Taking homeopathy seriously
02/02/11 12:55
The debate over homeopathy rages on! I just read this article in the Huffington Post in which Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier (the virologist who discovered the AIDS virus) explains why he supports homeopathy. The article cites a fair bit of research into homeopathy, which makes for a great read if you want to learn more. Thanks Theresa Jahn, ND for sending me the link!
The article makes some great points in favour of homeopathy that I wanted to highlight:
Reading through the comments on this article, I also found a link to this page on frequently asked questions about homeopathy. This is a really detailed Q&A on all the most-asked questions about homeopathy and is a great place to start if you want to learn about this wonderful modality. Enjoy!
The article makes some great points in favour of homeopathy that I wanted to highlight:
- “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).”
- Homeopathy “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.”
- “High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules."
Reading through the comments on this article, I also found a link to this page on frequently asked questions about homeopathy. This is a really detailed Q&A on all the most-asked questions about homeopathy and is a great place to start if you want to learn about this wonderful modality. Enjoy!
Comments
Homeopathy: cure or con?
14/01/11 12:02
Tonight CBC Marketplace will air a report called Cure or Con? on homeopathy. Even though the report has not aired yet, there are lots of comments! From what I can tell from their preview, I doubt that these journalists have actually investigated homeopathy in-depth and that their “research” is likely a waste of time and money. I look forward to watching it to see what they have done.
I use homeopathy as part of my practice with great results and have written blogs about it on this site. If you are interested in learning more about homeopathy, start with my blog Homeopathy primer. For information about research into homeopathy, check out Homeopathy literature review.
What most people consider research is often only the tip of the iceberg as far as information goes. True “evidence-based medicine” encompasses clinical experience as well! Check out my blog Is evidence-based medicine compatible with naturopathic principles for a more a discussion on this topic and my blog Mythology of science-based medicine for even more insight into medical research.
I use homeopathy as part of my practice with great results and have written blogs about it on this site. If you are interested in learning more about homeopathy, start with my blog Homeopathy primer. For information about research into homeopathy, check out Homeopathy literature review.
What most people consider research is often only the tip of the iceberg as far as information goes. True “evidence-based medicine” encompasses clinical experience as well! Check out my blog Is evidence-based medicine compatible with naturopathic principles for a more a discussion on this topic and my blog Mythology of science-based medicine for even more insight into medical research.
Homeopathic flu prevention
20/10/10 21:45
Once again, Kew Beach Natural Health Clinic is running our hugely popular homeopathic flu prevention program!
People who participate in this program have very few flu incidents over the winter, even though family members and co-workers may become very ill. Flu symptoms may be much milder and last for a shorter duration than other non-homeopathically protected people. Many participants no longer experience the flu at all. Each year the program grows in popularity due to overwhelmingly positive word of mouth!
How does it work?
The Homeopathic Flu Prevention Program is an ongoing research study conducted by Helena Ovens, ND. Your participation is voluntary and appreciated. Here’s how to participate:
1. To participate you must currently be in good health and you must not have had a flu shot since April 15, 2010.
2. Call Kew Beach Natural Health Clinic at 416-690-6168 to arrange at time to come by to fill out an intake form. You will be given a 6-month supply of homeopathic pellets, an instruction sheet, and a form to record any “flu-like” symptoms. There is a $5.00 administrative fee per adult (children are free) to cover the costs of materials and remedies.
3. Take 1 pellet of the remedy once per month on the same day to prevent the flu. If you have any “flu-like” symptoms, record them on the form.
4. Return your form by the end of April 2011 by fax, email, in-person, or by mail. It is very important that you return your form (whether you experienced “flu-like” symptoms or not) so that we can track the success of the program.
We look forward to helping you have a healthy, flu-free season!
People who participate in this program have very few flu incidents over the winter, even though family members and co-workers may become very ill. Flu symptoms may be much milder and last for a shorter duration than other non-homeopathically protected people. Many participants no longer experience the flu at all. Each year the program grows in popularity due to overwhelmingly positive word of mouth!
How does it work?
The Homeopathic Flu Prevention Program is an ongoing research study conducted by Helena Ovens, ND. Your participation is voluntary and appreciated. Here’s how to participate:
1. To participate you must currently be in good health and you must not have had a flu shot since April 15, 2010.
2. Call Kew Beach Natural Health Clinic at 416-690-6168 to arrange at time to come by to fill out an intake form. You will be given a 6-month supply of homeopathic pellets, an instruction sheet, and a form to record any “flu-like” symptoms. There is a $5.00 administrative fee per adult (children are free) to cover the costs of materials and remedies.
