After the debate with my last articles on this topic, I find I couldn't agree with the critics more. Homeopathy is strange and sounds magical. When I try to explain it to people -- despite years of study and personal/professional experience -- I wind up sounding like my worst woo-woo nightmare, stumbling over words like "energy," "resonance" and "organism."
As I stumble, my husband patiently awaits my sound byte, still anxiously hoping I can give him a way to explain what I do to save him from sounding just as ridiculous.
As he is a musician, I put it to him this way: "Think of it as you do of music... notes and chords... entire arrangements of single notes (or combinations thereof) and the spaces between them."
He looked at me, single eyebrow raised. I had crossed over onto his turf. I'd better know what I'm talking about.
"In homeopathy, you can think of both the human being (or any living creature for that matter) and the remedy as pieces of music. A person comes in for treatment and the disease or pathology is presenting as a song, out of tune with the rest of the person when in a healthy state. We look for a remedy that most closely matches the totality of that pathology's song. When we give it to the patient, the remedy cancels the disease. A song for a song. Like cures like."
Eyebrow is lowered. I am momentarily reprieved. "Is it phase cancellation?"
"I'm not sure because it's not an opposing frequency, it's a similar one. But maybe the amplitudes are opposing."
Eyebrow is raised. I realize that I'm back to where I started.
Perhaps an easier way to see it is with this metaphor:
See yourself as a being of a million small crystals, each one with a frequency. When you become ill, some of those crystals change frequency and begin to vibrate or sing out of tune. When we choose a remedy, we choose it to best match those crystals that have fallen out of tune. When delivered, it shatters those sick crystals, leaving only the healthy ones behind.
Admittedly, it is a metaphor, and as such, still leaves a great deal unexplained. I can understand the frustration of allopaths and critics with the obvious absence of hard, linear facts that are repeatable regardless of the person or place. Compared to current pharmaceutical philosophy, making scientific "sense" of homeopathy is like trying to play ordinary billiards in a quantum pool hall.
The problem is that homeopathy is aimed at treating the individual with a single remedy, chosen specifically for him or her. It is not for treating masses of people with the same pill. Twenty people could have the "same" flu, but each one would need a different remedy (not necessarily Oscillococcinum) and be rightly cured because each one would manifest illness in a way that is utterly unique to him-/herself. We always treat the person, not the disease. As such it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible to replicate homeopathic treatment the way pharmaceutical companies try to do in drug trials.
A Simple Case in Point
My dog, who is not generally considered a good candidate for placebo, was sitting in on a session with a young patient I had been seeing for quite a while. While he was curled up on the couch next to her, he looked up at my patient and she frowned, "God, what's wrong with him?!"
Without warning his eye had started bulging out of its socket. I was taken aback and instantly concerned. I begged her indulgence and called my homeopathic vet, who is located about two hours from us. He told me to take him for an emergency physical exam at a local hospital.
I asked for an emergency reschedule (she was in no danger and there was no threat to the therapeutic relationship) and rushed him over. After the exam, the local vet ruled out the more terrifying possibilities (rupture, tumor etc...) and pronounced it an inflammation, probably due to a scratch, spider bite or bee sting. She prescribed a bucket full of different pills and ointments.
More at ease now that there was no crisis and my panic had passed, I thanked her and left with just one of the ointments in case I didn't find the right remedy immediately.
When I got back, I went to the repertory (in a computer, unlike my first homeopathic physician) and made a scrupulous list of his visible symptoms. Obviously I could only surmise how he felt, so I didn't even try. These were the rubrics I chose for him:
1. Eye, inflammation
2. Eye, inflammation, acute
3. Generals, aggravated on the right side
4. Generals, sudden onset
5. Eye, lachrymation
6. Eye, protrusion with red discoloration.
The remedy was Apis Mellifica, potentized bee venom. This is a particularly straightforward example of how like (when it is potentized, meaning highly diluted to the smallest possible dose) cures like: Venom cancels out venom. Within minutes of giving the dog a few pellets, the inflammation was gone. And it never came back. No other treatment was necessary.
Is it always so straightforward? Hardly. I wish it were. It is especially more complicated when people come in with years and years of emotional suffering, chronic illness, and lists of medications sometimes two pages long. I had one patient on 27 medications because she had been diagnosed depressed. Was she feeling any better? Not in the slightest. It was a long haul to wellness for her with the incredible help of a thorough and patient physician.
