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 |
tailz
Unregistered
posted
Great article! I honestly believe that a lot of doctors today who deny Lyme are one day going to feel really stupid.
I know when I see a doctor anymore, I kind of feel like I landed on the wrong planet. It's like they have brains, but can't seem to bring about some common sense when it comes to validating homeopathy. Again, great article!
IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
I don't know about homeopathy/
But could'nt it just be a dirty glass...???
zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
My homeopathic remedies were prescribed by a board certified homeopath who also happens to be an MD practicing anthesiology in a large hospital in DC and they were regulated by the FDA. So, I am sure they were not dirty glasses.
Most of my lyme symptoms were completely resolved with homeopathy. It was easy to take and incredibly effective. It didn't hurt my feelings any either to know it was also 100% safe.
Z-man, I don't think you can ever be convinced otherwise as you are very strong in your feelings about it. But I am going to steal a line from our old buddy, JimBob.
Those who say it can't be done, need to get out of the way of those who are doing it.
Luvs
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
I couldn't find the original research paper implied by this thread.
Who has the citation?
I would like to read it because it's a ground breakthrough paper.
Thanks.
Dave
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
Right, Luvs. You are an excellend example of the healing properties of homeopathy.
Dave, I don't know if this helps but this article - or the one they refer to - was originally published August 19, 2004. The name of this article is
Homeopathy breakthrough: homeopathic solutions proven to carry memory of water and exhibit biological effects
Also, bear in mind that I seriously doubt if the original research paper was done in the U.S. I suspect this comes from Europe somewhere.
Don't know if this helps.
I like this article so much I may have to post it over at a couple of Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain support boards where I used to hang out. There were some people over there who were extremely skeptical of most vibrational medicine, and homeopathy in particular. Perhaps they would be interested in these findings.
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 |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
I'm not a brilliant man but have been called one. I'm not a stupid man but called one also.
I cannot see gravity or electromagnetic forces however I CAN see their effects on physical objects in my world...therefore I believe in them and someone at some time gave them a name.
I'm not a physicist but I do ponder quantum theory...light and time and strings and things.
I can be and have been both follower and leader.
I'm just a sick man trying to get well...
just like us all...
Homeopathy...School of medicine,founded by Dr.S.C.F. Hahnemann (1755-1843) in 1796 in Philadelphia, based on THEORY that large doses of drugs that produce symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure the same symptoms when administered in small amounts.
This is loosely based on the THEORY that "like cures like"
Homeotherapy...Treatment or prevention of disease with a substance similar to but NOT IDENTICAL with the active causative agent such as jennerian vaccination.
Jenner, Edward the guy who came up with smallpox vaccine using cowpox injections.
Now what the heck do you mean???
Are we supposed to take small doses of lymedisease into our bodies to rid ourselves of same?
Which strain of 300 or so will do the trick???
What co-infection if we know it should we inject into our already diseased bodies, to rid us of something we don't even know we have???
I for one am experimenting with 21st century medicines for my treatment.
Anyone here can do whatever they want that they think is sensible.
thruth...
If you read the above you would know they admit to research done in europe somewhere...
not that there is anything wrong with that!
I Have tried atlternatives many more than I care to admit to...In Lilydale the psychics did'nt know I was sick or what from...
and their holistic aura wands and such did nothing but cost me money! I believe THAT like HOUDINI debunking Psychics is what is behind the likes of RANDY.
I have even Theorized my own treatment protocols and ponder whether there is a natural born killer of this disease...
Perhaps it is Helicobator Pylori...for after I got clear of that my lyme symptoms became more pronounced... And H-pylori IS often crossreferenced when doing tests for Bb. I would gladly trade again the heartburn for my life as I knew it pre-antibiotics that killed my gut bug.
I am presently utilizing an alternative protocol... It's the ALTERNATIVE PROTOCOL utilized by DR B and the ILADS foundation...
as opposed to mainstream medicinethat calls your school of medicine a sham and the IDSA.
I have also attained relief from a lot of my symptoms and have as yet not created in me any suseptability to any such SUPER BUGS if they indeed even exist...save one...Borelia Burgorferi Spirochete... I exhibit symptoms to date of other co-infections however I PERSONALLY am NOT going to inject or injest any more bugs into me!
Yes, yes, I know DILUTED forms of the disease...osomes or whatever...
give me a break!
ON This I AM A LEADER! My own health...and I relate my own experiences here in all honesty...so you can either LEAD...follow OR get out of the way!
This is'nt MY quote either...but it applies... zman
[ 09. December 2006, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: lymie tony z ]
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, Vol. 126, No. 5, 211-218 (2006) DOI: 10.1177/1466424006068237 � 2006 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health Is homeopathy possible? Lionel R Milgrom, RSHom, MARH, LCH, BSc, MSc, PhD, CChem, FRSC
Imperial College, biotechnology spin-out company PhotoBiotics Ltd, Department of Chemistry, Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, South Kensington, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK, [email protected]
As a therapeutic intervention, homeopathy is the target of increased scepticism because in the main, its remedies are diluted and succussed (potentized) out of material existence. This puts homeopathy seemingly at odds with the paradigm of conventional science, in particular, that atoms and molecules are the fundamental building blocks of all matter. Accordingly, homeopathy cannot work, so that any reported beneficial effects must, at best, be due to the placebo effect. The purpose of this article is to challenge that conclusion and to suggest that there may well be conventional science-based explanations of how homeopathy could be possible.
