Homeopathy
Positive results from homeopathy
20/Feb/12 05:38 PM
by Kate Whimster, BCom, MIFHI, ND
I just read this blog, The Swiss Government's Remarkable Report on Homeopathic Medicine, by Dana Ullman, who writes a regular blog about homeopathy for the Huffington Post. In this blog he discusses a report from the Swiss Government after extensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine. I’ve summarized some key points from his blog below.
There was strong demand from both consumers and physicians for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments:
The Swiss government’s assessment was high quality and sought to not only evaluate existing evidence relating to homeopathy, but also the QUALITY and VALIDITY of such evidence, which is also important, since many researchers do not design studies that evaluate homeopathy (or many other natural therapies for that matter!) in the way that it is actually practiced!
So what were the results?
For more details, read Dana Ullman’s full blog The Swiss Government's Remarkable Report on Homeopathic Medicine.
I just read this blog, The Swiss Government's Remarkable Report on Homeopathic Medicine, by Dana Ullman, who writes a regular blog about homeopathy for the Huffington Post. In this blog he discusses a report from the Swiss Government after extensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine. I’ve summarized some key points from his blog below.
There was strong demand from both consumers and physicians for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments:
- “Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them.”
- “About half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective.”
- “85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country's health insurance program.”
The Swiss government’s assessment was high quality and sought to not only evaluate existing evidence relating to homeopathy, but also the QUALITY and VALIDITY of such evidence, which is also important, since many researchers do not design studies that evaluate homeopathy (or many other natural therapies for that matter!) in the way that it is actually practiced!
- “Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the "real world effectiveness" as well as safety and cost-effectiveness.”
- “This report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called "internal validity") and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called "external validity").
- “some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine,”
- “When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not "work," the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy”
So what were the results?
- “homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms.”
- “The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy.”
- “Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment).”
- “All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment.”
- “In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.”
For more details, read Dana Ullman’s full blog The Swiss Government's Remarkable Report on Homeopathic Medicine.
Comments
Cold and flu prevention 2011/2012
16/Sep/11 12:49 PM
by Kate Whimster, BCom, MIFHI, ND
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure... Save time and money this winter by preventing cold and flu! Although there is lots of hype each year about cold and flu season, there’s no need to worry if you’re prepared. Wouldn’t you rather prevent colds, flu, sinus infections, sore throats, and bronchitis this year?
Cold and flu prevention plan
If you are an existing patient, book yourself for a 30-minute follow-up visit to get your personalized cold and flu prevention recommendations based on your specific needs. If you are a new patient, book an initial visit in which we will create a cold and flu prevention plan and get you started treating any other health concerns. We will work together to come up with a plan that fits your needs, whether you choose homeopathic flu prevention (see below) or other nutrition and lifestyle choices to keep you healthy all winter.
This is also a great opportunity to connect with natural medicine as a treatment option if you do get sick. Remember, I offer short-notice acute visits, so don’t hesitate to call the office - I can usually fit you in the same day or within a day or two for immediate treatment and to give you take-home recommendations to help you get better quicker.
Homeopathic flu prevention program
Once again, Kew Beach Natural Health Clinic is running our ever-growing homeopathic flu prevention program! You can participate in the program at either of my clinic locations.
Participants historically have very few flu incidents over the winter, even though family members and co-workers may become ill. Flu symptoms may be much milder and of shorter duration than non-homeopathically protected people. Many participants no longer experience the flu at all!
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.
1. To participate you must currently be in good health and you must not have had a flu shot since April 15, 2011.
2. Fill out an intake form and call Kew Beach Natural Health Clinic or Mahaya Forest Hill Integrative Health to arrange at time to drop it off and pick up your remedy. 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!
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure... Save time and money this winter by preventing cold and flu! Although there is lots of hype each year about cold and flu season, there’s no need to worry if you’re prepared. Wouldn’t you rather prevent colds, flu, sinus infections, sore throats, and bronchitis this year?
Cold and flu prevention plan
If you are an existing patient, book yourself for a 30-minute follow-up visit to get your personalized cold and flu prevention recommendations based on your specific needs. If you are a new patient, book an initial visit in which we will create a cold and flu prevention plan and get you started treating any other health concerns. We will work together to come up with a plan that fits your needs, whether you choose homeopathic flu prevention (see below) or other nutrition and lifestyle choices to keep you healthy all winter.
