The Amazing Story Of Charles Darwin And His Homeopathic Doctor

SUMMARY:

In early 1849, Charles Darwin was so ill that he was unable to work one of every three days, and after having various serious symptoms for two to twelve years, he wrote to a friend that he was dying.  He sought treatment from Dr. James Manby Gully, a medical doctor who used water cure (hydrotherapy) and homeopathic medicines.  Despite being highly skeptical of these treatments, he experienced a dramatic improvement in his health.  He grew to appreciate water cure, but he remained skeptical of homeopathy, even though his own later experiments on insectivore plants using what can be described as homeopathic doses of ammonia salts surprised and shocked him with their significant biological effect.  It is impossible to know if Charles Darwin would have survived long enough to have written his seminal book in 1859, published 10 years after Dr. Gully’s treatment.  We may all have to thank the water cure and homeopathic treatment provided by Dr. Gully for Darwin’s survival.

NOTE:  The article published here is a summary of a more detailed article that was just published in a medical journal published by Oxford University Press, called eCAM (which stands for “Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine").  To see this entire article, go to:  http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/nep168?ijkey=nGCDiG4UTVh6zBx&keytype=ref.  Readers will find that the majority of the evidence here is drawn directly from Charles Darwin’s own personal letters. 

This year, 2009, is an auspicious year for appreciators of Charles Darwin.  It is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin (1809–1882), and November 24, 2009, is the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work, On the Origin of Species (1859).

Although much has been written about Charles Darwin, few people today know that, according to Darwin’s own letters, it is uncertain that he would have lived long enough to have written this seminal scientific work in 1859 if he had not received treatment 10 years earlier from Dr. Gully.

After graduating from Cambridge in 1831, he began what became a five-year journey on the HMS Beagle surveying the coast of South America. On board the ship, Darwin suffered from seasickness, and in October 1833, he caught a fever in Argentina. In July 1834, while returning from the Andes down to the coast of Chile, he fell so ill that he spent a month in bed.

The Serious Illness and Near Death of Charles Darwin

From 1837 on, Darwin was frequently incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, and trembling.  Orthodox physicians of Darwin’s day had no idea what his problem was, and all of their treatments simply made him worse.[1] 

In 1847, Darwin’s illness worsened. He again experienced frequent episodes of vomiting and weakness, but he now was also experiencing fainting spells and seeing spots in front of his eyes. In March, 1849, he was so sick that he thought he was dying.  Darwin wrote to his good friend, J.D. Hooker, an English botanist, that he was “unable to do anything one day out of three and am altogether too dispirited to write to you or to do anything but what I was compelled.­ I thought I was rapidly going the way of all flesh."[2]

It is indeed impossible to say that Charles Darwin would have been healthy enough to live another 10 years, let alone to work as diligently on the body of work that his seminal book required for its publication in 1859 unless some type of effective treatment significantly improved his health.  Lucky for all of humanity, Charles Darwin sought out a different type of medical care and experienced a profound improvement in his health.

Dr. James Manby Gully: Homeopath and Hydrotherapist

 

The captain of the HMS Beagle, Capt. Sullivan, initially told Darwin about a different type of medical treatment provided by Dr. James Manby Gully (1808–1883), and this recommendation was taken more seriously when one of his cousins, William Darwin Fox, told Darwin that two friends had benefited greatly from Gully’s care. Dr. Gully, a medical graduate of the University of Edinburgh, was strongly critical of the use of drugs of that era. Gully was particularly critical of polypharmacy,[3]  the common and unscientific practice of using multiple drugs concurrently for a patient, a practice that continues today. Gully’s medical practice did not simply provide water cure and dietary advice; he also prescribed homeopathic medicines and recommended medical clairvoyant readings. In 1846, he had authored a popular book entitled Water Cure in Chronic Disease[4] that Darwin was known to have read.

Darwin decided to go to see Dr. Gully with his wife, Emma, and their seven children.[5]  Dr. Gully and his health spa were situated in Malvern (just southwest of Birmingham), around 150 miles from the Darwins’ home.

Virtually every biography of Charles Darwin refers to his health problems and acknowledges that the one physician who provided an effective treatment for him was Dr. Gully.  However, most of these biographies make reference to Dr. Gully as a “hydrotherapist,” and few mention that he was a homeopathic physician. 