Taking someone's case in this situation takes a great deal more time, sensitivity and patience than a simple inflammation. But the essential idea, the bedrock of the interview is the same: Find the remedy that matches the totality of symptoms, which means understanding precisely what it is in her life, in her experience, in her soul that has led to and expresses the essence of the state she is in. It is not enough to say someone is depressed. The word "depressed" doesn't really mean anything. To say, on the other hand, as one patient did, that she felt forsaken, was chronically sad because she felt all alone in the world yet she was averse to company -- that begins to narrow it down a bit. When she added that she had no will power, yet felt better from a good debate, a challenging puzzle, or a lively conversation (mental exertion ameliorates), we begin to see how "depression" expressed itself uniquely in her. The remedy that patient needed (based on those and other symptoms) was Natrum Silicatum.
Now, just because you're sad doesn't mean you should go buy Natrum Silicatum. That is the mistake a lot of people and even poorly trained homeopaths make. It is unlikely that you will receive the benefit she did because her state (remember those crystals) was a Natrum Silicatum state. When it was given, what was unhealthy shattered and left behind only what was vital and strong.
I do not blame the debunkers. Homeopathy is very hard to repeat experimentally precisely because of the way it works: Individually. And so much of its success is in the hands of the homeopath whose task it is to see the patient clearly for who he or she is, to see that particular light, to hear that singular song. This is a hard pill to swallow until you've seen it work. But when you have seen it -- it's the easiest one of all.
Follow Judith Acosta on Twitter: www.twitter.com/VerbalFirstAid
http://www.safetyandquality.health.wa.gov.au/docs/mortality_review/inquest_finding/Dingle_Finding.pdf
If ever there was a case in support of denying the right of these charlatans to make any kind of health claim this must be it. I dare any advocate of homeopathy to read the coroners report describing the agony this woman was in before she ultimately consented to life saving surgery and tell me that homeopathy is anything but a lie and a sham.
You will be horrified to read that even when Penelope called her homeopath in a life-threatening condition - distended bowel requiring immediate surgery, she was threatened with the withdrawal of the 'therapeutic' relationship if she went ahead with the surgery. Classy.
After all, I gave him a lot of water.
Okay, so a lot of the metaphors are weak in the article, and the author admits as much, but I think this hidden metaophor is the real problem. It might SOUND like giving someone "potentized" bee venom is like using antivenin, and that using antivenin is an example of "like cures like", but that is not so. Antivenin is the product of giving an organism venom and then harvesting the antibodies that the body naturally produces as a response. It is not the giving of small amounts (or, no amount as is frequently the case here) of venom, it is giving the antivenin. It is therefore not a confirmation of the principal of like treating like.
a. An onion is a substance which makes your eyes water and your nose burn. If you are having an attack of hay fever with watering eyes and a burning nose, a homeopathic remedy made from onion called allium cepa can relieve it.
b. Poison ivy causes redness, intense itching, burning, blistering and sometimes stiff muscles. Potentised poison ivy called as rhus tox (a homeopathy medicine) has been used for herpes, burns, eczema, allergy, arthritis, etc.
Instead you need to reference at least one high-quality study that evidences that "like cures like". For example, provide a reference to a high quality study indicating that homeopathic doses of onions cause the effects you claim they cause.
http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/export/sites/bha_site/research/evidence_by_condition_refs.pdf
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/research/evidence-base-for-homeopathy-2/evidence-base-for-homeopathy/#link_evidence
Unfortunately for you that evidence is exrtremely weak, and all valid meta-analyses/systematic reviews demonstrate that for proper trials with decent methodology, homeopathy does not perform any better than placebo.
J&J agreed to the fine and is settling civil and criminal charges for its marketing practices of Risperdal. The FDA approved Risperdal to treat shizophrenia, but J&J has been marketing it for illnesses ranging from post-traumatic-stress disorder to dementia. Risperdal costs much more than older generic drugs that treated the same illnesses, but government-funded studies found it often was no more effective. Risperdal cost taxpayers millions of dollars through Medicare and Medicaid claims.
This will be the third time in less than three years that J&J has settled claims stemming from the marketing of its drugs.
A spokesman for "Taxpayers Against Fraud" told the press: "These pharmaceutical companies are going to be running, not walking, to the settlement table."
In November GlaxoSmithKline said it reached an agreement in principle to pay $3B to settle a government investigation into its sales and marketing practices for some of its drugs.
J&J stock closed down at $65.40 on Thursday, down 8 cents.
I recommend homeopathy for a lot of good reasons.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67879-8/fulltext
There are numerous other criticisms, easily found, of the Shang et al. paper.
Applying double blinded placebo controlled testing, which is designed for pharmaceuticals of known biochemistry, to ultra high dilutions whose mechanisms, if any, are unknown? Questionable. Very questionable.