This is also a great opportunity to connect with natural medicine as a treatment option if you do get sick. Remember, I offer short-notice acute visits, so don’t hesitate to call the office - I can usually fit you in the same day or within a day or two for immediate treatment and to give you take-home recommendations to help you get better quicker.
Homeopathic flu prevention program
Once again, Kew Beach Natural Health Clinic is running our ever-growing homeopathic flu prevention program! You can participate in the program at either of my clinic locations.
Participants historically have very few flu incidents over the winter, even though family members and co-workers may become ill. Flu symptoms may be much milder and of shorter duration than non-homeopathically protected people. Many participants no longer experience the flu at all!
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.
1. To participate you must currently be in good health and you must not have had a flu shot since April 15, 2011.
2. Fill out an intake form and call Kew Beach Natural Health Clinic or Mahaya Forest Hill Integrative Health to arrange at time to drop it off and pick up your remedy. 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!
Healing with homeopathy
08/Mar/11 07:10 PM
Guest post by Helena Ovens, ND, FCAH, CCH, CBT
About me
My name is Helena Ovens and I am a registered Doctor of Naturopathy (since 1992) in the Province of Ontario, and a Homeopathic Specialist (graduate of the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy, 1995). I received the award for Excellence in Clinical Nutrition upon my graduation from the College. I first entered the Alternative Field in 1975 when I went to work (for 2-1/2 years) with severely emotionally disturbed children in a residential setting. Since 1978, I have personally explored numerous alternative methods of healing. I became a Shiatsu Therapist, Reflexologist and Iridologist. I also studied Clinical Nutrition, numerous detoxification protocols, Western Botanical Medicine, Trager, Esalen Massage, Bach Flower Remedies and finally, Homeopathy, which eventually became my specialty. I am also a Certified Bowen Health Therapist.
I have been teaching Homeopathic First Aid & Acute Prescribing for over 15 years... It’s a 30 hour course designed to educate alternative practitioners and the general public on what Homeopathy can do. My students, who previously have had very little or no knowledge of Homeopathy, are better educated than the “so-called” experts who are currently trying desperately to discredit Homeopathy by attempting to take an overdose of the medicine as they sit patiently waiting outside the Emergency Ward at their local Hospital. “It does nothing”, they exclaim. My response? Taking 1 pill or 100 pills at one time is only taking 1 dose of the medicine. Taking 1 pill at 100 different times is taking 100 doses.
About homeopathy
Homeopathic Medicine originated just over 200 years ago. Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, a German Physician, refused to practice the medicine of his time; namely, bloodletting and mercury (or arsenic) poisoning. At that time in Europe, malaria was a major killer. The Doctors were using the bark of the Cinchona Tree to treat malaria, which has a series of recurring symptoms; namely, first you get a chill, then a fever, then you break into a sweat, then you are exhausted, then you get a chill, then a fever, break out into a sweat, etc. These four symptoms happen again and again.
Dr. Hahnemann asked over and over again, WHY did this medicine seem to help the symptoms of this disease? No one could answer him, so being the SCIENTIST that he was, he decided to take a dose of the medicine to see what would happen. And shortly after taking the medicine in “overdose” (i.e., more than would be recommended for general treatment), he got a chill, then a fever, then broke out into a sweat, then was exhausted.
THUS, we have the very FIRST PROVING in Homeopathy. The definition of proving: The procedure of giving doses of a substance to healthy subjects in order to find what it causes in overdose and thus what it has the capacity to cure when given to ill people in potentized dose. (Potentized means made into a Homeopathic Remedy … see below).
Principles of Homeopathy
Hahnemann wrote an instruction book for Homeopathy called the Organon. The major Principles of Homeopathy are as follows;
- Similia Similubus Curantur. The first principle of Homeopathy is “Like cures Like” as outlined in the first proving. The cure of the sick is most easily, mildly and permanently affected by medicines that are themselves capable of producing in a healthy person, morbid symptoms similar to those of the sick. If you bypass the law, there is no response - the law demands that you have a high degree of similarity.
- The fundamental intrinsic cause of real disease is the untunement of the Vital Force. Vital Force is the source of life, that which differentiates a corpse from a living being. Real Chronic Disease is related to influences that we do not have direct control over regardless of lifestyle. Once we have the condition, changing lifestyle will only have minimal effect, and the disease will progress.
- The change and morbid conditions and function of tissues and organs in real disease are the result of a dynamic disturbance and not the cause of disease. Symptoms associated with a particular disease are actually an attempt by the body to return to a state of health, not the cause of the disease. When the body experiences too much stress, the “dis-ease” may manifest emotionally, mentally or physically. The “stress” that caused the problem to arise, actually disturbed the normal balance which we call “good health”. Harmony on all levels (i.e., mental, emotional, physical and spiritual) will confer good health.
