posted
I have just seen a master herbalist who did a saliva sample and told me I have about 20 co-infections-viruses, bacteria etc. She told me that I need to take a special bottle of liquid for each of the infections for about 6 months and I will be cured. I looked at the bottles and they say they contain water and electricity-nothing else. The way it works is that it explodes the bacteria, virus, etc. with a special formula designed for that organism. This is called vibrational healing and she told me that it WILL work. Did anyone do this and if so what is you experience. I am at the end of the line with everything else. Thanks!
Posts: 425 | From NY, United States | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Cobweb
Unregistered
posted
I'd say run it past your LLMD.
IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
I am a scientist. From my intuition and scientific background, there is no such thing on the world.
It's totally a scam.
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
SForsgren
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7686
posted
I think it is very possibly useful. Energy medicine and frequency-based medicine can be very powerful. I would not hang my entire hat on it, but I have used and likely will further use some vibrational remedies. They can be very useful. The entire concept of NES (a device) and its infoceutical products is to use frequencies to create balance and healing. Read about it....
-------------------- Be well, Scott Posts: 4617 | From San Jose, CA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
quote: ...did a saliva sample and told me I have about 20 co-infections-viruses, bacteria etc.
How did she tell? By eyes, instruments or lab tests?
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
quote: a special bottle of liquid ....contain water and electricity-nothing else.
Just water cannot hold electricity.
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
quote: The way it works is that it explodes the bacteria, virus, etc.
..And it can explode HIV virus, the one that causes AIDS?
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
GiGi
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 259
posted
Anyone not familiar with vibrational medicine might do a bit of googling. You will be surprised.
Quite a bit of my healing from Lyme Disease, heavy metal toxicity, all other microbial infections came about via a variety of vibrational medicine. I did also orthodox medicine and a lot of other different alternative therapies.
Take care.
Posts: 9834 | From Washington State | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
I'm not a scientist and haven't studied this. I'm not sure if your doctor is speaking of homeopathy or not.
When I was first bit, I had 6 mths abx after which I seemed well. 10 yrs later, migratory joint pain hit. I had already been suffering mild mental confusion, serious shortterm memory issues, migraines, stiff neck, hearing loss over the 10 yrs since bite.
A medical doctor who specializes in homeopathy diagnosed chronic lyme and began treating with the remedies. I can tell you they were powerful medicine. They also were FDA approved and could only be obtained by prescription.
All my symptoms cleared except the joint pain and they have never returned. That was 14 mths ago. Unfortunately, the joint pain increased dramatically and I was diagnosed rheumatoid.
Today, I am still treating mostly holistically with low dose minocycline being my only allopathic drug. It is a rheum. treatment based on a mycoplasma infection theory. I am responding very well.
Make sure your doctor is certified in homeopathy if in fact that is the medication you speak of.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
AMK, you may be fortunate to have found someone who even knows about such things.
If the treatment is not terribly expensive, what in the world do you have to lose?
Then you could come back and tell the rest of us about your experience. GiGi and others are right - vibrational medicine can be a key element in treating most illnesses.
There are naysayers on the board here - if it can't be scientifically proven, it must not be true. I hope you won't let that dissuade you. This is your life and your choice of treatment.
Let us know what you decide, okay?
Tracy
-------------------- Tracy .... Prayers for the Lyme Community - every day at 6 p.m. Pacific Time and 9 p.m. Eastern Time � just take a few moments to say a prayer wherever you are�. Posts: 2966 | From Colorado | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
AMK,
I work only with MDs and the one who treated me initially with homeopathy is located in the DC area.
I do agree with others that you should stick with MDs. This particular one is Lyme Literate.
If you would like his name, pm me.
Luvs
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think your best bet is to research it fully as scott and gigi say.
if you decide to go with a therapy, it is essential that you become fully invested and knowledgeable about it, what it does, how it works, and what you must do to support it optimally (ie, diet, nutrition, detox, ect compatible and supportive of it) - study it to know how it works so you can move forward with confidence. pay close attention to your body.
as with any alternative therapy - i think it may be a good idea to discuss it with your LLMD - but your LLMD likely will not have experience with this modality - and therefore cannot give an informed yay or nay. only you can.
mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
5dana8
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7935
posted
I would talk this over with your doc first
Can I ask how much he charged you for this special water?
take care Dana
-------------------- 5dana8 Posts: 4432 | From some where over the rainbow | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
GiGi
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 259
posted
Whoever is the scientist?
