how low-dose energy from fluorescent lights, air ions, microwaves, cell phones, sound and electromagnetic fields can distort cell functioning and result in illness. Although most people may not experience any obvious effects from these fields, it can and should be acknowledged that there seem to be some hypersensitive individuals for whom such influences have significant impact. It has long been known that such stressors can cause chronic conditions after long-term exposure; however, recent research shows that significant functional abnormalities occur from low doses well before structural changes take place.
The neuro-endocrine system, with its hypersensitivity to various low dose phenomena, may be a primary mediator for the various energy emanations; however, the occasional rapid manifestations of symptoms from exceedingly small doses may indicate some other yet undefined communications pathway in living organisms. It is important to acknowledge the capacity of an organism to respond to external energy, and it is time to recognize the possibility of an internal energy system within the body that might be resonant or dissonant with these environmental influences.
Magnetic Fields and the Human Body
Back in 1989, I read a fascinating book called The Compass in Your Nose and Other Astonishing Facts About Humans (by science writer Marc McCutcheon). The author provided evidence of trace amounts of magnetized iron in the human nose and suggested that its magnetic properties enable our sense of direction.
Other researchers have found that birds have magnetite in their beaks which may help them with their amazing navigational abilities to migrate long distances. (3) Still other researchers have found concentrations of magnetic particles in the human brain (4)(5) and in other parts of the human body. (6) Research has just begun in evaluating the role of magnetite in health and in disease. (7) (People who wish to follow-up on this area of inquiry will benefit from doing a google scholar of "magnetite" and "biomagnetite").
When one realizes that many parts of our body are infused with magnetic particles, one must also wonder how these invisible but active forces and fields influence the body and its health. One might also wonder if treatments that mimic or resonate with these fields might be optimized in our health care system. The implications for having magnetic fields in the body could be significant, and this area of inquiry is inadequately explored by mainstream medicine.
Sadly, our sophisticated medical system has focused on biochemical process, while ignoring the fields and forces that influence biochemistry. Our modern medical instrumentation simply reinforces the biochemical processes. It is not that we should ignore biochemistry (obviously), but our modern era beckons us to consider an integrative model of health and medicine so that the diversity diagnostic and therapeutic processes can lead to the safest and highest quality health care. Until and unless our medical sciences assesses and accounts for the field phenomena of the human organism, doctors will be blinded to knowing about interconnective forces in our bodies...and until this happens, doctors will be like meteorologists who try to predict weather by only looking at clouds.
It is no wonder that Albert Einstein, with his colleague Leopold Infeld, acknowledged that despite the invisibility of electromagnetic fields, they also asserted, "The electromagnetic field is, for the modern physicist, as real as the chair he sits." (8)
Conclusions
The primary alternative model to the vitalist/energetic model is that of an elaborate machine, though evolutionary biologist and science historian Stephen Jay Gould has cautioned, "a machine makes a poor model for a living organism." (9)
The newly published book, Green Medicine: Challenging the Assumptions of Conventional Health Care, by Dr. Larry Malerba, considers the vitalistic viewpoint of health and healing to be so essential to the green medicine perspective that its first chapter is entitled "The Unifying Life Force."
The fact of the matter is that American medical care embodies a mechanistic and reductionistic view of health and disease. Its treatments may effectively rid a person of a specific symptom, but it may be time to realize that simplistic and mechanistic thinking provide primarily only the guise of health improvement. It is therefore no wonder that American health care is ranked at 37th in the world, while virtually all of the countries that have the greatest use of energy medicines are ranked at the top.
Further refinement and synthesis of the empirical basis for energy medicine is needed, and research on its diagnostic and therapeutic processes is essential, though I'm sure that some people whose income or paradigm of medicine or science is threatened will do their best to squash such investigation or integration.
Understanding the forces that tie and bind our body and mind, and those that connect us with nature will not be easy. Such forces and fields of life cannot be placed under a microscope, but they can be understood and studied. Energy medicine offers the potential for understanding some very real mysteries of nature, for developing some valuable health practices and for learning how to create healthy environments in which to live. This field of inquiry is on the cutting edge and needs the sharpest of minds to fathom its realities -- and its limitations. Ultimately, the energy medicine paradigm proves a useful model to understand and explain healing.
Our discussion of energy medicine, as with many new ways of understanding phenomena, may not be readily accepted by the medical establishment. Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and popularizer of the word "paradigm", helps us understand why this may happen:
"Scientific revolutions ... seem revolutionary only to those whose paradigms are affected by them. To outsiders they may ... seem like normal parts of the developmental process."
Energy medicine is a logical evolutionary step for medicine. I invite you to step out with us to help understand more fully its meaning, its depth, and its significance.
In the light of ALL of the above, it is not surprising that America's most respected doctor, Mehmet Oz, MD, asserted in 2007 on the Oprah show, "The next big frontier in medicine is energy medicine."(11)
And finally, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who discovered vitamin C, once asserted, "In every culture and in every medical tradition before ours, healing was accomplished by moving energy." (12) It may be time for mainstream Western medicine to catch up with the past and to enter the future of real healing.
Dana Ullman, MPH, begin thinking seriously about energy medicine in 1981 when he organized a conference at U.C. Berkeley entitled "Conceptualizing Energy Medicine." Over 400 people attended a conference with Fritjof Capra, PhD, Peter Eckman, MD, PhD, Peter Levine, PhD, Bill Gray, MD, Richard Grossinger, PhD, Elizabeth Rauscher, PhD, Len Duhl, MD, David Sobel, MD.
(2) Luc Montagnier, Jamal Aissa, Stéphane Ferris, Jean-Luc Montagnier, Claude Lavallee, Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81-90.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/fulltext.pdf
(3) Hormesis and Homeopathy, Human and Experimental Toxicology. July 2010, Volume 29, No. 7. Access to abstracts: http://het.sagepub.com/content/vol29/issue7/; Access to articles: http://www.belleonline.com/newsletters/volume16/vol16-1FINAL.pdf
(4) Wiltschko W, Munro U, Ford H, & Wiltschko R. "Bird navigation: what type of information does the magnetite-based receiver provide?". Proc. R. Soc. B 2006;273 (1603): 2815-20.
(5) Franziska Brem, Louis Tiefenauer, Alke Fink, Jon Dobson, and Ann M. Hirt A mixture of ferritin and magnetite nanoparticles mimics the magnetic properties of human brain tissue. Phys. Rev. B. 2006; 73, 224427. http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v73/i22/e224427
(6) Kirschvink JL, Kobayashi-Kirschvink A, Woodford B. Magnetite biomineralization in the human brain (iron/extremely low frequency magnetic fields). Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA. August 1992; 89:7683-7687. http://www.pnas.org/content/89/16/7683.full.pdf+html
(7) Grassi-Schultheiss PP, Heller F, and Dobson J. Analysis of magnetic material in the human heart, spleen and liver. Biometals. December 1997;10.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j32176725k852685/
(8) Dobson J. Magnetic Iron Compounds in Neurological Disorders. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2004; 1012:183-192. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118765623/abstract
(9) Cole KC. First You Build a Cloud. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999, 30.
(10) Cole KC. First You Build a Cloud. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999, 34.
(11) Malerba L. Green Medicine: Challenging the Assumptions of Conventional Health Care. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2010.
(12) Donna Eden. Energy Medicine. New York: Jeremy Tarcher/Penguin, 2008, p. XIX.
(13) Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Introduction to a Submolecular Biology. New York: Academic Press, 1960.