AND:
http://www.zeusinfoservice.com/Homeopathy/RuttenStolpershangrebuttalhomeopathy10.22.08yhomp_471.pdf
"A review of data provided after publication of Shang et
al’s analysis did not support the conclusion that homeopathy is a placebo effect. There was intermingling of comparison of quality and comparison of effects, and thus
matching was lost." (Quoted from Rutten et al. in the above cited article).
The attempt to represent a single meta analysis, manipulated down to 8 trials, based on questionable assumptions, data juggling and qualitatively dissimilar pretend "matchings" of homeopathic and conventional trials, which fell apart in the end, fails, its conclusions are therefore disregarded.
Attempts by pseudo-skeptics citing the likes of the Shang article to portray perfectly capable MD's and other qualified health professionals, scientific researchers, and patients who report long term successful use of homeopathy and success in some acute, even life threatening cases, as a bunch of self deluded fools is insulting to every intelligent person.
The intellectual source of anti-homeopathy hysteria? See HERE:
http://www.anh-europe.org/news/anh-feature-beware-scientism’s-onward-march
Why? Simply making such a bold assertion as this doesn't make it true. This is the logical fallacy known as special pleading.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
I described below how it would be easy to assess homeopathy's individualized treatment regimen using a double-blind placebo controlled method. You have provided absolutely ZERO reasoning to support your claim above. That is probably because there is NO reasoning that would logically support such a contention, as it is special pleading.
Quantum Coherance Domains (Dr. G. Preparata, 1994)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m8223053u1435634/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2876326
Conclusions: "No evidence emerged to support the idea that placebo action fully explains the clinical response to homeopathic drugs."
On top of that, the one trial out of the eight which Shang used specifically to "prove" homeopathy doesn't work and on which his analysis hinged was done on the use of Arnica to prevent muscle soreness in long distance runners. The problem with that is that the provings don't show Arnica can prevent muscle soreness so homeopaths don't prescribe it for that purpose. They prescribe it for, among many other things, muscless soreness after exertion and bruising, swelling and pain from blunt trauma.
Arnica was proven successful in reducing muscle soreness after exertion in a trial on marathon runners in the 1995 Oslo Marathon.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229998800782
Stop lying.
Well, that's because it IS a woo-woo nightmare.
- The study of human behavior shows that we are extraordinarily prone to self-deception and wishful thinking.
- The study of physics, chemistry, and biology shows that there are extremely strong reasons for thinking that homeopathy cannot possibly work.
I put those together and draw the conclusion that the "minor detail that it works" is simply wrong. The evidence, Dana Ullman notwithstanding, is extremely flimsy, and the wild implausibility of the claims puts the burden of proof very high.
Except that you didn't know whether this was caused by venom at all. The vet specifically told you that it could have been caused by a scratch.
"She prescribed a bucket full of different pills and ointments."
Could you be more specific? What qualifies as a "bucketful"? A typical vet would likely prescribe a single antibiotic (pill) along with a single topical ointment or eyedrops, usually some sort of corticosterone to reduce the inflammation. So, what specifically did the vet prescribe? It sounds like you are likely exaggerating.
this is the same person who wrote:
"I had one patient on 27 medications because she had been diagnosed depressed"
so it is highly likely
What these "27" medications might be, god only knows, but they weren't from pharma.
Not at all. It would be very simple to derive an individualized treatment protocol that is properly blinded and controlled.
1. Patient comes to office and is evaluated by homeopath #1.
2. Homeopath #1 prescribes INDIVIDUALIZED remedy.
3. Homeopath #2 who does not evaluate patient or interact with homeopath #1 dispenses either the prescribed remedy or a placebo.
4. Homeopath #1, or any even better control of homeopath #3, evaluates the patient subsequently using both objective and subjective measurements.
5. Results are collated and unblinded and we see that homeopathy is no better than placebo.
So, in 2 minutes I managed to come up with a properly controlled trial design that ZERO homeopaths, many of who claim to be doing scientific research, have managed to do to evaluate the efficacy of their treatments. Perhaps homeopaths really aren't interested in actually testing their treatments.
"It is clear that the strength of available
evidence is insufficient to conclude that
homeopathy is clinically effective; however,
homeopathy can and should be assessed
using the same methodology used for allopathy."
Note also that their conclusion is inconsistent with the claim by homeopaths that the study supports their claims that homeopathy works. However, as we have both seen, homeopaths never let facts get in the way of parting marks from their money.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10853874
Since this meta-a was conducted 13 years ago -- in 1998 -- there have been hundreds more studies done on homeopathy. As HolisticDoc noted, positive trials outnumber negative ones by 6 to 1. It's reasonable to think that a meta-a done today would also be positive and also more definitive.
'I am composed of millions of invisible bananas' might not be a statement that gets you taken seriously, which is presumably the goal here.