Ever heard of dropping the hair dryer in the full bathtub!
Water conducts electricity. It carries frequencies.
When lightning strikes water, it spreads out along the surface. Any fish near the surface of the water get electrocuted.
We drink M-Water. Do a search if you want to know what it is.
Homeopathy is based on frequencies stored in water.
ART (autonomic response testing) is based on resonance of frequencies.
Take care.
Posts: 9834 | From Washington State | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
SForsgren
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7686
posted
Unless someone has completely cured themselves or has specifically tried a given therapy and can rightly claim to be an expert on it, I don't think it is appropriate to negate potential treatment options.
I applaud people that are open-minded in considering option. I for one have learned alot from things that I might have considered "odd" a few years ago.
Certainly, you have to determine which people are doing this for money and which are true healers, but there are some true healers that many would consider unconventional. I think many of them hold much promise.
-------------------- Be well, Scott Posts: 4617 | From San Jose, CA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
TerryK
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 8552
posted
I understand the concern but I agree with Gigi and others who say to research and stay open to possibilities. I turned to unconventional treatments when I spent many $$$$$ seeing allopathic M.D.'s (not LLMD's) to no avail and actually I got a lot worse due to some of the medications that they insisted that I take. If I were still being narrow about what I would consider I'd be in much worse shape and in fact may have never made it long enough to figure out that I have lyme.
I've had some of the best results with things that I thought would not produce any results. Of course, use common sense and don't drop a lot of money until you have a very good idea of effectiveness. Maybe even talk to other patients who are being treated by this herbalist if possible. Terry
Posts: 6286 | From Oregon | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
lpkayak
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5230
posted
ditto terryk...$10,000. in one year and got worse. 3 yrs w/ abx and llmd -80% symptoms gone.
but after that i do a lot of herbs/supps etc to maintain
-------------------- Lyme? Its complicated. Educate yourself. Posts: 13712 | From new england | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
quote:Water conducts electricity
You are talking about "dirty" water not "pure" water.
Pure water (H2O) doesn't have the properties you described:
quote: Ever heard of dropping the hair dryer in the full bathtub!
Water conducts electricity. It carries frequencies.
When lightning strikes water, it spreads out along the surface. Any fish near the surface of the water get electrocuted.
posted
Keep us posted
Posts: 925 | From California | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
klutzo
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5701
posted
These are the facts of what happened to me. Maybe it will work better for you.
My holistic doctor at one of the largest alternative clinics in the southeast, used AK not saliva to find my infections.
I took MHA vials, which are water passed through a vibrational frequency machine, tuned to the frequencies of the organisms you are trying to kill. I took them for two months, was AK tsted again, and was told my Lyme, HHV6a, CMV, Coxsackie B3, and tick virus were all cured.
Two months was twice as long as it is supposed to normally take. However, I still did not feel any better and insisted on another QRiBb test, which showed I still had Lyme.
Klutzo
Posts: 1269 | From Clearwater, Florida, USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
clairenotes
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 10392
posted
Though I have never used the vibrationally infused water remedies, I have used many homeopathics with much success, which are similar. But I do know someone who was taking them and having healing reactions.
I do not know the outcome of her treatment because she moved to another state. She was not treating LD, but she was very ill.
Because LD is somewhat complex, it doesn't seem that there has been a magic bullet for anyone, but hopefully there is a progression towards health with each approach we try. Try to measure this along the way if you decide to take the remedies.
And I like Mo's advice as well.
Remaining open to all possibilities is so important.
Claire
Posts: 1111 | From Colorado | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for your replies. I have contacted another patient of this herbalist who stated that this therapy saved her daughter's life. She assured me that the remedies are safe and that I will be amazed at the results. The cost is about $15.00 for a small bottle and $70.00 for a large bottle which should last about three weeks. She said I should be on this therapy for 6 months. My husband said to me that I should try it but I am researching the company first because I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing. I have a lot of questions however which I would like answered before I try this-e.g. What happens to the electricity when it goes through your digestive system? Oh well! I will keep you posted.