- The totality of the symptoms, subjective and objective, as well as the etiological factors and characteristic aspects of the person are the sole indication for the choice of the remedy. All symptoms are important; what the patient reports, what the practitioner sees, what happened to “push” the person into pathology, and how the person presents as an individual guides the practitioner to the correct remedy.
- By constant individualization, we treat the person, not the disease. We use the symptoms of the person (objective and subjective) as a language in order to find the remedy. There is no one remedy for cancer because every person is a unique individual. In the 1800s, the Homeopathic Physicians were curing cancer successfully, one patient at a time. The Surgeons at that time rarely did surgery because Homeopathy worked so well.
- In order to secure the best practical results, medicines must be administered singly. Introducing more than one influence means that you do not know what is happening with the patient, nor how they interact. Give the best indicated remedy first, wait, observe and confirm.
- The only remedy meriting preference is always the one that is most similar to the totality of the characteristic symptoms of the disease being treated. This particular remedy is called the Similimum (aka, the correct remedy).
- The single remedy will be prescribed for its dynamic property in an optimal posology. Dynamic property refers to the healing capacity (i.e., the proving and posology means strength).
- To ascertain the sick-making properties of medicines, they must first be proven in the healthy, and secondly, confirmed through curing the sick. (Proving again).
- Like prevents Like, the same way that Like cures Like. Finding the “genius” of an epidemic and giving the correct remedy to those affected and curing their disease, can then be given to those that may become affected in the future in order to prevent the disease. Statistics of the Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918/19 who that those treated allopathically had a 25% mortality rate. Those treated with Homeopathy had a 5% mortality rate.
How homeopathic remedies are made
- First, imagine 6 test tubes, each of which is filled with 99 drops of water.
- Now, imagine a botanical remedy in tincture form (e.g., Chamomilla). A botanical tincture is made by taking Chamomilla flowers, crushing them, putting them in an alcohol-based solution, letting the flowers sit in the alcohol in a dark room, and periodically shaking them, and then straining off the flowers after a few weeks. The active medicine ingredient is now in the alcohol (and this is called a tincture).
- We now take 1 drop of the botanical tincture of Chamomilla and put it in test tube #1 and shake it a number of times. 99 drops + 1 drop = 100. The symbol for 100 is “C”. This is the method that Hahnemann used to make Homeopathic Remedies. So, after putting 1 drop of the tincture into test tube #1 and SHAKING IT, we now have a “1CH” potency (potency meaning strength) of the Homeopathic Remedy Chamomilla. ( CH standing for Centessimal Hahnemann).
- THEN, we take 1 drop of Chamomilla 1CH and put it into 99 drops of water (test tube #2), SHAKE IT, and we have a “2CH” potency of the Homeopathic Remedy Chamomilla. Then one drop from test tube #2 into test tube #3, SHAKE, and VOILA, we have made 3CH potency of the Homeopathic Remedy Chamomilla, etc.
- After 12 dilutions, we have passed Avagadro’s number and there is no longer “anything discernible” in the 12th test tube. It is at this point that Allopathic Medical Doctors claim that Homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo. BUT, if we know how a remedy is made, we KNOW that a microscopic amount of Chamomilla went into each and every test tube.
- Think of Chamomila as a botanical remedy (or a lovely tea before bed). It calms the mind, soothes an upset stomach, and predisposes one for restful sleep. The PROVING of Chamomilla is quite another picture. We often use it for children who are in pain (be it from teething or ear infections). The quality of the pain associated with the proving is extreme, and the child wakes in the middle of the night screaming, is inconsolable and will only quiet when the parent picks up the child, and walks (and walks and walks).
Although we do NOT know the mechanism by which a Homeopathic Medicine works, there are numerous drugs where the mechanism is also unknown, and only by doing a series of CLINICAL TRIALS do we come to understand both the positive and negative symptoms and side-effects associated with such allopathic drugs.
HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE IS SAFE, relatively inexpensive and there are minimal to no side-effects. All the remedies have been proven on HUMANS, and confirmed through many years of Clinical experience.
My story
And FINALLY, I have my own story to tell.
