1  

Homeopathy:  Mere  Placebo  or  Great  Medicine?  

Post-­‐Debate  Questions  

 

I-­‐  Questions  for  André:    

A)  Questions  from  Joe  to  André:  

1-­‐Homeopaths  claim  that  even  after  a  substance  is  dissolved  in  water  or  alcohol  and  diluted  to  such  an  extent  that  there  is  not  a  single  molecule  of  the  original  solute  left,  the  solution  still  retains  some  memory  of  the  solute.  But  this  solution  is  then  impregnated  into  a  sugar  pill  and  the  water  is  evaporated.  What  then  is  left  behind?  And  how  does  whatever  is  left  behind  have  anything  to  do  with  healing?  

A:  Homeopaths  are  actually  not  making  such  a  claim,  but  have  instead  been  reporting  a  series  of  very  important  experimental  observations  that  are,  first,  sick  people  are  sensitive  to  remedies  that  can  produce  a  similar  state  as  their  sickness;1  second,  patients  usually  experience  an  initial  aggravation  when  remedies  are  precisely  prescribed  to  them  according  to  this  principle  of  similarity;2  third,  to  avoid  this  initial  aggravation,  Hahnemann  did  what  any  logical  physician  would  do,  he  diminished  the  dose.  At  first,  he  used  simple  dilutions,3  and  only  many  years  later  he  began  using  serial  succussed  dilutions,4  a  process  he  had  previously  used  in  chemistry5  and  which  had  

                                                                                                                         1 Hahnemann reported this phenomenon in great detail and with many observations in 1796 in his Essay on a New Principle for Ascertaining the Curative Powers of Drugs. (In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 249-303.) He confirmed this phenomenon during the 1799 scarlet fever epidemic in an article entitled On the Power of Small Doses of Medicine in General and of Belladonna in Particular. (In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 385-389.) 2 In a five month study in a large clinic, it was estimated that approximatively 75% of patients with chronic diseases experienced an initial aggravation after taking the simillimum homeopathic remedy. (Paterakis S, Bachas I, Vithoulkas G. Statistical data on aggravation after the simillimum. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1977; 70: 267-269. 3 Already in 1786, four years before his exprimentation with Peruvian bark, he was prescribing very small doses of mercury in his treatment of syphilitic patients compared to the much larger doses commonly prescribed by his contemporaries. 4 Even tough Hahnemman made the experiment with Peruvian bark in 1790 and published the results of the first six years of his experiments by announcing a new therapeutic principle in 1796, he began using serial succussed dilutions (usually of the second or third attenuations) only in 1799 during the epidemic of scarlet fever. He would then mix one part of pulverized Opium with twenty parts of weak alcohol, would let this mixture stand in a cool place for a week and would shake it occasionally to “promote the solution.” A drop of this tincture was mixed “intimately” with five hundred drops of diluted alcohol, and the whole was well shaken; and of this last diluted tincture, one drop was added to another five hundred drops of alcohol. Of this diluted tincture, one drop sufficed for a child of four years of age (particularly during stupefaction marked with convulsions), and two drops for one of ten years. For still younger children, one drop of this dilution was mixed with ten teaspoonfuls of water, and one, two, or more spoonfuls given. He wrote, “It is unnecessary to repeat these doses oftener than every four or eight hours, in some case more than every twenty-four hours, and sometime a couple of times during the whole fever, for which the more frequent or more rare occurrence these symptoms must be our guide.” (Hahnemann S. Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Ferer. In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 375.)

  2  

been  known  at  least  since  Paracelsus;6  fourth,  Hahnemann  noticed  that  patients  responded  better  and  longer  the  higher  the  potency  was,  a  fact  that  is  confirmed  daily  by  every  practicing  homeopath;  and  fifth,  Hahnemann  slowly  pursued  this  upward  process  of  serial  dilution  and  succussion  over  the  next  forty  years  as  he  never  stopped  observing  increasing  benefit  in  the  sick.7  To  illustrate  how  slow  this  process  of  progressive  rise  in  serial  trituration/succussion  and  dilutions  was,  Hahnemann  recommended  prescribing  Aurum  metallicum  in  the  first  and  second  attenuations  in  1820,  the  12th  in  1825,  the  30th  in  1835  and  by  1840  he  was  consistently  using  the  200  centesimal  potency.8    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         5 After abandoning the practice of medicine because of its uncertainty, Hahnemann occupied himself mostly with chemistry and translation. He was soon recognized as an expert chemist. (To appreciate Hahnemann’s work as a chemist see: Bradford TL. Life and Letters of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1895: 29-42, and Kleiner) It was said that his accomplishments in chemistry “must be termed remarkable… and [that he can be] added to the list of versatile scientists side by side with Lavoisier, Benjamin Franklin and Pasteur.” (Kleiner IS. Hahnemann as a chemist. Scientific Monthly 1938; 46: 450-454.) In his investigation on the fermentation of wine when put in contact with different gases, Hahnemann would fill vials with different gases and hermetically seal them under water. He would then succuss each vial up and down 30 times on a leather-bound book three times a day for a period of two months in order to increase the contact of the gases with the wine. (Hahnemann S. Ueber den Einfluss einiger Luftarten auf die Gährung des Weins. Chemische Annalen für die Freunde der Naturlehre, Arzneygelahrtheit, Haushaltungskunst und Manufakturen 1788; 1: 141-142.) 6 The following extracts are from Scholiast (believed to be Paracelsus) commentaries to the third section of The Golden Treatise of Hermes, “The dead elements (which a spirit inhabits) are revived; the composed bodies tinge and alter, or are altered; and by a wonderful process they are made permanent. … The bodies of the metals are domiciles of their spirits . . . when their terrestrial substance is by degrees made thin, extended, and purified, the life and fire hitherto lying dormant is excited and made to appear. For the life which dwells in the metals is laid, as it were, asleep (in sense); nor can it exert its powers or show itself unless the bodies (that is, the sensible and vegetable media of life) be first dissolved and turned into their radical source. …This is the property of our medicine, into which the previous bodies of the spirit are reduced; that, at first, one part thereof shall tinge ten parts of an imperfect body, then one hundred, then a thousand, and so infinitely on by which the efficacy of the Creative Word is wonderfully evidenced; and by how much oftener the medicine is dissolved, by so much the more it increases in virtue; which otherwise, and without any more solution, would remain in its single or simple state of perfection. Here, then, is a celestial and divine fountain set open which no man is able to draw dry.” (Cameron FT. Antiquity of the doctrine of dynamization of medicines by dilution. Organon 1878; 1: 280-281.) This accumulation in UMPs of the applied mechanical force is called “potentization” in homeopathy. 7 It is irrefutable from many authentic historical sources why Hahnemann first diminished the doses, and second how he proceeded very slowly through careful experimentation over many decades from prescribing simple dilutions to a progressive rise in serial trituration/succussion and dilutions, which has nothing to do at all with the skeptics’ belief that Hahnemann “came to the conclusion, somehow nobody can explain how, that less is more.” 8 In 1798, two years after Hahnemann published the results of his experiments on a new therapeutic principle, he was still prescribing crude doses of medicine, such as a half dram dose of Peruvian bark tincture (Some Periodical and Hebdomadal Diseases. In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 341-344.), drop doses of tincture of Opium (Antidotes to Some Heroic Vegetable Substances. In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 322-329.), and grain doses of Arnica Montana and Ignatia amara. (Some Kinds of Continued and Remittent Fevers. In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 329-341.) By 1840, Hahnemann knew that a limit would unlikely ever be found to the efficacy of the higher potencies, as he kept increasing the potency of his remedies while observing increased remedial responses in the sick. Already in 1827, he suspected the unlimited potential of higher potencies when he wrote, “Medicinal substances are not dead masses in the ordinary sense of the term, on the contrary, their

  3  

In  view  of  these  experimental  facts,  Hahnemann  logically  assumed  that  durable,  physical  changes  were  occurring  in  the  vehicles  due  to  this  process  of  serial  trituration/succussion  and  dilutions,  a  phenomenon  that  can  absolutely  not  be  explained  with  the  theory  of  Avogadro’s  limit.9  In  1825,  he  wrote,  “By    the  succussion  and  trituration  employed,  a  change  is  effected  in    the  mixture,  which  is  so  incredibly  great  and  so  inconceivably    curative,  that  this  development  of  the  spiritual  power  of  medicines  to  such  a  height  by  means  of  the  multiplied  and  continued    trituration  and  succussion  of  a  small  portion  of  medicinal  substance  with  ever  more  and  more  dry  or  fluid  unmedicinal  substances,  deserves  incontestably  to  be  reckoned  among  the  greatest    discoveries  of  this  age.”10  

In  the  same  article,  Hahnemann  responded  to  the  skeptic’s  arguments  about  the  implausibility  of  the  higher  attenuations  as  followed,  “But  there  are  various  reasons  why  the  skeptic  ridicules  these    homeopathic  attenuations.  First,  because  he  is  ignorant  that    by  means  of  such  triturations  the  internal  medicinal  power  is    wonderfully  developed,  and  is  as  it  were  liberated  from  its  material  bonds,  so  as  to  enable  it  to  operate  more  penetratingly    and  more  freely  upon  the  human  organism;  secondly,  because    his  purely  arithmetical  mind  believes  that  it  sees  here  only  an    instance  of  enormous  subdivision,  a  mere  material  division  and    diminution,  wherein  every  part  must  be  less  than  the  whole—as    every  child  knows;  but  he  does  not  observe,  that  in  these  spiritualizations  of  the  internal  medicinal  power,  the  material  receptacle  of  these  natural  forces,  the  palpable  ponderable  matter,  is    not  to  be  taken  into  consideration  at  all;  thirdly,  because  the    skeptic  has  no  experience  relative  to  the  action  of  preparations    of  such  exalted  medicinal  power.    If,  then,  he  who  pretends  to  be  a  seeker  after  truth  will  not    search  for  it  where  it  is  to  be  found,  namely,  in  experience,  he    will  certainly  fail  to  discover  it;  he  will  never  find  it  by  arithmetical  calculations.”11  

We  could  indeed  speculate  that  beyond  the  twelfth  centesimal  dilution  there  isn’t  any  molecule  left  from  the  original  substance.  However,  no  one  can  in  fact  prove  the  absence  of  any  molecules  of  the  original  medicinal  substances  in  ultra-­‐molecular  preparations  (UMPs),12  unless  they  are  able  to  investigate  them  with  methods  capable  of  detecting  the  presence  of  the  smallest  concentrations  of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         true essential nature is only dynamically spiritual—is pure force, which may be increased in potency by that most wonderful process of trituration (and succussion) according to the homeopathic method, almost to an infinite degree.” (Hahnemann S. How Can Small Doses of Such Very Attenuated Medicine as Homoeopathy Employs Still Possess Great Power? In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 733.) 9 Hahnemann referred to the doctrine of the divisibility of matter in 1810 (Hahnemann S. Organon of Medicine. Translated by Robert E. Dudgeon. Fifth American Edition. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1912, 301.), and said in 1829 that “there must be an end to the thing [divisibility of matter], it cannot go on to infinity.” (Hahnemann S. Hahnemann’s correspondence. British Journal of Homoeopathy 1847; 5: 398.) It is very unlikley that Hahnemann, who was an expert chemist, a great scholar and an accomplished scientisit, was not aware of Dalton’s ideas on the atomic theory, which he presented between 1804 and 1810, and of the theory of Avogrado’s limit, even though it would be determined much later. In 1811, Amadeo Avogadro proposed that the volume of a gas (at a given pressure and temperature) is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules regardless of the nature the gas. However, accurate determinations of Avogadro's number only became possible for the first time in 1910 after American physicist Robert Millikan measured the charge of an electron. The previous year, in 1909, French physicist Jean Perrin proposed the name of Avogadro to identify this fixed number of constituent particles in one mole of any given substance. 10 Hahnemann S. How Can Small Doses of Such Very Attenuated Medicine as Homoeopathy Employs Still Possess Great Power? In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 729-730. 11 Ibid., 734. 12 Ultra-molecular preparations or UMPs are solids or solutions that went through the process of serial trituration/succussion and dilutions particular to homeopathy (or are solids, usually sugars, that have been impregnated with one of these solutions), and which usually exceed in theory Avogadro’s limit.

  4  

molecules.  It  was  not  until  the  1950’s  and  1960’s  that  scientists  conducted  experiments  with  radioisotopes,  which  permitted  the  detection  of  molecules  of  the  original  substances  in  UMPs  of  up  to  the  10-­‐2,000  (Korsakoff).13  The  presence  of  the  original  medicinal  substances  have  since  been  detected  by  more  refined  spectrometric  measurements  and  most  recently  by  scientists  at  the  Indian  Institute  of  Technology,  who  have  detected  asymptotic  amounts  of  nanoparticles  and  nanobubbles  in  UMPs  of  up  to  the  10-­‐400.14    

Also,  measurable  changes  in  the  physico-­‐chemical  properties  of  UMPs  began  to  appear  in  the  1940’s  with  wavelength  changes  of  the  light  passing  through  them.15  Different  teams  of  scientists  corroborated  other  measurable  physico-­‐chemical  changes  of  UMPs  in  the  early  1950’s.16  During  the  1960’s,  it  was  found  by  high-­‐resolution  nuclear  magnetic  resonance  spectroscopy  that  differences  existed  in  the  alcohol  phase  spectrographs  of  UMPs.17  The  advent  of  more  refined  spectroscopic  equipment  is  now  permitting  scientists  to  push  investigation  further  and  discover  many  new,  greatly  unexpected  physico-­‐chemical  properties  of  UMPs.18,19,20  

In  1984,  Scofield  reviewed  much  of  the  pre-­‐Benveniste  research  on  the  physico-­‐chemical  properties  of  UMPs.21  We  find  that  already  in  the  1960’s,  Barnard  had  developed  the  idea  of  the  “memory  of  water,”  or  in  other  words,  something  of  the  original  substances  is  ingrained  in  the  vehicles,  which  had  in  fact  been  considered  by  homeopaths  since  Hahnemann.22  

Why,  we  can  ask,  is  the  outcome  of  this  research  on  the  physico-­‐chemical  properties  of  UMPs  so  unwelcomed  by  skeptics  but,  at  the  same  time,  so  welcomed  by  homeopaths?  First,  skeptics  tend  to  approach  homeopathy  from  a  purely  theoretical  point  of  view,  as  it  had  been  done  for  twenty-­‐five  centuries  previous  to  the  advent  of  experimental  medicine.  They  have  thus  not  been  at  all  able  to  appreciate  the  facts  presented  by  homeopaths,  as  they  don’t  even  bother  examining  them.  Their  whole  argumentation  lies  on  the  theory  of  Avogadro’s  limit,  and  on  the  placebo  response.  They  have  never  yet  argued  against  the  principle  of  similia,  which  is  the  fundamental  basis  of  homeopathy.  They  believe  so  strongly  in  their  theoretical  argument  that  they  don’t  even  take  the  trouble  to  enquire  into  what  homeopathy  really  is,  or  to  examine  the  enumerable,  wonderful  facts  reported  in  the  vast  homeopathic  literature,  which  they  perfunctorily  reject  with  dismissive  arrogance.  Their  theoretical  scheme  takes  precedence  over  any  fact,  thus  sacrificing  truth  at  the  altar  of  prejudice.  