Posts: 425 | From NY, United States | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
tailz
Unregistered
posted
Interesting post - I'm going to research vibrational healing. I'm already looking into Reiki, and I ordered a Rife Machine - same theory almost - it vibrates at certain frequencies that kill spirochetes and other infections.
With how skeptical some of you are though, what would you think of me for using color therapy? Like today I'm wearing red - it mad me angry all day, but any cancer cells in me are goners if I have any!
I don't know. I look forward to a day when ALL healing is natural. Though the reason it works isn't always apparent, I guarantee one day it will all make 'scientific' sense to even the naysayers.
I mean, if my heart stops they can restart it with electricity, right? Our brains need to 'recharge' at night. What 'charges' us during the day? The sun. Did you know a woman's cycle is 28 days - it follows the lunar cycle - google it.
I forget who said they used vibrational healing to get rid of heavy metals - can you PM me with what you used? I react to traffic lights and fluorescent lights even - I'm so heavy metal toxic.
IP: Logged |
Groundbreaking new research has just been revealed that establishes the validity of homeopathy. It's being called the "holy grail" of homeopathy, and it has been published in the peer reviewed journal Inflammation Research.
The study shows that a chemical dissolved in a solution (in such proportions that not even a single molecule of the original chemical could exist in the water) exhibits verifiable, scientifically proven biological effects. What this proves is that homeopathy is real.
There's something about the homeopathic water that is different from regular water, and the biological effects are undeniable and easy to verify.
This, of course, is not new information for those who have been practicing homeopathy for many years, or to those who are familiar with holistic medicine, vibrational medicine, or other forms of medicine that go beyond the rather narrow definitions currently defended by conventional medicine.
But of course, it is big news to many doctors, physicians, and western medical researchers, who have for decades insisted that homeopathy is quackery and that believing in homeopathy is the same as believing in magic.
They say that water could not possibly exhibit a biological effect if it did not contain a single molecule of a biologically active substance. But now, of course, the science is quite real, and this isn't the first study to show that homeopathy is proven.
There have been other studies -- well-documented and well-constructed -- that also show the same effect. But these studies have been routinely ignored, and even shut out by medical journals simply because no one can quite explain how homeopathy works.
To understand why this is such an important breakthrough in modern medicine, we have to go back to the 1800's and take a look at the origin of the so-called germ theory and how it relates to the invention of the microscope and the realization that disease could be spread by invisible microscopic creatures.
Today the germ theory is accepted as real and verifiable. But that's only because scientists and doctors can readily see these germs using microscopes.
Before microscopes were invented, any doctor who proposed that disease could be caused by a doctor not washing his hands and touching two patients in sequence would have been called a lunatic or a quack.
In fact, doctors did not engage in any sort of hand washing for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease until the germ theory became accepted.
The accidental father of the germ theory, a Hungarian physician known as Dr. Semmelweis, was fired and ostracized from the medical community in the mid 1800's for even proposing the idea that disease was caused by invisible, microscopic, undetectable organisms.
In fact, after fighting to publicize the truth about microorganisms for fifteen years, Semmelweis was declared insane by doctors and committed to an insane asylum. (Sounds a lot like modern medicine, doesn't it?)
In other words, in the history of medicine, doctors and researchers didn't believe in the germ theory for one simple reason: they couldn't see the germs. There was no way they could detect these germs, so in their minds, they didn't exist.
As a result, they continued to practice outdated medical procedures which actually resulted in the spread of germs from one patient to another.
Here's how this applies to homeopathy: today, the scientific evidence proves that homeopathy really works. No sane, rational person could deny it after reviewing the evidence proving the biological activity of homeopathic water.
But instead of denying the existence of homeopathy on the grounds that it doesn't work, modern doctors and researchers deny it based on the rather feeble idea that they don't understand the mechanism by which it might work.
That is, they don't know how it works, and therefore it must not be true. And that's about as intelligent as saying "We don't know how gravity works, therefore, there is no such thing as gravity."