After being at Dr. Gully’s spa for just nine days, Darwin lamented that Gully had prescribed homeopathic medicine to him: “I grieve to say that Dr. Gully gives me homeopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.” Darwin continued: “I like Dr. Gully much—he is certainly an able man”[6] The fact that Darwin saw Gully as being “able” was still not enough to convince him that homeopathic medicines were effective.

In 1848, Dr. Gully became a formal member of the British Society of Homeopathy,[7] and he maintained his membership through at least 1871.[8]  In subsequent editions of his book, his favorable experiences with homeopathy led him to become a strong advocate for the power of homeopathic medicines in treating people with chronic diseases. 

Gully’s observation that the use of concurrent treatment of water cure and homeopathic medicine seems to echo the experiences of naturopathic physicians who have been known to use these treatments together along with nutritional advice since the 19th century. 

And even though Darwin was extremely skeptical, just two days later (March 30, 1849) Darwin acknowledged, “I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated.”[9] After eight days a skin eruption broke out all over Darwin’s legs, and he was actually pleased to experience this problem because he had previously observed that his physical and mental health improved noticeably after having skin eruptions.[10] He went a month without vomiting, a very rare experience for him, and even gained some weight. One day he surprised himself by being able to walk seven miles. He wrote to a friend, “I am turning into a mere walking & eating machine.”[11]

After just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully’s treatments were not quackery after all. After sixteen weeks, he felt like a new man, and by June he was able to go home to resume his important work. Darwin actually wrote that he was “of almost perfect health.”[12] 

Despite Darwin’s greatly improved health, he never publicly attributed any benefits directly to homeopathy. However, one must also realize that even though homeopathy achieved impressive popularity among British royalty, numerous literary greats, and many of the rich and powerful at that time, there was incredible animosity to it from orthodox physicians and scientists. Because Darwin was just beginning to propose his own new ideas about evolution, it would have been professional suicide to broadcast his positive experiences with homeopathy. Having to defend homeopathy would have damaged his credibility among his colleagues who were extremely antagonistic to this emerging medical specialty.

Darwin occasionally experienced relapses of digestive and skin symptoms over the years, so he returned to Dr. Gully’s clinic for more treatments, staying two to eight weeks. Although Darwin complained during his first visit that he experienced “complete stagnation of the mind,” he didn’t have similar problems during later visits to Gully’s clinic and spa. In fact, he asserted that his mind was alert and that his scientific writing was progressing well.[13]

He lived thirty-three more years, and it is surprising and confusing that the story of Darwin’s successful experiences with hydrotherapy and homeopathy has not become an integral part of the history of science and medicine today. After significant improvement in his persistent nausea and vomiting, frequent fainting spells, spots before his eyes, incapacitating stomach pains, severe fatigue, widespread boils, nerve-wrecking tremors and heart palpitations, he was considerably more able to do his seminal scientific work.

Some other people of significant notoriety who benefited from Dr. Gully’s care include Charles Dickens (novelist and writer), Alfred, Lord Tennyson (poet), Florence Nightingale (famed nurse), George Eliot (British novelist), Thomas Carlyle (Scottish essayist, satirist, and historian), John Ruskin (art critic and social critic), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (British novelist, playwright, and politician), Thomas Babington Macaulay (first Baron Macaulay, poet and politician), and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce.[14] Further, three prime ministers sought Dr. Gully’s care, including William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli, and George Hamilton-Gordon, as well as Queen Victoria herself. Hamilton-Gordon described Dr. Gully as “the most gifted physician of the age.”[15]

Dr. Gully was not the only homeopathic physician to provide clinical care to cultural elite of the 19th century.  In fact, many of the leading politicians, clergy, literary greats, musical geniuses, royalty and wealthy classes were known patients and even advocates of homeopathy.[16]

Although there is no evidence that Darwin knew that so many other well known “cultural heroes” sought the care of Dr. Gully, Darwin was pleased to hear when other people he knew received treatment from Gully.  When his second cousin, William Darwin Fox, the man who introduced Darwin to entomology and to Dr. Gully, had seen the doctor, Darwin expected him to have benefited from water cure and to be much stronger.[17] When one considers that Darwin had previously received much medical care without positive results, Darwin’s letter to Fox on December 7, 1855, confirmed a different experience with Dr. Gully: “Dr. Gully did me much good” (his emphasis).  