3. Take 1 pellet of the remedy once per month on the same day to prevent the flu. If you have any “flu-like” symptoms, record them on the form.
4. Return your form by the end of April 2011 by fax, email, in-person, or by mail. It is very important that you return your form (whether you experienced “flu-like” symptoms or not) so that we can track the success of the program.
We look forward to helping you have a healthy, flu-free season!
Homeopathy literature review
18/02/10 09:37
Homeopathy is often criticized for having little research evidence available. This blog is a compilation of what I have learned in examining research evidence for homeopathy published in conventional medical journals. For more info on homeopathy, please see a previous blog entitled “Homeopathy primer.”
One of the major reasons that the results of most mainstream research on homeopathy are often inconclusive because the methods used usually do not honour the principles of homeopathy and therefore the research does not actually evaluate the practice of homeopathy. Aphorism 104 in the Organon explains how a practitioner can take and treat a case homeopathically:
“Once the totality of symptoms that principally determine and distinguish the disease case … has been exactly recorded, the most difficult work is done … He can then select … a well-aimed, similar, artificial disease potence, in the form of a homeopathically chosen medicinal means, to oppose the total disease image (1).”
Unfortunately, remedies are often not prescribed individually and are instead selected based on typical clinical presentation of pathology.
A meta-analysis published by Shang et al. in the Lancet in 2005 compared placebo-controlled homeopathy trials to conventional medicine trials matched by disorder and type and determined that “the clinical effects of homoeopathy, but not those of conventional medicine, are unspecific placebo or context effects (2).” The homeopathy trials were categorized classical, clinical, or complex homoeopathy (or as isopathy). Specifically,
“Classical homoeopathy was defined as comprehensive homoeopathic history-taking, followed by the prescription of a single individualised remedy, possibly with subsequent change of remedy in response to changing symptoms. If no comprehensive homoeopathic history was taken and all patients received a single, identical remedy, interventions were classified as clinical homoeopathy (2).”
Only “classical” homeopathy trials actually reflect the use of remedies according to homeopathic principles as set out in the Organon. “Clinical” homeopathy is the substitution of homeopathic remedies for conventional medicine and therefore not the practice of homeopathy. Of 110 homeopathy trials analyzed, only 18 were categorized as “classical” while 48 “clinical” homeopathy trials were analyzed. The selection of trials for this analysis therefore precluded results that would accurately evaluate the effects of homeopathic treatment.
Rutten and Stolper analyzed post-publication data from the Shang paper and concluded that:
“Re-analysis of Shang's post-publication data did not support the conclusion that homeopathy is a placebo effect. The conclusion that homeopathy is and that conventional is not a placebo effect was not based on comparative analysis and not justified because of heterogeneity and lack of sensitivity analysis. If we confine ourselves to the predefined hypotheses and the part of the analysis that is indeed comparative, the conclusion should be that quality of homeopathic trials is better than of conventional trials, for all trials (p=0.03) as well as for smaller trials (p=0.003) (3).”
A review by Lüdtke and Rutten also came to this conclusion. Their meta-analysis determined that “homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo (OR=0.76; 95% CI: 0.59-0.99; p=0.039) (4).” and that, “Shang's negative results were mainly influenced by one single trial (4).” They concluded: “Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented (4).”
Linde et al. published a review of randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy in the Lancet in 1998. In this review, the team clarified that, “in individualized homeopathy the choice of the remedy for treatment is not based on a conventional diagnosis but on the match of the patient’s particular symptoms with the ‘remedy picture (5)’” and also conceded that, “no attempt was made to assess the ‘homeopathic’ quality of the trials. The reviewer’s knowledge and experience homeopathy are insufficient for such judgments (5).” While recognizing their limited comprehension of homeopathy, Linde et al. reviewed 32 studies, providing detailed information about each study’s methodology, including whether remedies were indeed prescribed homeopathically:
“In 20 trials, the choice of the remedy seemed to be unrestricted (approach 1), in 2 trials patients were included only if they matched the remedy picture of one of a preset range of remedies (approach 2), in 7 studies patients were included (without taking into account "homeopathic" aspects) and then the best fitting remedy had to be chosen from a range of predefined remedies was prescribed (approach 3), and in 3 trials only one remedy was applied and patients were entered only if they matched the remedy picture (approach 4) (5).”