                                                                                                                         13 Plazy M. Recherche expérimentale moderne en homéopathie. Angoulème: Éditions Coquemard, 1967, 13-15. 14 Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why extreme dilutions reach non-zero asymptotes: a nanoparticulate hypothesis based on froth flotation. Langmuir 2012; 28: 15864-15875. 15 Wurmser L, Loch P. Travail de recherche expérimentale sur les dilutions homéopathiques. Congrès National de la Société Homéopathique de France 1948: 37-48. 16 Stephenson J. A review of investigations into the action of substances in dilutions greater than 1 X 10-24. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1955; 48: 327-335. 17 Boericke GW, Smith RB. Modern aspects of homeopathic research. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1965; 58: 158-167; 1966; 59: 263-272. 18 Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A 2003; 323: 67–74. 19 Elia V, Niccoli M. New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 2004; 75: 815–836. 20 Elia V, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Tiezzi E. New physico-chemical properties of extremely dilute solutions. A conductivity study at 25°C in relation to ageing. Journal of Solution Chemistry 2008; 37: 85–96. 21 Scofield AM. Experimental research in homeopathy—a critical review. British Homoeopathic Journal 1984; 73: 161-180, 211-226. 22 Barnard GP. Microdose paradox—a new concept. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1965; 58; 205-212.

  5  

Unfortunately,  things  have  not  changed  much  since  1828  when  Jean  Paul  Ritcher  said  that  homeopathy  was  more  “detested  than  examined.”23  

On  the  other  hand,  homeopaths  approach  medicine  as  a  natural  science,  which  has  as  its  basis  the  study  of  phenomena  through  observation.  Observations  reported  by  Hahnemann  who  was  known  to  be  an  extremely  meticulous  and  conscientious  scientist  have  since  been  corroborated  by  hundreds  of  thousands  of  physicians  and  can  be  found  throughout  the  vast  homeopathic  literature  of  more  than  25,000  volumes.  

The  hypothesis  of  the  memory  of  water  is  consistent  with  the  series  of  experimental  observations  reported  above.  However,  homeopaths  are  not  claiming  that  there  are  no  molecules  left  in  UMPs,  as  insinuated  by  this  question.  We  just  couldn’t  have  a  clue  until  the  1950’s  when  scientists  began  tracing  radioisotopes  in  UMPs,  which  revealed  the  presence  of  the  original  substances  in  potencies  up  to  the  1,000  centesimal  Korsakoff.  Scientists  have  so  far  detected  at  least  two  very  important  phenomena  in  UMPs,  first,  asymptotic  amounts  of  nanoparticles  and  nanobubbles  and,  second,  durable,  physico-­‐chemical  changes  of  their  vehicles.  

In  science,  when  a  large  body  of  evidence  contradicts  a  theory  it  is  time  to  change  or  adapt  the  theory,  as  Claude  Bernard  said  so  well  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Experimental  Medicine,  “In  these  researches,  I  followed  the  principle  of  the  experimental  method  that  we  have  established,  i.e.,  that,  in  the  presence,  of  a  well-­‐noted  new  fact  which  contradicts  a  [prevailing]  theory,  instead  of  keeping  the  theory  and  abandoning  the  fact,  I  should  keep  and  study  the  fact,  and  I  hastened  to  give  up  the  theory,  …  even  when  the  theory  [Avogadro’s  limit]  is  supported  by  great  names  and  generally  accepted.”24  Hahnemann  preceded  Claude  Bernard  in  introducing  the  experimental  method  in  medicine  by  more  than  a  half  of  a  century25  and  pointed  out  in  1819  something  very  pertinent  to  our  current  discussion  with  skeptics,  “How  insignificant  and  ridiculous  is  mere  theoretical  skepticism  in  opposition  to  this  unerring,  infallible  experimental  proof!”26  

A  very  important  factor  that  skeptics  tend  to  not  address  in  their  calculation  based  on  the  theory  of  Avogadro’s  limit  is  the  potential  effects  of  the  force  of  trituration  and  succussion  applied  in  the  preparation  of  UMPs.  Rustum  Roy  and  colleagues  at  the  Materials  Research  Institute  of  Penn  State  University  estimated  that  pressure  shock  waves  generated  by  the  process  of  trituration  and  succussion  used  in  the  preparation  of  UMPs  can  caused  localized  pressure  inside  the  water,  alcohol  and  sugar  molecules  to  reach  over  10,000-­‐15,000  atmospheres  (150,000-­‐225,000  pounds  per  

                                                                                                                         23 The full quote of Richter is as follows in German, “Hahnemann, dieser seltene Doppelkopf von Philosophie und Gelehrsamkeit—dessen system am Ende den Ruin der gemeinen Receptier-köpfe nach sich ziehen muss, aber noch wenig von den Practikern angenommen und mehr verabscheut als untersucht ist.” (Zerstreute Blätter, 2 Bd. S. 292.), and in its English translation, “Hahnemann, this rare combination of philosophy and learning, whose system must ultimately drag to destruction the vulgar receipt-crammed heads, but a system as yet little adopted by practitioners, and more detested than examined.” (Defence of Hahnemann and His Doctrines. Second edition. London: H. Ballière, 1844: 67.) 24 Bernard C. Introduction à l’Étude de la Médecine Expériementale. Paris: J. B. Baillières et Fils, 1865: 287-288. (This passage can be found in Claude Bernard’s An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. Translated by Henry Copley Green. New York: Dover Publications, 1957, 164.) 25 Hahnemann had clearly described the experimental method in The Medicine of Experience published in 1805 (Hahnemann S. Heilkunde der Erfahrung. Journal der practischen Heilkunde 1805; 22 (3); 5-99, or its English translation, inThe Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 435-476.) 26 Hahnemann S. Organon der Heilkunst. Zweite vermehrte Auflage. Dresden: Arnoldischen Buchlandlung, 1819: 363.

  6  

square  inch),  which  is  powerful  enough  to  trigger  fundamental  changes  in  the  properties  of  these  vehicles.27,28  

Regarding  the  last  part  of  this  question,  namely,  “But  this  solution  is  then  impregnated  into  a  sugar  pill  and  the  water  is  evaporated.  What  then  is  left  behind?  And  how  does  whatever  is  left  behind  have  anything  to  do  with  healing?”  When  British  astronomer  Sir  Patrick  Moore  wanted  to  emphasize  that  our  comprehension  of  the  universe  is  often  quite  incomplete,  he  would  simply  say,  “We  just  don’t  know!”  And  this  is  exactly  what  the  situation  is  at  this  point  in  time  regarding  this  question,  as  the  fundamental  research  on  UMPs  has  so  far  been  conducted  with  solutions  only.  To  my  knowledge,  UMPs  in  solid  forms  have  not  yet  been  studied.  

It  is  important  here  to  point  out  here  that  fundamental  research  in  homeopathy  progress  very  slowly,  as  there  are  very  few  researchers  studying  this  quite  intriguing  but  extremely  promising  field  of  investigation,  and  also  it  is  supported  by  minimal  research  grants.  The  worldwide  budget  for  all  the  research  in  homeopathy  is  likely  to  be  less  than  two  million  dollars  per  year.  Funding  usually  comes  from  private  foundations  and  homeopathic  laboratories,  and  typical  grants  are  of  the  order  of  $10,000  to  $30,000.  In  comparison,  funding  for  biomedical  research  in  2007  was  over  $100  billion  for  the  US  alone,  which  is  about  half  of  the  total  worldwide  funding.29  How  ironic  and  sad  it  is  that  homeopathy,  without  any  doubt  the  most  important  of  all  medical  disciplines,  receives  less  than  1/100,000  of  all  the  moneys  allocated  in  the  world  for  bio-­‐medical  research!  

 

2-­‐  If  a  patient  is  diagnosed  with  bacterial  pneumonia  would  you  recommend  a  homeopathic  regimen  or  antibiotics?  

If  patients  diagnosed  with  pneumonia  of  any  sort  consult  me,  it  is  very  likely  that  they  are  making  an  informed  choice  to  be  treated  with  homeopathy.  After  all,  doesn’t  the  ultimate  choice  of  treatment  belong  to  patients?  

However,  aside  from  the  question  of  freedom  of  choice,  it  is  an  extremely  pertinent  question,  because,  first,  pneumonia  represents  a  public  health  problem  of  substantial  magnitude,  carries  a  significant  mortality  and  has  been  associated  in  recent  decades  with  an  increasing  morbidity;  second,  data  clearly  shows  that  homeopathy  is  the  treatment  of  choice  for  patients  with  pneumonia  of  all  types,  and  that  innumerable  numbers  of  lives  would  be  saved  daily  if  genuine  homeopathy  was  used  as  the  first  line  of  treatment;  and  third,  by  using  homeopathy,  all  the  undesirable  side-­‐effects  of  antimicrobial  therapy  would  be  completely  avoided.  

This   is   such   a   vital   subject   that   it   obliges   elaboration.   The   2003   Pneumonia   Fact   Sheet   of   the  American  Lung  Association  reported,  “In  1996  (latest  data  available),   there  were  an  estimated  4.8  million   cases   of   pneumonia   resulting   in   54.6  million   restricted-­‐activity   days   and  31.5  million  bed  days  [in   the  US  alone].”30  In  2005,  pneumonia  and   influenza  together  represented  a  cost   to   the  US  

                                                                                                                         27 Matthews R. The quantum elixir: water. It's the foundation of life on Earth. But what is it about H2O that gives it this amazing ability. New Scientist 2006; 190: 32-37. 28 Roy R, Slawecki T, Rao ML. Water, water everywhere; and so little understood. Lecture June 19, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ajf_a9MRw. 29 Dorsey ER, Roulet JD, Thompson JP, Reminick JI, Thai A, White-Stellato Z, Beck CA, George BP, Moses H. Financial anatomy of biomedical research, 2003–2008. JAMA 2010; 303: 137–143. 30 Pneumonia Fact Sheet. American Lung Association. October 2003.

  7  

economy   of   $40.2   billion.31  The   age-­‐adjusted   mortality   rate   for   pneumonia/influenza   has   steadily  been  rising  over  the  last  few  decades,  while  pneumonia  consistently  accounts  for  the  overwhelming  majority  of  deaths  between  the  two.  It  was  11.2  in  1979,  13.2  in  1998  and  15.7  per  100,000  persons  per   year   in   2011.32,33  In   the   past   two   decades,   individuals   older   than   65   years   of   age   have  experienced   a   20%   increase   in   pneumonia-­‐related   hospitalizations  with   a   concurrent   increase   in  mortality.34,35  Microbes   associated   with   pneumonia   have   become   more   resistant   to   antibiotics,  making   treatment   much   more   difficult   for   allopathy,   and   multi-­‐drug   resistant   bacteria   are  commonly   endemic   in   ICU.36  It   is   also   important   to   point   out   that   there   is   no   generally   effective  treatment  in  conventional  medicine  for  most  types  of  viral  pneumonia.37    

Pneumonia  is  one  of  the  ten  leading  causes  of  death  and  the  number  one  cause  of  death  due  to  an  infectious  disease  in  the  US.  Untreated  “lobar  pneumonia  has  a  mortality  of  about  30  percent,”  and  “with  antibiotics,   fatalities  are  reduced  to  a  varying  extent,  depending  on  the  underlying  condition  of   the   patient,   but   in   persons   over   12   years   the   mortality   is   at   least   18   percent   and   in  immunocompromised  persons  it  is  much  higher.”38  Community-­‐acquired  pneumonia  (CAP)  remains  a  major  cause  of  mortality  at  14%.39  Mortality  rate  for  older  patients  with  CAP  is  around  30%.  72%  of  patients  with  CAP  will  require  hospitalization,40  making  pneumonia  the  second  leading  cause  of  hospitalization  (after  childbirth)  in  the  US,  with  1.2  million  hospitalizations  in  2006.41  For  nursing-­‐home  acquired  pneumonia,  mortality  rates  reach  57%.42  If  pneumonia  develops  in  patients  already  hospitalized  for  other  conditions,  the  mortality  rates  range  between  30  to  70%.43    

Pneumonia   is   the   leading  cause  of  death   in  children  worldwide.  An  estimated  1.2  million  children  under   the   age   of   five   years   die   every   year   from   pneumonia—more   than   AIDS,   malaria   and  

                                                                                                                         31 Centers for Disease Control. MMWR Prevention and Control of Influenza: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2007; 56 (July): 1-54. 32 Murphy Sl. Deaths: Final data for 1998. National Vital Statistics Reports 2000; 48 (11): 25. 33 Hoyert DL, Xu J. Deaths: preliminary data for 2011. National Vital Statistics Reports 2012; 61 (6): 28. 34 Curns AT, Holman RC, Sejvar JJ, Owings MF, Schonberrger LB. Infectious disease hospitalizations among older adults in the United States from 1990 through 2002. Archives of Internal Medicine 2005; 165: 2514–20. 35 Fry AM, Shay DK, Holman RC, Curns AT, Anderson LJ. Trends in hospitalizations for pneumonia among persons aged 65 years or older in the United States, 1988–2002. JAMA 2005; 294: 2712–9. 36 Safdar N, Crnich CJ, Maki DG. The pathogenesis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: its relevance to developing effective strategies for prevention. Respiratory Care 2005; 50: 725-741. 37 Pneumonia Fact Sheet. American Lung Association. December 2012 (http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/influenza/in-depth-resources/pneumonia-fact-sheet.html). 38 Kiple KF (ed.). The Cambridge World History of Human Disease. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 938-939. 39 Fine MJ, Smith MA, Carson CA, Mutha SS, Sankey SS, Weissfeld, LA; Kapoor WN. Meta-analysis of community-acquired pneumonia. JAMA 1996; 275: 134-141. 40 Kothe H, Bauer T, Marre R, Suttorp N, Welte T, Dalhoff K, Comprehensive Network for Commnunity-Acquired Pneumonia study group. Outcome of community-acquired pneumonia: influence of age, residence status and antimicrobial treatment. European Respiratory Journal 2008; 32: 139–46. 41 Ramirez JA, Anzueto AR. Changing needs of community-acquired pneumonia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2011; 66 Suppl 3: iii3–iii9. 42 Janssens JP, Krause KH. Pneumonia in the very old. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2004; 4: 112–24. 43 McEachern R, Campbell GD. Hospital-acquired pneumonia: epidemiology, etiology, and treatment. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 1998; 12: 761-779.