Granted, homeopathy is somewhat mysterious. It is curious in the way that it works through the use of subtle energies. Apparently, water has a memory, and there's a fantastic book on this called
The Memory of Water that will show you in great detail, with colorful pictures, exactly how water is reshaped by different energetic and emotional vibrations.
It's all quite real -- water takes on a different molecular structure when it is prayed over versus when angry people shout at it. Now, if you take a substance like the one used in this study, which was histamine, and you put a drop of histamine in a glass of pure, distilled water, that water, of course, contains a solution of histamine.
But if you dilute that by taking one drop out of that entire glass and putting it into another glass of water, then you have another mixture of water that is diluted by a factor of 100 or more.
If you do that over and over again and follow a sequence of increasing dilutions, you end up with a solution of water that has no molecules of histamine in it whatsoever.
But, as this study shows, this water retains the memory of histamine, and when this water is given to a biological system, such as a person or an animal, it will produce effects that are attributed to the histamine and that are clinically observable and quite unique to the vibration of histamine.
Of course there are many skeptics out there who will continue to say there is no such thing as homeopathy. They will deny the clinical evidence that's put right in front of their faces, and even if they were to conduct these experiments on their own and produce the exact same verifiable scientifically proven results, they would continue to deny it. Why is that?
It's because they don't understand it, and they don't have the imagination or creativity to suppose that nature might hold some surprises for us yet. They are people who represent the epitome of mankind's arrogance.
They think they understand everything there is to know about the way the universe works, and that nature is apparent and nothing new will be learned. They think that if you can't see it, it doesn't exist, and thus I wonder how they even believe in gravity or electromagnetism or quantum physics, for that matter.
Nevertheless, the end result of this is that the amazing James Randi will probably end up being $1 million poorer because he has been so foolish as to offer a $1 million reward to the first person who can prove the scientific validity of homeopathy.
Well, apparently this proof has already been completed, and now it will probably be a game of continued denials from James Randi in order to avoid paying out the $1 million reward. He will probably say, "Okay, the lab results look solid, but until you can explain how it works, it's not proven."
And that's how he will deny actually paying the claim to people who have now scientifically proven that homeopathy is real -- something Randi adamantly insists is untrue.
By the way, to comment more on good science, kudos go out to the editor of Inflammation Research, a medical journal that has demonstrated the courage to publish a pioneering paper that most other medical journals would have rejected.
And this again speaks to the closed-circle, dogmatic attitude of most peer reviewed medical journals. They define the so-called truths of modern science and modern medicine by selecting those studies and papers that support their current beliefs.
Simultaneously, they reject all papers that challenge those beliefs, and that's how things that are true but unconventional (such as homeopathy) can be kept out of the minds of modern doctors and researchers.
But this journal, Inflammation Research, was willing to publish a pioneering paper, and at the same time, the researchers involved in this study -- none of which were from the United States, by the way -- are also to be applauded for their willingness to venture beyond the strict confines of conventional medicine and explore the way the universe really works.
Let's face it, folks -- as men and women on this planet, we are but children. We are all students of the universe, just attempting to understand the way things work... and barely scratching the surface in doing so.
We know so little about the universe and about the way subtle energies operate. I don't think there's a single person alive today who truly understands the simple interaction of tabletop magnets, for one thing.
I don't think there's anyone alive today who understands quantum physics, and who can really explain how it is that the entire universe is made up of probability waves of vibrating energy rather than physical matter.
I don't think there's anyone who can really explain or understand how light can be both a particle and a wave at the same time, depending on how you look at it.
I don't think people can explain how properties of spinning subatomic particles can be instantly teleported from one place to another, regardless of the distance, without requiring any time whatsoever.
I don't think people can explain how prayer alters the health outcome of patients, even when the patients aren't aware that they are being prayed for. (This is called "non-local medicine.")
These are just some of the many mysteries that continue to present opportunities for open-minded, smart thinkers to explore.
Fortunately, there are some scientists who continue to be open-minded, and who are willing to ask these questions of nature, because that's what a true scientist does -- they ask questions of nature and they listen to whatever responses come back.
People like Dr. Stephen Barrett and James Randi are not scientists at all. They are, in every sense, feeble-minded skeptics who probably don't even believe in their own souls. I bet they didn't see this one coming -- homeopathy is real, folks.
