20 Oct 2014 an update Swedish perspective;
In the first decade of the evidence-based era, which began in the mid-1990s, meta-analyses were used to scrutinize homeopathy for evidence of beneficial effects in medical conditions. In this review, meta-analyses including pooled data from placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathy and the aftermath in the form of debate articles were analyzed. In 1997 Klaus Linde and co-workers identified 89 clinical trials that showed an overall odds ratio of 2.45 in favor of homeopathy over placebo. There was a trend toward smaller benefit from studies of the highest quality, but the 10 trials with the highest Jadad score still showed homeopathy had a statistically significant effect. These results challenged academics to perform alternative analyses that, to demonstrate the lack of effect, relied on extensive exclusion of studies, often to the degree that conclusions were based on only 5-10% of the material, or on virtual data. The ultimate argument against homeopathy is the ‘funnel plot’ published by Aijing Shang’s research group in 2005. However, the funnel plot is flawed when applied to a mixture of diseases, because studies with expected strong treatments effects are, for ethical reasons, powered lower than studies with expected weak or unclear treatment effects. To conclude that homeopathy lacks clinical effect, more than 90% of the available clinical trials had to be disregarded. Alternatively, flawed statistical methods had to be applied. Future meta-analyses should focus on the use of homeopathy in specific diseases or groups of diseases instead of pooling data from all clinical trials.
German perspective: Homeopathy. 2010;99(1):76-82. Placebo effect sizes in homeopathic compared to conventional drugs – a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Nuhn T1, Lüdtke R, Geraedts M.1Klinik Roderbirken, Roderbirken, Leichlingen, Germany. It has been hypothesised that randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of classical (individualised) homeopathy often fail because placebo effects are substantially higher than in conventional medicine. OBJECTIVES: To compare placebo effects in clinical trials on homeopathy to placebo effects on trials of conventional medicines. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature analysis on placebo-controlled double-blind RCTs on classical homeopathy. Each trial was matched to three placebo-controlled double-blind RCTs from conventional medicine (mainly pharmacological interventions) involving the same diagnosis. Matching criteria included severity of complaints, choice of outcome parameter, and treatment duration. Outcome was measured as the percentage change of symptom scores from baseline to end of treatment in the placebo group. 35 RCTs on classical homeopathy were identified. 10 were excluded because no relevant data could be extracted, or less than three matching conventional trials could be located. RESULTS: In 13 matched sets the placebo effect in the homeopathic trials was larger than the average placebo effect of the conventional trials, in 12 matched sets it was lower (P=0.39). Additionally, no subgroup analysis yielded any significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo effects in RCTs on classical homeopathy did not appear to be larger than placebo effects in conventional medicine
and an Australian perspective from the MJA on a recent Australian ethics review: :
Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action, and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is “unethical.” They have also diminished patients’ perspectives, values, and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics, misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths, and have an impoverished idea of ethics-one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of relationships or for the perspectives, values, and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation-a type of moral calculus-quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and health care. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths, and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients.
June 2009 editorial comment on `HOMEOPATHIC BASICS (June ’09) Dr. Ron Beare ND., DHomMed, South Africa below:
On May 17, 2009, in a unique referendum ” the people of Switzerland voted by a two-thirds majority to force Parliament to pass a constitutional amendment that supports the use of complementary medicine (CAM), incorporating admission of doctors of anthroposophical medicine, homeopathy, neural therapy, phytotherapy and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) into obligatory health insurance; integration of complementary medicine into teaching and research; and safeguarding of proven remedies.”
This vote by the notoriously conservative rightwing Swiss is a stunning precedent for enforcement of the peoples’ sensible rights and wishes irrespective of the machinations of politicians and Big Business, the inconvenient truth of oligarchy disaster capitalism especially when it manipulates organized religion as extremist “right wings” do everywhere from Islam to Baptist America to C of E Britain to Rome to India, China, Japan and without exception in Africa. Especially in South Africa where the AK47-brandishing State President Rev Jacob Zuma- a habitual serial adulterer (never mind polygamist) supported by acolytes swearing to kill for him – announces that he will rule until the Christ comes….