  8  

tuberculosis   combined. 44  An   estimated   1   in   3   children   die   in   developing   countries   from   or  associated  with  acute  respiratory  tract  infections.45  

Throughout  the  nineteen  and  the  first  half  of  the  twentieth  centuries,  which  was  before  the  advent  of  antibiotics,  the  average  mortality  for  pneumonia  for  hospitalized  patients  was  uniformly  at  about  30%.   In   1912,  Dr.  William  Osler  wrote,   “Pneumonia   is   one   of   the  most   fatal   of   all   acute   diseases,  killing  more  than  diphtheria,  and  outranking  even  consumption  as  a  cause  of  death.  The  statistics  at  my  clinic   at   the   John  Hopkins  Hospital   from  1889   to  1905  have  been  analyzed  by  Chatard.  There  were  658  cases  with  200  deaths,  a  mortality  of  30.4  percent.  …  Greenwood  and  Candy  in  a  study  of  the  pneumonia   statistics  at   the  London  Hospital   from  1854-­‐1903,  a   total  of  5,097  cases,   conclude  that   the   fatality   of   the   disease   has   not   appreciably   changed   during   this   period.   In   comparing   the  collected   figures   of   these   authors   with   those   from   other   institutions,   there   is   an   extraordinary  uniformity   in   the  mortality   rate.”46  This   uniformity   of   mortality   during   that   period   remained   the  same  as  well  in  non-­‐hospitalized  patients.  In  England  and  Wales,  the  annual  death  rates  per  million  of  pneumonia  for  children  younger  than  9  years  old  remained  the  same  between  1848  and  1905.47  During  WWI,  the  great  majority  of  the  casualties  of  the  US  army  were  due  to  pneumonia.    Major  J.  Harold  Austin  of  the  US  medical  corps  reported,  “About  65  percent  of  the  deaths  in  the  army  in  this  country  in  1917  were  due  to  pneumonia.”48  

For  how   long  will   our   society   tolerate   such  horrible   statistics,  while   the  best   available  method  of  treatment  for  patients  with  pneumonia  is  being  repressed  in  many  parts  of  world,  as  it  is  currently  in  Canada?  How  long  will  Canadian  medical  students  tolerate  the  bias  that  they  are  fed  in  medical  schools,  instead  of  being  taught  the  best  that  science  has  to  offer,  as  it  will  now  be  illustrated?    

I  conducted  a  literature  search  on  the  results  obtained  by  homeopathy  in  patients  with  pneumonia.  The  final  results  have  not  yet  been  fully  tabulated,  but  the  data   is  overwhelmingly  clear  regarding  the   benefits   societies   would   obtain   by   institutionalizing   homeopathy.   To   provide   an   idea   of   this  review  and  its  conclusion,  I  will  begin  by  listing  here  the  first  four  chronological  entries:  

In   1829,   Dr.   J.   F.   Herrmann   took   over   an   Infantry   Hospital   in   St.   Petersburg   where   he  homeopathically   treated   71   patients   with   pneumonia   without   a   single   loss   and   without  bloodletting.49  

In   1843,   Dr.   Carl   Heinrich   Rosenberg   reported   collections   of   cases   of   pneumonia   treated   in  allopathic   and   homeopathic   hospitals   in   major   cities   in   Europe.   Allopaths   treated   760   cases   of  pneumonia  with  286  deaths,  a  mortality  of  37.63  percent.  Homeopaths   treated  390  cases  with  14  deaths,  a  mortality  of  3.59  percent,  or  more  than  a  ten  time  lower  mortality!50  

                                                                                                                         44 World Health Organization. Pneumonia. Fact sheet N°331: November 2012. 45 Gareene M, Ronsmans C, Campbell H. The magnitude of mortality from acute respiratory infections in children under 5 years in developing countries. World Health Statistics Quarterly 1992; 45 (2-3): 180-191. 46 Osler W. The Principles and Practice of Medicine. Eighth ed. New York and London: D. Appleton and Company, 1912: 96. 47 Mercer AJ. Relative trends in mortality from related respiratory and airborne infectious diseases. Population Studies 1986; 40: 129-145. 48 Austin JH. A few observations upon pneumonia in the army in the United States during the winter of 1917-1918. Transactions of the College of Physicians 1918; 40: 192-197. 49 Attomyr J. Musterung der homöopathischen Spitäler. Archiv für die Homöopathischen Heilkunst 1843; 20 (1): 137-138. 50 Rosenberg CR. Fortschritte und Leistungen der Homöopathie in und ausser Ungarn nebst einer Darstellung ihrer Grundsätze von ihrem gegenwärtigen wissenschaftlichen Standpunkte und Hinweisung auf

  9  

In  1846,  Dr.  Bosch  wrote,  “Out  of  one  hundred  cases  of  pneumonia,  I  have  lost  three;  a  man  of  fifty-­‐eight  who  had  long  had  a  vomica  [an  abscess  cavity]   in  the  left   lung,  to  which  during  the  last  year  dropsical  symptoms  were  added;  a  child  of  nine  months  afflicted  with  rickets,  and  a  man  of  sixty-­‐eight  years.”51  

Between  1843  and  1848,  Dr.  Reiss  reported  having  treated  at  the  Sisters  of  Mercy  Hospital  in  Linz,  Austria  88  cases  with  pneumonia  with  one  death,  a  mortality  of  1.14  percent.52  

I  will  now  jump  forward  to  1928  and  bypass  close  to  one  hundred  years  of  accumulated  data.  We  find  here  a  survey  conducted  among  homeopathic  physicians  in  the  US,  which  reported  a  death  rate  of  2.8  percent  among  11,526  patients  with  pneumonia  who  were  treated  with  homeopathy.53    

The  same  year,  in  1928,  Drs.  Alfred  and  Dayton  Pulford  of  Toledo,  Ohio  wrote  in  their  monograph  on  pneumonia:    

It   has   been   stated,   and   we   have   every   reason   to   believe   truly,   that   fully   80   percent   of   all  pneumonia   cases  would   get  well  without   any  medical   interference  whatever,   under   proper  nursing,  so  that  any  system  or  method  of  medical  healing  that  cannot  lower  the  death-­‐rate  to  less  than  20  percent  would  seem  rather  a  menace  than  a  blessing  to  pneumonia  patients.    

After   treating   242   cases   of   pneumonia,   of   all   types   and   degrees   of   severity,   some   coming  directly   from   and   others   having   been   confirmed   in   the   diagnosis   by   allopaths,   with   but   3  deaths,  a  rate  of  but  1.4  percent,  we  can  hardly  understand  a  fixed  minimum  death-­‐rate  of  25  percent,  much   less   a  maximum   rate   of   95   percent,   in   a   disease   as   readily   amenable   to   the  proper  remedy  as  is  pneumonia.  The  death  rate  under  the  homeopathic  simillimum  should  at  no  time  exceed  5  percent,  a  higher  rate  would  rather  reflect  on  our  ability.54  

As   the   results   obtained  by  homeopathy   greatly  depend  of   the   ability   of   the  physician   to   apply   its  principles  to  practice,  the  venerable  Dr.  P.  P.  Wells  of  Brooklyn,  New  York  commented  in  1885  that  a  death  rate  of  even  2  or  3  percent  is  still  too  high  under  “right”  homeopathy  and  gave  the  example  of  Dr.  Reiss,  who  in  his  practice  between  1843  to  1848  in  the  hospital  of  Linz,  Austria,  had  a  1  percent  mortality   rate.   He   continues,   “We   believe   this   because   we   have   the   proof   of   this   in   our   own  experience.  In  a  practice  of  this  system  which  reaches  forty-­‐three  and  two-­‐thirds  years,  which  most  of  the  time  has  been  very  large,  and  of  a  general  character  as  to  the  diseases  treated,  of  which,  no  doubt,   pneumonia   has   made   an   average   part,   I   have   not   lost   one   case.”55  Pneumonia   was   quite  common  in  the  days  of  Dr.  Wells,  for  the  simple  fact  that  many  acute  infectious  diseases,  common  to  his   time   and   place,   such   as   influenza,   diphtheria,   measles,   rubella,   whooping   cough,   typhus   and  typhoid   fever,   would   end   up   in   pneumonia.   If   we   assume   that   he   saw   at   the   very  minimum   one  patient  a  month  with  pneumonia  during  his  career,  he  would  have  had  no  deaths  in  well  over  500  cases.    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         die Vortheile, die daraus für Staat und Staatsbürger resultieren. Leipzig: Verlag von Ludwig Schumann, 1843: 233-236. 51 Bosch. My experience in the treatment of pneumonia. Homoeopathic Examiner 1846; 1 (ns): 330-333. 52 Reiss. Verzeichniss. Oesterreichische Zeitschrift für Homöopathie 1844; 1: 204-207. Verzeichniss. 1845; 2: 172-175. Ausweis. 1846; 2: 615-618. Ausweis. 1847; 3: 639-642. Ausweis. 1848; 4: 460-463. Ausweis. 1849; 4: 653-655. 53 Fiske RE. A survey of the statistics of the homeopathic treatment of lobar pneumonia. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1928; 21: 886-993. 54 Pulford A, Pulford D. Homoeopathic Leaders in Pneumonia. Published by the authors: Dayton, Ohio, 1928: 5. 55 Wells PP. Addresses, etc. Homoeopathic Physician 1885; 5: 414.

  10  

Wells’  success  is  corroborated  by  my  own  experience.  In  over  30  years  of  private  practice  that  include  over  180  cases  with  pneumonia,  some  of  which  were  treated  on  their  death  bed,56  many  having  failed  under  allopathy,  there  has  not  been  a  single  death  under  homeopathic  treatment.  It  is  in  fact  hard  to  imagine  a  person  dying  of  pneumonia  with  a  physician  experienced  in  genuine  homeopathy  at  the  bedside,  even  in  the  worst  and  most  hopeless  circumstances,  whether  it  is  in  an  infant  in  the  last  stage  of  viral  pneumonia  in  an  ICU,  a  centenarian  in  a  very  weakened  state  when  all  hopes  are  given  up,  a  wasted  and  incapacitated  middle-­‐age  man  with  a  four-­‐year  refractory  Aspergillus  pneumonia,  a  patient  with  advanced  lung  cancer,  or  a  comatose  patient  in  the  last  stage  of  AIDS.  However,  a  great  number  of  people  will  continue  to  unnecessarily  die  of  pneumonia  until  the  most  efficacious  treatment  in  existence  is  requested  by  the  tired  victims  of  the  politics  of  medicine.  Such  sterling  results  obtained  with  genuine  homeopathy  in  patients  with  pneumonia  point  out  the  invaluableness  of  this  system  of  medicine,  in  which  statistics  become  basically  useless,  as  Sir  Ernest  Rutherford  remarked,  “If  your  experiment  needs  statistics,  you  ought  to  have  done  a  better  experiment.”  