It's been proven, and it's been proven in a way that meets the most demanding requirements of the scientific method. If you are a true scientist, and you review the available studies on homeopathy, you either have to conclude that homeopathy is real, or you have to conclude that every law of science and truth upon which modern medicine is based is invalid.
Posts: 686 | From Northeast Georgia | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
EXCELLENT article, Karatelady!! Thanks very much.
This is SO good.... would you consider posting this article in a topic all by itself so more people may see it? Maybe under the title ``Article on homeopathy, memory of water, etc.'' or something so folks will notice it.
This is great! Thanks again.
Tracy
-------------------- Tracy .... Prayers for the Lyme Community - every day at 6 p.m. Pacific Time and 9 p.m. Eastern Time � just take a few moments to say a prayer wherever you are�. Posts: 2966 | From Colorado | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
clairenotes
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 10392
posted
Agree with Truthfinder... thanks so much for this article, Karatelady.
Another book is called "The Hidden Messages in Water" by Masaru Emoto. Lovely photos of water molecules and shows how easily influenced they are by subtle energies.
Claire
Posts: 1111 | From Colorado | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have found homeopathy to work for me for more minor situations than Lyme Disease. I use it all the time for travel sickness, and it got rid of a tooth abscess I had once.
I think Lyme Disease is a weird and stubborn disease to treat no matter which modality you pick. The one person I know who recovered from Lyme using homeopathy also took an antimicrobial along with the homeopathic formulas and was supervised by a very skilled homeopath.
It is hard, though, sometimes, to know who the truly skilled practitioners of alternative modalities are, and who the unskilled practitioners are who just toot their own horns.
I also heard that there was some acupuncturist in Maine that was using homeopathic remedies that he made himself from substances growing in the woods up there who was having good success treating Lyme. But I never found out his name or was able to track him down. If anybody knows more about him, please let me know, as I have been interested in checking out what he does.
Anyway, I think you usually need more than one method to treat Lyme. Anyone who says just drink these things and you will get totally cured may not be able to live up to their promise with this difficult to treat illness. I think their treatment might have some effect, but it may not be as potent for Lyme as it would be for some other conditions.
Farah
Posts: 208 | From New Mexico | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
Articles by Loudon, I. J R Soc Med 2006;99:607-610 � 2006 The Royal Society of Medicine Essays A brief history of homeopathy Irvine Loudon
Medical Historian and Honorary Fellow, Green College, Oxford
One of the most striking features of unorthodox medicine--variously described as quackery, irregular medicine, fringe medicine, or complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)--has been its ability to survive for centuries in a very wide variety of forms. Although it has changed enormously with the passage of time, unorthodox medicine has always has been a rich source of disputes, claims and counter-claims, and accusations of fraud.1,2 One might expect that unorthodox medicine as a whole would have diminished as a result of the spectacular advances in regular medicine during the second half of the twentieth century, but that does not seem to be the case. In fact we will never really know how many people in the past consulted unorthodox practitioners instead of, or in addition to, consulting the orthodox; we don't even know today. But we do know that before the mid-nineteenth century the irregular practitioners for whom the derogatory term `quacks' is appropriate, were used by a large proportion of the population.3
Most of these pre-1850 quacks tended to specialize. Some were bone-setters, others claimed to cure venereal disease without the use of mercury. A `Dr' Taylor of Beverley in Gloucester arranged to attend regularly at three public houses to which patients only had to send their urine and he would tell at once whether they were curable or not. There were self-styled oculists who specialized in the treatment of cataract and curers of `cancer without operation'. One of the latter, calling himself the `High German Dr Symon', invited you to visit his house and see for yourself `a cancer of the armpit of five pieces of 12 and one half ozs weight' which he claimed to have removed.