           

Darwin’s Continued Water Cure and Homeopathic Treatment

There is a long history of antagonism to homeopathic medicine from conventional physicians and their organizations.  There is also a history of antagonism to water cure,[18] though while homeopathy has persisted internationally as a minority school of thought and practice,[19],[20],[21] water cure as a medical treatment for chronic ailments has become marginalized or is hardly utilized today except by a minority of naturopathic physicians. 

Darwin and many of his biographers seemed to have highlighted “water cure” as Gully’s effective treatment because they simply could not believe that homeopathic medicines could provide any benefit. However, one must wonder if hydrotherapy alone could have provided these significant health benefits, especially in the first week of treatment that Darwin experienced.   What is additionally intriguing about this story of Darwin is that it confirms an ultimately essential observation of truly effective healing methods: that they can and will be effective whether or not the person believes they will work.

Hardened skeptics insist that homeopathic treatment could not have helped Darwin (or anyone) and suggest that hydrotherapy must have been the method of therapeutic benefit. And yet, few orthodox physicians of that day or today would even consider using hydrotherapy for people with complex disease processes.

When Dr. Gully retired from his full-time practice in Malvern in the late 1850s, he chose Dr. James Smith Ayerst (1824–1884) as his replacement. Not surprisingly, Ayerst was also a homeopathic physician. He served as assistant surgeon in the Royal Navy, was physician to Great Malvern, Worcestershire, ran a hydropathic establishment at Old Well House, Malvern Wells in conjunction with that of Dr. Gully, and later, practiced homeopathy and hygienics in Torquay, Devon.[22]

Darwin’s wife Emma wrote to W. Darwin Fox: “We like Dr. Ayerst, tho’ he has not the influence of Dr. Gully. Dr. G. it is hopeless to try to see tho’ I must say he has been to see Ch. [Charles] twice & he quite approves of his treatment.”[23] Darwin visited other hydrotherapy spas as well. In 1857 and 1859 he visited Moor Park, run by Edward Wickstead Lane, MD, a physician and hydrotherapist (not a homeopath). And perhaps not by happenstance, Darwin’s famed book On the Origin of Species was at the printing press, while he was at Ilkley Wells, a spa operated by Edmund Smith, MD, another homeopathic physician.[24]

On March 5, 1863, Darwin wrote a letter to J. D. Hooker (a botanist), noting: “A good severe fit of Eczema would do me good, and I have a touch this morning & consequently feel a little alive.”[25] On this same day, he wrote his cousin W. Darwin Fox: “I am having an attack of Eczema on my face, which does me as much good as Gout does others.”[26]

What is interesting here is that Darwin was either taught or learned from his own experience a common observation in homeopathy: that symptoms on the skin or in the extremities (the symptoms of gout manifest in the big toe) are important externalizations of the disease process that should not be suppressed through conventional drugs. Because homeopaths and other advocates of natural medicine recognize the “wisdom of the body,” symptoms, even acute and painful ones, are ways that the body is working to push out and externalize internal pathology.

 

Darwin’s Survival of the Shrewdest

Despite Darwin’s personal experiences and significant successes as a homeopathic patient, he never publicly acknowledged the benefits he received. And despite his own experiments on plants using homeopathic doses (these amazing experiments are discussed in detail in my article published in Oxford University Press’ journal, eCAM), he never used the word “homeopathic” in his public writings. Although these actions may seem surprising, Darwin’s decision to avoid reference to homeopathy was a shrewd part of his own survival strategy, and as true expert on evolution, Darwin knew the importance of survival of his terrestrial body and of his ideas.

Ultimately, even though Charles Darwin had a long-time skepticism of homeopathic medicine, his life and health seems to have been impacted by it, and he engaged in experimentation that verified the power of extremely small doses on plants.  Further, he was found to express appreciation for the contributions to science that select homeopathic physicians were known to provide. 

2009 is the year in which we honor Charles Darwin’s 200th anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal book.  When commemorating the many vital contributions that Charles Darwin made to science, we should not ignore the therapeutic contributions that allowed Darwin to live beyond his own life expectations and that played an important role in improving his physical and mental health.