Only 19 trials provided “sufficient data for meta-analysis (5),” although not all of these trials were of high methodological quality nor did all of them use individualized therapy. Of 12 trials categorized as “likely to have good methodological quality” or “unlikely to have major flaws,” all except two favoured homeopathy over placebo (5). Of these 12 highest quality trials, seven were individualized, and all except one favoured homeopathy. This review relied on the data from the 19 trials (both individualized and otherwise) and concluded: “while overall the results indicate that individualized homeopathy is superior to placebo, the methodologically better trials have less positive results and confirmatory independent replications are lacking. The evidence from these trials that individualized is clearly more efficacious than placebo is, therefore, not fully convincing (5).”
This review, which recognized individualization of treatment in homeopathy, is a step in the right direction. Conducting useful research on homeopathy within the conventional medical paradigm requires a greater understanding of the system of medicine being investigated in order to truly evaluate the use of homeopathy as a treatment modality.
Finally, a long-term observational study by Witt et al. assessed perceived change in complaint severity and quality of life at baseline, and after 2 and 8 years in 3,709 patients treated with homeopathy. In this study, physicians were free to choose treatment which “usually included the prescription of homeopathic medicines according to homeopathic principles, but also could include the onset, change, or withdrawal of a conventional medicine, referrals to specialists, or admission to a hospital (6).” At eight years, 32.9% of patients were still receiving homeopathic treatment, 29.2% of patients stopped treatment due to perceived major improvements in health, 26.0% stopped treatment because they did not feel homeopathy helped enough, 7.1% of patients stopped treatment for reasons unrelated to efficacy of therapy, and 3.6% stopped treatment without reason (6). The researchers concluded that, “patients who seek homeopathic treatment are likely to improve considerably, although this effect must not be attributed to homeopathic treatment alone. These effects persisted for 8 years (6).”
1. Hahnemann S. Organon of the Medical Art. Palo Alto: Birdcage Books; 1996, p. 141.
2. 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. Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):726-32.
3. Rutten AL, Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy. 2008 Oct;97(4):169-77.
4. Lüdtke R, Rutten AL. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Dec;61(12):1197-204. Epub 2008 Oct 1. Review.
5. Linde K, Melchart D. Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. J Altern Complement Med. 1998 Winter;4(4):371-88. Review.
6. Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Mengler N, Willich SN. How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?--Results from a long term observational study. BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 17;8:413.
One of the major reasons that the results of most mainstream research on homeopathy are often inconclusive because the methods used usually do not honour the principles of homeopathy and therefore the research does not actually evaluate the practice of homeopathy. Aphorism 104 in the Organon explains how a practitioner can take and treat a case homeopathically:
“Once the totality of symptoms that principally determine and distinguish the disease case … has been exactly recorded, the most difficult work is done … He can then select … a well-aimed, similar, artificial disease potence, in the form of a homeopathically chosen medicinal means, to oppose the total disease image (1).”
Unfortunately, remedies are often not prescribed individually and are instead selected based on typical clinical presentation of pathology.
A meta-analysis published by Shang et al. in the Lancet in 2005 compared placebo-controlled homeopathy trials to conventional medicine trials matched by disorder and type and determined that “the clinical effects of homoeopathy, but not those of conventional medicine, are unspecific placebo or context effects (2).” The homeopathy trials were categorized classical, clinical, or complex homoeopathy (or as isopathy). Specifically,
“Classical homoeopathy was defined as comprehensive homoeopathic history-taking, followed by the prescription of a single individualised remedy, possibly with subsequent change of remedy in response to changing symptoms. If no comprehensive homoeopathic history was taken and all patients received a single, identical remedy, interventions were classified as clinical homoeopathy (2).”
Only “classical” homeopathy trials actually reflect the use of remedies according to homeopathic principles as set out in the Organon. “Clinical” homeopathy is the substitution of homeopathic remedies for conventional medicine and therefore not the practice of homeopathy. Of 110 homeopathy trials analyzed, only 18 were categorized as “classical” while 48 “clinical” homeopathy trials were analyzed. The selection of trials for this analysis therefore precluded results that would accurately evaluate the effects of homeopathic treatment.