Phytotherapy, anthroposophical and TCM deal with foodstuffs, natural plant remedies- the origin and foundation of modern drugs. But what of homeopathy?
In 2005 the University of Berne published a major meta-analysis comparing homeopathy with allopathy (Hahneman’s reference term for conventional modern medicine) in comparable chronic conditions including respiratory-allergy, musculoskeletal, neurological and gastrointestinal. They concluded that “Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. Discounting these biases, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions.”
But “110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0·88 (95% CI 0·65–1·19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0·58 (0·39–0·85) for conventional medicine (six trials).” This outcome statistically favours alopathic medicines and not homeopathy. .
But such analysis does not address the risk:benefit ie the adverse effects of allopathic drugs; it did note the small number of large trials of high quality. So what this study largely raises is the power of placebo, belief ie autosuggestion and spontaneous resolution in both homeopathy and alopathy, and the fallacies of randomized controled trials and metanalyses.
It also highlights the paradox that while western medicine aims, claimsto be science-based, for daily minor consultations in the better-off it is largely in daily practice the art of temporizing medicine, symptom-based palliation while the underlying stressor, be it emotional or infection, subsides spontaneously. And apart from trauma, or infection, or the small percent of adults with the most common deadly genetic diseases eg Huntingdon’s chorea or haemophilia which can only be palliated, for chronic common diseases of aging there are no modern drugs which address the rckbasic degenerative pathogenesis.
Metformin the 85year old extract of the age-old medicinal galega officinalis is the only prescription “drug” which does so, in the appropriate dose and patient a true panacea since (like fish oil) it addresses virtually every pathogenetic mechanism of obesity- lipidemia- diabetes, hypertension- heart-vascular-renal, retinopathy, dementia and hypoimmunity. Quality cannabis the Forbidden Medicine is similarly a powerful multidisease therapy, while vastly safer as a recreational dependency than heavily marketed tobacco smoking, gratuitous sex, alcohol and sugar products-the four horsemen of the apocalypse- after human bloodlust- mass starvation, violence, murder and warfare the greatest killers of all ..
But homeopathy is like religion: ineffable, unprovable. As the great Dane Søren Kierkegard the founder of modern psychology and fierce critic of the Church wrote almost two centuries ago, personal religion (as opposed to tribal membership) can only be by a leap of faith, a suspension of reason. The theologian Karen Armstrong, the scientist Steven Jay Gould, the London philosophers AC Greyling and John Gray, and many top novelists – George Elliott, Hermann Wouk, Margaret Attwood and John Fowles – have written perceptive books dissecting true religion- which is at worst a harmless fulfilling moral code – and caring calling- for many, except when (like religion and medicine through the ages) abused for political domination and greed in the pursuit of power by the ruthless. Homeopathic physicians surely cannot be thus accused, unlike the Disease Industry and Big Pharma .. Homeopathy did not, like mainstream medicine in Hahneman’s time, incarcerate and even neuter like animals the feeble and the sad with the bad irrespective.
It is commonly said that one in three admissions to USA hospitals, and thousands of premature deaths there each year, are iatrogenic, contributed to by modern medicines and rash surgery. Except in nondiagnosis of serious treatable illness which progresses by neglect, this cannot happen with homeopathy.
But if these beliefs and organized practices- homeopathy, reflexology, craniosacral medicine, faith healing, personal (not dictated) religion, nutritional supplements in moderation by experience – are harmless, are they better or worse than most modern marketed chronic drugs, which mostly prove for common chronic conditions eventually to be inferior to old and proven remedies, if they do not collapse or fall into neglect within years of their launch from adverse effects or disillusion. Examples are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics including coxibs (compare to the enduring paracetamol, and analgesic herbs); bisphosphonates (compare to appropriate ancient anabolic supplements including enduring appropriate HRT), or statins and glitazones (compare to ancient metformin and other natural antioxidants); or the troublesome angiotensin blockers for common hypertension (compare to gold standard old low dose reserpine plus low dose coamilozide) .