 

[For a more detailed review of Darwin’s experiences with homeopathy and homeopathic doctors, see the above referenced article that was published in a medical journal.  For people who are interested in other personal experiences with homeopathic medicines by other famous and internationally renowned physicians and scientists, see my most recent book, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy.  This book includes the experiences with homeopathic medicines by Sir William Osler (the “father of modern medicine”), Emil Adolph von Behring (the “father of immunology”), Harold Randall Griffith, MD (the “father of modern anesthesia”), Charles Frederick Menninger, MD (founder of the Menninger Clinic), C. Everett Koop, MD (former U.S. Surgeon General), Brian Josephson, PhD (Cambridge professor and Nobel Laureate), amongst many others.  This book also describes similar experiences by 11 U.S. Presidents and numerous other world leaders, six popes and numerous leading spiritual leaders, as well as world-class literary greats, corporate leaders, women’s rights leaders, monarchs, sports superstars, musical geniuses, and television and film stars.  Although skeptics of homeopathy tend to minimize personal experiences from patients, the patients in THIS book are from many of the most respected cultural heroes of the past 200 years. If people want to know what these amazing people did in their life to help them achieve the highest level of human performance, then perhaps their experiences with and understandings of homeopathy may shed light in part on how they did so.]

 

REFERENCES:

 

---

[1] Recently, some scientists have speculated that Darwin suffered from systemic lactose intolerance (Campbell, AK, and Matthews, SB. Darwin’s illness revealed, Postgraduate Medicine Journal, 2005, 81:248–251.), but this remains speculation and may at best represent only one aspect of a more complex disease syndrome.

[2] Darwin correspondence project.  Letter 1236 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., 28 Mar 1849. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1236.html

[3] Gully, James Manby.  Water Cure in Chronic Disease. London: John Churchill, 1846, 46.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Keynes, R. Darwin: His Daughter and Human Evolution. New York: Riverhead, 2002.

[6]  Darwin correspondence project.  Letter 1234 — Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, S. E., [19 Mar 1849] http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1234.html

[7] Atkin, G. The British and Foreign Homœopathic Medical Directory and Record. London: Aylott, 1853, 45.

[8]  Homoeopathic Directory of Great Britain and Ireland and Annual

Abstract of the Homoeopathic Literature.  London: Harry Turner, 1871, 55. http://books.google.com/books/pdf/homeopathic_medical_directory_of_great_b.pdf?id=H94NAAAAQAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U2vjPFZP4LlTreQpE2HDSkra0mnXw&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

[9] Burkhardt, F., ed. Charles Darwin’s Letters: A Selection (1825–1859). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 107.

[10] Homeopaths have consistently observed a similar phenomenon, called “Hering’s Law of Cure,” whereby patients experience an “externalization” of an internal illness. Externalizations are an important part of the healing process. Sadly, however, some patients who seek conventional medical care receive treatment to suppress these skin symptoms, pushing them back into the body and worsening the person’s overall health.

[11] Quammen, D. The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution. New York: WW Norton, 2006, 112.

[12] Burkhardt, 1996, 108.

[13] Quammen, 113.

[14] Desmond, A., Moore, J. Darwin. New York: Warner, 1992, 363.

[15]  Ruddick, J. Death at the priory: sex, love and murder in Victorian England. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2001, 2.

[16] Ullman, D, 2007.

[17] Burkhardt, F., Smith, S. (eds.). The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, vol VI, 346.

[18] Bradley J, and Depree M. A shadow of orthodoxy? an epistemology of British hydropathy, 1840–1858, Medical History, 2003, 47:173–194. 

[19] Bellavite P, Conforti A, Piasere V, and Ortolani R. Immunology and homeopathy. 1. historical background. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., December 2005; 2: 441 - 452.

[20] Bellavite P, Conforti A, Piasere V, and Ortolani R. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. clinical studies—part 1. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., September 2006; 3: 293-301.

[21] Bellavite P, Conforti A, Piasere V, and Ortolani R. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. clinical studies—part 2. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., December 2006; 3: 397-409.

[22] Darwin’s Correspondence Project.  http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/namedefs/namedef-200.html

[23] Burkhardt, 1985, XI, 643.

[24] Burkhardt, 1985, XI, 361.

[25] Burkhardt, 1985, XI, 200.

[26] Burkhardt, 1985, XI, 255.

 

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. Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.