Homeopathy's key principles are first described. Then the double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT), the chief means by which homeopathic remedies and prescribing are tested, is shown to be based on a linear reductionism that is too blunt an instrument with which to test the efficacy of complex interventions such as homeopathy.
The memory of water hypothesis, as a mechanism for how potentized remedies might work, is reviewed, along with some evidence for its existence. A possible rationale for the water memory effect is proposed in terms of a dynamic `ordering' of water's constantly switching network of intermolecular hydrogen bonds, induced by the manufacturing process of homeopathic remedies. This could lead to a long-range molecular `coherence' between trillions of mobile water molecules.
However, the water memory effect is an essentially pharmacological explanation of homeopathy's putative efficacy. It is pointed out that healing also entails an interaction between consenting beings. From this point of view, an explanation of any therapeutic procedure should include an attempt to describe the nature of the patient-practitioner interaction. From this perspective, a quantum theoretical treatment of the therapeutic process, involving a form of macro-entanglement between patient, practitioner and remedy (PPR), is advanced as another possible explanation of the homeopathy's efficacy. This shows that the reason double-blind RCTs deliver at best only equivocal results on homeopathy's efficacy is because it effectively breaks the PPR entangled state. A comparison is made between the entanglement-breaking effect of double-blind RCTs and the wave-function `collapsing' effect of observation in orthodox quantum theory.
The article concludes by suggesting that the memory of water and PPR entanglement are not competing but most likely complementary hypotheses, and that both are probably required in order to provide a complete description of the homeopathic process. While awaiting experimental evidence of these hypotheses, it is suggested that observations of clinical outcomes would be superior to RCTs for further testing homeopathy's efficacy.
Key Words: Entanglement * homeopathy * memory of water * quantum theory * randomized controlled trials
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jenner, Edward the guy who came up with smallpox vaccine using cowpox injections.
Now what the heck do you mean???
Are we supposed to take small doses of lymedisease into our bodies to rid ourselves of same?
The remedies are prepared from animal, plant or mineral substances, and occasionally from disease material (nosodes) or even from energy sources such as light or electricity.
Posts: 686 | From Northeast Georgia | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
tailz
Unregistered
posted
I think there is a scientific explanation for each and every homeopathic remedy that works. Just because we don't yet know why something works, doesn't mean it's caused by the placebo effect - it just means we aren't the high beings we like to think we are.
I'm putting my bets on Reiki - that's my next step - as I'm thinking me and Rocephin are not entirely 'consenting' adults since I despise modern medicine and how it has failed me.
Every day I open my eyes which means I'm plugged into something - the universe? I'd like to think so, as dependent as it makes me seem.
IP: Logged |
GiGi
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 259
posted
Homeopathics work on the mental level. Our illness may begin on a different level and we may heal on different levels.
I was taught by my doctor how to make homeopathics with glasses and light. I was taught to use the Wavefront. It is used in many medical offices.
Homeopathic remedies/nosodes are used for energetic testing to find the troublemakers in the body, where in the body, severity, etc. But the troublemakers may then be treated with heavier meds.
The laser treatment with homeopathics is applied very successfully for heavy metals and other problems. Even getting rid of certain abx residue before other treatments can become effective. Very respected medical professionals are using this modality.
Please inform yourself and don't stab to death a valuable science that is hundreds of years old and worked well for generations. Ignorance is no excuse. Sorry - that needs to be said.
Take care.
Posts: 9834 | From Washington State | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
Thanks, Tracy,for the info.
I have read two recent review papers homeopathy and searched ISI website, but failed to dig out the "breakthrough" paper.
Dave
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
GIGI...I appreciate your appology before calling me ignorant...
I assure you I'm neither ignorant or naive.
No matter how one rationalizes their modality concerning a 200 year old debunked science it remains to be seen a clear cut cure ratio.
You claim over and over that you are cured yet you also keep buying or hawking products here on lymenet... and you don't ever address that issue...why is that?
another slightly annoying attribute you exhibit is not carefully reading others posts because I assume you think you consider yourself above the uninformed.
There's another post floating around that is old and MO asks the question of an update on homeopathy risk takers...
No one I have seen has replied so far...could that be because they're all cured and moved on?
They're all cured and wish not to share their story and cure with the rest of us for fear of disbelief or riddicule?
Or could it be they wish not to be thought of as having wasted their time money and effort on balderdash...that's an ole english term...
zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Z-man,
I have not responded to Mo's post because I was not one of the original posters and I assumed she was talking to them.
My personal experience does not constitute a double blind study but it is true. When I was diagnosed the 2nd time with Lyme and this time 3rd stage or chronic, I was given homeopathic remedies and nothing else.