In that context of inquiry one can read this exposition by a naturo-/homeopathic physician with well over 50 years of practice experience on the observations and teachings of Hahnemann, a profoundly observant and ethical medical practitioner, linguist and scientist for his times. . . he was certainly the first and most famous medical doctor of modern times. Although Edward Jenner was four years his senior and William Harvey two centuries earlier, they made their mark each in only one field, whereas Hahnemann applied his mind to all disease – both chronic, infectious, poisoning and the humane care of the insane. He was eerily prophetic of our modern Disease Industry- sell at any cost: “he claimed that the medicine of his time did as much harm as good: ‘My sense of duty would not easily allow me to treat the unknown pathological state of my suffering brethren with these unknown medicines. The thought of becoming in this way a murderer or malefactor towards the life of my fellow human beings was most terrible to me’ .” If only the FDA and it’s devotees would follow this principle before applying relatively untested new drugs where well-proven old have long existed.
It is not inconceivable that molecular biology may yet, paradoxically, explain by quantum mechanics a theoretical basis for homeopathy, setting it aside from pseudoscience and quackery, since modern critical reviews still leave room for doubt. .
`HOMEOPATHIC BASICS (June ’09) Dr. Ron Beare ND., DHomMed, South Africa.
“It is amazing to think that Dr. Samuel Hahnemann MD (1755-1843), a German physician and the Founder of homeopathy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hahnemann lived at a time when medicine recognized bloodletting and purging, mixtures made from vipers, opium, mercury; and other physically degrading poisons.
He was always mindful of the teachings of that other genius Hippocrates, Father of herbal medicine.
Hippocrates, the Father of Natural/Herbal Medicine, died about 400 years before the Christian era.
It is he whose Hippocratic Oath defines the Code of medical ethics even to-day.
Hippocrates denied the then superstitious causes of disease.
He stated in lectures and books that feelings and thought came from the brain, not the heart or liver (as it was thought for centuries before and after Hippocrates).
He was the first dr. to describe epilepsy and pneumonia.
He also said that physicians should do no harm.
Because health is our greatest blessing, we must always improve our lifestyles, by walking, diet and hygiene.
Some 2000 years after Hippocrates’ entreaties about Natures’ healing without perpetrating invasive harm; Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) established a vibrant energy type of medicine, based on the totality of each patient’s individual symptoms.
“The Removal of the Totality of Symptoms means the Removal of the Cause” (Kent, “Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy”).
By Hahnemann’s penetrative powers of observation and comparisons of placebo with correlated observed symptom-provings of each substance, he organized his energy science of treating the body as a holistic treatment dynamic.
Dr. Hahnemann based much of his treatment therapy on these Hippocratic principles.
The genius of Hahnemann, in my opinion, was that he had huge powers of penetrating observations, testing his observations on hundreds of his patients.
He would experiment on a group of patients with a certain homeopathic substance.
Another ½ of the group was given inert medicine, without the patient being thus aware (placebo tests).
He would then write down each patient’s responses.
After carefully analyzing the group’s responses to that substance, the ‘provings’ were noted of that substance.
Hahnemann would ensure that a panel of independent researchers did their own separate ‘provings’ of each tested substance on his control-subjects.
All the panel’s ‘provings’ were collated and compared.
In his time and since, some 3000 substances have been so ‘proven’.
The other sides to his genius were:
The order of importance of symptoms, starting with the vital force (loosely defined as the ‘Spirit’, or Bergson’s Vital Force), from which many physicians have dissented.
As if the presented ‘cures’ were nothing but quackery, sugar, water, alcohol-or imagination, or spiritualism..
The genius of observation herein is that these ‘energy’ medicines, anticipated the much later atomic (vibrational energy) ‘facts’.(Hahnemann, Kent, Gerber).