 

Follow Dana Ullman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HomeopathicDana

Comments

[malzor]

"Expert in homeopathic medicine" what does that mean?

--> no actual medical education, because, that like, is hard and stuff and takes work and dedication to science

[Ergon]

Even though Darwin was unable to figure out the methodology of homoeopathy, he continued to visit Dr. Gully.
Some sceptic!

[Whatevah]

It's important to remember that Darwin had very few choices. The best medical care in the 1840s was still very primitive. This was decades before Pasteur established the germ theory. There was little available other than quackery at the time.

Darwin lost two children due to conditions that conventional doctors could easily cure today. I take a lot of vitamins even though I doubt that they do any good. Since they do no harm, I figure I have nothing to lose.

My impression is that many consumers who try homeopathy take the same attitude. The problem comes in when folks waste time and money on quackery treating conditions that conventional medicine can treat effectively.

[ChristyRed]

Whatevah again conveniently misses the point which is that Darwin recovered under homeopathic treatment.

Whatevah rants on: "The problem comes in when folks waste time and money on quackery treating conditions that conv med can......". What whatevah doesn't know is that homeopathy is most famous for its cures of all types of chronic diseases--something conventional medicine can't even touch! Just one example is Deborah Olenev (CCH, RSHom) curing a case of diabetes.

www.hpathy.com/casesnew/

Whatevah thinks everyone should use drugs well known to result in terrible devastation and loss of life through side effects and iatrogenic diseases. How cost effective is that?
BTW, what drug company DO you work for? I don't think you mentioned it.

[Ergon]

I submit to you that conventional medicine still IS quackery, unable as it is to cure chronic disease, only alleviate the symptoms (while exacerbating other conditions)
And calling homoeopathy 'quackery' when it's the allopathic 'quacksilver' (mercury) peddling profession who got that deserved reputation and still peddles toxic 'cures' for cancer and other illnesses?
We may never be able to prove how homoeopathy works to the satisfaction of the science fetishists.
Just don't place regulatory or cultural injunctions against those who use their free will to determine what goes into their bodies, and don't use your ill-articulated definitions of the so- called placebo effect to look down on those who report real benefit from these remedies, especially those whom conventional medicine has failed so spectacularly.

[Sheldon101]

The peer review process should have required Mr. Ullman to make changes before accepting.

INACCURATE SUMMARY:
According to the summary, "Despite being highly skeptical of these treatments, he experienced a dramatic improvement in his health. He grew to appreciate water cure, but he remained skeptical of homeopathy,"

Those sentences incorrectly imply Darwin hadn't come to firm conclusions about homeopathy. As Darwin is central to the paper, words to the effect of, "Darwin believed that homeopathy was worthless, that it violated common sense and what he know by ordinary observation." should have appeared at the beginning of the

THE ARTICLE
The same is true of the article itself. An accurate summary of Darwin's views, plainly stated, needed to be at the start of the paper. Skeptical and extremely skeptical are not accurate. Quotations later in the article do not fix this error.

Without those corrections, the article should not have been accepted.y.

Flu Vaccination: Safe, Effective and Magic Free

[ChristyRed]

sheldon,

May I make a suggestion (or two)? "Professionals" who criticize the work of other professionals always give their full names and credentials. This is the professional thing to do. When "professionals" hide behind screen names they have......­...no.....­.....credi­bility.

This is not the vaccine article. (I still don't know anyone who is willing to get either shot.)

Using a photo of an authority figure does not make YOU an authority figure. Besides, this one is about 40 years old so represents the notions of yesteryear.

[Sheldon101]

1. Asking for credentials is ad hominem. What's wrong with the substance of what I wrote?

2. I've got a signature like many others. Mine sells a better day tomorrow for free.

3. It's a homage to the man and to the day when summer start being carefree again. See profile

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­------
Flu vaccination: Safe and effective. If not for yourself, for your cat. (At least one cat has tested positive for H1N1)

[cable1977]

If I can make a suggestion for you. Instead of criticizing others for your perceived notions about their motives or whether they should divulge personal information (as you yourself do not), why don't you simply respond to the points that Sheldon was making with your own ideas and explanations.

[Dana Ullman - Huffpost Blogger]

My article did undergo rigorous peer-review, while your writing here did not. Why don't YOU write something for a peer-review journal and prove yourself. Until or unless you do, you're just an arm-chair philosopher who stands on quicksand.