In December, 1992, just after I graduated from Naturopathic School, my Optometrist discovered that I had the first stage of Macular Degeneration. I had the pathology associated with the disease (i.e., drusen bodies which manifest as a discharge at the bad of the eye). I went for a second opinion, and this was confirmed by Ophthalmologist, Dr. Hans Hausler. Yes, I had the first stages of Macular Degeneration, and I also had 20/20 vision at that time. Macular Degeneration runs in my family. I had an Uncle and Aunt diagnosed with the disease, both became legally blind from the disease and I have a nephew who has Retinitis Pigmentosa, who is also legally blind. Being the Naturopath that I was, and after being told that there was NO CURE, and that the best that I could hope for was that the disease would not progress, I decided to go to my teacher for monthly constitutional homeopathic prescribing in May, 1993.
My Optometrist wanted to see me every six months to follow the progression of the disease. I went back to him in September, 1993, and my condition was stable (i.e., had not progressed). The following March, 1994, I went to another Ophthalmologist who had originally been recommended by my Optometrist. He didn’t see Macular Degeneration, he saw blepharitis, and I dismissed him because this disease had already been diagnosed twice. I continued to receive Homeopathic care. The following September (1994), I went back to my Optometrist and he looked in my eyes and said, “It’s gone. Whatever you’ve been doing, just keep doing it”.
This is a disease for which there is no cure and no treatment which will do more than stabilize the condition. When discussing this with my teacher, Dr. Andre Saine, he stated that the Homeopathic Physicians of the 1800s regularly cured Macular Degeneration.
And so I have come to know on a personal level, that if you catch something in the first stage (inflammatory stage), most diseases that are “untreatable’ can be cured.
What is cure?
The definition of CURE is important. It is not simply removing (either through drug or surgical intervention) the symptom. CURE means the recovery of health with a normalization in the abnormal level of SUSCEPTIBILITY whether it is acquired or inherited. When susceptibility is normalized, recovery is quick and the imbalance is corrected. Removing susceptibility to a disease means NEVER having it again. Cure is more than just symptom removal. Cure is permanent.
This is not the first time that Homeopathy has been threatened (by people who are threatened by its success and potential for healing). The Flexnor Report in the early 1900s stated that the future of medicine lay in biomedical researched based on the Germ Theory as proposed by Louis Pasteur; i.e., kill the bug, eradicate the disease. If this theory is correct, and an infected person walks through a room of 100 people and gives each one equal exposure to the virus, then all 100 people should get the disease. But as we know, maybe 5% to 10% will become ill and the rest will not. So in actuality, it is the “terrain” or to put it in more modern terms, the strength of the immune system and the overall health of the individual (mental, emotional, physical and spiritual) which allows a pathogen to enter and causes a “dis-ease”. So much for the Germ Theory. And I do believe that Louis Pasteur recanted on his deathbed and said it was in fact the terrain that was the most important factor with respect to the maintenance of good health. Again, terrain being the inner state of health of the individual.
Principles of naturopathic medicine
And finally, although I work every day and have for the past 19 years utilizing Classical Homeopathy, I apply the Principles of Naturopathic Medicine with each and every patient that I see. These are the principles that rule my practice, and these are the principles that every medical professional should follow in my personal opinion.
- Primum non noncore – FIRST DO NO HARM
- Tolle Causum – FIND AND TREAT THE CAUSE (i.e., don’t just take away the symptoms, fix the hole in the bottom of the rowboat and then you can stop bailing!!)
- Vis Medicatrix Naturae – USE THE HEALING POWER OF NATURE (i.e., stimulate and support the body’s inherent self-healing wisdom)
- Docere – DOCTOR AS TEACHER (this is one of my favourite ones, although actually, they are all my favourites)
- Holism – THE IDEA THAT EVERYTHING SURROUNDING YOU AFFECTS YOUR HEALTH (either positively or negatively)
- Prevention – THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE IS PREVENTION, always has been, always will be.
Why you should take homeopathy seriously
02/Feb/11 12:55 PM
by Kate Whimster, BCom, MIFHI, ND
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 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:
- “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!
A critical look at homeopathy
14/Jan/11 12:02 PM
by Kate Whimster, BCom, MIFHI, ND
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.
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.
Homeopathic flu prevention
20/Oct/10 09:45 PM
by Kate Whimster, BCom, MIFHI, ND
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!
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!
Homeopathy research review
18/Feb/10 09:37 AM
by Kate Whimster, BCom, MIFHI, ND
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.
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.
What is homeopathy?
12/May/09 10:15 PM
by Kate Whimster, BCom, MIFHI, ND
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.
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.