It  is  important  to  point  out  that  skeptics  like  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes57  have  been  very  influential  in  their  campaign  to  denigrate  homeopathy  and  have  greatly  slowed  down  the  progress  of  science  and  limited  its  potential  benefits  to  reach  suffering  humanity.  Contrary  to  general  expectations,  skeptics  approach  homeopathy  with  unwavering  conviction  instead  of  the  completely  unbiased  mind  required  in  science.  The  good  news  however  is  that  facts  are  more  stubborn  than  prejudices;  at  the  end,  truth  shall  prevail;  and  as  Lincoln  said  so  well,  “You  can  fool  all  the  people  some  of  the  time  and  some  of  the  people  all  the  time,  but  you  cannot  fool  all  the  people  all  the  time.”  Utter  ignorance,58  lack  of  scholarship,  misinformation,59  gross  distortions  of  historical  facts,60  sophistries61  and  far-­‐

                                                                                                                         56 About 10% of the patients I have treated with pneumonia were in a critical state. 57 Holmes OW. Homoeopathy, and Its Kindred Delusions. In Currents and Counter-Currents in Medical Science: With Other Addresses and Essays. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1861. 58 A clear example of the utter ignorance displayed by skeptics is seen in the 2005 Shang et al. meta-analysis published in the Lancet and its accompanying article calling for the end of homeopathy. The most fundamental flaw of this meta-analysis is that six of the eight studies retained for the final analysis comparing homeopathy to allopathy were not about homeopathy, as I explained in the debate. It is extremely doubtful whetehr Shang et al. and the editors of Lancet were at all aware that “without the most minute individualization, homeopathy is not conceivable.” (Hahnemann S. Organon of Medicine. Translated by William Boericke. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1922: 34.)  59 How can skeptics bring light to this scientific question that is homeopathy when they don’t approach it with a purely scientific mind? Or when they have not even read the basic works of homeopathy? There has been a number of honest scientists, like Constantine Hering, Benjamin Joslin or David Reilly, who approached homeopathy in order to discredit it from a scientific point of view. However, they first informed themselves about the fundamental principles of homeopathy and its basic experimental facts. When they tried to reproduce the experiments “carefully and accurately,” as Hahnemann clearly requested in his Nota Bene for my Reviewers, they found out, despite their utter disbelief, that Hahnemann had been right at every step of the way. However, this has never been the case with skeptics who characteristically base their arguments, not on accurate experiments and pertinent facts, but on mere assumptions. Once carefully analyzed, how can arguments brought forward by skeptics have any credibility before an unbiased scientific community? This debate has always came down to facts versus assumptions, as pointed out by Hahnemann in 1825 in his Information for the Truth Seeker, “If the supposed seeker after truth is not willing to seek truth where it is to be found, namely in experience, then he may leave it undiscovered; he cannot find it in the multiplication tables.” (Hahnemann S. Belehrung für den Wahrheitssucher in Nr. 165 d. Bl. Allgemeiner Anzeiger der Deutschen 1825; 2 (194): 2387-2392.) 60 Recent examples of gross distortions of historical facts that were displayed during the debate at McGill University are how Hahnemann “kept taking bigger and bigger doses [of Peruvian bark tincture] to see what would happen. And he took these doses and, eventually, he developed a fever,” or how Hahnemann

  11  

fetched  analogies62  displayed  by  skeptics  about  homeopathy  will  in  due  time  be  fully  uncovered,  and,  unleashed,  medical  science  will  finally  be  able  to  continue  its  march  forward  without  the  skeptics’  spokes  in  its  wheels.  During  the  time  of  Hahnemann  literally  hundreds  of  books  and  pamphlets  and  even  a  journal63  and  an  anti-­‐Organon64  were  published  by  skeptics.  Despite  these  intensive  campaigns  of  denigration,  homeopathy  has  continued  its  march  forward,  slowly  but  surely.  What  is  true  and  good  will  remain  true  and  good,  despite  what  well-­‐known  communicators  and  supposedly  men  of  science  write  against  it.  It  is  interesting  to  note  how  unwavering  is  the  skeptics’  stance  despite  mounts  of  evidence.  This  phenomenon  seems  to  not  be  so  uncommon  in  science  as  Max  Planck  once  remarked,  “A  new  scientific  truth  does  not  triumph  by  convincing  its  opponents  and  making  them  see  the  light,  but  rather  because  its  opponents  eventually  die,  and  a  new  generation  grows  up  that  is  familiar  with  it.”  Hahnemann  in  its  turn  remarked  that  it  is  impossible  without  virtue  to  be  a  true  man  of  science.  

Reports  similar  to  Wells’  experience  described  above  are  commonplaces  in  the  homeopathic  literature.  However,  in  the  face  of  such  spectacular  statistics,  one  wonders  whether  any  allopath  of  high  reputation  has  had  the  courage  to  openly  try  homeopathy  in  a  public  institution  and  publicly  report  in  details  the  results  of  his  experiments  in  the  treatment  of  patients  with  pneumonia.  Well,  at  least  one  allopath  did  it.  Between  1847  and  1849,  Dr.  Jean-­‐Paul  Tessier,  “one  of  the  distinguished  practitioners  of  medicine  in  Paris,”  conducted  at  the  St.  Marguerite  Hospital  experiments  to  investigate  homeopathy  in  the  treatment  of  patients  with  cholera  and  pneumonia.65    He  wrote  that  he  presented  himself  “neither  as  a  partisan  or  opponent  of  homeopathy  but  as  a  scientist  guarding  himself  against  the  misguiding  bias  of  blind  passion,”  and  he  will  “endeavor  to  strictly  adhere  to  the  legitimate  demands  of  a  scientific  inquiry.”66  

He   choose   pneumonia   to   conduct   his   first   trial,   as   he   said,   “Pneumonia   is   a   disease   of   frequent  occurrence,   acute,   serious,  with  well-­‐defined   characteristic   symptoms;   it   is   on   this   account   that   I  have  selected  it  as  the  first  example  of  an  application  of  Hahnemann’s  method  to  the  treatment  of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         discovered the process of succussion, “Well, one day he made a house call. And he answered this house call in a horse-drawn carriage…”, or how Hahnemann “gave arsenic in increasing doses to friends, family members et cetera and cause symptoms, for example, in this case, gastric pain, vomiting, and diarrhea,” and “lost some friends and relatives along the way.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2uBBU4XT7Y&feature=youtu.be or for the unabridged transcription of the debate see: http://www.legatum.sk/en:misc:talk-saine-schwarcz) 61  Rejection  of  the  extraordinary  facts  presented  by  homeopathy  with  a  theoretical  argument  is  a  good  example  of  the  most  blattant  sophistry  used  by  skeptics.  62 As a recent example of far-fetched analogies, Dr. Amir Raz said during the recent debate held at McGill University, “For someone who knows the literature, it’s like science fiction versus reality.” It would be really interesting to know how much of the homeopathic literature he has actually read. Skeptics typically respond to facts presented to them by pointing out their impossibility without presenting any precise, concrete, sustanable facts or accurate experimentation as counter arguments, as if skeptics are saying, “take my word for it, as I am after all a well-known professor at a famous university.” 63 Three volumes of Antihomöopathisches Archiv were published in Hamburg between 1834-1838. 64 Heinroth, JCA. Anti-Organon oder Das irrige der Hahnemannischen Lehre im Organon der Heilkunst. Leipzig: C. H. F. Hartmann, 1 8 2 5. 65 Hempel CJ. Preface. In Clinical Remarks Concerning the Homoeopathic Treatment of Pneumonia: Preceded by a Retrospective View of the Alleopathic Material Medica, and an Explanation of the Homoeopathic Law of Cure. By Jean-Paul Tessier, M. D., Physician to the Hospital Sainte-Marguerite in Paris. Translated by Charles J. Hemple, M. D. New York: William Radde, 1855: iii. 66 Tessier JP. Clinical Remarks Concerning the Homoeopathic Treatment of Pneumonia: Preceded by a Retrospective View of the Alleopathic Material Medica, and an Explanation of the Homoeopathic Law of Cure. Translated by Charles J. Hemple, M. D. New York: William Radde, 1855: vi.

  12  

disease.   No   physician  will   dispute   either   the   frequency   or   the   acute   nature   of   pneumonia;   …   the  signs  by  which  this  disease  is  recognized,  are  generally  very  striking,  and  easily  distinguished;  and  if  I   admit   that  we  might   be  mistaken   on   a   first   examination   I  make   all   the   concessions   that   can   be  legitimately   claimed.   No   physician   can   possibly   mistake   a   case   of   pneumonia   when   he   sees   his  patient  every  morning  and  evening,  auscultates  him  carefully,  and  watches  all  the  evolutions  of  the  disease  with  the  intention  of  determining  its  true  character.”67  

However,   instead   of   applying   the   principles   of   homeopathy   as   they   were   clearly   spelled   out   by  Hahnemann,  he  applied  his  own  version  by  prescribing  for  localized  pathologies  with  alternation  of  remedies   in   very   low  potencies.  Despite   these   three  major   departures   from   the   practical   rules   of  homeopathy,   he   was   still   able   to   observe   a   significant   positive   outcome   in   both   patients   with  pneumonia  and  cholera  compared  to  all  other  methods  of  treatment  used  in  the  hospital  and  more  particularly  to  the  ones  used  during  the  cholera  epidemics  of  1832  and  1849.  

Regarding   the   results   obtained   in   patients  with  pneumonia   in   particular,   he   reported  40  detailed  cases  with  37   recoveries   and  3  deaths,   a  mortality   rate  of  7.5%.  This  means,  by   simply   switching  halfway   between   allopathy   to   homeopathy,   he  was   able   to   save   23  more   lives   out   of   100   patients  compared   to   the   constancy   of   30%   of   his   previous   allopathic   practice.   It   is   a   strange   fact   about  human  behavior  that  this  incredible,  well-­‐publicized  reduction  in  mortality  was  not  followed,  at  the  very  least,  by  more  trials  or  even,  until  proven  otherwise,  by  institutionalization  of  homeopathy  in  the  St.  Marguerite  Hospital  or   in  every  other  hospital  worldwide.  Instead,  when  Tessier  presented  his   results   before   the   Academy   in   Paris   he   aroused   a   storm   of   protest.   It   again   confirms   how  prejudice  tends  to  be  such  a  stubborn  thing.  Luckily  for  humanity,  facts  are  even  more  stubborn.  

Regarding   antimicrobial   therapy,   homeopathic   physicians   have   traditionally   never   been   against  their   use   but   have   been   opposed   to   their   undesirable   side-­‐effects,   which   include   the   permanent  disruption  of  the  flora  of  the  body,  increased  susceptibility  to  opportunistic  infections,  development  of  more  resistant  strains  of  microbes,  and  pollution  of  our  streams  and  waterways  and  poisoning  of  the  body  of  life  therein.  It  is  also  noteworthy  to  mention  two  extra  advantages  of  being  treated  with  homeopathy  for  patients  with  pneumonia  above  and  beyond  antimicrobial  therapy,  which  are  that  with   homeopathy   we   witness   an   improvement   of   the   health   of   the   person   on   all   levels,   and   a  decreased  susceptibility  to  develop  pneumonia  in  particular  and  of  being  sick  in  general.  

 

3-­‐  Can  you  provide  a  peer  reviewed,  randomized,  blinded  trial  that  has  been  duplicated  at  least  once  and  appears  in  a  mainstream  journal  of  any  specific  homeopathic  remedy  that  has  been  shown  to  be  beneficial  in  any  specific  disease?    

As  homeopathy  is  based  on  individualized  medicine  your  request  for  “specific  homeopathic  remedy”  “in  any  specific  disease”  is  an  oxymoron.  However,  there  are  some  studies  that  did  in  fact  examine  the  use  of  one  remedy  in  one  potency  for  patients  presenting  with  one  similar  complaint.  In  1989,  Fisher  et  al.  published  in  the  British  Medical  Journal  the  results  of  a  non-­‐individualized,  double-­‐blind,  randomized,  placebo-­‐controlled,  crossover  trial  on  the  use  of  Rhus  toxicodendron  6  C  in  patients  with  primary  fibromyalgia.  Despite  important  departures  from  genuine  homeopathy,  some  of  the  findings  of  this  research  were,  “The  patients  did  better  in  all  variables  when  they  took  active  treatments  rather  than  placebo.  The  number  of  tender  points  was  reduced  by  about  a  quarter  (p<0.05).  …  If  the  null  hypothesis  were  correct  the  direction  of  change  after  placebo  and  active  

                                                                                                                         67 Ibid, 20.

  13  

treatment  would  be  randomly  distributed.  Analysis  showed  a  significant  difference  in  favour  of  the  homoeopathic  medicine.”68    

In  2004,  Bell  et  al.  published  in  Rheumatology  their  results  of  the  individualized  double-­‐blind,  randomized,  parallel-­‐group,  placebo-­‐controlled  treatment  of  patients  with  fibromyalgia  in  a  study  that  was  supported  by  grants  from  the  National  Institutes  of  Health  (NIH)  and  the  National  Center  for  Complementary  and  Alternative  Medicine  (NCCAM).  Their  main  finding  and  conclusion  were,  “Participants  on  active  treatment  showed  significantly  greater  improvements  in  tender  point  count  and  tender  point  pain,  quality  of  life,  global  health  and  a  trend  toward  less  depression  compared  with  those  on  placebo.  This  study  replicates  and  extends  a  previous  one-­‐month  placebo-­‐controlled  crossover  study  in  fibromyalgia  that  pre-­‐screened  for  only  one  homeopathic  remedy.  Using  a  broad  selection  of  remedies  and  the  flexible  LM  dose  (1/50  000  dilution  factor)  series,  the  present  study  demonstrated  that  individualized  homeopathy  is  significantly  better  than  placebo  in  lessening  tender  point  pain  and  improving  the  quality  of  life  and  global  health  of  persons  with  fibromyalgia.”69  

In  1993,  Jacobs  et  al.  published  in  Pediatrics  the  outcome  of  a  RCT  on  the  homeopathic  (individualized)  treatment  of  children  with  diarrhea  in  Nicaragua.  The  treatment  group  had  a  statistically  significant  decrease  in  duration  of  diarrhea  (p<0.05)  and  in  the  number  of  stools  per  day  between  the  two  groups  after  72  hours  of  treatment  (p<0.05).70    

In  2000,  another  RCT  was  published  in  the  Journal  of  Alternative  and  Complementary  Medicine  on  the  treatment  of  children  with  diarrhea,  but  in  Nepal  this  time.  The  outcome  of  this  study  was  consistent  with  the  previous  mentioned  RCT.71  

In  2003,  the  combined  results  and  meta-­‐analysis  from  three  RCTs  on  the  homeopathic  (individualized)  treatment  of  children  with  diarrhea  were  published  in  the  Pediatric  Infectious  Disease  Journal.  The  main  findings  of  this  meta-­‐analysis  showed  a  duration  of  diarrhea  of  3.3  days  in  the  homeopathy  group  compared  with  4.1  in  the  placebo  group  (P  =  0.008),  and  consistent  effect-­‐size  difference  of  0.66  day  (P  =  0.008).  It  was  concluded  that  the  results  from  these  studies  confirmed  that  individualized  homeopathic  treatment  decreases  the  duration  of  acute  childhood  diarrhea,  and  that  homeopathy  should  be  considered  for  use  as  an  adjunct  to  oral  rehydration  for  this  illness.72    

If  we  look  at  RCTs  evaluating  non-­‐individualized  used  of  UMPs,  we  find  that  in  2000  Taylor  et  al.  published  in  the  British  Medical  Journal  a  meta-­‐analysis  of  four  randomized,  double-­‐blind,  placebo-­‐controlled  trials  conducted  in  patients  with  hay  fever.  Their  findings  were,  “Addition  of  these  results  to  those  of  three  previous  trials  (n  =  253)  showed  a  mean  symptom  reduction  on  visual  analogue  scores  of  28%  (10.9  mm)  for  homoeopathy  compared  with  3%  (1.1  mm)  for  placebo  (95%  

                                                                                                                         68 Fisher P, Greenwood A, Huskisson EC, Turner P, Belon P. Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia). British Medical Journal 1989; 299: 365–6. 69 Bell IR, Lewis DA, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE, Lewis SE, Walsh BT, Baldwin M. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo Rheumatology 2004; 43: 577–582. 70 Jacobs J, Jiménez LM, Gloyd S, Gale J, Crothers D. Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics 1994; 93: 719–25. 71 Jacobs J, Jiménez LM, Malthouse S, Chapman E, Crothers D, Masuk M, Jonas WB. Homeopathic treatment of acute childhood diarrhea: results from a clinical trial in Nepal. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2000; 6: 131-139. 72 Jacobs J, Jonas W, Jiménez-Pérez M, Crothers D. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2003; 22: 229–34.