Most of these irregulars were uneducated or even illiterate and only a minority were full-time healers. They usually had regular jobs, such as blacksmith, farrier, grocer, butcher, cheese-monger, cobbler, cutter and mechanic. They often claimed the patronage of the `great and the good.' Dr Scott's Bilious and Liver Pills were used by `the Dukes of Devonshire, Northumberland and Wellington, Angelsea [sic], and Hastings, and the Earls of Pembroke, Essex and Oxford' while `Dr' Lambert at 36 High Street, Borough, London, claimed to `visit the well-to-do in the West Indies, the Isles of Scilly, London, Nottingham, Derby, Norwich, Lincoln, Boston, Gloucester, Wolver hampton, Lichfield, Stourbridge' and, for good measure, `almost every other town in the Kingdom.'4 These irregulars had one thing in common: they had little, if any, interest in or understanding of orthodox medicine in their time. Their sole aim was to make money. They were empirics for whom the derogatory term `quackery' is appropriate.5
But a major change in irregular practice occurred in the first half of the nineteenth century when, as an orthodox practitioner remarked: `the old-fashioned quack with his farrago of receipts who seldom visited the same neighbourhood but at very long intervals in order to avoid recognition... this class of practitioner is fast coming to a close.' It was being replaced by `literate and educated empirics who read books.'6 This remark signalled the emergence of a new form of unorthodox medicine, which formed the basis of what is today called CAM.
THE BIRTH OF COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
The essence of the change was a rebellion against orthodox medical science as taught and practised in the teaching hospitals, and the introduction of a series of radically different but all-embracing beliefs on the nature and treatment of disease. The empirical quack continued in the background and still exists today, although in an attenuated form. But the new irregulars--the literate `book-reading' practitioners--were usually educated men and often medically qualified.
They were therefore not so much quacks (although frequently derided as such) as practitioners for whom the terms `alternative' or `complementary' is more appropriate. Indeed, supporters of CAM have good reason to object to the term `quackery' being linked in any way with such practices as homeopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture and herbalism. It would be impossible to review the history of all the current forms of alternative medicine, so I am confining this paper to one of the earliest and still the most frequently used unorthodox system: homeopathy.
HOMEOPATHY
While it can scarcely compare in antiquity with Chinese or Indian medicine, homeopathy is the longest established CAM to have arisen in Europe.7 It was founded by Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), who grew up in Meissen in Germany, received his medical degree in Erlangen in 1779, and died a millionaire in Paris in 1843. During his first fifteen years as a physician Hahnemann struggled desperately to make a living. One day, however, he made a discovery. He started to take regular doses of cinchona or `the bark' (i.e. quinine). This, he said, produced all the symptoms of intermittent fever (malaria) but to a mild degree and without the characteristic rigors of that disease. This led Hahnemann to an idea which was published in 1796 as Essay on a New Principle for Ascertaining the Curative Power of Drugs, which was followed in 1810 by his famous work The Organon of the Healing Art.1
Hahnemann believed that if a patient had an illness, it could be cured by giving a medicine which, if given to a healthy person, would produce similar symptoms of that same illness but to a slighter degree. Thus, if a patient was suffering from severe nausea, he was given a medicine which in a healthy person would provoke mild nausea. By a process he called `proving', Hahnemann claimed to be able to compile a selection of appropriate remedies. This led to his famous aphorism, `like cures like', which is often called the `principle of similars'; and he cited Jenner's use of cowpox vaccination to prevent smallpox as an example.
The differences between orthodox medicine and homeopathy could hardly be more vivid. From its beginning homeopathy always began with a long consultation, lasting at least an hour, in which all aspects of the patient's illness and life were discussed--homeopaths like to stress that they practise `holistic medicine'--and the appropriate treatment chosen. In contrast, during the first half of the nineteenth century, when homeopathy was becoming established, orthodox medicine was immersed in the belief that advances in understanding disease could only come from a detailed correlation of symptoms and signs of the sick patient on the ward, and the findings at autopsy: clinico-pathological correlation. As Bichat famously put it put it at the very end of the eighteenth century:
`For twenty years from morning to night you have taken notes at patients' bedsides... which, refusing to yield up their meaning, offer you a succession of incoherent phenomena. Open up a few corpses: you will dissipate at once the darkness that observation alone could not dispel.'8
Clinico-pathological correlation demanded the understanding of a very long and complex collection of diseases accompanied by heated debates between the contagionists and the anti-contagionists. This was way beyond the comprehension of the general public. Moreover, medical treatment was to a large extent crude and ineffective, consisting largely of potentially dangerous polypharmacy, purging, and profuse blood-letting.