Here are the results and they are still true even though it has been 1 year since I took the remedies.
migraines - gone shortterm memory loss - gone mental confusion - gone hearing - improved joint pain - worsened by end of treatment.
I'm glad to be rid of those horrible migraines. The STM loss was just really inconvenient and not so hard to live with. The mental confusion was frightening and I hope it never comes back. The joint pain really sucks. New treatment has improved my joint pain tremendously, but I'm not 100% well.
Those results are good enough for me to feel comfortable recommending them to others.
Luvs
-------------------- 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
Sorry, Dave - I was afraid you would not find the study through normal channels. Most of these studies come from countries where homeopathy is utilized nearly as much as mainstream medicine. The U.S. is really behind on this, thanks mostly to the M.D.s in this country. The Hahnemann College of Homeopathy in Philadelphia - referenced by Tony in an earlier post - was purchased by the MDs in this country, and that was the end of teaching homeopathy in the U.S.
You see, the MDs didn't like the competition. They never have. Look at the way they have treated Osteopaths and Chiropractors.
If you look at historical word-wide statistics of conventional medicine versus homeopathy, the results were not particularly favorable to the allopaths (conventional docs). The homeopaths could deal with all kinds of infections and epidemics much better than conventional medicine WITHOUT ANY ANTIBIOTICS, so the allopaths really struggled to keep their foothold until vaccines and antibiotics entered the scene. Then, it seemed the game was over. Mainstream medicine had won.
Of course, now we know that the use of vaccines and antibiotics have lead to other problems, and I think we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg on that research.
So, much like the studies on Lyme bugs, Europe has a much more open approach to unbiased research on homeopathy and other unconventional treatments. Japan, too. I hope that changes in my lifetime.
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 |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
Hey, doesn't this discussion remind you of something?
Like maybe the IDSA who, in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary from the ILADS camp, insists that there is no chronic Lyme, you don't need any treatment unless you have an EM rash, and that long-term antibiotic therapy doesn't work.
Sound familiar anyone?
Oh, and by the way, GardenofLyme DID give us an update on her homeopathic nosode treatment, and believes that it is part of what has helped her.... see this thread...
-------------------- 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 |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
Oh, rats - I forgot to ask...
GiGi, why do you say that "homeopathics work on the mental level".
Clearly, the Vital Force upon which homeopathy works is comprised of both mental and physical elements, or so the evidence would indicate.
Would you be kind enough to provide a link or some additional information on this?
Thanks -
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 |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
As patients, we don't really care about the mechanism of a therapeutics as long as it works.
Acupuncture really works for relieving pains, some large cancer centers in the US have recently recruited acupuncturists for the very purpose, although we don't know the exact mechanism.
On the other hand, we don't have effective antibiotics for Lyme, we are still taking antibiotics, because we know theoretically and experimentally or clinically, abx work for most bacteria, protozoa and other microorganisms.
As for homeopathy, there were some double blind clinical trials, but none of which support that homeopathics were effective, making people wondering that the effectiveness claimed by some patients might be just placebo effects, or there might be too many variables for us to control and understand so far.
However, like others said we should keep our mind open,as currently there is no effective therapy for Lyme.
Dave
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
The following article is a good and up-to-date review on homeopathy.
I feel I should repost it here for those that might be interested in reading it but missed on another thread.
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 |
Greatcod
Unregistered
posted
Seems to me that the problem everyone with Lyme faces is that the symptoms come and go and there is spontaineous partial remission. What treatments work and what don't gets clouded by this cycling. Klempner's study, for instance, never accounted for this cycling. When it comes to Lyme, almost everyone is blowing smoke to some degree.
IP: Logged |
GiGi
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 259
posted
Truthfinder,
"GiGi, why do you say that "homeopathics work on the mental level".
This question is very nicely explained in the lower portion of the link on the Wavefront on my post further up. Also you will find further explanations of these different levels on my new post "The Vertical Healing System - The Five Levels of Healing".
Let's just say, healing is not only fixed with biochemistry. It is a journey with many stops!
Take care.
Posts: 9834 | From Washington State | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
Homeopathy is just another ``system of medicine'', and like conventional medicine, it has its limitations because there is always more to learn.
Both these systems of medicine still struggle with treating people with chronic illnesses, and in that regard, the two systems are very much alike. Complex diseases require complex treatments.
Choosing a good practitioner if you have a chronic illness is just as critical in homeopathy as it is in mainstream medicine. It is the equivalent of Ducks versus LLMDs. Good homeopaths will tell you that the failures in homeopathy occur most often because of some failing on the part of the practitioner, not through the fault of the homeopathic system of medicine.
GiGi, I read what you suggested and didn't find anything that helped answer my question. That's okay - thanks anyway - it is not critical information to me. I was just curious.
However, it was interesting to read about the Wavefront machine. I'd heard of these machines but I didn't realize that I knew anyone who had used one!! I'm sure you have had some interesting experiences.
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 |
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!
Printer-friendly view of this topic