Rutten and Stolper analyzed post-publication data from the Shang paper and concluded that:
“Re-analysis of Shang's post-publication data did not support the conclusion that homeopathy is a placebo effect. The conclusion that homeopathy is and that conventional is not a placebo effect was not based on comparative analysis and not justified because of heterogeneity and lack of sensitivity analysis. If we confine ourselves to the predefined hypotheses and the part of the analysis that is indeed comparative, the conclusion should be that quality of homeopathic trials is better than of conventional trials, for all trials (p=0.03) as well as for smaller trials (p=0.003) (3).”
A review by Lüdtke and Rutten also came to this conclusion. Their meta-analysis determined that “homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo (OR=0.76; 95% CI: 0.59-0.99; p=0.039) (4).” and that, “Shang's negative results were mainly influenced by one single trial (4).” They concluded: “Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented (4).”
Linde et al. published a review of randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy in the Lancet in 1998. In this review, the team clarified that, “in individualized homeopathy the choice of the remedy for treatment is not based on a conventional diagnosis but on the match of the patient’s particular symptoms with the ‘remedy picture (5)’” and also conceded that, “no attempt was made to assess the ‘homeopathic’ quality of the trials. The reviewer’s knowledge and experience homeopathy are insufficient for such judgments (5).” While recognizing their limited comprehension of homeopathy, Linde et al. reviewed 32 studies, providing detailed information about each study’s methodology, including whether remedies were indeed prescribed homeopathically:
“In 20 trials, the choice of the remedy seemed to be unrestricted (approach 1), in 2 trials patients were included only if they matched the remedy picture of one of a preset range of remedies (approach 2), in 7 studies patients were included (without taking into account "homeopathic" aspects) and then the best fitting remedy had to be chosen from a range of predefined remedies was prescribed (approach 3), and in 3 trials only one remedy was applied and patients were entered only if they matched the remedy picture (approach 4) (5).”
Only 19 trials provided “sufficient data for meta-analysis (5),” although not all of these trials were of high methodological quality nor did all of them use individualized therapy. Of 12 trials categorized as “likely to have good methodological quality” or “unlikely to have major flaws,” all except two favoured homeopathy over placebo (5). Of these 12 highest quality trials, seven were individualized, and all except one favoured homeopathy. This review relied on the data from the 19 trials (both individualized and otherwise) and concluded: “while overall the results indicate that individualized homeopathy is superior to placebo, the methodologically better trials have less positive results and confirmatory independent replications are lacking. The evidence from these trials that individualized is clearly more efficacious than placebo is, therefore, not fully convincing (5).”
This review, which recognized individualization of treatment in homeopathy, is a step in the right direction. Conducting useful research on homeopathy within the conventional medical paradigm requires a greater understanding of the system of medicine being investigated in order to truly evaluate the use of homeopathy as a treatment modality.
Finally, a long-term observational study by Witt et al. assessed perceived change in complaint severity and quality of life at baseline, and after 2 and 8 years in 3,709 patients treated with homeopathy. In this study, physicians were free to choose treatment which “usually included the prescription of homeopathic medicines according to homeopathic principles, but also could include the onset, change, or withdrawal of a conventional medicine, referrals to specialists, or admission to a hospital (6).” At eight years, 32.9% of patients were still receiving homeopathic treatment, 29.2% of patients stopped treatment due to perceived major improvements in health, 26.0% stopped treatment because they did not feel homeopathy helped enough, 7.1% of patients stopped treatment for reasons unrelated to efficacy of therapy, and 3.6% stopped treatment without reason (6). The researchers concluded that, “patients who seek homeopathic treatment are likely to improve considerably, although this effect must not be attributed to homeopathic treatment alone. These effects persisted for 8 years (6).”
1. Hahnemann S. Organon of the Medical Art. Palo Alto: Birdcage Books; 1996, p. 141.
2. 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. Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):726-32.
3. Rutten AL, Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy. 2008 Oct;97(4):169-77.
4. Lüdtke R, Rutten AL. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Dec;61(12):1197-204. Epub 2008 Oct 1. Review.
5. Linde K, Melchart D. Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. J Altern Complement Med. 1998 Winter;4(4):371-88. Review.
6. Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Mengler N, Willich SN. How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?--Results from a long term observational study. BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 17;8:413.