  14  

confidence  interval  4.2  to  15.4,  P  =  0.0007).  Objective  results  reinforce  earlier  evidence  that  homoeopathic  dilutions  differ  from  placebo.”  To  the  question  whether  the  evidence  for  homeopathy  was  reproducible?  Reilly  et  al.  answered,  “Either  answer  suggested  by  the  evidence  to  date—homoeopathy  works,  or  the  clinical  trial  does  not—is  equally  challenging  to  current  medical  science.”73  Two  of  the  previous  three  RCTs  had  been  published  in  the  Lancet  in  1986  and  1994.74-­‐75  

 

4-­‐  Given  a  vial  of  sugar  pills  provided  by  a  homeopathic  supplier,  can  you  in  any  way  determine  whether  or  not  the  pills  have  been  “activated”  by  being  impregnated  with  a  homeopathically  prepared  solution?    

There  is  a  number  of  ways  that  could  be  used  to  differentiate  a  verum  homeopathic  remedy  from  a  placebo,  and  even  one  potency  from  another  of  the  same  remedy.  First,  it  is  quite  easy  for  an  experienced  clinician  to  differentiate  the  omnipresent  placebo  response  in  any  doctor-­‐patient  encounter  versus  the  patient’s  response  to  a  simillimum  verum  homeopathic  remedy.  Their  respective  response  curves  are  completely  different.  The  placebo  response  is  characterized  by  an  immediate  improvement  that  tends  to  be  minimal,  rarely  substantial  and  of  a  short  duration,  particularly  in  patients  suffering  from  serious  diseases.  The  response  to  a  simillimum  verum  homeopathic  remedy  is  completely  different  and  is  characterized  by  an  immediate,  short-­‐lasting  and  of  minimal  intensity  aggravation,  which  is  followed  by  a  prolonged,  durable  and  progressive  state  of  improvement.  In  the  placebo  response,  subjective  symptoms  especially  the  ones  patients  are  consulting  for  tend  to  be  most  affected,  and  most  other  collateral  symptoms  remain  typically  unchanged.  Contrarily,  in  the  response  to  the  simillimum  verum  homeopathic  remedy,  we  observed  an  improvement  of  the  whole  person,  which  include  most  of  the  chief  complaints  of  the  patient,  as  well  as  moods,  disposition,  social  behavior,  sensitivities,  energy  level,  sleep,  appetite,  food  cravings,  menses,  etc.  

Second,  well-­‐conducted  provings  of  verum  homeopathic  remedies  should  show  the  difference  between  one  remedy  from  another,  and  remedies  versus  placebo.  It  was  found  out  that  in  a  three  armed,  double-­‐blind,  placebo  controlled  randomized  experimental  pathogenetic  study  homeopathic  remedies  produce  more  specific  symptoms  as  compared  to  the  non-­‐specific  symptoms  common  to  the  placebo  response.76  

Third,  many  in  vitro,  plant,  animal  and  human  models  could  be  used  to  differentiate  one  remedy  from  another  and  one  potency  from  another.  For  instance  in  one  study,  a  well-­‐known  model  of  restrained-­‐induced  catalepsy  (RIC)  was  used  in  white  rats,  in  which  the  duration  of  the  effects  of  different  UMPs  in  the  30  C  and  200  C  potencies  was  measured.  The  higher  potencies  (200  C  or  10-­‐400)  showed  significant  longer  RICs.  The  authors  concluded,  “The  technique  of  RIC  could,  therefore,  

                                                                                                                         73 Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchson TC. Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal 2000; 321: 471-476. 74 Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet 1986; ii; 881-886. 75 Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM, Campbell JH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC, Carter R. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994; 344: 1601-1606. 76 Möllinger H, Schneider R, Walach H. Homeopathic pathogenetic trials produce specific symptoms different from placebo. Forschende Komplementrärmedizin 2009; 16: 105–110.

  15  

be  employed  to  differentiate  between  the  four  homoeopathic  drugs  tested  and  also  between  the  two  potencies  of  each  drugs.”77  

Fourth,  with  refined  spectroscopic  analysis  such  as  thermoluminescence,  UV–visible  spectroscopy  and  Raman  spectroscopy,  scientists  are  reporting  that  it  is  possible  to  observe  clear  differences  between  two  different  remedies  and  different  potencies  of  UMPs.78,79    

Fifth,  the  presence  of  nanoparticles  will  be  obviously  detected  in  verum  UMPs  versus  placebos  with  refined  spectroscopic  analysis.80  

 

5-­‐  Given  that  the  water  used  to  prepare  homeopathic  solutions  has  been  in  contact  with  all  sorts  of  substances  as  it  cruised  through  lakes,  rivers  and  sewage  systems,  why  does  it  remember  only  what  homeopaths  would  like  it  to  remember?  

At  least,  two  factors  must  be  considered  in  the  fabrication  of  homeopathic  remedies  to  answer  your  question.  First,  pure  substances  are  used  in  the  preparation  of  homeopathic  remedies,  which  must  be  in  accordance  with  the  official  pharmacopeia  of  the  country  in  which  they  are  made.  Canada  doesn’t  have  its  own  pharmacopeia  but  recognizes  official  pharmacopeias  of  other  countries,  such  as  the  United  States  Pharmacopeia  (USP)  and  Homeopathic  Pharmacopeia  of  the  United  States  (HPUS).81  The  HPUS  has  been  in  continuous  publication  since  1897,  and  since  the  creation  of  the  FDA  by  the  US  Congress  in  1938,  it  has  been  recognized  along  the  USP  as  one  of  the  two  official  drug  manuals.  Aqua  distillata,  alcohol  fortior,  alcohol  officinale  and  glycerin  are  the  four  liquid  vehicles  permitted  by  the  HPUS  and  they  must  all  meet  the  tests  for  identity  and  purity  described  in  the  USP.    

Purity  of  the  vehicles  and  medicinal  substances  is  important  for  the  production  and  longevity  of  homeopathic  remedies,  which  must  afterward  be  stored  and  handled  properly,  as  a  number  of  factors  could  destroy  them  after  fabrication,  such  as  too  high  or  too  low  temperatures,82  microbial  contamination,  and  various  forms  of  ionizing  radiation.83  

Second,  it  is  important  to  remember  that  great  force  is  used  in  the  process  of  trituration  and  succussion  during  the  preparation  of  homeopathic  remedies.  Rustum  Roy,  one  of  the  fathers  of                                                                                                                            77 Sukul NC, Bala SK, Bhattacharyya B. Prolonged cataleptogenic effects of potentized homoeopathic drugs. Psychopharmacology 1986; 89; 338-339. 78 Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A 2003; 323: 67-74. 79 Rao ML, Roy R, Bell IR. Characterization of the structure of ultra dilute sols with remarkable biological properties. Materials Letters 2008; 62: 1487-1490. 80 Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, Kalita D, Kane SG. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 231-242. 81 For instance, Health Canada recognizes the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States, the Homöopathisches ArzneiBuch (Germany), the Pharmacopée française, the European Pharmacopoeia, and the Encyclopedia of Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia (India). 82 UMPs in solutions lose their properties after being heated at 55˚C for 30 minutes and also when any of the various mixtures of water/alcohol solutions solifies at lower temperatures. However, UMPs in solid forms can be heated at 100˚C for one hour and will keep their medicinal properties. (Baranger P, Filer MK. Contribution à l'étude des facteurs physiques pouvant influer sur l’efficacité thérapeuthique des hautes dilutions de Geraniol. Annales Homéopathiques Françaises 1975; 17: 357-69.) 83 Weber S, Endler PC, Welles SU, Suanjak-Traidl E, Scherer-Pongratz W, Frass M, Spranger H, Peithner G, Lothaller H. The effect of homeopathically prepared thyroxine on highland frogs: influence of electromagnetic fields. Homeopathy 2008; 97: 3-9.

  16  

materials  science,  estimated  that  10,000  to  15,000  atmospheres  are  applied  during  this  process.  According  to  Roy,  it  shouldn’t  be  surprising  that  these  exceptional  great  forces  can  produce  durable  changes  in  the  properties  of  the  vehicles  used  and  even  permit  metal  to  become  colloids.  This  is  the  reason  why  it  has  been  asserted  that  Hahnemann  is  the  actual  founder  of  colloid  chemistry.84  

Obviously,  as  no  water  in  our  waterways  is  pure  or  is  submitted  to  a  process  of  serial  dilution  and  succussion  particular  to  homeopathy,  the  question  of  a  prior  memory  of  water  has  never  ever  been  considered.    

 

6-­‐  What  possible  rationale  is  there  for  potency  to  increase  with  decreasing  concentration?  And  if  this  is  a  case,  why  does  toxicity  not  increase  in  a  parallel  fashion?  

This  question  illustrates  well  the  central  point  of  dichotomy  between  skeptics  and  homeopaths,  which  comes  down  to  ask,  of  theory  or  facts,  which  one  should  rule?  By  only  focusing  on  the  dilution  aspect  of  UMPs,  it  is  clear,  even  to  a  child,  as  Hahnemann  pointed  out,  that  the  more  you  dilute  the  less  concentrated  and  the  weaker  a  solution  becomes.  However,  if  the  most  undeniable  experience  teaches  the  more  a  solution  goes  through  the  serial  process  of  succussion  and  dilution  particular  to  UMPs  the  greater  is  the  healing  response,  should  we  forgo  of  this  phenomenon  because  it  is  counterintuitive,  or  as  true  scientists  shall  we  be  intrigued  by  it,  and  pursue  the  experiment  until  no  doubt  left  is  possible?  This  is  the  crossroad  where  skeptics  prefer  to  follow  their  ideas  and  theories,  while  homeopaths,  like  Hahnemann  and  Claude  Bernard,  forgo  of  ideas  and  rely  instead  on  the  result  of  pure  observation.  Today,  fundamental  science  is  slowly  but  surely  demonstrating  that,  as  remedies  are  prepared  through  the  process  of  serial  trituration/succussion  and  dilution,  the  great  amount  of  force  applied  to  them  at  each  step  of  the  process  creates  unexpected  and  durable  changes  of  their  physico-­‐chemical  properties.  The  rationale  here  is  clear,  the  greater  and  the  more  often  mechanical  force  is  applied  the  greater  are  the  physico-­‐chemical  changes  of  UMPs.  As  the  chemical  toxicity  of  the  original  substances  decreases  in  this  serial  process  of  dilution,  the  newer  physico-­‐chemical  properties  augment  which  corresponds  to  the  greater  curative  responses  observed  clinically  in  patients  with  the  use  of  the  higher  potencies.    

The  increased  potency  of  the  higher  attenuations  of  UMPs  has  been  observed  in  many  in  vitro,  plant  and  animal  studies.  For  instance,  silver  nitrate  is  known  to  be  generally  biostatic  and  will  inhibit  the  growth  of  wheat  seedlings.  However,  UMPs  of  silver  nitrate  beyond  10-­‐24  have  been  found  to  stimulate  stalk  growth.  The  growth  was  the  greatest  with  the  higher  potency.85  

In  1825,  Hahnemann  answered  a  similar  question  that  had  been  publicly  asked  to  him  by  a  skeptic.  He  wrote,  “It  is  only  the  ignorant  vulgar  that  still  look  upon  matter  as  a    dead  mass,  for  from  its  interior  can  be  elicited  incredible  and    hitherto  unsuspected  powers.    All  new  discoveries  of  this  sort  are  usually  met  by  denial    and  incredulity  from  the  great  mass  of  mankind,  who  have  neither  adequate  acquaintance  with  physical  phenomena  nor  with    the  causes  of  these  phenomena,  nor  the  capacity  to  observe  for    themselves,  and  to  reflect  upon  what  they  perceive.  They  see,    for  example,  that  when  a  piece  of  steel  is  strongly  and  rapidly    rubbed  against  a  hard  stone  (agate,  flint),  an  operation  that  is    termed  striking  fire,  incandescent  sparks  fly  off  (and  kindle  the    tinder  or  punk  they  fall  on):  but  how  few  among  them  have    carefully  observed  and  reflected  upon  what  really                                                                                                                            84 Kleiner IS. Hahnemann as a chemist. Scientific Monthly 1938; 46: 450-454. 85 Pongratz W, Nograsek A, Endler C. Highly Diluted Agitated Silver Nitrate and Wheat Seedling Development. Effect Kinetics of a Process of Successive Agitation Phases. In Fundamental Research in Ultra High Dilution and Homoeopathy. Edited by Jurgen Schulte and P. Chrsitain Endler. Dordrecht: Klumer Academic Publishers, 1998: 143-154.