And which journals do you serve on the editorial board? If none, perhaps you need to show some academic chops before you put yourself on any platform assuming some degree of superiority.

Perhaps a dose of humility is necessary...the best scientists are humble...I strive for this heightened state of awareness...do you?

[Sheldon101]

Your comment is inappropriate in this forum. Not a word on substance. Every word an ad hominem attack. As usual, there's none in mine.

Here's my argument once again. You've written a historical essay on Darwin and Gulley. Take away Darwin and all that's left is Dr. Gulley, a British homeopath in the 19th Century. At best, it's of interest to homeopath historians. I really doubt you would have written the paper without Gulley.

It certainly wouldn't have been published in eCam and it certainly wouldn't have gathered any interest here. You would have been lucky to get 5 or 10 comments.

Since Darwin is the reason for the paper, Darwins views must be front and center. And they must be accurately stated in the text. The reader should not have to read a very long quote to discover that Darwin wasn't a skeptic, his mind was made up, he believed homeopathy was worthless, violated common sense and was at odds with what was known of observing the world.

Once Darwin's conclusions are clearly stated, then the rest of the paper follows. There's no loss of information.

Explain where I've gone wrong.

[Whatevah]

It's interesting that this post received fewer comments than previous essays by this topic. My suspicion is that many fans of homeopathy are also creationists.

We are seeing the result of a generation of second-rate performance by US public schools. We've known for decades that our students are much less competent in math and science. The sad result is that our kids grow up to be suckers for quack medicine and pseudoscience.

[Dana Ullman - Huffpost Blogger]

"Whatevah" is proving his/her name! S/he just makes stuff up. NO...there is no evidence that advocates of homeopathy are "creationists." Actually, ALL of the evidence about who seeks homeopathic care are MORE educated people than those who don't. It should therefore be said that people who seek conventional medical care are more likely to be creationists than those who seek homeopathic care. Those who seek conventional medical treatment are the real suckers because they simply follow the crowd rather than think for themselves.

It is ignorance that leads some people to attack homeopathy on groundless reasons...and ironically, they tend to think of themselves as "defenders of science." What a laugh...

[Whatevah]

You know even less about me than you know about science.

Why are you incapable of dealing with people who disagree with you without attacking them? Why is it so difficult to imagine that someone could possibly be more informed than you and have better judgement? Why do you think that everyone who judges homeopathy to be quackery - which it certainly is - has to be "hostile" and "ignorant" instead of simply being correct.

The simple answer is usually the right one. The reason that mainstream science has repeatedly rejected homeopathy is that it is just bunk. It's not personal, and it has nothing to do with me.

[mamacat]

It is perhaps misleading to imply that Darwin preferred homeopathy over more scientific methods of practising medicine.

Pasteur's germ theory was not published until 1857, only two years before the Theory of Evolution. Thus the people of the time had little choice but to rely on the lastest "scientific" theories of medicine.

[Dana Ullman - Huffpost Blogger]

In reviewing the comments below, it is interesting (and odd) that those people who are antagonistic to homeopathy seem to ignore what THIS article is about and what evidence it provides. History clearly shows that Darwin was helped greatly by Dr. Gully, even though Darwin was highly skeptical of his treatments. This skepticism suggests that the efficacy of treatment was NOT due to placebo. It is interesting how skeptics of homeopathy twist and turn and spin whatever pro-homeopathy information or experience there is into their own anti-homeopathy rant.

I wrote the above article in a scholar fashion, and yet, most commenters below play arm-chair philsopher and spout out their "theories" as to why homeopathy cannot or should not work. Such thinking is not thinking at all...and it is being mentally lazy.

Although double-blind studies are critical to evaluate the efficacy of a treatment (and most double-blind trials on homeopathy DO show this efficacy, not just clinical trials but also basic science experiments), it is important to evaluate an overall "body of evidence" which may draw from epidemiological data, cost-effectiveness studies, unique case reports, and from historical evidence. It is important for medical science to draw from many bodies of information to ascertain efficacy.