Homeopathy primer
12/05/09 22:15
This blog is slightly modified from its original posting on October 30, 2006 here.
Homeopathy literally means “similar suffering”. It is based on the principle that “like cures like” – that a similar, but stronger, energetic force can displace a weaker one. It was created/discovered by Samuel Hahnemann who observed the relationship between the curative effects and poisoning symptoms of Cinchona (used to treat malaria). His observations were not new; however, he was the first to form these theories into a workable philosophy of medicine.
Homeopathy is energetic, rather than physical. Disease is defined as a mistunement or energetic imbalance of the life force which can be acute (self-limiting) or chronic (ingrained). Most remedies (those at 12C and higher) contain no actual molecules of the remedy substance, but instead carry the energy signature transferred to the solvent (usually alcohol) by the substance as it was sucussed (mixed) and diluted.
The mechanism is cure is this: a similar (but not same) and stronger “artificial” disease (the remedy), which has a signature vibration, is introduced to the life force, which has its own vibration (the disease). The vibration of the remedy is similar to the vibration of the life force, but stronger, so it alters the life force’s vibration (interference). The life force now responds to the artificial disease and in the process is able to throw off the natural disease. The artificial disease is removed when the remedy is completed and the life force returns to a healthy state.
Homeopathy treats people, not problems. No two people have the same disease, they only have some (perhaps many) symptoms in common. They may both be diagnosed with MS (for example), but the symptoms of MS are not the whole story because these people are not even close to being identical. It is their differences which form the unique signature of their mistunement. Therefore, the skilled homeopath must examine the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual symptoms to determine correct remedy. And because these will differ, these two MS patients will not receive the same curative remedy.
Homeopathy is difficult and time-consuming because the practitioner must thoroughly understand his or her patient and form a complete picture of the correct remedy. However, a skilled homeopath can also achieve seemingly miraculous results in so-called hopeless cases. However, it comes the closest (in my opinion) to addressing the true cause of disease and treating the whole individual and as such is a very rewarding modality to practice.
Personally, I didn’t believe in homeopathy until I learned about it and proved its efficacy on myself. I don’t believe that it is the answer to all medical woes, but I think it can be a powerful tool in the hands of people who are skilled in its use. I would like to be one of these people.
Homeopathy literally means “similar suffering”. It is based on the principle that “like cures like” – that a similar, but stronger, energetic force can displace a weaker one. It was created/discovered by Samuel Hahnemann who observed the relationship between the curative effects and poisoning symptoms of Cinchona (used to treat malaria). His observations were not new; however, he was the first to form these theories into a workable philosophy of medicine.
Homeopathy is energetic, rather than physical. Disease is defined as a mistunement or energetic imbalance of the life force which can be acute (self-limiting) or chronic (ingrained). Most remedies (those at 12C and higher) contain no actual molecules of the remedy substance, but instead carry the energy signature transferred to the solvent (usually alcohol) by the substance as it was sucussed (mixed) and diluted.
The mechanism is cure is this: a similar (but not same) and stronger “artificial” disease (the remedy), which has a signature vibration, is introduced to the life force, which has its own vibration (the disease). The vibration of the remedy is similar to the vibration of the life force, but stronger, so it alters the life force’s vibration (interference). The life force now responds to the artificial disease and in the process is able to throw off the natural disease. The artificial disease is removed when the remedy is completed and the life force returns to a healthy state.
Homeopathy treats people, not problems. No two people have the same disease, they only have some (perhaps many) symptoms in common. They may both be diagnosed with MS (for example), but the symptoms of MS are not the whole story because these people are not even close to being identical. It is their differences which form the unique signature of their mistunement. Therefore, the skilled homeopath must examine the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual symptoms to determine correct remedy. And because these will differ, these two MS patients will not receive the same curative remedy.
Homeopathy is difficult and time-consuming because the practitioner must thoroughly understand his or her patient and form a complete picture of the correct remedy. However, a skilled homeopath can also achieve seemingly miraculous results in so-called hopeless cases. However, it comes the closest (in my opinion) to addressing the true cause of disease and treating the whole individual and as such is a very rewarding modality to practice.
Personally, I didn’t believe in homeopathy until I learned about it and proved its efficacy on myself. I don’t believe that it is the answer to all medical woes, but I think it can be a powerful tool in the hands of people who are skilled in its use. I would like to be one of these people.