The next order of symptom analysis was checking the patient’s particular mind symptoms.
Patient’s mind symptoms are not just a general description of an emotion, like depression or stress.
The symptom must be associated with other characteristics of that same patient such as, in descending order of importance:
Intellectual features of that patient; and lastly but also saliently, that patient’s adaptive and environmental responses (like time occurrence of the symptoms, draughts when and where and how, do the symptoms occur, etc., etc.).
The consultation in the Hahnemann so called original classical sense is thus highly individualized.
And the remedy must be the single dose, mirror-matching (the simillimum or similar-matching remedy to the symptom-totality of the patients’ identifiable symptoms, from his vital force-his mind’s characteristics-his adaptive responses (or complex of symptoms).
Dr. Harald Gaier summarises Hahnemann’s homeopathic healing principles, confirming and anticipating the vibrational form of energy, thus:
1) The ways of Nature as Man ‘knows’ its effects follow its causes.
2) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (ed.: Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion).In homeopathy this means that “the action of a drug and the reaction of the targeted organism” are simultaneously. “equal and antidotally stimulatory (opposite)…. Quantity of the drug required is in inverse ratio to the similarity “ (editors’ note: …of the disease).
3) It should perhaps be mentioned here that Hahnemann in 1796 had written of hormesis, the biphasic action of drugs.
That is to say there is a direct first medicine action, followed by an indirect secondary action, opposite to the first or primary action. (the 2nd action being the patient’s healing reaction to the symptom image of the drug’s provings).
5)Light and energy are the same and continuous (Albert Einstein in 1905).
6)Mass force is indestructible and persistent and infinitely divisible (de Maupertais, (!698-1759- ‘Axiom of Least Quantity’)..
Thus in a contextual sense, Newtonian physics deals with the interaction of objects with gravity and momentum on the physical level; homeopathy on an energetic vibratory level.
Hahnemann’s observations of similars was originated in Hippocrates’ school of healing and fine tuned, much in unknown anticipation of Einstein’s equations on light and energy.
Thus on higher magnetically-imposing successions as homeopathic medicine at each level is successed and vibrated, this quantum leveling of subatomic physics shows parallels with homeopathic dispensing.
Homeopathic dilutions are prepared from the primary plant, mineral or other substance by taking a drop of the tincture, added to 10 parts of alcohol, then vigorously shaken (succussed).
Dilutions of 1:10 are 1X.
Those dilutions of 1:100 are 1C.
The dilution and succession are repeated , usually for the first 3 dilutions, mixing 1 part of the succeeding admixtures to the alcohol.
After the first 3 dilutions, 1 part of each succeeding dilution is added to distilled water (instead of alcohol).
The dilutions up to about 30C are generally regarded as low potencies applied in acute cases of illnesses.
More chronic cases of illnesses (when the mirror-imaged provings are also identified in the indicated tablet or drops) are then addressed (at the appropriate frequency of tablet or drops).
The higher dilutions are more penetrative and more enduring.
More frequently it is the higher dilutions that create the healing crises, following on Hering’s Laws of Directivity of Cure.
It should also be mentioned that Sir John Hunter (1728-1793), biologist and surgeon, later surgeon-general, had inoculated syphilis into himself, to experience its ravages..
Sir Edward Jenner (1749-1823), of smallpox vaccination pioneering fame, had been a pupil of Hunter.
Hunter had also stated:
Constitutionally not everyone could be “irritated by a… cause”
No 2 local diseases can simultaneously exist in one area;
Medicines act only as a stimulatory power, since disease and its mirror- drug antagonist cannot mutually co-exist;
Since medical treatment and diseases may become confused, only the minimum drug dose should be prescribed;
Infection depends on its quality, not its volume;
Once infected reinfection with the same miasm becomes less likely.
Hunter also believed as a vitalist, ‘the vital force, or living principle exists prior to physical structures’ (Gaier)
While Hunter followed Hippocrates’statements of likes curing likes (isopathy), Hahnemann was the first to compare similarity of the patient’s symptoms with those of a drug’s provings.