[StThomas]

Diiluting something to make it more efficacious runs counter to common sense, nor has anyone ever found any reason in physics or chemistry to say "Oh this could possibly work". Small studies often show an effect by chance alone; no one has done a large study compaing homoeopathic treatment to placebo. A large meta analysis like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589?dopt=Abstract finds no reason to prefer homoeopathy over placebo. And I think that a practitioner of homoeopathy who believes in what he is doing can wield the placebo effect powerfully, hence confirming his belief and his patients that "Homoeopathy works". What I find telling is that to prove homoeopathy works, would get the researcher who did it would have fame, and a name that would last as long as Hippocrates, but no-one outside those who have bought into H. find it a fruitful area of research.
You have been doing what you're doing for 30+ years so you are probably too invested to change your mind, and I can see that you are hurt when you find others not convinced by what convinces you, but science has looked at Homoeopathy and found it wanting

[StThomas]

"would get the researcher who did it would have fame"
"would get the researcher who did it, fame"

oops

[dadw5boys]

The USA is ranked 37th in Health Care and Last in preventable disease treatment.

So where do the Doctors come from for the country above the 37th ranking ?

The Pan American Medical School trains many of them. The Doctors treat illnesses not symptoms and they do it without million dollar office complexes unneeded test and billions of dollars in tax write offs.
Isn't it stranage the USA seeks to be only number 1 in Rescue Medical Care the most expensive to provide ?

[Whatevah]

The reason for the poor ranking of the US stems from the fact that it is the only developed nation without universal health coverage. It has nothing to do with doctor training.

[NoSillyName]

Interesting. I've tried homeopathy several times and found it to be seriously lacking in efficacy.

[Whitley2009]

Homeopathy is a strange and marvelous "material" chemistry science versus organic and inorganic chemistry. It is really involved with quantum physics.

I have been making and effectively using my own homeopathic medicines for many years. Many of my veterinarian friends use homeopathy very effectively on horses, dogs, cats, and other animals. One can easily prove the power of homeopathy by making mineral versions and using them on plants as super fertilizer. The plants and animals do not speak English so there is no placebo effect.

There are over 150,000 homeopathic practitioners around the world, many of them allopathic medical doctors. Most of these physicians were called to homeopathy as an alternative to dangerous and terribly expensive drugs. Many American surgeons are looking at using arnica montana before and after surgery with their patients to promote healing.

If you would like to get into the science of homeopathy, see the following link:

http://www.hpathy.com/research/smith-how-homeopathy-works.asp

[technoextreme]

False dichotomy. Chemistry and quantum mechanics go hand in hand. You can't explain simple chemical phenomenon like bonding without quantum mechanics. The problem with the quantum mechanics gambit is that anyone with a basic understanding of both will realize that there is no mechanism for homeopathy.

[StThomas]

"One can easily prove the power of homeopathy by making mineral versions and using them on plants as super fertilizer"
So if you water your plants they do well

[cable1977]

Have you ever grown plants side by side with homeopathic minerals, normal fertilizer, and just water? Then you would have to measure the growth of the plants to determine whether the homeopathic fertilizer is actually effective or not. Otherwise you are simply making observations as to one being better or more effective without anything to compare it to, and observations are usually quite fallible without a way to control objectively.

[NoSillyName]

Arnica is an herb and, as such, does have an effect.

Homeopathic compounds, not so much,/

[Dana Ullman - Huffpost Blogger]

Sadly, it is so typical of people who are antagonistic to homeopathy to be simply uninformed or misinformed about homeopathic research. In reference to Arnica, here's a good study published in a leading surgery journal and conducted by a professor of surgery at
-- Seeley BM, Denton AB, Ahn MS, Maas CS, Effect of homeopathic Arnica montana on bruising in face-lifts: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006 Jan-Feb;8(1):54-9.

There have also been several studies using Arnica as a part of a formula, as in the product TRAUMEEL. This study was published in THE leading cancer journal:
-- Oberbaum M, Yaniv I, Ben-Gal Y, et al. A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the homeopathic medication Traumeel S® in the treatment of chemothera­py-induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation. Cancer. 2001;92(3):684-690.

...and I could quote others... EDUCATE yourself...and cool with the spouting and the spewing.

[bobdcat]

Yes. Water is good for you. Drink lots of it. But don't pay big $$$ for bottles of it labeled "homeopathic medicine".