Hahnemann showed no interest in detailed pathology, and none in conventional diagnosis and treatment. He was only interested in the principles of homeopathic medicine which he used to name the illness.2 Classical homeopathy was therefore seen by its supporters as an attractively safe system, simple, easy to understand, and centred on the patient as a whole and not on pathological lesions. This goes a long way to explain why homeopathy was popular.9
But there was one aspect of homeopathy which, from the time it was first announced in about 1814, led to open warfare between orthodox medicine and homeopathy. This was the result of Hahnemann's belief that drugs should be given in a dose which only just produced the slightest symptoms of the disease which was being treated. To achieve this aim, Hahnemann diluted his medical preparations to such an astonishing extent that if one assumes that that the substance he employed was completely soluble, by only the fourth dilution the ratio of the medicine to the solution would be 1:100 000 000. The physician and poet Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894) in the USA, always a master of ridicule, said that Hahnemann's dilution would take `the waters of ten thousand Adriatic seas.'1 But Hahnemann insisted that homeopathic medicines retained their therapeutic power provided you shook the preparation violently during the process of dilution--a process Hahnemann named as `potentization' by which every homeopathic medicine not only retained or even increased its therapeutic power, but persisted as a `dematerialized spiritual force'. To orthodox practitioners this was sheer nonsense.10 Hahnemann claimed that by his methods he could cure all or nearly all acute diseases. To make matters worse, he announced in 1828 that all, or nearly all, chronic diseases were caused by `the itch' (scabies).
Whereas Hahnemann claimed that homeopathy could cure all or virtually all diseases, his followers modified these claims in the hope of becoming accepted by orthodox medical practitioners. One of the first institutions devoted to homeopathy was the American Institute of Homeopathy, founded at the end of the nineteenth century, when it seems that `a rapprochement between homeopaths and conventional physicians gradually unfolded. Homeopaths adopted new orthodox treatments... while allopaths [regular orthodox physicians] borrowed homeopathic remedies... In 1903, after long antagonism, the American Medical Association... invited homeopaths to join [the Association].'9 The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1939 in the USA allowed homeopathic medicines to be sold openly on the market. Five homeopathic hospitals were founded in Britain, the two largest (in London and Glasgow) having in-patient units. Today the ten most common diseases treated by homeopaths are (in order of frequency) asthma, depression, otitis media, allergic rhinitis (hay fever), headache and migraine, neurotic disorders, non-specific allergy, dermatitis, arthritis and hypertension.
There seems little doubt there has been a remarkable revival of homeopathy since the 1960s and 1970s in many countries, but especially the USA where, in 2002, it was estimated that the number of patients using homeopathic remedies had risen by 500% in the previous seven years, mostly by purchasing over-the-counter remedies. In the USA patients seen by homeopaths tended to be more affluent, more frequently white, present more subjective symptoms, and to be younger than patients seen by conventional physicians.9 In Britain a survey by the BBC in 1999 found that 17% of 1204 randomly selected adults had used homeopathy within the past year (this includes homeopathic remedies bought over the counter) and another survey in 1998 estimated that there were 470 000 recent users of homeopathy in the UK. It is likely that most patients in the UK who use complementary medicine are largely middle class and middle aged.11 One of the well known features of homeopathy is that from the nineteenth century to today it has been firmly supported by royalty and the aristocracy. Edward, Prince of Wales was the patron of the London Homeopathic Hospital, while the Duke of York, later King George VI, gave the title `Royal' to the hospital. He also named one of his race-horses `Hypericum' after a homeopathic remedy. He entered it for the Thousand Guinea Stakes at Newmarket in 1946 and it won.12
IS HOMEOPATHY EFFECTIVE?
If you rely on the personal experience of patients, there are a large number of people who will claim, usually with great certainty, that they had been cured or at least helped by homeopathy when orthodox medicine had failed. One can see why. The system is easy to understand and seems safe. The long consultation is, per se, therapeutic, although it is seldom realized that a succession of shorter consultations with an orthodox and sympathetic general practitioner can soon add up to an hour, with the added advantage that the series of consultations allows observation of the development or disappearance of a disease over time. This is especially important since many of the diseases treated by homeopaths are either transient and disappear spontaneously, or they are cyclical, consisting of a series of attacks followed by spontaneous remissions. If a visit to a homeopath happens to be followed by a remission or the total disappearance of a disease, homeopathic medicine gets the credit.