He then matched the patients’ symptom-picture to that of the indicated homeopathic similar homeopathic remedy (from vital force, mind, intellect in sequence to adaptive responses; on superficial lower potencies for acute conditions, or much higher frequencies for deeper more chronic conditions).
2 examples of his observational provings will now be made.
1) In the 1780s Hahnemann was a medical student, studying in a swampy area of Hungary
He there contracted malaria
Legend has it that Peruvian bark (cinchona, quinine, China bark, kinakina) had dramatically cured the malaria of Peruvian Countess of Chincon in 1638.
Hahnemann must have heard of this antimalarial herb.
As a prolific writer and translator from several languages, Dr. Hahnemann translated eminent Scottish Physician William Cullen’s “A Treatise on the Materia Medica”.in 1790, adding a footnote of diasagreement with Dr. Cullen’s assertions that Peruvian bark heals by astringent action.
He then tested the effects on a healthy person of taking china in large doses.
He later similarly experimented with other herbs on himself on the same laboratory-type provings of each respective drug.
Many tests later on healthy beings, incorporating objective placebo against active drug actions on about 20 testing subjects, accumulated together with other pioneering researchers on some 3000 minerals, herbs, chemicals, he defined the homeopathic therapeutics scientifically established to-day.
As Dr. J. H. Clarke states in his 1st volume of his “A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica” : ”Cinchona bark was to Hahnemann what the falling apple was to Newton, and the swinging lamp to Galileo. Dissatisfied with the explanations of the action of Bark in curing ague that were current in his time, Hahnemann took the powdered Bark himself, being in health, and lo! An ague attack ensued.
A repetition of the experiment produced the same result.”
“The tincture of China is antiseptic, destroying amoeboid motion and retarding tissue change. It weakens the heart and impairs the circulation, produces congestions and haemorrhages, anaemia and complete relaxation and collapse.”
The debility in which China is particularly indicated is such as is caused by an excessive drain of animal fluids, as great loss of blood, excessive suppuration, loss of semen; also after prolonged strain of overwork, mentally or bodily.
A “pumped-out” condition”
“Terrible irritability always worse at night.
Loss of sight, deafness, ringing in the ears.
Great sensitiveness to touch”
Clarke has written a 101/2 page cameo of Hahnemann’s inchoate observations on the red Peruvian Bark
It is then sequentially diluted and at each stage of dilution vibrated that the power of the Bark’s healing potentials are revealed.
“Let likes cure likes-similia similibus curentur”.
The mirror image of the ‘toxic’ effects transformed into its diluted and succussed analogue to reveal the power of its healing characteristics…
From head to feet,
From inside to exterior (skin),
To the most recent healing signs showing first
(Dr. Constantin Hering’s 3 Laws of Directivity of Healing).
2) Surukuku Bushmaster snake (latin:trigonocephalus lachesis mutus) Hering (1800-1880) was commissioned to do medical botanic research in the Amazon basin. In 1828 he arranged with the natives to bring him in a basket a bushmaster specimen.
On delivering the 2.13 metre snake they all scattered.
He decided to test the venom in an unattenuated tincture, instructing his Wife to note every word he said in his delirium, resulting from this venom.
He was apparently seeking an improved substitute for Jenner’s heavy-handed smallpox inoculation..
He considered that the saliva of a rabid dog, or powdered smallpox scabs, or any virus or venom could be used homeopathically as a failsafe and harmless antidotal remedy for the animal infected disease.(or like image of these symptoms as displayed by the patient).
Hering was also incidentally the first researcher to use nitroglycerine in the treatment for cardiac problems and also headaches.
The lachesis venom caused a permanent paralysis in his left arm.
Subsequent provings were done at the 30C level (10 to the power of 30).
Clarke lists “the 4 grand characteristics of lachesis as:
1) < by sleep (editor’s note: the patient requiring lachesis sleeps into an aggravation-worse after sleep);
2) …intolerance of touch or constriction;
3) Left sided (symptoms), and the direction left to right;
4) From the onset of a discharge”
Clarke’s list of causative factors for the patient’s condition requiring lachesis are: “injuries, punctured wounds, poisoned wounds. Grief. Vexation. Anger. Fright. Jealousy,.disappointed love,alcohol, masturbation,.sprain (bluish swelling of the joints-editor’s note: bluish marks as also in varicose veins, ‘alcoholic’ noses, and in tumours),Sun,.warm weather, Draught of air”.
The snake is vicious and deadly. Some of the provings from the snake’s noxious power, very salient features in this remedy, are ‘frantic jealousy’ and loquacity, also egotism and arrogance; inner agitated stimulation projected often sarcastically to ‘vulnerable’ listeners.
The suppressed lachesis patient, in his inward neurosis, is deeply introverted, sexually frustrated, is suspicious and critical of others.
DIALECTICS from Homeopathy.
The Intermarriage of Physics, Science, Psychology, and Pharmacology.
Deduction and Induction..
In a paper ‘to be published in The Technology Journal of the Franklin Institute’ two professors and two veterinarians quote a 1996 review of homeopathy, in which “homeopathic treatments are generally used in conditions with variable outcome or showing spontaneous recovery (hence their placebo responsiveness). (Therefore) these treatments are widely considered to have an effect in some patients.”
Elsewhere in their paper they state that there are reports that: “Adverse reactions have been reported ranging from pruritus and a measles-like skin rash to anaphylactic shock, 47 from pacreatitis, 48 to contact dermatitis, 49 in regard to the safety of homeopathic remedies”.
“The previously cited 1996 review stated that serious adverse effects have been reported with low dilutions (<4CH) given parenterally or orally. However high dilutions (>5CH) administered orally or sublingually appear to be entirely safe”
Elsewhere these writers state that homeopathic practitioners “routinely advise their clients (??) against immunization. Such an attitude would appear to be completely insupportable in light of the tremendous advances made in the protection from disease that vaccination clearly and reliably affords. The origin of homeopathic antipathy to vaccination is unknown; there is nothing in Hahnemann’s writings against immunization”
“Homeopathic practitioners may also employ the use of ‘homeopathic vaccines’ or ‘nosodes’ prepared from high dilutions of infectious agents, material such as vomitus, discharges or fecal matter or infected tissues. Curiously, nosodes are not prepared according to homeopathic principles, rather, they would be more properly described as being isopathy. Hahnemann himself decried the use of such preparations”.
In 40 years of homeopathic practice the writer has never encountered aggravations of sequentially diluted and succussed therapeutics, such as in causing pancreatitis nor anaphylactic shock.
Some vaccines have created concern, in their aggravations of the toxins, possibly by the preservatives inherent in them (like mercury and/or aluminium)
There may be a healing reaction or crisis of transient occurrence as a result of homeopathic therapeutics.
This cleansing effect from homeopathics is well known..
It may last an hour or even days.
I repeat Herings 3 laws of healing directivity, repeated hereunder..
But worse conditions (as incorrectly stated in the article: “ Homeopathy and Science”) do not result from triggering healing responses.
Isopathy (and vaccinations) was at first ignored by Hahnemann.
Dr. Constantin Hering did experiment with its these isopathic principles.
The law of similars is encapsulated in the expression:
‘aequalia aequalibus curantur.(likes cure likes’ rather than ‘let likes cure likes’), a derivative of Hippocrates’-Hahnemann’s injunctions.
Many homeopaths in much later decades than in Hahnemann’s teachings have been influenced in the applied use of the following 4 classes of remedy:
Nosodes (disease products with its own drug provings, such as tuberculinum);
Sarcodes (from animal tissue or discharges); or the taints as in miasms (from externally induced infections, drug and medical intoxications, infections, contagions, poor hygiene)
Sarcode derivatives (as in cholesterinum);
Isotherapeutic agents (as in potentised allergens).