  17  

takes  place    there.  All  of  them,  or  at  least  almost  all,  go  on  thoughtlessly    lighting  their  tinder,  and  almost  no  one  perceives,  what  a    miracle,  what  a  great  natural  phenomenon  thereby  takes  place.    When  sparks  are  thus  struck  with  sufficient  force,  and  caught  on    a  sheet  of  white  paper,  then  we  may  see,  either  with  the  naked    eye  or  by  means  of  a  lens,  usually  small  pellets  of  steel  lying    there,  which  have  been  detached  in  a  state  of  fusion  from  the    surface  of  the  steel  by  the  smart  collision  with  the  flint,  and  have    fallen  in  an  incandescent  state,  like  small  fire  balls,  in  the  form    of  sparks,  upon  the  paper,  where  they  cooled.    How!  can  the  violent  friction  of  the  flint  and  steel  (in  the    operation  of  striking  fire)  cause  such  a  degree  of  heat  as  to  fuse    steel  into  little  balls?  Does  it  not  require  a  heat  of  at  least  3000°  Fahrenheit  in  order  to  melt  steel?    Whence  comes  this  tremendous  heat?  Not  out  of  the  air,  for    this  phenomenon  takes  place  just  as  well  in  the  vacuum  of  the    air-­‐pump!  Therefore  it  must  come  from  the  substances  that  are    rubbed  together;  which  is  the  fact.    But  does  the  ordinary  individual  really  believe  that  the  cold    steel  which  he  draws  thoughtlessly  from  his  pocket  to  light  his    tinder,  contains  hidden  within  it  (in  a  latent,  confined,  undeveloped  state)  an  inexhaustible  store  of  caloric,  which  the  blow    only  develops,  and  as  it  were,  wakes  into  activity?  No,  he  does    not  believe  it,  he  has  never  reflected,  and  never  will  reflect,  upon    the  phenomena  of  nature.  And  yet  it  is  so.  And  yet  his  steel,    which  when  at  rest  is  cold,  contains—whether  he  believe  it  or    no—an  inexhaustible  store  of  caloric,  which  can  only  be  released    by  friction.  An  inexhaustible  store  of  caloric,  I  repeat,  which    is  not  calculable  by  the  ciphers  of  any  of  those  arithmeticians    who  seek  to  limit  nature  and  render  her  contemptible,  by    applying  their  multiplication  table  to  the  phenomena  of  her    illimitable  forces.”86    

7-­‐  If  homeopathy  has  truly  been  proven  to  be  effective  as  stated  by  homeopaths,  why  would  it  not  be  embraced  by  physicians?  Are  they  not  interested  in  healing  their  patients?  

It  is  an  extraordinary  fact  how  skeptics  are  so  poorly  informed  about  the  state  of  homeopathy  in  the  world.  Contrary  to  what  they  may  think,  homeopathy  was  originally  developed  by  Hahnemann  who  was  a  physician  and  scientist  of  great  learning  and  industry.  Hufeland,  who  was  known  as  the  Nestor  of  Medicine,  was  one  of  the  most  eminent  physicians  in  Germany  during  the  time  of  Hahnemann,  author  of  numerous  works  displaying  extensive  reading  and  a  cultivated  critical  faculty,  and  editors  for  42  years  of  the  most  reputable  journal  of  the  practical  healing  art.  He  said  of  Hahnemann  in  1826,  “Hahnemann,  who  I  have  known  for  more  than  30  years,  is  one  of  our  most  distinguished,  intelligent  and  original  physicians…  and  who  I  have  esteemed  for  a  long  time  for  his  earlier  productions,  and  for  his  sterling  contributions  to  the  science  of  medicine.”87  In  1829,  in  a  second  essay  on  homeopathy,  he  wrote,  “I  consider  it  wrong  and  unworthy  of  science  to  treat  the  new  doctrine  with  ridicule  and  contempt.  Persecution  and  tyranny  in  scientific  matters  are  especially  repugnant  to  me;  here  we  should  meet  with  only  liberality  of  thought,  thorough  investigation,  rational  refutation,  mutual  respect,  and  rigid  adherence  to  the  subject,  but  no  personalities.  …  ‘Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good,’  is  and  will  ever  be  the  first  commandment  in  all  science,  and  in  medicine  especially.  …  Liberty  of  thought,  liberty  of  science—that  is  and  must  be  ever  be  our  chief  palladium,  if  we  desire  to  advance.”88  Many  prominent  physicians  adopted  homeopathy  during  the  time  of  Hahnemann  and  a  great  number  of  the  court  physicians  were  homeopaths  throughout  Europe.  Even  today,  a  great  part  of  the  European  royalty  is                                                                                                                            86 Hahnemann S. How Can Small Doses of Such Very Attenuated Medicine as Homoeopathy Employs Still Possess Great Power? In The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon. New York: William Radde, 1852: 730. 87 Hufeland CW. Die Homöopathie. Journal der practischen Heilkunde 1826; 62: 7. 88 Hufeland CW. Homoeopathy. British Journal of Homoeopathy 1858; 16: 179-198. This essay was originally published in 1829 and was reprinted in 1831, see: Hufeland CW. Die Homöopathie. Berlin: Reimer, 1831.

  18  

treated  with  homeopathy,  and  many  Popes  of  the  Catholic  Church  have  been  treated  with  homeopathy.89  At  least  seven  US  Presidents,  namely  Tyler,  Garfield,  Arthur,  McKinley,  Harding,  Coolidge  and  Hoover,  have  been  treated  with  homeopathy  and  their  physicians  were  attending  their  families  at  the  White  House.    

Homeopathy  has  continued  to  be  embraced  by  physicians  all  over  the  world,  especially  where  homeopathy  is  not  repressed,  unlike  it  is  currently  in  many  parts  of  Canada  and  the  United  States.90  Homeopathy  spread  in  the  early  1820’s  from  Germany  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  Today  in  many  countries,  homeopathy  is  recognized  as  official  medicine,  is  part  of  national  health  services  and  its  institutions  are  supported  by  governments.  

For  instance,  in  Germany,  the  population  is  so  supportive  of  complimentary  medicine  that  the  German  government  mandated  all  medical  school  curricula  to  include  information  about  complementary  medicine.  In  Germany,  the  title  “Homeopathic  Physician”  is  legally  protected.  The  Medical  Chamber  bestows  this  title  after  a  three-­‐year  training  program.  Official  courses  in  homeopathy  are  offered  in  the  medical  faculties  of  Berlin,  Dusseldorf,  Hannover,  Heidelberg  and  Freiburg.  Approximately  10%,  or  about  32,000  physicians  in  Germany,  specialize  in  homeopathy  and  75%  of  Germans  regularly  use  complementary  medicine.  98%  of  the  pharmacies  dispense  homeopathic  medicines.  

In  Switzerland,  the  Swiss  National  Medical  Association  (FMH)  recognizes  homeopathy  as  a  specialty  (Fähigkeitsausweis  Homöopathie)  for  physician  who  have  acquired  the  recognized  postgraduate  training.  About  half  of  the  Swiss  physicians  consider  complementary  and  alternative  medicine  (CAM)  to  be  effective.  Perhaps  most  significantly,  85  percent  of  the  Swiss  population  wants  CAM  to  be  a  part  of  their  country's  health  insurance  program.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  more  than  50  percent  of  the  Swiss  population  surveyed  prefer  a  hospital  that  provides  CAM  rather  to  one  that  is  limited  to  conventional  medical  care.  As  a  result  of  a  2009  national  referendum  in  which  more  than  two-­‐thirds  of  voters  supported  the  inclusion  of  homeopathy  and  selected  alternative  medicines  in  Switzerland’s  national  health  care  insurance  program,  and  complementary  and  alternative  medicine  has  become  a  part  of  this  government’s  constitution.  

In  Austria,  homeopathic  training  is  available  for  medical  students  and  physicians.  Basic  training  takes  3  years,  which  leads  to  a  certification  that  is  officially  recognized  by  the  Ministry  of  Health  (Oesterreichische  Aerztekammer).  The  Medical  University  in  Vienna,  which  offers  training  in  homeopathy,  has  an  institute  for  research  in  homeopathy  and  runs  an  outpatient  clinic  for  cancer  patients.  The  Austrian  Association  of  Homeopathic  Physicians  (Österreichische  Gesellschaft  für  Homöopathische  Medizin)  offers  specialty  training  for  pharmacists  and  veterinarians.  

In  France,  homeopathy  is  the  most  used  CAM,  and  70%  of  the  physicians  are  receptive  to  it  and  consider  it  effective.  At  least  25,000  physicians  prescribe  homeopathic  medicines  to  their  patients  every  year.  Its  use  rose  from  16%  of  the  population  in  1982  to  29%  in  1987  and  36%  in  1992.  In  1998,  homeopathy  was  taught  in  at  least  seven  medical  schools  in  France:  Besancon,  Bordeaux,  Lille,                                                                                                                            89 For more information about the Vatican support of homeopathy see: Dana Ullman’s The Homeopathic Revolution. Berkeley: North Atlantic books, 2007, 304-308. 90 For instance, medical doctors in Quebec haven’t been able for decades to practice homeopathy without risking being disciplined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons for practicing medicine outside of the standards of practice. In USA and Canada, physicians and scientitists greatly put at risk their academic reputation and career by showing any interest in homeopathy. Many choose medicine as a profession for its social prestige and financial advantages usually associated with it, which they will not risk loosing by exercising their scientific freedom. In fact, few choose medicine and even a smaller number will pursue it as a true vocation.

  19  

Limoges,  Marseille,  Paris-­‐Nord,  and  Poitiers,  and  there  are  many  postgraduate  programs.  Courses  in  homeopathy  were  offered  in  21  of  the  24  French  schools  of  pharmacy,  and  in  dental  and  veterinary  schools.  Homeopathic  medicines  are  refunded  by  the  public  health  system,  and  almost  every  French  drugstore  dispenses  them.  

In  Spain,  homeopathy  is  recognized  as  a  medical  specialty,  being  taught  in  universities  in  Seville,  Valladolid,  Murcia,  Barcelona,  Bilbao  and  Malaga.    

In  the  UK,  homeopathy  is  recognized  as  a  medical  practice  and  has  always  been  available  on  the  National  Health  Service.  The  General  Practitioners’  Committee  of  the  British  Medical  Association  issued  the  following  guidance  to  general  practitioners  in  1999,  “General  practitioners  are  obliged  under  their  terms  of  service  to  refer  patients  for  services  available  under  the  NHS...  Referral  to  NHS  doctors  at  one  of  the  five  homeopathic  hospitals  or  NHS  homeopathic  clinics,  in  cases  where  GPs  think  such  treatment  is  appropriate,  will  be  part  of  the  terms  of  service.”  Today,  there  are  several  NHS  homeopathic  hospitals  regulated  by  the  Care  Quality  Commission.91  Homeopathy  is  the  most  popular  postgraduate  course  among  all  in  Great  Britain.  The  respect  towards  homeopathy  and  its  practice  is  even  more  evident  after  a  research  showed  that  close  to  50%  of  physicians  prescribe  or  refers  patients  to  homeopathic  physicians.  

In  Italy,  there  were  in  1999  about  5,000  homeopathic  physicians,  7,000  pharmacies  dispensing  homeopathic  medicines,  and  20  different  laboratories.  8.2  millions  Italians  used  homeopathy  in  2000  and  close  90%  of  them  said  they  were  helped.  

In  Holland,  40%  of  general  practitioners  use  homeopathy.  

In  Belgium,  81%  of  consultations  in  CAM  involve  homeopathy.  Homeopathy  has  been  officially  recognized  in  1999,  and  about  25%  of  the  population  makes  use  of  homeopathic  medicines.    

During  the  time  of  the  iron  curtain,  homeopathy  was  banned  in  many  Eastern  block  countries,  but  this  medical  repressive  iron  curtain  fell  down  with  communism.  It  is  noteworthy  to  mention  that  in  Canada,  a  supposedly  democratic  society,  there  is  no  homeopathic  association  for  licensed  MDs;  it  is  not  taught  in  any  of  the  medical  schools  and,  in  many  Canadian  provinces;  and  its  practitioners  have  to  be  very  discrete  or  risk  suspension  of  their  license  for  practicing  homeopathy.  

In  Hungary,  homeopathic  literature  was  banned  for  40  years  until  1990.  Homeopathy  has  now  been  accepted  and  integrated  into  regular  medical  education  and  is  taught  in  two  medical  schools.  The  Hungarian  Homeopathic  Medical  Association  started  with  11  members  in  1990,  grew  to  75  after  18  months,  and  grew  further  to  302  members  in  1994.  

After  the  fall  of  communism  in  Czechoslovakia,  a  homeopathic  organization  was  established  in  November  1990,  and  it  was  immediately  accepted  and  integrated  within  the  larger  conventional  medical  society.  Within  a  year,  the  Ministry  of  Health  officially  recognized  homeopathy  as  a  medical  specialty.    

 In  Romania,  medical  doctors  and  dentists  can  legally  practice  homeopathy,  after  having  passed  an  examination  following  a  three-­‐year  course.  Until  now,  more  than  2,300  physicians  have  completed  this  training.  

In  Poland,  only  medical  doctors  may  practice  homeopathy.  Homeopathic  training  is  provided  at  seven  universities  (Warsaw,  Poznan,  Krakow,  Katowice,  Lublin,  Gdansk,  and  Wroclaw).  

                                                                                                                         91 http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

  20  

In  Russia,  only  medical  doctors  and  dentists  can  practice  homeopathy.  Homeopathy  is  considered  a  medical  specialty,  and  a  medical  doctor  must  obtain  a  license  from  the  Ministry  of  Health.  Homeopathy  holds  a  unique  place,  where  it  has  been  widely  accepted.  Demand  for  homeopathic  care  is  so  great  that  Russians  prefer  to  pay  for  homeopathic  care  than  to  receive  free  conventional  medical  care.  58%  of  physicians  use  or  refer  for  homeopathic  treatment.  