If there was ever a medical system which cried out for a careful scientific trial it is homeopathy. One of the early trials, carried out in 1835, is astonishing because it was very close to a double-blind, randomized controlled trial, undertaken with great care long before the mid-twentieth century when most of us believed that such randomized trials were first devised and carried out. It showed, incidentally, that homeopathy was ineffective.13 This was followed by such a long series of clinical trials and systematic reviews, stretching up to the present time, that to review all of them would take up more space than the whole of this paper; but a useful account of clinical trials of homeopathy in the nineteenth century was published very recently.14
Some homeopathic practitioners argue that carrying out randomized controlled trials is an appropriate activity for orthodox medicine but inappropriate for homeopathy, where effectiveness should only be judged by patient satisfaction. Where clinical trials and systematic reviews have been carried out, however, the results remain uncertain. A few seemed to show that homeopathy was effective, but only slightly; a majority showed that homeopathy had no therapeutic effect. Unfortunately many of the trials included in systematic reviews were less than perfect in design, application or sample size.
A recent authoritative paper concluded that `the evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally of poorer quality than research done in allopathic (mainstream) medicine.' Nevertheless `when only high quality studies have been selected... a surprising number show positive results' although `even the best systematic reviews cannot disentangle components of bias in small trials.' These authors conclude that `more and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system.'9
When one recalls the underlying beliefs of the homeopathic system, such as the process of extreme dilution with the transformation of a drug into a `dematerialized spiritual force', a totally neutral and `unobstructed' attitude may be impossible. We can, however, be reasonably certain that in the context of the total provision of medical care, homeopathy has played and still plays a large part, judged by the number of patients who believe, rightly or wrongly, that homeopathy has helped them.
The late Sir Douglas Black should have the last word. In a very balanced article on complementary medicine, he wrote:
`Although mainstream medical intervention is critical in only a minority of episodes of illness, in those particular episodes it is critical indeed; and I would plead that at least in acute illness, and possibly in any illness, "complementary" medicine should also be subsequent to an assessment of the clinical situation by competent "orthodox" means.'7
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
REFERENCES
1. Gevitz N. Unorthodox medical theories. In: Bynum WF, Porter R (eds). Companion Encyclopaedia of the History of Medicine London: Routledge, 1993:603 -33
2. Fulder S. The Handbook of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. London: Hodder and Stoughton,1996
3. Harrison E. The Ineffective State of the Practice of Physic. London: 1806
4. Forbes J. On the patronage of quacks and impostors by the upper classes of society. British and Foreign Medical Review1846; 21:533 -40
5. Loudon I. `The Vile Race of Quacks with which this Country is Infested.' In: Bynum WF, Porter R (eds). Medical Fringe and Medical Orthodoxy 1750-1850. London: Croom Helm,1987 : 42
6. `Omega'. Remarks on quackery. Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal1840-41; 1:418 -9
7. Black D. Complementary Medicine. In: Walter J, Walton L, Jeremiah A, Barondess JA, Lock S (eds). The Oxford Medical Companion. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994
8. Bynum WF. Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994 : 30
9. Jonas WB, Kaptchuck T, Linde K. A critical view of homeopathy. Ann Intern Med2003; 138:393 -9[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Kaptchuck T. Intentional ignorance a history of blind assessments and placebo controls in medicine. Bull Hist Med1998; 72:401
11. Anon. Homeopathy. Effective Health Care2002; 7:2
12. Babington Smith C. Champion of Homeopathy. The Life of Margery Blackie. London: John Murray, 1986:38
13. Stolberg M. Inventing the randomized double-blind trial: The Nuremberg salt test of 1835. J Roy Soc Med 2006;99:643-4. A longer version of this paper is available at http:jameslindlibrary.org
14. Dean ME. `An innocent deception': placebo controls in the St Petersburg homeopathy trial. J Roy Soc Med 2006;99:375-6. A longer version of this paper is available at http:jameslindlibrary.org
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic