Friday, 8 October 2021

Welcome to Homeopathy of Hahnemann

Introduction

Classical homeopathy is based on the belief that the human being is an embodied intelligence and that disease, at the primary level, is the disturbance of the functional order that is maintained in the body by the 'vital force'. 

Medical homeopathy misunderstood the importance of the concept of 'vital force' to the application of homeopathic treatment and instead it focused on the principle of 'similia similibus curentur' that was incorrectly applied to the treatment of medical conditions on the basis of 'like cures like'. 


Professor Edzard Ernst's critique of 'homeopathy'

When I started this blog in 2013, it was aimed to rebut Professor Edzard Ernst's scientific examination and critique of homeopathy. 

After 7 years of engaging with his posts, I realised that he does not have a clue about homeopathy due to rejecting the central tenet of homeopathy that disorder of the vital force leads to disease and, over time, to incurable medical conditions.

This blog aims to dispel false notions about the philosophy and practice of homeopathy and I recommend that the widely used clinical approach to homeopathy is discarded and replaced with spiritual/dynamic approach to homeopathy that is aligned with the principles set out in Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine.     

Dr. Edzard Ernst has, for more than two decades, engaged in a comical and polemical critique of what he considers to be 'homeopathy':

  • He does not hold a recognized qualification in homeopathy. 
  • His understanding of homeopathy has, from the very outset, been below par: See my post 'Arnica'.
  • He associated Bach Flower Remedies with 'homeopathy' because both use potentised substances. 
  • He included Berlin Wall remedy in his new book, a remedy that he referred to as homeopathy's finest in one of his blogs. Berlin Wall originated in the imagination of Colin Griffith ('New Materia Medica': isn't that hilarious?) and it is not listed in the official Homeopathic Pharmacopeia.
  • He continues to write blogs about homeopathic treatment of certain clinical conditions and his study of the 'adjunctive treatment' of asthma with homeopathy is in opposition to Hahnemann's instruction that no other medicines should be used during homeopathic treatment. 
  • He seems to be unable to understand that homeopathy does not treat medical conditions, and that for classical homeopathy, as set out by Kent, most 'medical conditions' are beyond the curable stage of homeopathic treatment.
  • He seems not even to know in detail Hahnemann's works: The Organon, Chronic Diseases, and Materia Medica Pura. Evidence of this is that, in 7 years, I never read a post that was written by him that engaged in a critique of these works.
  • He writes silly blogs about Boris Johnson almost being a homeopath.
  • He has, on last count, six pages of blogs written in derision and criticism of HRH Prince of Wales.
  • In discussion, he even asks the question: 'are you speaking out of your arse?' 
  • He did a bit of reading on the Russia collusion investigation that he seemed to think was negative against President Trump and worried that the Donald might start world war 3.
  • He rated himself as the world's number one researcher in SCAM (so called alternative medicine of which homeopathy is one of the major forms of treatment).

I rate him as the world's number one clown-critic of homeopathy.

Before Dr. Ernst started his journey to become the world eminent critic of homeopathy (and every other alternative health modality), he could have done two things:

1. Undertaken a meticulous study of the works by Samuel Hahnemann and James Tyler Kent in order to gain an understanding of what Homeopathy is. I have yet to read a post by Edzard Ernst that provides a critique of the original works on homeopathy by the founders of homeopathy. Instead, he seems to have preferred to bypass the tedious work of reading texts and substituted his own interpretation of homeopathy in his critical reviews of 'homeopathy'. 

In Dr. Ernst's view, the central tenet of homeopathy that there is a 'vital force' (living intelligence) in the human body must be rejected because it is an 'outdated' concept of 'vitalism'. It seems to me, from my reading of his posts, that he considers atheism and materialist epistemology to be self-evident and idealist epistemology to be obviously deluded.  Edzard Ernst is obviously not the philosophical type because if he was then he would have realised that his rejection of the 'principle of vitalism' automatically invalidates homeopathy as a credible subject of scientific investigation. Why did he waste so much time studying something that is evidently nonsense? 

2. Before embarking on expensive and time consuming trials and meta analyses of homeopathy, Dr. Ernst ought to have first sought to find independently verified scientific evidence of homeopathic cures of non self-resolving clinical conditions and illnesses documented in clinical practice and publications. As far as I am aware, there is no hard medical scientific evidence that homeopathy cures any non self-resolving clinical conditions and illnesses and so how sensible was it that numerous researchers conducted RCTs over several decades to test whether or not homeopathy is an effective treatment for medical conditions? 

 

Update: October 2, 2021

After almost three decades of promoting the notion of the credibility of clinical homeopathy through clinical trials and meta-analyses conducted by himself and others, Dr. Edzard Ernst finally came out his morning with a conclusion that defies his past thirty years' work:


This pilot study supports the feasibility of a larger trial in India where people have been told by an irresponsible government to believe in homeopathy. None of the 5 homeopathic treatments generated encouraging findings and none should be explored further. Studies of this nature must be discouraged firstly because homeopaths would not accept the findings of a trial of non-individualized homeopathy, and secondly because such trials will further confuse the public who might think that homeopathy is worth trying. Dr. Edzard Ernst, A new study of homeopathy for the prevention of COVID-19 infections, https://edzardernst.com/2021/10/a-new-study-of-homeopathy-for-the-prevention-of-covid-19-infections/


Clinical / practical homeopathy 

Medical-homeopathy is the 'homeopathy' that critics of homeopathy have mostly studied. It is a perversion of homeopathy and was the attempt by medically orientated followers of homeopathy to try to usurp homeopathy into the medical system. After decades of clinical trials of medical homeopathy it failed to produce the convincing evidence of efficacy to satisfy science that it could be legitimately used in medical practice as a genuine treatment (as opposed to placebo for mentally unwell people) of medical conditions and illnesses. My blog suggests that it is not Homeopathy that failed but rather that the attempt to usurp it into conventional medicine failed.

Conventional medicine and allied disciplines, nutritional and lifestyle factors, exercise and fitness, socio-economic, and environmental factors are related to the majority of ailments and conditions that people attempt to address by using homeopathy to help them but fail to obtain the result that they hoped for as the homeopathic remedy cannot correct conditions that are not derived from a disturbance of vital force. For example, conditions related to poor diet and nutritional intake will not respond to Calc Carb, Sil, Sul, etc. If the problem is dietary then the diet must be corrected in order to solve the problem!


Classical Homeopathy 

I consider homeopathy to be a healing system that treats the human being or as Hahnemann termed it the 'vital force' that animates the human body and maintains millions of functions in an intricate harmony of life. Kent described 'vital force' as 'simple substance' (spiritual substance) and Dr. Duncan McDougall (1901) believed, through his experiments of weighing deceased people, that the weight of the human spirit is 21 grams.

'MacDougall believed that the results from his experiment showed the human soul might have weight, his report, which was not published until 1907, stated the experiment would have to be repeated many times before any conclusion could be obtained.' (Wikipedia)


Homeopathy implicitly accepts that the human being is spirit-soul embodied and therefore it is easy for a believer in homeopathy to understand the notion that to medicate a human being (spiritual substance) only requires an infinitesimal dose of medicine. 


Hahnemann stated clearly that the physician must heal 'the sick' and who is 'the sick'? It is the sick person that homeopathy aims to treat using 'signs and symptoms' manifested by the disturbed 'vital force'. So, Homeopathy actually treats the sick person in order to terminate the disease before it progresses through the physical body and wreaks its damage.


The fundamental texts of homeopathic philosophy and practice

The study of Homeopathy comprises four major domains: philosophy, science, case taking, and materia medica. It is important to have an understanding of what homeopathy is before you go ahead with a constitutional analysis. In my blog posts, homeopathic philosophy and science are reviewed and the major texts of homeopathy are provided to you to read. The two essential texts on homeopathic philosophy are Hahnemann's Organon of Healing and Kent's Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy.   A range of major materia medica texts including Hahnemann's Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases are provided through web links.

 

Case taking

Reading the books on Homeopathic philosophy and materia medica may guide you to discovering remedies that may help you but experience counts and after 40 years of using and practicing homeopathy I have devised a classical approach to discovering the homeopathic constitutional remedy through a questionnaire.

 

I invite you to an opportunity to have a constitutional analysis through my Homeopathic Constitutional Questionnaire but I expect that many homeopaths will have something to say about the questionnaire not including physical particulars and that therefore the questionnaire is not a 'totality of symptoms' case taking. The simple response to that is that a 'totality of symptoms' case ultimately reduces down to the most important symptoms of vital force disturbance and these ARE the Mind and Generals. I expect a lot of homeopaths will give the questionnaire a trial and see that it is effective. I know, I have worked on it for years.

The questionnaire aims to identify your baseline fundamental constitution that is the basis of susceptibility to sporadic and acute outbreaks of mental and physical illnesses, and progression into chronic medical conditions. My questionnaire does not aim to identify the constitutional similimum in order to treat a person for ANY particular medical condition because if the medical condition is already manifest then the vital force illness has already externalised the disorder in the medical condition of the physical body. In that case: see a doctor.

 

 Constitutional Homeopathy 

Hahnemann explicitly defined the vital force:

During the healthy condition of man this spirit-like force (autocracy), animating the material body (organism), rules supreme as dynamis.By it all parts are maintained wonderfully in harmonious vital process, both in feelings and functions, in order that our intelligent mind may be free to make the living, healthy, bodily medium subservient to the higher purpose of our being. (Aphorism 9, The Organon)

 

Constitutional disorders of the vital force are not illnesses and medical conditions associated with inadequate diet, mode of living, psychological trauma, biological conditions requiring conventional medical drugs, conditions requiring surgery, and conditions requiring medical apparatuses for compensation of function. It is essential that before you embark on a homeopathic adventure for any illness or condition that you have sought professional medical advice.

 

Kent explained very clearly the difference between the disorder of the vital force and the outcome that leads to a medical condition the doctors are able to recognise: 

He wrote: 'in most cases the diagnosis cannot be made until the results of the disease have rendered the patient incurable'.

 

The problem for classical homeopathy practitioners is that the majority of potential 'customers' will present with complaints that even the great medical practitioners have not adequately resolved for the patient. It is ludicrous to use homeopathy to aim to 'treat' medical conditions that are not curable (or treatable) with homeopathy and therefore the scope for professional practice of homeopathy in the field of medicine is limited. This seems to be the reason for 'homeopaths' prescribing herbs and vitamin supplements, giving dietary and lifestyle advice, and delving into counseling as part of their practice of homeopathy.


Homeopathy Evidence Base

I do not provide anecdotal evidence of cases in this blog because:

a) science does not place high value on the validity of case studies and anecdotal evidence of 'cures'.

b) a classical homeopath is a 'priest' of the healing art of homeopathy and would never divulge information obtained from a patient unless compelled by law to do so.

c) every case is unique and just because a particular remedy 'worked' for a particular person that had a particular set of conditions/symptoms it does not follow that the same treatment will 'work' for another person that has a 'matching profile' to the previously cured patient.


Homeopathy does not have undisputed scientific evidence of curing people who have real medical conditions:
'The Select Committee on Science and Technology concluded: There is no evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect, which is a position that the Government agrees with. By providing homeopathy on the NHS, the Government runs the risk of appearing to endorse it as a working system of medicine.'

Original link has been removed: (https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/homeopathy-remains-on-nhs/, 2010)

See Wayback machine:

 https://web.archive.org/web/20201113061234/https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/homeopathy-remains-on-nhs/


I have never known a person either directly or indirectly that has been cured of a chronic medical condition by using homeopathic treatment. These conditions include: Alzheimer's, asthma, cancer, chronic lung conditions, diabetes, epilepsy, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and so on. Despite this, I see that medical homeopaths actually advertise and make claims to be able to treat these conditions with homeopathy. It would be great to see the evidence to support these claims! Have there been any Nobel prizes awarded to any person for research in Homeopathy?


I have also never known either directly or indirectly of persons cured of psychiatric conditions through the use of homeopathic treatment: Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Bipolar Disorder,  Personality Disorders, Schizophrenia and so on.

Scientific research of homeopathic treatment of psychiatric disorders has also not produced evidence of efficacy of homeopathy for mental conditions:

Systematic review of homeopathy treatment for psychiatric disorders:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32332462/

Conclusion: 'Available data on homeopathy in psychiatric disorders are insufficient to support their use in clinical practice'.

 

 Caution

My post on chronic disorders provides a summary of mental health conditions that should be considered in homeopathic case taking as the mental and general symptoms are the most important in the selection of the similimum. In that post, I point out that the constitutional similimum is more likely to aggravate the condition of people with mental conditions without much subsequent improvement to their condition. Similarly, the constitutional similimum is likely to aggravate the condition of people who have incurable medical conditions without subsequent improvement to their condition. 

To be clear: in this context 'aggravate' means: to make the mental or physical condition worsen without subsequent improvement. In serious conditions, it is possible that the patient may end up resorting to additional medical suppressive measures in order to subdue the condition back to where it was prior to being aggravated by the constitutional similimum.


Advice on homeopathic treatment
Ideally, homeopaths should be trained medical practitioners with homeopathy as a specialty but this is uncommon in the practice of homeopathy today (South Africa is an exception to the general rule: homeopaths are qualified medical physicians with Masters Diploma in Homeopathy).

Classical homeopaths can be of best service after the patient has seen a medical practitioner for a complete medical assessment. Unfortunately, in my view, there are too many 'homeopaths' who offer to 'treat' medical conditions that will not improve or be managed with homeopathy. It is possible that the patients who have lifelong medical conditions may feel better on the homeopathy pills (they may even carry around bottles of pillules to swallow when they need comforting) but it is very important that people who profess to be classical homeopaths acknowledge that serious medical conditions require medical treatment and management and patients should be referred to the appropriate services.

Thursday, 7 October 2021

Homeopathy masters: Hahnemann - Kent - Vithoulkas

 

James Tyler Kent's Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy (read this book: available online: Google Books. ) is indispnsible reading, together with Hahnemann's Organon of the Rational Art of Healing, for classical homeopaths.

http://archive.org/stream/lecturesonhomoe00kentgoog#page/n9/mode/2up.

A note on dosage
Please see: Kent's method in his biography by Sue Young
http://sueyounghistories.com/archives/2008/03/28/james-tyler-kent-and-homeopathy/

Watch the videos below and you will see that all the topics that Edzard Ernst seemed to believe that he was critically reviewing were dismissed by classical homeopathy before Professor Edzard Ernst was even born.

Isn't it it hilarious that he spent half his lifetime trying to prove something to be not true that was already accepted by classical homeopaths as not being true!

It is priceless comedy. Thank you  Professor Edzard Ernst! 

On the plus side, Dr. Ersnt has done so much work clearing away the deadwood of clinical homeopathy that may even mean that he inadvertently contributed enormously to saving classical homeopathy.

For that, we owe him thanks.

George Vithoulkas, On Benveniste's experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzcpOa4rl78

George Vithoulkas, Homeopathic Prophylaxis, Vaccinations, AIDS, Provings parts 1 - 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3aGFBxV6Uc

George Vithoulkas, Imagination
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb0iF8pbtOM

George Vithoulkas, Definition of Health
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MobgeT1W1E
(This video may present a double shock for critics like Dawkins. God and Homeopathy presented together in one lecture.)

George Vithoulkas, Secrets of taking a homeopathic case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJgsAoYknyo

George Vithoulkas, Materia Medica: Phosphorus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hDmA-5Rz10

Thursday, 20 May 2021

Edzard Ernst: a summary of his critique of 'homeopathy'

Professor George Vithoulkas has written several books and papers on homeopathy and provided video presentations on a range of subjects relating to homeopathy. George has made it abundantly clear what homeopathy is and is not.

For many years, whilst the charlatan homeopaths have been denigrating homeopathy for their personal gain, George was totally clear that homeo-prophylaxis is garbage, poly-prescribing is garbage, and put the message out to the world of ‘homeopaths’ that homeopathy cannot be used to treat people who are under conventional medical treatment. The patient needs to still be in a condition that is not too far gone in order for them to wean themselves off their conventional treatment PRIOR to commencing homeopathic treatment. Also, patients should wean themselves off all their concoctions of herbs and ‘dietary supplements, plus stop their coffee intake and reduce or eliminate alcohol intake. It is a lot to ask people to do but if they want to be well again, and their health is not too far gone to be restored then patients must do their part. I have had patients that expected homeopathy to make them well whilst they continue with doing the things that were adding to their state of non-well-being. ‘I love red wine but it gives me awful headaches. What remedy can I take?’ This type of nonsense is accepted by charlatans because they are only concerned with their bottom line.

 

In an attempt to inject sarcasm into his criticism of Professor Vithoulkas, Professor Ernst arrived at this conclusion:

'So, essentially the great Vithoulkas seems to be saying that treating even the most serious diseases with homeopathy is fine, as long as homeopaths use no treatments other than homeopathy and as long as they do exactly what Vithoulkas proclaims or – even better – Vithoulkas does it himself.'
https://edzardernst.com/2020/03/the-great-george-vithoulkas-speaks-out-about-treating-the-coronavirus-and-cancer-with-homeopathy/


However, Professor Vithoulkas actually stated:

'Homeopathy is an amazing therapeutic system, that can make doctors and patients extremely happy but has limits and the doctors should not transgress these boundaries for material gain.

It is a great pity that homeopathy will be reduced to a routine massive therapy with meagre results by those who are advertising polypharmacy with such mongrel practices like the ones with prearranged therapeutic protocols or mixopathy.

If such practices prevail, finally the real classical homeopathy, that can have such amazing results, if it is learned and practiced correctly, will die out amidst an aggressive and competitive society.' 

https://www.vithoulkas.com/writings/quotes/burning-questions-day-answered-prof-george-vithoulkas

 Over the decades that Professor Ernst has tried to become a world famous critic of homeopathy, he has accumulated a mountain of work that is useless. From previous posts, I have amalgamated these three examples of Edzard’s critique to illustrate his sheer inability at understanding classical homeopathy.

 

Here are 3 examples of Professor Edzard Ernst's ignorance of homeopathy: 

December 2005 

'Professor savages homeopathy': Arnica

'We arranged for patients after surgery to be given arnica or a placebo,' he said. 'They didn't know which they were getting. It made no difference. They got better at the same rate, whether they got arnica or the placebo. And arnica is a classic homeopathic remedy. It doesn't work, however.'

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/dec/18/health.medicineandhealth1

The conclusion of this study is beyond belief coming from a person that considers themselves as a top critic of homeopathy.

In classical homeopathy, the indication for Arnica is not 'bruising after surgery'. It is true that Arnica can be prescribed after surgery whereby bruising remains but it is the symptoms of Arnica that are the basis for the prescription and not the gross physical symptom: bruising after surgery.  

The primary indications for Arnica in relation to trauma are:

'Sore, lame, bruised feeling' (Boericke)

'Fears the approach of anyone' (Boericke)

'Says that they are well when they are not'(Boericke)

'Everything he lies on feels hard' (Boericke)

These symptoms of the person may be ameliorated with Arnica. If Arnica is not indicated then other remedies may be considered. Some of the commonly recognised remedies:

Aconite, Bellis Perennis, Bryonia Alba, Crotalus Horridus, Ferrum, Hamamelis,

 Hypericum, Lachesis, Ledum, Nux Vomica, Phophoric Acid, Phosphorus, Pulsatilla,

 Ruta, Sulphuric Acid, Symphytum   

 

April 2003

 

Individualised homeopathy as an adjunct in the treatment of childhood asthma: a randomised placebo controlled trial, A White1, P Slade2, C Hunt3, A Hart4, E Ernst1

 

‘Ninety three children were recruited and randomised between October 1997 and March 1999, all of whom used β adrenergic inhalers (table 1). Eight used sodium cromoglycate inhalers (six in homeopathy group, two in placebo group) and one child in the homeopathy group also used salbutamol nebules. The overall mean (SD) number of homeopathy sessions attended was 5.5 (1.3).'

 https://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/4/317.full

Two homeopaths were selected to participate in this trial and agreed to treat children with asthma according to the protocols presented by Ernst

'Abstract

Background: Homeopathy is frequently used to treat asthma in children. In the common classical form of homeopathy, prescriptions are individualised for each patient. There has been no rigorous investigation into this form of treatment for asthma.

Methods: In a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial the effects of individualised homeopathic remedies were compared with placebo medication in 96 children with mild to moderate asthma as an adjunct to conventional treatment. The main outcome measure was the active quality of living subscale of the Childhood Asthma Questionnaire administered at baseline and follow up at 12 months. Other outcome measures included other subscales of the same questionnaire, peak flow rates, use of medication, symptom scores, days off school, asthma events, global assessment of change, and adverse reactions.

Results: There were no clinically relevant or statistically significant changes in the active quality of life score. Other subscales, notably those measuring severity, indicated relative improvements but the sizes of the effects were small. There were no differences between the groups for other measures.

Conclusions: This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.'

 

Professor Ernst’s error in this study is basic: classical homeopathy does not combine homeopathic treatment with conventional drugs.


April 2010

Homeopathy: what does the "best" evidence tell us?

Edzard Ernst 1

Affiliations expand

·         PMID: 20402610

·         DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03585.x

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the evidence for and against the effectiveness of homeopathy.

Data sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (generally considered to be the most reliable source of evidence) was searched in January 2010.

Study selection: Cochrane reviews with the term "homeopathy" in the title, abstract or keywords were considered. Protocols of reviews were excluded. Six articles met the inclusion criteria.

Data extraction: Each of the six reviews was examined for specific subject matter; number of clinical trials reviewed; total number of patients involved; and authors' conclusions. The reviews covered the following conditions: cancer, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, dementia, influenza and induction of labour.

Data synthesis: The findings of the reviews were discussed narratively (the reviews' clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis).

Conclusions: The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.

Professor Ernst’s error is basic: classical homeopathy does not directly treat medical conditions. The attempt to directly treat medical conditions is the work of the homeopathic doctor charlatans who have tried, almost since the very outset of Hahnemann’s publications of his discovery of his new system of healing, to incorporate homeopathy as an adjunct to conventional medicine. 




Monday, 22 February 2021

The conclusion of the Homeopathy of Hahnemann

My conclusion of the Homeopathy of Hahnemann is that homeopathy can only be used for treatment of disorders of the vital force. The application of 'homeopathy' to directly treat clinical conditions and illness is a farce and at worst a con.

 

What does constitutional homeopathy aim to cure?

The sick psyche can be compared to a person who is in a state of being drunk or druggedIf a person who is drunk or drugged is aware of their drunken or drugged state then there is a possibility of cure of their disturbed psyche (vital force). If, on the other hand, a person's state is severe to the degree that their self-awareness of their disturbed psyche is absent then the possibility of cure is gone. Sick people who lack self-awareness of their sickness are likely to resist the process of cure as an attempt to change who 'they are' and therefore treatment of incurable people with homeopathy is not recommended.  


I know that it is only my opinion but after nearly 40 years of using, studying and practicing homeopathy I arrived at the view that homeopathy may be effective in the treatment illnesses in these domains:

*Psychosomatic disorders (mind-body) and hypochondriacal disorders (body-mind) in individuals whose general health indicators are in the normal range may benefit from constitutional homeopathic treatment.

 *Viral infections in individuals whose underlying state of health is good may be treatable with homeopathic remedies on the basis of similia similibus curentur. 

*Indispositions caused by dietary, environmental and emotional/psychological stress for people who have underlying good health. 


 My essay on hypochondriasis is central to my critique of clinical homeopathy and the misrepresentation of homeopathy that is advocated by the 'clinical school' that homeopathy is a form of medicine that directly treats illnesses and medical conditions. 


Recently, a pilot study that was done on homeopathic treatment of hypochondriasis came to a conclusion that classical homeopaths encounter in daily practice when apparently healthy patients who complain of being unwell subsequently become well on homeopathic treatment after conventional medicine had failed to achieve a similar outcome through 'reassurance'. My experience aligns with the study by Dr. KS Lalithaa and Dr. J Kathiravan that provides some experimental confirmation that homeopathy may be an effective treatment for people who experience unexplained mental and somatic symptoms. 


 Effectiveness of homoeopathic medicines in illness anxiety disorders among young adults Dr. K.S. Lalithaa and Dr. J. Kathiravan

https://www.homoeopathicjournal.com/articles/154/4-2-3-402.pdf

Dr. K.S. Lalithaa MD (Psychiatry), HOD and PG Guide, Department of Psychiatry, Vinayaka Mission’s Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Salem Tamil Nadu, India 

I would like to thank Dr. Lalithaa and Dr. Kathivaran for referencing my essay: Hypochondriasis and Illness Anxiety Disorder: A Homeopathic Perspective:

https://homeopathyofhahnemann.blogspot.com/2019/06/hypochondriasis-and-illness-anxiety.html


I would recommend that universities and medical research institutes consider repeating the study done by Dr. Lalithaa and Dr. Kathivaraan and, in future studies, the inclusion of placebo groups would be a necessary thing to do in order to improve the validity of the findings. 


 From the viewpoint of a practitioner, individuals who present as not being well but have received a medical all-clear are the group of patients that may have the highest potential to achieve positive outcomes from homeopathic treatment. 


 The alternative route of treatment of people who are diagnosed with 'Illness Anxiety Disorder' is that they are treated as mental patients and, from a homeopathic perspective, this is an unfortunate outcome. The homeopathic treatment of patients diagnosed with hypochondriasis constitutes a therapeutic intervention at the commencement of the disease process in the vital force. 


James Tyler Kent stated, more than a century ago, that by the time medical doctors are able to recognise a clinical condition or illness it is past the stage of homeopathic cure. It seems that he was right.

Wednesday, 2 October 2019

The Nuremberg trial of Natrum Muriaticum 30C

Inventing the randomized double-blind trial: the Nuremberg salt test of 1835


This historic and often quoted proving conducted on Natrum Mur 30 is indispensable reading for any proponent of homeopathy as it is considered by sceptics to be a landmark study that proved a long time ago that homeopathic provings are 'rubbish'.

Thousands of 'modern' 'homeopathic' remedies have originated from the procedure of proving substances in 30C dilution, and, as I mentioned in the discussion of Lycopodium, this leads to the possibility of naive homeopathy users all over the world inadvertently proving remedies that they take daily. The claim that 30C substances, in general, produce symptoms in provers can be put to the test by anyone that wants to put it to the test but Homeopathy is on shaky ground here.

The Nuremberg trial of Natrum Mur is to be commended for the process of blinding that it used to allocate the remedies to the participants because it is clear that Hahnemann and his fellow provers knew what substance it was that they were proving. Samuel even asked his wife to help out with provings and she duly produced a good number of symptoms.

Although the Nuremberg trial was a breakthrough in the process used in clinical trials, the one defect that it suffers from totally undermined its conclusion regarding homeopathy provings. The participants in the Nuremberg trial were only given ONE vial of Natrum Mur 30 or snow water, and one dose of a homeopathic remedy in 30th potency is not a sufficient dose to produce a proving except in rare instances where a prover is a hypertensive in general or sensitive to the particular remedy that is being proved. The dose of 30th potency homeopathic remedies needs to be repeated until a reaction occurs and this may require a number of days.

I don't believe that homeopathy has provided irrefutable and reproducible evidence that 30 CH remedies produce symptoms even after they have been taken on successive days. A large scale trial needs to be done to finally ascertain whether highly potentised homeopathic remedies are placebos or medicines. However, i
n regard to the historical record of Nuremberg trial, the record should be corrected:
'Three weeks later, at a second meeting, the participants were asked to report whether they had experienced anything unusual after ingesting the vial's content. Those who did not come to the meeting were asked to send this information in.'

The Homeopathic Proving Guidelines, European Committee For Homeopathy clearly state: 'it is recommended that doses are repeated until symptoms appear'. As we know, even with his first experiment with Cinchona Bark (China) Hahnemann stated: ' I took by way of experiment twice a day four drachmas of good China'. A drachma (fluid dram is approximately 3.5ml). 

 https://homeopathyeurope.org/research/provings/
 https://homeopathyeurope.org/downloads/project-one/Main-guidelines-v1-English.pdf

Thomas Mohr
 Mr Mohr seems to be a fine person, and highly educated and experienced in biological/medical research but his assertions on the Oukabaka Tree proving thesis and on the Nuremberg trial has been been shown on this blog to be WRONG.


Thomas Mohr and the Nuremberg trial against homeopathic provings, Edzard Ernst, 'There is no robust evidence to support homeopathy which is at best a placebo'
'Greg, I know what you mean with “contact volume”. It is rubbish because it assumes that there is some sort of reaction between water and whatever you pour in. The best evidence how much rubbish this is is the medical observer article you quote elsewhere which talks about a dose of drosera being succussed too much can be life endangering. Guess what ? this has been tried douzens, if not hundreds of times, first during the Nuremberg salt trial. Guess what happened ? NOTHING.'
https://edzardernst.com/2018/06/there-is-no-robust-evidence-to-support-homeopathy-which-is-at-best-a-placebo-and-a-misuse-of-scarce-nhs-funds/



Sceptics around the world cite the Nuremberg Trial as if it is absolute truth:
The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine: A brief history of homeopathy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1676328/


'If there was ever a medical system which cried out for a careful scientific trial it is homeopathy. One of the early trials, carried out in 1835, is astonishing because it was very close to a double-blind, randomized controlled trial, undertaken with great care long before the mid-twentieth century when most of us believed that such randomized trials were first devised and carried out. It showed, incidentally, that homeopathy was ineffective.13 '

Conclusion 
The Nuremberg trial produced a false outcome due to the incorrect process that it used. As a result, a wrong conclusion that 'homeopathy was ineffective' has been repeated for decades.