I repeat in greater detail, Gaier’s homeopathic laws, postulates and precepts:
“1) similia similibus curentur: let similars be treated by similars (established by the drug’s provings).
2)action and reaction are equal and opposite
3)the more accurate the parallelism between the experimental and the actual disease, the greater the therapeutic effectiveness.
4)the quantity of the drug required is in inverse ratio to the similarity.
5)minute stimuli encourage life activity, medium to strong stimuli tend to impede it, and very strong stimuli (as in the much higher potencies))to stop or destroy it.
As Boericke states: ‘from the moment a drug produces pathogenetic symptoms, it exaggerates the function of the tissue, exhausts the already diminished vitality, and thence, instead of stimulating the organic cell in the direction of life, impairs or abolishes its power of contraction’.
6)the rule of least action (maxima minimis) prescribes that the decisive momentum, in the application of the similia principle, is always the minimum, frequently an infinitesimal (corollaries of the last 3 points are:the quality of the action of a homeopathic remedy is determined by its quantity in inverse ratio; there should be no repetition of the remedy administered so long as it continues to be active; there is to be no repetition of the dose until symptoms have run their course and completely abated from the dose already administered.
7)there are 3 rules for the provings’ potencies:
“a) any drug in its natural state which affects bioenergy (dynamis) only a little will develop a proving in a high potency only;
b)any drug which in its natural state disturbs the bioenergy (dynamis) to functional manifestations only may be proven in crude form;
c)any drug which in its natural state disturbs the bioenergy (dynamis) to destructive manifestations should be proven only in a dynamized form.
8)functional symptoms are produced bioenergetically in exact proportion to the profundity of the disturbance.” (Gaier)
It should be noted that, in describing the science, philosophy, pharmacology, physics of pure homeopathy, polypharmacy practitioners have applied homeopathic mixtures of remedies, as in a shotgun effect.
They have sullied the scientific intentions of homeopathy.
The reasons for their ‘shortcuts’ is that scientific foundations of homeopathy are difficult to understand and formulate and apply in the single remedy application.
Further, it is incorrect to apply normal statistical methods to given remedies , when:
the scientific and physics’ laws are given postulates, but the individual characteristics of the patients are variable.
The characteristics of medical statistics are generally evaluated on symptoms, while homeopathy must attend to the individual with their own complex behaviours, physical and emotional and intellectual..
Thus statistics in homeopathy are based on inferential, descriptive individual parameters, modulated by adaptive responses, in matching the treatment to the patient, according to the resonant tuning of remedy provings to that patient’s whole symptom-complex..
One must add that however scientifically homeopathy is applied the needs of attending to the patients lifestyle, poor eating habits, lack of adequate exercise, poor dietary habits are ineluctably part of the practitioner’s assessment of the total patient.
Homeopathy has stood the test of time, since its inception by Hahnemann in 1796.
Statistics was an unkown in Hahnemann’s life.
Yet he did extensive placebo testing (double blind testing) in all his drug trials, by observational comparisons and evaluations.
The observations carefully done by researchers have not been negated even within the parameters of modern technology.
The homeopathic laws remain as scientifically based as they were propounded.
Again it must be said that classic homeopathic prescribing for the individual patient cannot be assessed on conventional statistics.
Statistics of a specific condition treated successfully, or the provings of a specific remedy whatever the single individual homeopathic remedy has been administered, would probably be the only statistical criteria to be recognized, certainly at the higher dilutions (frequencies).
“Patients are given a frequency- specific dose of subtle energy that will help their bodies to resonate in the needed mode in order to return their systems to a state of health or wellness. The healing vibrational mode, enhanced by the remedy, triggers the initially exaggerated symptoms of the illness which are experienced by the patient during the healing crisis”
The primary criticism by scientists has been the infinitesimal nature of sequential dilutions and successions beyond the point of Avagadro’s number (that is, beyond the analysis available by an emmanometer).