[vorpalmusic]

Well, it doesn't really cost that much. It's a pretty brilliant idea, sell nothing pills cheaply enough that they can be bought en masse to take away the final objection most gullible people could possibly have, then sell millions and millions of units. They probably would make less money if they charged a lot, as less people would buy it.

[observer100]

It is so good to know that orthodox medicine has been repressive of alternatives for so much of its history and that going corporate has strengthened its monopolistic repression so up until now oppositional science could gain no public credibility in the face of monopolistic opposition. So happy the monopoly is rapidly coming to its well deserved end. For those who seek to restore health, let corporate medicine be your last resort, not your first, in which case they will most likely complicate and worsen your original complaint.

Blessings X 10,

Ed

[ScienceFTW]

YES! Reason and Results begone!

[lotuslady7761]

I think Observer100 was definitely looking at reason and results. Take western medical drugs, get more symptoms, get sicker. Stop using them, get better.

Reason and results.

[Whatevah]

Orthodox medicine did not exist in the 1840s. This was decades before Pasteur launched modern medicine by establishing the germ theory.

Exactly what corporation was holding down homeopathy back then? Please - tell me!

[observer100]

"Dr. Gully, a medical graduate of the University of Edinburgh, was strongly critical of the use of drugs of that era. Gully was particularly critical of polypharmacy,[3] the common and unscientific practice of using multiple drugs concurrently for a patient, a practice that continues today."

Did not say a word about 19th Century corporations.

[StThomas]

From a letter from Darwin "in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have anyion of Darwin's effect whatever" and Gully seems to have been more of a hydrotherapist than a homoeopath.
Have a look at a collection of Darwin's letters, particularly this one. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1352.html

Even if Darwin did think homoeopathy credible, and I am not sure he did now, what relevance now in2009?

[StThomas]

"in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever."
oops

[Sheldon101]

I agree.

[NoSillyName]

Yeah, I don't believe that any product diluted to the point of being undetectable at the atomic level has any effect on health conditions.

I'll try most anything once or several times before I form an opinion and IMO, homeopathy is useless.

[Whatevah]

Perhaps the reason Darwin wasn't exactly a cheerleader for this (or any) doctor is that they were powerless to prevent the deaths of two of his children, who died from conditions that could be easily cured today.

All this happened decades before Pasteur launched modern medicine by establishing the germ theory. To brag that a homeopath met the medical standard of the 1840s is kind of like bragging about being the skinniest kid at fat camp. The competition is pretty underwhelming.

[eShirl]

This is the best paragraph:

"[For a more detailed review of Darwin’s experiences with homeopathy and homeopathic doctors, see the above referenced article that was published in a medical journal. For people who are interested in other personal experiences with homeopathic medicines by other famous and internationally renowned physicians and scientists, see my most recent book, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. This book includes the experiences with homeopathic medicines by Sir William Osler (the “father of modern medicine”), Emil Adolph von Behring (the “father of immunology”), Harold Randall Griffith, MD (the “father of modern anesthesia”), Charles Frederick Menninger, MD (founder of the Menninger Clinic), C. Everett Koop, MD (former U.S. Surgeon General), Brian Josephson, PhD (Cambridge professor and Nobel Laureate), amongst many others. This book also describes similar experiences by 11 U.S. Presidents and numerous other world leaders, six popes and numerous leading spiritual leaders, as well as world-class literary greats, corporate leaders, women’s rights leaders, monarchs, sports superstars, musical geniuses, and television and film stars. Although skeptics of homeopathy tend to minimize personal experiences from patients, the patients in THIS book are from many of the most respected cultural heroes of the past 200 years. If people want to know what these amazing people did in their life to help them achieve the highest level of human performance, then perhaps their experiences with and understandings of homeopathy may shed light in part on how they did so.]"

[StThomas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I'm only saying.............

[eShirl]

Oh yes, I agree.

[cable1977]

Cause we never see arguments from authority at all.....

[ChristyRed]

But "skeptics" continually demand evidence from exactly those sources: authorities!

[dharmamom]

Then if the above is true, what I have read about Darwin leads me to believe he was nature's biggest hypocrite...and unfortunately one with a big mouth,,,,affecting and effecting generations to come with his "theories" of evolution.

[Whatevah]

Hi dharmamom!

Take a second and read Mr. Ullman's comments above. What do you think of his claims? Do you think Darwinists are more educated than evolution skeptics?