In  India,  homeopathy  is  integrated  into  the  national  health  care  system  and  has  the  largest  homeopathic  infrastructure  in  the  world,  with  400,000  registered  practicing  homeopaths,  180  colleges  teaching  courses  and  graduating  13,000  homeopaths  yearly,  7,500  government  clinics,  307  hospitals  and  24  state  boards  for  the  registration  of  qualified  practitioners  of  homeopathy.  According  to  the  Indian  government  around  10%  of  its  population—or  more  than  100  million  people—depend  solely  on  homeopathy  for  their  health  care.92  

In  Pakistan,  homeopathy  is  integrated  into  the  national  health  system.  In  1998,  there  were  about  40,000  homeopathic  physicians  registered  with  the  National  Council  for  Homeopathy,  and  seventy-­‐six  colleges  of  homeopathic  medicine  offered  officially  recognized  programs  for  the  four-­‐year  Diploma  of  Homeopathic  Medical  Science.  Several  hospitals,  outpatient  clinics,  and  dispensaries  are  attached  to  the  homeopathic  medical  colleges.  

In  Argentina,  only  qualified  medical  doctors,  who  have  been  trained  and  have  graduated  from  a  recognized  medical  school,  are  allowed  to  practice  homeopathy.  There  are  seven  homeopathic  schools  offering  regular  three-­‐year  and  more  advanced  postgraduate  programs.  Today,  there  are  an  estimated  3,000  medical  doctors  practicing  homeopathy  as  their  specialty,  and  500  pharmacists  who  specialized  in  homeopathic  pharmacy.  

In  Brazil,  homeopathy  has  been  recognized  a  medical  specialty  by  the  National  Medical  Council  in  1980,  was  integrated  in  the  national  health  care  system  in  1988  and  is  not  viewed  anymore  as  alternative  medicine.  Since  1991,  physicians,  who  want  to  practice  homeopathy,  must  complete  2,300  hours  of  training  in  homeopathy  prior  to  being  licensed.  In1995,  the  Federal  Council  of  Pharmacy  recognized  and  standardized  the  title  of  “Specialist  in  Homeopathic  Pharmacy.”  There  are  more  than  15,000  physicians  specialized  in  homeopathy,  making  it  the  16th  most  popular  of  the  61  medical  specialties.  There  are  more  than  200  homeopathic  veterinarians,  100  homeopathic  dentists,  1,300  homeopathic  pharmacists,  and  six  homeopathic  laboratories.  In  2005,  a  survey  conducted  among  medical  students  found  out  that  85%  of  them  were  of  the  opinion  that  homeopathy  should  be  part  of  the  medical  school  curriculum  (19%  think  it  should  be  mandatory  and  72%  optional).  

In  Chile,  homeopathy  and  the  Homeopathic  Pharmacopoeia  are  legally  recognized.    

In  Ecuador,  the  Government  recognized  homeopathy  as  a  medical  practice  in  1983.  The  Ecuadorian  Medical  Federation  began  officially  recognizing  homeopathy  as  a  medical  specialty  in  1988.    

In  Colombia,  the  Congress  of  Deputies  officially  recognized  homeopathy  as  a  system  of  medicine  in  1905.  In  1914,  the  Government  standardized  training  requirements  for  homeopathic  doctors  and  established  a  system  of  title  protection.  Only  physicians  can  practice  homeopathy.  The  Institute  of  Medicaments  and  Food  regulates  the  manufacturing  of  homeopathic  remedies.  Integration  of  homeopathy  into  the  Public  Health  Services  is  planned.  

In  Costa  Rica,  the  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  recognized  homeopathy  as  a  medical  specialty  in  1994.  

                                                                                                                         92 Prasad R. Homeopathy booming in India. Lancet 2007; 370; 1679-1680.

  21  

In  Cuba,  the  Ministry  of  Health  officially  recognized  homeopathy  in  1992.  Courses  on  introductory  and  advanced  homeopathy  are  given  at  the  medical  and  pharmaceutical  schools.  Homeopathic  dispensaries  are  spread  all  over  the  country.    

In  Mexico,  homeopathy  has  been  recognized  since  1896.  In  1985,  regulations  specifying  training  requirements  for  homeopathic  doctors  were  established  by  a  presidential  decree.  It  is  currently  integrated  into  the  national  health  care  system;  there  are  two  schools  that  grant  the  MD  degree,  and  five  others  that  offer  postgraduate  training,  and  there  are  two  homeopathic  hospitals.  In  1998,  there  were  about  3,000  homeopathic  physicians.93,94,95,96  

 

8-­‐  The  National  Center  for  Complementary  and  Alternative  Medicine  in  the  US  has  spent  1.4  billion  dollars  in  ten  years  investigating  all  sorts  of  alternative  treatments,  including  homeopathy.  How  is  it  that  it  has  been  unable  to  find  any  evidence  that  homeopathy  provides  benefits  that  are  superior  to  those  of  a  placebo?    

This  is  wrong,  as  the  following  EEG  and  fibromyalgia  studies97,98  were  funded  by  a  number  of  grants  from  the  NIH/NCCAM  and  researchers  found  differences  from  placebo  in  all  of  these  studies.  The  fibromyalgia  study  was  the  second  study  on  that  condition  to  show  that  homeopathy  is  beneficial.  Fisher  et  al.  first  published  their  study  in  British  Medical  Journal,  and  Bell  et  al.  published  theirs  in  Rheumatology,  as  mentioned  in  the  answer  to  question  3.      Others  studies  on  homeopathy  funded  by  the  NIH/NCCAM  grants  have  been  published  in  peer-­‐review  journals  in  recent  years  include  the  one  in  Sleep  Medicine  on  young  adults  with  coffee-­‐related  insomnia.  Researchers  found  that  polysomnography  (PSG)  offers  a  modern  methodology  for  evaluating  the  objective  effects  of  taking  homeopathic  remedies  that  clinicians  claim  exert  effects  on  sleep  quality  in  susceptible  individuals.  Animal  studies  have  previously  shown  changes  in  non-­‐rapid  eye  movement  sleep  with  certain  homeopathic  remedies.    Verum  remedies  significantly  increased  PSG  total  sleep  time  and  non-­‐rapid  eye  movement  sleep,  as  well  as  awakenings  and  stage  changes.  Changes  in  actigraphic  and  self-­‐rated  scale  effects  were  not  significant.99  In  another  study,  researchers  found  out  that  EEG  alpha  offers  an  objective  biomarker  of  remedy  effects  for  future  studies  and  potential  method  for  distinguishing  time-­‐dependent  effects  of  specific  remedies  and  

                                                                                                                         93 World Health Organization. Legal Status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/Alternative Medicine: A Worldwide Review. 2001. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/h2943e/h2943e.pdf 94 Das E. History and Status of Homoeopathy Around the World. New Delhi: Jain Publsihers, 2005. 95 Regulation and Prevalence of Homeopathy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy 96 A European Council for Classical Homeopathy Report. The Recognition and Regulation of Homeopathy in Europe. June 2007. www.homeopathy-ecch.eu 97 Bell IR, Lewis DA, Lewis SE, Schwartz G. EEG alpha sensitization in individualized homeopathic treatment of fibromyalgia. International Journal of Neuroscience 2004; 114: 1195-1120. 98 Bell IR, Lewis DA, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE, Lewis SE, Walsh BT, Baldwin CM. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo Rheumatology 2004; 43: 577–582. 99 Bell IR, Howerter A, Jackson N, Aickin M, Baldwin CM, Bootzin RR. Effects of homeopathic medicines on polysomnographic sleep of young adults with histories of coffee-related insomnia. Sleep Medicine 2011; 12: 505–511.

  22  

remedy  potencies  from  one  another.100    In  a  third  study,  it  was  found  that  EEG  cordance  provided  a  minimally  invasive  technique  for  assessing  objective  nonlinear  physiologic  effects  of  two  different  homeopathic  remedies  salient  to  the  individuals  who  received  them.  These  findings  open  the  door  for  additional  neuroimaging  research  on  nonlinear  psychophysiologic  effects  of  specific  homeopathic  remedies.101    Research  on  homeopathy  funded  by  the  NCCAM  in  its  20  years  of  existence  has  been  quite  limited  to  most  likely  less  than  1%  of  its  total  budget.  Today,  junior  researchers  most  likely  risk  their  career  and  of  being  kicked  out  of  tenure  track  if  they  focus  on  homeopathy.  Also  as  there  are  very  few  researchers  applying  for  grants  to  research  homeopathy,  there  is  little  funding.  Since  there  is  little  funding  and  few  homeopathy  researchers  in  the  US,  there  has  not  been  larger  scale  funding  to  replicate  findings.  There  are  structural  problems  with  “peer  review”  for  larger  applications  to  do  larger  clinical  trials,  which  means  no  CAM  researchers,  let  alone  homeopaths,  are  on  review  committees.  The  bias  against  homeopathy  creates  a  self-­‐fulfilling  prophecy—no  academic  advancement  for  researchers  pursuing  homeopathic  studies  and  no  true  CAM  peers  on  the  grant  reviews  if  someone  does  send  in  studies.    

9-­‐  Can  you  make  a  comparison  between  the  number  of  years  of  education  a  homeopath  receives  versus  that  of  a  medical  doctor  as  well  as  the  residency  requirements?  

The  training  requirements  for  becoming  a  homeopath  vary  from  one  country  to  another,  as  can  be  seen  in  the  answer  to  question  7.  However,  the  preparation  I  have  always  recommended  for  a  person  interested  in  pursuing  a  career  in  homeopathy  has  been  the  following:  first,  to  obtain  a  wide-­‐spread  education  in  liberal  arts  and  science  with  particular  emphases  on  philosophy,  psychology,  biology,  arts  and  science.  Second,  this  should  be  followed  by  medical  training,  preferably  one  that  offers  homeopathy  as  parts  of  its  curriculum,  as  it  is  given  in  all  the  accredited  naturopathic  medical  schools  in  North  America.102  A  specialty  can  be  pursued,  such  as  pediatrics,  gynecology,  psychiatry,  cardiology,  etc.,  but  always  keeping  homeopathy  as  the  main  focus.  Following  this  training,  a  specialty  in  homeopathy  should  be  pursued  in  a  postgraduate  training,  like  I  pursued  after  graduation  from  naturopathic  medical  college  in  order  to  obtain  my  board  certification  in  the  Homeopathic  Academy  of  Naturopathic  Physicians.  

The  question  seems  to  insinuate  that  homeopathic  training  is  subpar  with  the  one  received  by  an  allopathic  family  medicine  practitioner.  It  is  likely  to  be  the  opposite.  Once,  while  I  was  the  acting  secretary  of  the  Council  on  Homeopathic  Education,  a  US-­‐based  organization,  we  had  a  meeting  on  which  I  was  the  only  non-­‐MD  on  that  board  (as  I  hold  a  doctorate  of  naturopathic  medicine  (ND)).  If  my  memory  serves  me  well,  there  were  a  cardiologist,  a  psychiatrist,  a  radiologist  and  a  few  family  practitioners  sitting  on  the  council  at  that  time.  They  unanimously  agreed  that  homeopathy  had  so  far  been  the  most  difficult  discipline  they  had  had  to  learn  in  all  their  training,  and  a  greater  amount  of  work  and  experience  was  required  in  order  to  master  it  than  any  other  discipline  they  had  to  learn.  

                                                                                                                         100 Brooks AJ, Bell IR, Howerter A, Jackson N, Aickin M. Short-term effects of repeated olfactory administration of homeopathic Sulphur or Pulsatilla on electroencephalographic alpha power in healthy young adults. Homeopathy 2011; 100: 203-211. 101 Bell IR, Howerter A, Jackson N, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE. Multiweek resting EEG cordance change patterns from repeated olfactory activation with two constitutionally salient homeopathic remedies in healthy young adults. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2012; 18: 445-453. 102  See  the  Association  of  Acredited  Naturopathic  Medical  Colleges:  http://www.aanmc.org/  

  23  

In  essence,  aside  from  therapeutics,  a  first  class  homeopathic  physician  must  know  human  beings  in  health  and  disease  and  from  genes  to  psyche,  and  understand  the  factors,  conditions  and  influences  needed  for  optimal  health  and  be  able  to  recognize  all  the  possible  causes  of  diseases.  In  1862,  Carroll  Dunham  explained  in  details  in  a  long  essay  the  requirement  needed  for  becoming  a  homeopathic  physician  and  the  importance  of  being  an  excellent  diagnostician.  He  wrote,  “When  first  brought  into  the  presence  of  a  concrete  case  of    disease,  the  business  of  the  physician  is  to  ascertain  what  branch  of  medical  science  he  is  called  upon  to  exercise.  Is    the  case  one  which  requires  hygienic  management,  or  therapeutic,  or  both,  or  is  the  patient  beyond  the  reach  of  art?    To  answer  these  questions  a  diagnosis  and  prognosis  must    be  made,  and  to  make  these,  a  knowledge  of  the  remote  and    proximate  causes  and  of  the  course  and  determination  of    diseases  is  required.  In  a  word,  a  knowledge  of  physiology    and  pathology  is  indispensable  on  the  very  threshold  of  medical  practice  and  before  any  question  of  therapeutics  has    arisen.”103  

 

10-­‐  Given  that  there  are  substances  that  can  increase  the  chance  of  pregnancy  in  women,  why  are  there  no  homeopathic  birth  control  pills?  

Homeopathic  remedies  are  prescribed  in  order  to  obtain  a  healing  or  remedial  response  in  the  sick  or  for  homeoprophylaxis,  and  not  to  submit  the  autocratic  living  organism  to  the  effects  of  a  drug.  With  homeopathy,  the  organism  is  active  in  the  healing  or  protective  processes,  as  it  is  with  immunization.  However,  when  it  is  under  the  effect  of  crude  drugs,  especially  if  not  prescribed  homeopathically,  the  living  organism  is  passive.  Whole  system  allostatic  responses  of  the  living  organism  to  homeopathic  remedies  should  never  be  confused  with  the  physiological  effects  of  drugs.  Responses  to  homeopathic  remedies  are  prolonged,  durable  and  cumulative,  and  affect  the  whole  person,  and  are  therefore  curative.  While  physiological  effects  of  drugs  are  short  in  duration  and  partial  in  their  effects,  therefore  palliative.  BCP  have  a  physiological  effect  on  the  organism,  and  are  completely  outside  the  domain  of  homeopathy.  