This study by Claudia Witt (one of Europe's most respected researchers), et al., followed children for two years. It found that when homeopathy was added to their treatment program they were able to reduce the amount of conventional drugs they used. It also showed that the severity of their eczema improved and that the changes in severity assessment were of large effect size.
Published in the peer-reviewed Acta Dermato Venereol, 2009: 89(2); 182 - 183
This comparative cohort study of homeopathy and conventional medicine shows homeopathy to be as effective as conventional medicine. In fact, physician scores for eczema signs and symptoms indicated significant improvement in the homeopathy group.
Keil, T., et al., Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2008
It must be remembered that no traditional doctor would guarantee recovery from eczema by using conventional drugs since it has been proven many times that curing eczema is difficult and can never be guaranteed.
This couple saw practitioners in a variety of modalities including conventional. They chose a system of medicine which is equally effective but without those risks. And for this they were convicted! Shame!
And shame on you for using this couple's loss to portray homeopathy as ineffective.
You have very little time to act. What do you do?
Do you administer homeopathic arsenic, which somehow would magically correct the body's symptoms without doing a thing to the agent of those symptoms.
Or do you administer a heavy metal ion chelating agent, which will chemically bind up the arsenic and allow its safe removal from the body?
Here they are:
"Can homeopathic arsenic remedy combat arsenic poisoning in humans exposed to groundwater arsenic contamination"
The study shows that the answer is clearly "yes". It provides photographs as well as the full gamut of clinical data proving the positive results of homeopathic treatment. These people were extremely sick. It's wonderful that homeopathy was able to help them so effectively and quickly.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297497/
"An initial report on the efficacy of a millesimal potency of Arsencium album LM 0/3 in ameliorating arsenic toxicity in humans living in a high-risk arsenic village"
Again, the answer is "yes", homeopathy works. And this supports the findings of the initial project.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21669162
The Science of the total Environment (Elseiver)
Arsenicum Album 30C for arsenic toxicity: Evidence-based findings (2007)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628642
Evidence-based Complimentary & Alternative Medicine (Hindawi)
Arsenicum album 30C and 200 C alters antinuclear antibody (ANA) titre in people living in high-risk arsenic contaminated areas (2006)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375236/ // correction of arsenic-induced haematological changes such as total count of RBC, WBC, PCV, Hb, ESR and blood sugar level
According to the way that materials are tested in homeopathy, if something causes symptoms in healthy people, then you can wash away that material until nothing is left and then use the water to treat people who have that particular symptom.
So I have twice asked if Arnica causes bruising in healthy people. Twice I have received no answer but ChristyRed told me to look it up myself.
So what did I find?
Well, actually, less than zilch. I find no ref to Arnica causing bruising, which I must admit I expected. Homeopaths have just jumped on the bandwagon to flog the name, knowing that people do associate it with bruising. The 'less than' bit comes from there seems to be little evidence that Arnica does very much even if you don't wash it away.
A little more time with the books.......
You asserted that it does cause bruising. Ypu back it up!
All these people who buy undiluted (not homoeopathic) arnica over the counter need to know!
citation please! :P
Patients who had extensive, deep-level facelifts were given placebo or verum. The patients who received Arnica had 11% to 41% less bruising and swelling than those who received placebo.
Patients who had liposuction were given placebo or verum. Those who received Arnica were judged by independent surgeons to have less swelling and bruising than those who received placebo.
Arch Facial Plastic Surgery, 1-2/06
www.peacefulmountain.com/test-results/arnicas_efficacy.php
Where is the p value? Could it be that not even applying cosmetics to the results could it be made statistically significant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
For North Americans A&E =ER
It is true homeopathy is difficult to replicate in trials, but not impossible. It does take very sophisticated researchers.
The body of basic science data is in fact, quite strong and shows almost conclusively that homeopathic remedies have biological effects - even if we don't fully
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17544864
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19945674
Randomized clinical trial data is also strong, but more spotty, primarily because a number of researchers with no understanding of homeopathy attempt trials, which invariably fail - however, these trials are not reflective of homeopathy, but rather someone's misguided attempt to assess the medicine. The other issue is that many trials have insufficient statistical power (primarily due to lack of funding for the research and resultant small cohort sizes). Therefore, about half of all homeopathic RCT's are inconclusive - again, no reflection on homeopathy, but rather the lack of sufficient resources for research. Having said that, of trials with sufficient statistical power to draw conclusions, studies with positive results outnumber negative by 6 to 1.
However, to answer the question for people who may be unfamiliar with homeopathy, it is because homeopathics do not contain material doses of the original substance. That is what makes them safe.