Since the number of atoms in a mole (the molecular weight of a chemical substance in grams) is about 6 X 10-23, this indicates that the 12th dilution and beyond this number-and the sequential successions- does not at this time appear to contain even a single atom of the original active ingredient.
This higher points of homeopathic dilution is inimical to the conventional wisdom of orthodox drug-oriented thinking, who ignore the (as yet unproven) activity of an atom and/or its effects on physiologic effects on the human body.
Science is replete with unkown reasons for activities beyond our present deductions.
Yet a recent magnetic resonance study showed that all 23 different homeopathic remedies revealed distinctively specific indications of submolecular activity, while the placebos showed no readings at all.
Homeopathic efficacy would thus signify the energetic rather than the chemical power.
Over 2 centuries both laboratory and clinical results bear testimony to the dramatic efficacy of homeopathic single remedies beyond this Avagadro’s number.
The dilution into infinitesimal amounts with vibration at each level of dilution has been a major criticism of lack of efficacy (activity) of the homeopathic dispensing beyond this Avogadro ‘limit’ of 24 X (12C).
Yet laboratory and clinical results much beyond this 24C limit have for about 190 years borne healing results on these patients.
In conclusion, it might be mentioned that the 1st double blind crossover study ever initiated, was by homeopaths in 1906.
The research study on belladonna of 665 pages was performed concurrently in 11 different cities, each of 15 subjects.
Recently nuclear magnetic resonance studies showed that testing of 23 different homeopathic potencies and remedies indicated distinct presences of submolecular activities; while the placebos had not revealed any presences of these submolecular activities, whatsoever.
Finally, detection of magnetic photons in varying homeopathic potencies, according to the medicine being tested, has been recently proven..Kaarin Lenger Ph.D notes a newly developed magnetic resonance methods using 2 different Tesla coils.These generate longitudinal waves at distinct resonant frequencies, in the hf range at low micro voltages.
For the first time, the resonance method developed in this paper was extended for determining the frequency spectra of homeopathic potencies by exciting them by means of a different peak frequency of their individual spectrum within the hf range.
From this it follows that each homeopathic potency must have its specific frequency spectrum and its specific energy, which is the ‘homeopathic information ‘.
According to these results, states Dr. Lenger, homeopathy has been put on a fundamental, scientific, physical basis.
Healing by homeopathy obeys the principle of similarity according to Professor Hahnemann.
1) “Organon of Medicine” by Prof. Samuel Hahnemann M.D., 6th edition. Translated by Prof. William Boericke, M.D. Indian edition published by Roy Publishing House, 1972, Calcutta..
2)”Pocket Manual of Homeopathic Materia Medica”, by Prof. W. Boericke, M.D. (9th edition, San Francisco, 1927) by B. Jain Publishers, New Delhi (1983). .
3)New Remedies. Clinical Cases, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms and Precepts” by Prof. J.T. Kent,B.Ph., A.M., M.D. (possibly about 1926). Indian edition by Sey Dey and Co., Calcutta, 1973.
4)”Repertory of the Homeopathic Materia Medica”, J.T. Kent, B.Ph., A.M., M.D., 6th American edition (1935), republished in India, by World Homeopathic Links, New Delhi, 1983.
5)”Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy” by James Tyler Kent, B.Ph., A.M., M.D., 1900, Evanston, Illinois. Reprinted 1993, Indian edition, B. HJain Publishers, New Delhi.
6)”Thorson’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of Homeopathy” by Harald C. Gaier DHomM., ND., DO., Dip.Ac.., 1991, Harper Collins Publishers,London.
7)”Research in Homeopathy” www.lyghtforce.com/King_bio/research.htm
8)”Vibrational Medicine” by Richard Gerber M.D., 1996,Bear and Co.,Santa Fe, New Mexico.
9)”A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica”, by John Henry Clarke, M.D., in 3 volumes. Volumes 1 and 2.(1900) 3rd edition, 1962, Health Science Press, Sussex, England