 

11-­‐  Given  that  there  are  numerous  chemicals  that  can  cause  cancer,  why  are  there  no  homeopathic  remedies  to  treat  the  disease?  

Homeopaths  don’t  treat  disease  but  sick  persons.  Homeopathic  physicians  consider  the  whole  person  in  the  context  of  a  dynamic  environment  in  every  prescription  they  make,  i.e.,  every  chief  complaint,  the  past  medical  history,  the  family  history,  the  personality,  the  habits,  the  sensitivities,  sleep,  appetite,  energy,  etc.,  are  taken  into  account.  Experienced  homeopathic  physicians  will  obtain  very  favorable  results  in  the  treatment  of  patients  with  cancer.  Many  in  vitro  studies  have  showed  that  UMPs  can  significantly  increase  apoptosis  in  cancer  cells.  For  instance,  researchers  at  the  University  of  Texas  M.D.  Anderson  Cancer  Center  recently  found  that  UMPs  exerted  preferential  cytotoxic  effects  against  two  breast  cancer  cell  lines,  causing  cell  cycle  delay/arrest  and  apoptosis.104  It  is  a  shame  that  every  cancer  patient  is  not  treated  concurrently  with  homeopathy.  

 

                                                                                                                         103 Dunham C. Homoeopathy, the science of therapeutics. American Homoeopathic Review 1862-1863; 3: 9-15, 61-71, 103-111, 156-162, 203-210, 263-273, 305-313. 104 Frenkel M, Mishra BM, Sen S, Yang P, Pawlus A, Vence L, Leblanc A, Cohen L, Banerji P, Banerji P. Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells. International Journal of Oncology 2012; 36: 395-403.

  24  

12-­‐  Given  that  homeopathic  medications  are  claimed  to  have  a  physiological  effect,  why  should  they  not  be  required  to  meet  the  same  standard  of  proof  of  efficacy  as  other  medications?  

During  provings,  we  could  say  that  homeopathic  remedies  produce  effects  on  healthy  subjects.  But  as  homeopathic  remedies  are  mainly  prescribed  for  therapeutic  purpose,  we  should  talk  of  therapeutic  or  physiological  responses  rather  than  effects.  This  being  understood,  I  will  suggest  two  good  reasons  to  answer  your  question.  First,  homeopathic  remedies  are  devoid  of  chemical  toxicity.  Second,  because  homeopathic  remedies  are  prescribed  with  the  objective  of  obtaining  a  whole  system  allostatic  response  and  not  to  provoke  particular  physiological  effects,  any  remedy  can  be  effective  in  an  infinite  number  of  cases.  It  would  then  be  impossible  to  demonstrate  the  efficacy  of  every  single  remedy  for  the  infinite  number  of  cases  it  could  potentially  be  indicated.  Demonstration  of  the  efficacy  of  the  principle  of  similia  in  the  hands  of  well-­‐trained  physicians  should  be  sufficient  for  authorities  to  institutionalize  homeopathy  as  an  extremely  safe  system  of  medicine,  without  having  to  focus  on  each  individual  remedy,  as  it  is  in  the  allopathic  system  that  uses  toxic  doses  of  medicines.  

Allopathy’s  strength  is  its  specialization  of  addressing  symptoms  and  therefore  to  palliate.  It  has  thus  developed  much  success  for  relieving  pain  and  for  silencing  symptoms.  There  can  be  great  advantage  in  such  an  approach,  as  in  the  use  of  anesthetic  during  surgery.  However,  as  a  whole  such  an  approach  is  reductionist,  doesn’t  affect  the  fundamental  causes  of  disease  and  is  never  without  danger.  On  the  other  hand,  homeopathy  is  a  science  that  considers  the  totality  of  symptoms  in  order  to  deal  with  the  whole  person.  It  will  use  the  signs  and  symptoms  as  a  guide  to  curative  means  without  obscuring  them.  Allopathy  seeks  to  silence  the  warning  signals  of  the  organism  that  something  is  wrong,  while  homeopathy  is  able  to  reach  the  vis  medicatrix  naturae  by  mean  of  its  distress  signals  and  annihilate  the  danger  at  its  source.    

 

13-­‐  Is  there  any  homeopathic  medication  that  can  in  any  way  cause  harm  to  the  patient?  

Sensitive  patients  can  react  strongly  to  homeopathic  remedies.  This  is  why  it  is  preferable  that  homeopathy  is  practiced  by  well-­‐trained  physicians.  Extremely  low  attenuations,  which  are  almost  never  prescribed  by  qualified  homeopaths,  keep  a  certain  level  of  chemical  toxicity  and  could  potentially  cause  harm  if  taken  in  very  large  quantities  and  for  a  long  period  of  time  by  an  uninstructed  public.  

 

14-­‐  What  would  be  the  effect  of  using  D2O  instead  of  H2O  in  preparing  a  homeopathic  solution?  

In  his  2003  paper,  Rey  studied  thermoluminescence  of  ultra-­‐molecular  D2O  preparations  of  lithium  chloride  10-­‐30  and  sodium  chloride  10-­‐30.  He  found  that  D2O  samples  gave  a  much  higher  signal  than  the  H2O  ones.  He  wrote,  “Much  to  our  surprise,  the  experimental  results  do  show—without  any  ambiguity—  that  for  an  X-­‐ray  dose  of  0:4  kGy  the  thermoluminescence  glows  of  the  three  systems  [LiCl  15  C,  NaCl  15  C  and  D2O  15  C]  were  substantially  different.  These  findings  did  prove  to  be  reproducible  in  the  course  of  many  different  identical  experiments.  As  a  working  hypothesis,  we  believe  that  this  phenomenon  results  from  a  marked  structural  change  in  the  hydrogen  bond  

  25  

network  initiated  at  the  onset  by  the  presence  of  the  dissolved  ions  and  maintained  in  the  course  of  the  dilution  process,  probably  thanks  to  the  successive  vigorous  mechanical  stirrings.”105  

 

15-­‐  You  mentioned  that  you  take  your  own  blood  and  interpret  the  results  because  you  are  a  qualified  “physician.”  But  no  physician  I  know  of  does  this.  Was  William  Osler  wrong  when  he  said  that  a  physician  who  treats  himself  has  a  fool  for  a  patient?  

Perhaps,  it  is  because  you  only  know  allopathic  physicians  who  don’t  trust  their  own  skills,  judgment  or  recommendations.  In  homeopathy,  we  quickly  learn  to  become  objective  and  to  understand  the  individuality  of  each  person.  I  have  known  many  physicians,  especially  homeopathic  physicians,  who  interpreted  their  own  lab  work,  treated  themselves  very  satisfactorily,  and  practiced  medicine  successfully  into  their  90’s.  My  father,  for  instance,  practiced  medicine  for  61  years,  was  a  very  good  role  model  for  me,  and  was  one  of  these  physicians  who  interpreted  his  own  lab  work  and  treated  himself  with  success.  It  can  also  happen  that  homeopathic  physicians  will  consult  more  experienced  colleagues,  not  only  for  their  patients  but  also  for  their  own  case  or  members  of  their  family.    

 

16-­‐  You  referred  several  times  to  nanoparticles  and  made  a  connection  to  homeopathy.  But  homeopathy  is  based  on  dissolving  a  substance  and  sequentially  diluting  it.  By  definition  nanoparticles  are  insoluble,  so  what  do  they  have  to  do  with  homeopathy?    Aside  form  the  physico-­‐chemical  changes  of  the  vehicles,  research  with  refined  spectroscopy  has  revealed  that  UMPs  are  actually  composed  of  nanoparticles  of  the  original  medical  substances  in  colloidal  suspensions.  Emil  Roduner,  professor  of  physical  chemistry  at  the  University  of  Stuggart  and  author  of  a  textbook  on  size-­‐dependent  phenomena  of  nanoparticles,  explained  some  of  the  extraordinary  and  unexpected  changes  in  the  physico-­‐chemical  properties  of  substances  when  they  are  reduced  to  nanoparticles.  For  instance,  he  reports  that  gold  is  known  as  a  shiny,  yellow  noble  metal  that  does  not  tarnish,  has  a  face  centered  cubic  structure,  is  non-­‐magnetic  and  melts  at  1336˚K.  However,  a  small  sample  of  the  same  gold  is  quite  different,  providing  it  is  tiny  enough:  10  nm  particles  absorb  green  light  and  thus  appear  red.  The  melting  temperature  decreases  dramatically  as  the  size  goes  down.  Moreover,  gold  ceases  to  be  noble,  and  2–3  nm  nanoparticles  are  excellent  catalysts,  which  also  exhibit  considerable  magnetism.  At  this  size  they  are  still  metallic,  but  smaller  ones  turn  into  insulators.106  

Chikramane  et  al.  demonstrated  the  serial  process  of  succussion  and  dilution  producing  numerous  large  air  bubbles  aided  nanoparticle  levitation  to  the  liquid  surface,   forming  a  monolayer  that  was  preserved   in   the   serial   dilutions.   They   wrote,   “Our   conclusions   arise   from   our   experiments  indicating   that   in   the   successive   dilution   process   of   manufacturing,   beyond   a   certain   stage,   the  dilution   is  merely   apparent   and   the   concentration   of   the   starting  material   in   the   diluted   product  reaches  a  non-­‐zero  asymptotic  level  no  matter  how  much  more  the  sample  is  diluted.”107  

                                                                                                                         105 Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A 2003; 323: 67-74. 106 Roduner E. Size matters: why nanomaterials are different. Chemical Society Reviews 2006; 35: 583–592. 107 Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why extreme dilutions reach non-zero asymptotes: a nanoparticulate hypothesis based on froth flotation. Langmuir 2012; 28: 15864-15875.

  26  

 17-­‐  Would  you  ever  recommend  homeopathic  prophylaxis  for  malaria?    Homeopathy  has  a  very  long  history  of  using  homeopathic  remedies  for  prophylactic  purposes.  Hahnemann  did  his  first  experiment  in  homeoprophylaxis  in  1799  during  an  epidemic  of  scarlet  fever.  In  my  review  of  the  literature  on  the  results  obtained  by  homeopathy  in  epidemics,  the  results  obtained  with  homeoprophylaxis  are  as  consistent  and  predictable  as  the  therapeutic  results  of  homeopathy.    Regarding  malaria  in  particular,  there  are  many  wonderful  stories  of  homeoprophylaxis.  I  will  mention  two  from  my  own  practice.  In  the  late  1980’s,  a  patient  of  mine  who  was  an  engineer,  was  mandated  by  his  engineering  firm  to  spend  six  months  in  southern  Egypt  at  the  construction  site  of  a  dam.  He  knew  from  colleagues  who  had  preceded  him  that  malaria  was  endemic  and  that  most  developed  malaria  despite  conventional  prophylaxis.  Instead  of  the  conventional  approach,  he  wanted  to  only  rely  on  homeoprophylaxis,  which  he  did  and  was  even  asked  to  prolong  his  stay  at  the  construction  site  by  another  three  months.  As  far  he  could  know  he  was  the  only  who  did  not  develop  malaria  during  his  nine-­‐month  stay.      In  1998,  while  I  was  on  an  ethnobotany  expedition  deep  in  the  jungle  of  Papua  New  Guinea,  we  came  to  a  village  along  a  lake  that  was  surrounded  by  marshes.  We  noticed  that  there  weren’t  any  children  younger  than  about  6  years  old  in  that  particular  village.  We  found  out  through  our  interpreter  that  all  the  younger  ones  had  died  because  of  malaria  that  was  endemic,  and  that  there  was  no  medicine  man  in  this  village,  and  were  therefore  more  or  less  powerless  during  sickness.108  I  provided  the  leader  of  the  village  with  a  remedy  to  be  given  monthly  to  everyone  in  the  tribe  of  about  50  persons.  About  one  year  later,  I  received  a  letter  written  in  Pidgin  by  a  young  man  of  this  village  who  had  learned  from  a  missionary  how  to  write.  In  essence,  he  said,  “Thank  you  greatly  for  your  miraculous  medicine,  as  no  one  in  our  village  has  had  fever  in  the  last  year.”        18-­‐  What  journals  do  you  subscribe  to?    Probably  like  most  other  physicians,  I  subscribe  to  a  number  of  periodicals  of  my  specialty,  which  is  homeopathy.  I  also  keep  abreast  discoveries  in  medicine  in  general  by  subscribing  to  the  Harvard  Medical  School  Health  Newsletters,  Scientific  American  Health  and  Medicine  Briefings,  Nutritionfacts.org,  etc.  I  read  on  average  10-­‐20  articles  a  week  from  peer-­‐reviewed  journals,  aside  from  homeopathy,  on  subjects  such  as  health  promoting  factors  and  influences,  nutrition,  exercise  (mental  and  physical),  psychology,  genetics,  epigenetics,  pathology,  disease  etiology,  infectious  diseases,  etc.  

As  we  can  never  know  too  much  about  health  and  how  to  remedy  disease,  we  constantly  have  to  keep  abreast  on  medical  science.  About  on  a  monthly  basis,  I  see  a  patient  who  presents  with  a  rare  condition  that  requires  investigation.  A  literature  search  is  then  launched  to  better  understand  the  pathology,  particularly  the  common  symptoms  and  course  of  the  disease,  the  prognosis,  and  any  known  remedial  approach  that  could  complement  homeopathic  treatment.  For  instance  in  late  November,  a  young  man  with  a  rare  type  of  familiar  muscular  dystrophy  (MD)  consulted  me.  As  there  are  dozens  of  such  type  of  MD,  I  had  to  enquire  about  his  particular  type  to  better  understand  

                                                                                                                         108 One or two days later, we came to another village down river, which had a normal youth population and had as well an old medicine man, who, with great reluctance, showed me the bark of the tree he was using for the treatment of patients affected with malaria.

  27  

the  course  of  the  disease  and  the  prognosis.