This is for DI Thomas Mohr:

Organon
§ 128. The most recent experiments have taught that crude medicinal substances, if taken by an experimenter for the purpose of ascertaining their peculiar effects, will not disclose the same wealth of latent powers, as when they are taken in a highly attenuated state, potentiated by means of trituration and succussion. Through this simple process the powers hidden and dormant, as it were, in the crude drug, are developed, and called into activity in an incredible degree. In this way, the medicinal powers, even of substances hitherto considered as inert, are most effectually developed by administering to the experimenter daily from four to six of the finest pellets of the thirtieth potentiated attenuation of one of these substances; the pellets having been previously moistened with a little water, should be taken on an empty stomach for several days. 

https://homeopathyofhahnemann.blogspot.com/2013/04/organon-of-art-of-healing-by-dr-samuel.html

Friday, 30 August 2019

Thomas Mohr on the Homeopathic Proving of Okoubaka Tree



Discussion between Mr Thomas Mohr and Mr John Benneth on homeopathic provings:
https://edzardernst.com/2017/03/integrative-medicine-physicians-tend-to-harbour-anti-vaccination-views/



In the discussion above, Thomas Mohr made it clear that he considers himself to be an expert in homeopathic provings.


A year later, I had a discussion with Thomas on provings and, as he did with John, he tried to assert his superiority of knowledge on homeopathy. Then, he cited a thesis that he considers to be a slam dunk against the validity of homeopathic provings:








Based on the thesis that Thomas cited, he concluded: throw away your entire materia medica.

'Additionally, there is a very interesting thesis available here: http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDISS_derivate_000000020333/diss.u.hirschberg.pdf
This thesis is a milestone in homeopathy research, insofar it does not investigate homeopathy as a therapy, but the efficacy of homeopathic provings and whether homeopathic provings are plausible. The result is a disaster for homeopathy. The odds ration for specific symptoms was 1,11, i.o.w. one could as well toss coins.
Do you know what that means ? You can throw away the entire materia medica.'

In one moment, Thomas fell and, in my view, demolished his credibility on homeopathy.

Throw away the ENTIRE materia medica based on a THESIS on a proving of Okoubaka tree? What got my attention is that I have been interested in homeopathy for almost 40 years and I have never heard of Okoubaka tree used in homeopathy and this expert, Mr Thomas Mohr, stating that the entire materia medica should be thrown away based on the proving of Okoubaka tree was simply unbelievable!

Does Mr Mohr think that EVERY substance on the planet has the power to produce a proving (alteration in homeostasis and vital force balance)? It seems that he does because he swallowed the Okoubaka proving hook, line and sinker.



 

 Why did the researcher select Okoubaka tree? The homeopathic materia medica, that Thomas stated should be thrown away because of the Okoubaka tree proving, does not even list Okoubaka tree!

What Thomas Mohr missed was that the proving was conducted with 12C dilution of a substance not proven to have a 'morbific effect' (Hahnemann) on the vital force and, whatever the physiological effect of Okoubaka is, it would be significantly reduced to nothing at 12C dilution.

I have suggestions for Tommy:
1. Go back to the person that did the thesis and tell them it is rubbish and they should throw it away.

2. Read Hahnemann's Materia Medica and find out how the original symptoms of the primary remedies were were obtained: historical recordings of toxicology.

As Vermuelen showed long before Tommy and 'the thesis' came along, the subsequent history of 'provings' became a comedy.

Materia Medica: Standing on Shifting Sands

* Okoubaka tree is not even listed in the Essentials of Uncommon and Rare Remedies (Regionals of Boericke). If I choose to do a 'proving' thesis of 12C Rose extract, what do you think may happen? If nothing happens, will it mean that the entire materia medica should be thrown away?

With acknowledgements to: Thomas Mohr, John Benneth, Ute Hirschberg


 

Welcome to Homeopathy of Hahnemann

Introduction Classical homeopathy is based on the belief that the human being is an embodied intelligence and that disease, at the primary l...